United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 440/1-flO/024-b
December 1980
Water and Waste Management
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Iron and Steel
Manufacturing
Proposed
Point Source Category
Vol. I
General
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES,
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,
and
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
for the
IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Steven Schatzpw
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Regulations and Standards
Jeffery Denit, Acting Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E.
Chief, Metals & Machinery Branch
Edward L. Dulaney, P.E.
Senior Project Officer
December, 1980
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
PREFACE 1
I CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
II INTRODUCTION 31
Legal Authority 31
Background 31
The Clean Water Act 31
Prior EPA Regulations 33
Overview of the Industry 34
Summary of EPA Guidelines Development
Methodology and Overview 41
Approach to the Study 41
Data and Information Gathering Program 42
Industry Subcategorization 44
Regulated Pollutants 46
Control and Treatment Technology 47
Capital and Annual Cost Estimation 49
Basis for Effluent Limitations and Standards .... 50
Suggested Monitoring Program 50
Economic Impact on the Industry- 51
Energy and Nonwater Quality Impacts 51
III REMAND ISSUES ON PRIOR REGULATIONS 81
Introduction 81
Site-Specific Costs 81
The Impact of Plant Age on the Cost or
Feasibility of Retrofitting Control Facilities. ... 87
The Impact of the Regulation on Consumptive
Water Loss 90
IV INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION 107
V SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS 117
Introduction 117
Development of Regulated Pollutants 117
Regulated Pollutants 169
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAC
VI CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 179
Introduction 179
End-of-Pipe Treatment 179
Recycle Systems 179
Solids Removal 181
Oil Removal 186
Metals Removal 193
Organics Removal 200
Advanced Technologies 204
Zero Discharge Technologies 211
In-Plant Controls and Process Modifications 214
VII DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 217
Introduction 217
Basis of Cost Estimates 217
Application of Co-Mingling Factors 219
BPT Cost Estimates 220
BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS Cost Estimates . . . 220
VIII EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE 'THROUGH THE APPLICA-
TION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 221
Introduction 221
Identification of BPT 222
Summary of BPT Modifications ...... 222
Proposed BPT Effluent Limitations 223
Costs to Achieve the BPT Limitations 223
IX EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICA-
TION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE ". 227
Introduction 227
Treatment Systems Considered for BAT 228
Identification of the Best Available Technology. . . 228
11
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
APPENDIX
A
B
C
PAGE
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BCT) 233
Introduction 233
BCT Cost Test 233
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICA-
TION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 239
Introduction 239
Identification of NSPS 240
NSPS Costs 240
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANTS DISCHARGING TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS 241
Introduction 241
National Pretreatment Standards 241
Prohibited Discharges - Existing and New Sources . . 241
Potential Impact of Steel Industry Wastes on POTW
Systems 242
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) . 243
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS). . . . 243
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 247
REFERENCES 249
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS 261
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY 311
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARIES 345
111
-------
VOLUME I
TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1-1 BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY 9
1-2 BPT AND BAT COST SUMMARY - BY SUBCATEGORY 13
1-3 BPT AND BAT LOAD SUMMARY - BY SUBCATEGORY 14
1-4 BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY 15
1-5 BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SUMMARY 19
1-6 STEEL INDUSTRY - OPTIONS AND REGULATED
POLLUTANT SUMMARY 23
1-7 STEEL INDUSTRY - MODEL TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY 26
II-l INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY FOR MAJOR
GROUP 33 - PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES 54
11-2 PLANT INVENTORY - BY SUBCATEGORY 58
II-3 SUMMARY OF SAMPLED PLANTS 61
II-4 DATA BASE SUMMARY 7i
II-5 REVISED IRON AND STEEL SUBCATEGORIES 72
II-6 CROSS REFERENCE OF SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME 75
III-l CAPITAL COST COMPARISON - YOUNGSTOWN SHEET
AND TUBE 95
III-2 CAPITAL COST COMPARISON - U.S. STEEL CORPORATION ... 96
III-3 CAPITAL COST COMPARISON - REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION . 9?
Ill-4 AGE OF PLANTS IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY - BY SUBCATEGORY . 98
III-5 EXAMPLES OF PLANTS WITH RETROFITTED TREATMENT 10°
III-6 WATER USAGE SUMMARY - IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY 105
III-7 WATER CONSUMPTION SUMMARY 106
V-l DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST 17°
V-2 DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST - BY
SUBCATEGORY 174
V-3 REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST - IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY . .176
V-4 REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST - BY SUBCATEGORY 177
VI-1 TOXIC ORGANIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY - PERFORMANCE
STANDARD SUMMARY 216
-------
VOLUME I
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
VIII-1 BPT COST ESTIMATION 224
IX-1 ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEMS CONSIDERED FOR BAT .... 229
IX-2 BAT COST ESTIMATION 230
X-l RESULTS OF THE BCT COST TEST 235
XII-1 POTW DISCHARGERS SUMMARY 245
A-l to
A-35 LONG-TERM DATA SUMMARIES - BY PLANT 267
VI
-------
VOLUME I
FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
II-l PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - STEELMAKING SEGMENT 78
II-2 PRODUCT FLOW DIAGRAM - STEEL FORMING SEGMENT 79
II-3 PRODUCT FLOW DIAGRAM - STEEL FINISHING SEGMENT. ... 80
VIII-1 POTENTIAL MEANS TO ACHIEVE BPT EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS 225
A-l to
A-4 LONG-TERM DATA PLOTS 307
vn
-------
VOLUME I
PREFACE
xr._ United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing
effluent limitations and standards for the steel industry. The
proposed regulation contains effluent limitations for best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT), best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT), and best available technology
economically achievable (BAT), as well as pretreatment standards for
new and existing sources (PSNS and PSES), and, new source performance
standards (NSPS), pursuant to Sections 301, 304, 306, 307 and 501 of
U_ Clean Water Act.
This Development Document highlights the technical aspects of EPA's
study of the steel industry. Volume I of the Development Document
discusses general issues pertaining to the industry, while the
remaining volumes focus on particular subcategories or processes of
the industry.
The Agency's economic analysis of the proposed regulation is set forth
in a separate document entitled Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Guidelines - Integrated Iron and Steel Industry. That document is
available from the Office of Planning and Evaluation, PM-220, USEPA,
Washington, D.C., 20460.
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Total process water usage in the steel industry is about
6,300,000,000 (6300 MGD) gallons per day. These raw process
waters contain about 47,000 tons/year of toxic organic
pollutants, 140,000 tons/year of toxic inorganic pollutants, and
14,600,000 tons/year of conventional and nonconventional
pollutants. These highly contaminated process wastewaters are
treatable by currently available, practicable and economically
achievable control and treatment technologies.
2. The proposed regulation contains limitations for the different
subcategories or segments of the industry. The subcategorization
is based primarily on manufacturing processes. The Agency has
adopted a revised subcategorization of the industry to more
accurately reflect production operations in the industry and to
simplify the use of the regulation. This subcategorization does
not affect the substantive requirements of the proposed
regulation. The 12 subcategories of the steel industry covered
by the proposed regulation are:
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
1. Basic Oxygen Furnace
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet-Suppressed Combustion
c. Wet-Open Combustion
2. Open Hearth Furnace
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet
3. Electric Arc Furnace
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet
Vacuum Degassing
-------
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. Carbon and Specialty without Scarfers
b. Carbon and Specialty with Scarfers
2. Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip and Sheet
b. Carbon Plate
c. Specialty Plate
4. Hot Working Pipe & Tube
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
a. Acid Recovery-Batch
b. Acid Recovery-Continuous
c. Neutralization-Batch
d. Neutralization-Continuous
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Acid Regeneration-Continuous
b. Neutralization-Batch
c. Neutralization-Continuous
3. Combination Acid
a. Neutralization-Batch
b. Neutralization-Continuous
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
2. Cold Worked Pipe and Tube
a. Water
b. Oil solutions
-------
K. Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing
a. Strip, Sheet and Miscellaneous Products without scrubbers
b. Strip, Sheet and Miscellaneous Products with scrubbers
c. Wire Products and Fasteners without scrubbers
d. Wire Products and Fasteners with scrubbers
2. Terne
a. Strip, Sheet, without scrubbers
b. Strip, Sheet, with scrubbers
3. Other Metals
a. Strip, Sheet and Miscellaneous Products without scrubbers
b. Strip, Sheet and Miscellaneous Products with scrubbers
c. Wire Products and Fasteners without scrubbers
d. Wire Products and Fasteners with scrubbers
3. For the most part, the BPT effluent limitations promulgated in
1974 and 1976 are practicable and achievable by all steel
facilities. In fact, the expanded data base for the industry
developed as part of this study shows that prior BPT effluent
limitations in many subcategories are less stringent than could
have been justified. Nonetheless, in most cases the proposed BPT
limitations contained herein are the same as the BPT limitations
previously promulgated. In a few instances, the proposed BPT
effluent limitations have been relaxed from previously
promulgated BPT levels where the previous limitations could not
be supported. Table 1-1 presents the originally promulgated BPT
effluent limitations and the revised BPT limitations, where
applicable.
4. EPA estimates that based upon production and treatment facilities
in place as of January 1, 1978, the industry will incur the
following costs in complying with the proposed regulation.
Costs (Millions of July 1, 1978 Dollars)
Capital Costs Total
Total In-place Required Annual
BPT
BAT
TOTAL 2996 1651 1345 453
NOTE: Costs for BCT are included in those for BAT; and, costs
for PSES are included in those for BPT and BAT.
Table 1-2 presents a summary of these costs by subcategory. The
Agency believes the environmental benefits associated with
compliance with the proposed limitations and standards outweigh
the costs of compliance.
-------
The relatively high capital cost required for BPT reflects the
limited compliance of the industry, in general, with BPT as of
January 1, 1978 (the baseline date for this study). BPT was to
have been achieved by July 1, 1977.
It should be noted that the industry profile used for this study
and included throughout the development document includes many
facilities permanently shutdown during the past few years.
Hence, the actual cost to the industry as it stands today will be
lower than shown above for BPT and BAT. For example, a
substantial portion of the required BPT costs is associated with
plants permanently shut down in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio. EPA
estimates that as of June 30, 1980, the remaining "required "PT"
costs are less than 500 million dollars. Of the 719 million
dollars total capital cost for BAT shown above, over 200 million
dollars have been spent; have been committed to be spent prior to
July 1, 1984 through consent agreements and permits resulting
from state and federal enforcement actions; or, will not be si__nt
because of plant shutdowns.
The industry production capacity profile used in this study
differs slightly from that used in the preparation of Economic
Analysis of_ Proposed Effluent Guidelines - Integrated Iron and
Steel Industry which reviews in detail the potential economic
impact of this proposed regulation. The capacity profile used in
that analysis is based upon information obtained from AISI ~nd
includes predictions of future retirements, modernization, and
reworks not included in this study.
5. EPA estimates that compliance with the proposed BPT and BAT
effluent limitations will result in significant removals of
toxic, conventional and other pollutants. A summary of the
removal occurring from the proposed BPT limitations %to tl._
proposed BAT limitations is shown below.
Process . Effluent Discharges (Tons/Yr)
Flow Toxic Toxic Other
(MGD) Organics Inorganics Pollutants
BPT 2948 2153 2744 140,490
BAT 302 247 222 10,299
% Reduction 90 89 92 93
Table 1-3 presents a summary of these discharges by subcategory.
6. In developing the proposed BAT effluent limitations, EPA
considered between two and five alternative treatment systems for
each subcategory. The effluent limitations for the selected BAr
Alternatives are presented in Table 1-4.
7. The Agency developed best conventional technology (BCi)
alternative treatment systems compatible with the respective BAT
alternative treatment systems for each subcategory. EPA
evaluated the cost and the reasonableness of controlling
-------
conventional pollutants (i.e. total suspended solids and oil and
grease) and found that in many subcategories conventional
pollutant removal costs based on BCT treatment systems are less
than the removal costs experienced by publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs). In those cases, the Agency concluded that the
costs are reasonable and has established BCT limitations more
stringent than BPT. In other subcategories where conventional
pollutant removal costs exceeded the costs experienced by POTWs
($1.34/lb 1978 dollars), the proposed limitations for
conventional pollutants are the same as the proposed BPT
limitations. The proposed BCT effluent limitations are presented
on Table 1-5. Table 1-6 presents the model flows and
concentrations used to develop the proposed BAT and BCT
limitations.
/
8. In developing proposed NSPS, EPA evaluated between two and five
alternative treatment systems for each subcategory of the
industry. In most cases, proposed NSPS are equal to proposed BAT
effluent limitations.
9. In developing proposed pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) and new sources (PSNS), EPA evaluated between two
and four alternative treatment systems for each subcategory of
the industry. Proposed PSES and PSNS limit the discharge of
pollutants that interfere with, pass through, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. In most cases, the
proposed standards for toxic pollutants are the same as the
limitations proposed for BAT. Table 1-7 presents a summary of
the model treatment systems used to develop all proposed
limitations and standards.
10. With respect to the general issues remanded by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, EPA concludes:
The "age" of facilities has no significant impact on the
"cost or feasibility of retrofitting" pollution controls.
First, "age" is a relatively meaningless term in the steel
industry. It is extremely difficult to define because many
plants are continually rebuilt and modernized.
Whether "first year of production" or "years since last
rebuild" is taken as an indicia of plant "age," the data
show that "age" has no significant impact on the
"feasibility" of retrofitting. Many "old" facilities are
served by modern and efficient retrofitted treatment
systems. With regard to the impact of plant "age" on the
cost of retrofitting, most respondents to EPA questionnaires
were unable to estimate "retrofit" costs, reported no
retrofit costs, or reported retrofit costs of less than 5%
of pollution control costs. Moreover, detailed engineering
studies and industry cost estimates for three of the
"oldest" plants in the country produced cost estimates
similar to EPA's model plant estimates.
-------
However, even assuming that plant "age" does affect tl._
"cost or feasibility of retrofitting," EPA believes that
separate subcategorization or relaxed limitations for
"older" plants are not justifiable. "Older" plants cauL_
similar pollution problems as "newer" plants, and the nt_3
to control these problems would justify the expenditure of
reasonable additional "retrofit" costs, if any. Therefore
the proposed regulation does not differentiate between "old"
and "new" facilities.
b. EPA's cost estimates are sufficiently generous to reflect
all costs to be incurred when installing wastewater
treatment systems including "site-specific costs". The
Agency's cost models now include several "site-specific
cost" items not included in prior cost models (See Section
I'll) and incorporate several conservative assumptions. EPA
also compared its model plant cost estimates with actual
costs reported by the industry including "site-specific
costs." Finally, detailed plant-by-plant engineering
estimates (cost estimates provided by the industry) for
eight plants reveal estimated costs (including
"site-specific costs") similar to EPA's model plant cost
estimates.
c. The proposed BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS limitations
in seven subcategories are based upon model treatment and
standards systems including recycle systems and mechanical
draft cooling towers. The installation of these systems may
result in evaporative water losses of about 36 MGD above
current losses. However, the environmental benefits of
these treatment systems justify the additional evaporativ-
water losses. Recycle and cooling systems are extensively
used at steel plants in water-scarce areas and, the Agency
concludes the incremental impacts of the proposed regulation
on these plants is either minimal or nonexistent.
-------
TABLE I-
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS
OPERATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
COKEMAKING
BY-PRODUCT
BEE HIVE
SINTERING
BLAST
FURNACE
STEELMAKING
IRON
FERRO-
MANGANESE
B.O.F.
(Semi -wet)
B.O.F.
(Wet)
OPEN HEARTH
(Semi-well
OPEN HEARTH
(Wet)
ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACE
(Semi-wet)
ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACE
(Wet)
VACUUM DEGASSING
CONTINUOUS CASTING
1974 and 1976 BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
Discharge Flow
Basis IGPT)
175
NO DISCHAR
5O
125
250
NO DISCHARi
50
50
50
NO DISCHARC
50
25
125
TSS
OJ0365
GE Of
0.0104
0.0260
0.104
iE OF
0.0104
0.0104
0.0104
E OF
0.0104
0.0052
0.0260
oil a
Grease
0.0109
PROI
0.0021
PROCE
PROC
0.0078
Other
Q09l2la)
;ESS
(a)
0.0535
(a)
0.429
SS W/
ESS V
OJ02l9(bl
WASTE'
0.0078
(b)
0.156
STEWA
'ASTEW
O-OOIS^
I/ATER
(c)
0.0021
(c)
0.0208
TER 1
ATER
POLLL
>OLLUT
POLLU
TANTS
ANTS
TANTS
REVISED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
Discharge Flow
Basis (GPT)
175
too
NO OISCHARG
110
TSS
0.0750
NO
0.0208
NO
NO
NO
NO
: OF P
OO229
NO
NO
NO
NO
Oil 8
Grease
0.0109
(NO
CHAN
0.0042
;HANG
:HANG
CHANG
:HANG
TOCESS
:HANG
:HANG
:HANG
:HANGI
Other
Oj09l2*al
(NC)
>E
E
:
E
E
WASTf
E
:
:
OX)2l^b:
(NC)
WATER
0.0015^
(NC)
POLLt
JTANTS
-------
IHDLC 1-1
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATION ANALYSIS
PAGE 2
OPERATION
G
H
I
HOT FORMING
SCALE
REMOVAL
PICKLING
1. SULFURIC
ACIO
PICKLING
Primary (CS
without scarfing)
Primary (CS
with scarfing)
Primary
(Specialty)
Section
Flat (Hot Strip
and Sheet)
Flat
(Carbon Plate)
Flat
(Specialty Plate)
Pipe 8 Tube
Kolene
Descaling
Hydride
Descaling
Continuous
(Neutralization)
w/spent pickle liquor
Continuous
(Neutralization)
w/o spent pickle liquor
Continuous
(Acid Recovery)
Batch
(Neutralization)
Batch
(Acid Recovery)
1974 and 1976 BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
Discharge Flow
Basis (GPT)
692
845
1220
2626
4180
4000
9366
1002
500
1200
250
225
NO DISCHA
CONVER
NO DISC
TSS
0.0371
0.0453
0.0654
0.242
0.3308
0.1668
0.3760
0.1418
0.0521
0.1251
0.0521
0.0469
*GE 0
' TO
HARGE
Oil &
Grease
0.0288
0.0352
0.0508
0.1095
0.1743
0.1668
0.3760
0.0418
(1)
0.0104
(1)
0.0094
: PRO(
ACID'
Other
(b)
0.0005
(b)
0.0013
(d)
0.00104
(d)
0.00094
:ESS \
(d)
0.0021
(d)
0.0050
VASTEV
ERY
OF PROCES
(g)
0.0001
(g)
0.0003
'ATER
'.
3 GENERATE!
(i)
0.0010
(i)
0.0025
POLLL
POL
TANTS
LUTAN
s
REVISED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs) :
Discharge Flow
Basis (GPT)
500
1200
360
TSS
NO C
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.0521
(NO
0.125
(NO
NO
NO
NO
0.0751
NO
oil a
Grease
HANGE
CHANG
CHANG
.
CHANG
-
CHANG
CHANC
CHANC
CHANC
CHANC
Other j
i
E
i
E
E
E
IE
(NL)
(b)
0.0013
(NO
IE
CHANGE
CHANC
0.0.5(0
CHANG
IE
(d)
0.0015
-.
0.002*
(NO
(d)
0.0050
(NO
0.0010
(f)
0.0025
(g)
0.0001
(NO
(g)
0.0003
(NO
NOTE--
Dissolve
Change
Total C
d
m
d to
hromium
-------
1 ABLt 1-1
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATION ANALYSIS
RAGE 3
OPERATION
.J.
2.
HYDROCHLORIC
ACID PICKLING
3.
COMBINATION
ACID PICKLING
COLD FORMING
Continuous
(Neutralization
with Scrubber)
Continuous
(Neutralization
without Scrubber)
Continuous
(Acid Regeneration
with Scrubber)
Continuous
(Acid Regeneration
without Scrubber)
Batch
(Neutralization
with Scrubber)
Batch
(Neutralization
without Scrubber)
Combination -
Continuous
Combination -
Batch Pipe
and Tube
Combination -
Other Batch
Operations
Cold Rolling
(Recirculation)
Cold Rolling
(Combination)
Cold Rolling
(Direct
Application)
Pipe 8 Tube
(Water)
Pipe ft Tube
(Oil)
1974 ond 1976 BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
Discharge Flow
Basis (GPT)
280
230
450
400
280
230
1000
700
200
25
400
1000
1002
1002
TSS
0.0584
0.0480
0.0938
0.0834
0.0584
0.0480
0.104
0.0730
0.0209
0.0026
0.0417
0.104
0.142
0.142
oil a
Grease
(1)
0.0117
(1)
0.00960
(1)
0.0187
(1)
0.0166
(1)
0.0117
(1)
0.0096O
(1)
0.0417
(1)
0.0292
(1)
0.0083
0.00104
0.0167
0.0417
0.04 IB
0.0418
Other
(d)
0.00117
(d)
O.OO096
(d)
0.00187
(dl
0.00166
(d)
0.00117
(d)
0.00096
(d)
0.0042
(d)
0.0029
(d)
0.0008
(2)(d)
0.00011
(2)(d)
O.OOI67
(2)(d)
0.0042
(i)
0.0021
(i)
0.0015
(i)
0.0004
(k)
0.0626
(k)
0.0438
(k)
0.0125.
(I)
0.0010
(1)
0.0007
(0
0.0002
REVISED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
Discharge Flow
Basis (GPT)
1000
(NO
700
(NO
200
(MO
NO DISC
NO DISCHA
TSS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.104
(NO
0.0730
(NO
0.0209
(NO
NO
NO "
NO
HARGE
«GE OF
J
oil a
Grease
CHANC
CHANG
CHANG
CHANG
CHANG
CHANG
(1)
0.0417
(NO
(1)
0.0292
(NC)
(U
0.00830
(NC)
CHAN
CHAN
C H Al>
OF (
' PROC
Other
3E
E
E
E
E
E
(d)
O.O042
(NC)
(d)
0.00290
(NC)
(d)
0.00080
(NC)
3E
3E
GE
'ROCE:
ESS V
(f)
0.0021
(f)
0.0015
(f)
0.00040
IS WA
VASTEV
(3)(k)
0.0626
(NC)
(3)(k)
0.0438
(NC)
(3)(k)
0.0125
(NC)
5TEWA"
.
/ATER
(n)
0.0010
(n)
0.0007
(n)
0.00020
'ER P
POLLL
NOTE'
Dissolv
Chromii
Dissolve
Nickel
Been C
to Tot
Chromii
Total f,
3LLUT/
TANTS
ed
m and
d
Have
hanged
il
m and
ickel.
.NTS
-------
1 ABLt 1"!
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATION ANALYSIS
PAGE 4
OPERATION
K.
L.
ALKALINE CLEANING**
HOT COATING
1. GALVANIZING
2. TERNE
3. OTHER
COATINGS
Strip/Sheet/
Misc. Products
with Scrubbers
Strip/Sheet/
Misc. Products
without Scrubbers
Wire Products
and Fasteners
with Scrubbers
Wire Products
and Fasteners
without Scrubbers
Without
Scrubbers
With
Scrubbers
Strip/Sheet/
Misc. Products
with Scrubbers
Strip/Sheet/
Misc. Products
without Scrubbers
Wire Products
and Fasteners
with Scrubbers
Wire Products
and Fasteners
without Scrubbers
1974 and 1976 BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
Discharge Flow
Basis (GPT)
50
1200
600
NO SEPAR^
NO SEPAR/
600
1200
NO SEPAR/
NO SEPAR/
NO SEPAR/
NO SEPAR
TSS
0.0052
0.250
0.125
TE Llfi
TE Lto
0.125
0.250
TE LIU
TE Lll
TE LIU
U"E LI
Oil 8
Grease
0.0750
0.0375
ITATIC
ITATIO
0.0375
0.0750
ITATIO
1ITATK
IITATIC
vllTATI
Other
(d)
0.0002
(e)
0.0250
(e)
0.0125
NS PR
POSEC
OPOSE
)POSE(
>ROPO;
(1)
0.00005
0.00010
0.00005
3 FOR
i FOR
FOR
) FOR
FOR
ED FC
THIS 5
THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS S
R THIS
3EGMEf<
3EGMEC
SEGME
SEGME
EGMEIs
SEGfc
T
IT
>JT
MT
T
ENT
REVISED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
Discharge Flow
Basis (GPT)
50
3900
2400
1200
600
3900
2400
TSS
00052
NO
NO
0.813
0.500
NO
NO
0.250
0.125
0.813
0.500
oil a
Grease
CHAN(
CHAN
0.244
0.150
CHAN
CHANC
0.0750
0.0375
0.244
0.150
Other
E
GE
(e)
0.0813
(e)
0.050
GE
3E
(e)
0.0150
(e)
0.0075
(e)
0.049
()
0.030
(f)
10163
(f)
0.010
(f)
0.0010
(0
0.0005
(f)
0.0081
(f)
0.0050
(9>
0.00033
(g)
0.00020
(h)
0.0025
(h)
0.0013
(h)
0.0081
(h)
0.0050
(o)
0.0025
(0)
0.0013
(o)
0.0081
(o)
0.0050
:
NOTE: pH is also regulated in all subcateqories and is limited to 6.0~9.0 standard units.
LEGEND
* All values represent 30~doy average limitations. Maximum limits are 3 times the 30" day overage value.
** Original BPT limitations were only for continuous plants. Revised limits apply to both batch and continuous operations.
(1) This load is allowed only when these wastes are treated in combination with cold rolling mill wastes.
(2) This load is allowed only when these wastes are treated in combination with pickling wastes.
(3) This load is allowed only when hydrofluoric acids are used at the mill.
NL-No limit proposed (f) Chromium(Totol) (m) Copper, Dissolved
NC-No change (g) Chromium(Hexavolent) (n) Nickel, Total
(a) Ammonia (as N) (h) Lead (o) Cadmium(Limited only at
(b) Cyanide (i) Tin cadmium coating operations)
(c) Phenol (4-AAP) (j) Chromium, Dissolved
(d) Dissolved Iron (k) Fluoride
(e) Zinc ( Nickel, Dissolved
-------
TABLE 1-2
COST SUMMARY - BY SUBCATEGORY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous
Casting
Hot Forming
Scale Removal
Acid Pickling
Cold Forming
Alkaline
Cleaning
Hot Coating
TOTALS
Treatment
Level
BPT/BAT.Feed
BAT-1 U;
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-3
BPT/BAT, Feed
BAT-4UJ
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-2
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
BPT/BAT.Feed
BAT-T4;
BPT/BAT, Feed
BAT-2 °;
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT(6T
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT
Costs (Milli
In-Place,. ,
Capital U;
178.8
11.9
46.3
2.0
351.9
4.3
127.8
0.9
9.9
0.6
60.7
0
541.7 v
100.8
3.8
0.1
138.4
0
31.2
0
6.6
0
28.2
3.9
1,525.2
124.5
Required
Capital
125.2
45.4
27.9
11.3
122.3
20.6
24.0
14.3
20.4
1.0
41.9
4.4
135.3
434.7
3.7
3.1
170.5
27.7
36.9
24.0
7.1
0
35.9
7.2
751.1
593.7
Total
Annual
105.0
9.8
37.3
2.6
95.3
4.9
38.0
3.6
7.7
0.2
23.9
0.8
-103.7
110.8
2.1
0.6
68.0
8.6
12.6
4.5
4.2
0
12.8
3.3
303.2
149.6
(1) Basis: facilities in place or committed as of 1/1/78.
(2) BAT for beehive cokemaking operations.
(3) Costs are based on 60Z of the plants at BAT-1, and 40Z of the plants at
the BAT-4 level.
(4) BPT for Sulfuric Acid recovery operations.
(5) BAT is the same as BPT for cold forming pipe and tube operations. Cold
rolling cost basis is BAT-1.
(6) No BAT is being proposed for the alkaline cleaning subcategory.
13
-------
TABLE 1-3
EFFLUENT LOAD SUMMARY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY-BY SUBCATEOORY
Treatment
Subcategory Level
A. Cokemaking Raw
BPT/BAI.Feed
BAT-1 (*'
B. Sintering Raw
BFT/BAT Feed
BAT-3
C. Irohmaking Raw
BPT/BAT. Feed
-U>
D. Steelmaking Raw
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-2
E. Vacuum Degassing Raw '
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
F. Continuous Raw
Casting BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
G. Hot Forming Raw
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
H. Scale Removal Raw
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
I. Acid Pickling Raw
BPT/BAT)
BAT-11*'
Feed
J. Cold Forming Raw
BPT/BAT.Feed
BAT-20'
K. Alkaline Raw
Cleaning BPT/BAT Feed
BAT(5)
L. Hot Coating Raw
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT-1
TOTALS
Raw
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT
Discharge
Flov(MGD)
36.9
49.0
34.1
122.6
8.4
6.3
1,036.8
40. 5
9.2
284.4
13.5
13.5
57.1
1.0
1.0
238.0
1.8
1.8
4,188.0
2,670.0
167.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
172.7
94.9
17.6
87.3
39.6
39.6
2.9
2.9
2.9
34.7
34.7
7.2
6,262.3
2,947.7
301.6
Effluent Loadings (tons/year)
Toxic .
Organics*1'
26,306.0
770.0
211.8
84.0
37.8
4.7
20,088.0
1,074.4
14.4
15.5
0.7
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
4.6
1.7
0.3
279.7
267.1
14.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
2.3
1.2
0.1
46,780.5
2,153.2
247.1
Toxic
Hetals
151.6
58.2
23.8
616.0
24.3
6.7
41,280.0
385.9
15.6
25,130.2
127.0
25.0
976.0
1.8
0.7
590.5
4.3
1.3
34,820.0
1,669.7
90.8
375.6
2.1
0.7
31,918.0
97.3
17.8
186.4
37.7
33.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
3,447.0
335.0
4.6
139,492.1
2,744.1
221.6
Others
76, 082
15,343
2,907
1,185,500
1,151
288
3,029,860
10.664
366
1,274,460
1,667
561
6,955
77
33
30,791
173
53
6,289,895
101,822
3,632
1,387
24
14
615,548
4,946
910
2,106,264
2,013
1,151
1,583
108
108
7,088
2,502
276
14,625,413
140,490
10,299
(1) Includes total cyanide and phenolic compounds (4AAP).
(2) BPT for Beehive operations.
(3) Loads based on 60Z of the plants at BAT-1, and 40Z at BAT-4.
(4)
(5)
BPT for Acid Recovery (Sulfuric) operations.
BPT for Cold Working Pipe & Tube and BAT-1 for Direct Application Cold Rolling operations.
(6) No BAT is being proposed for the alkaline cleaning subcategory.
14
-------
TABLE 1-4
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Alternative
A
B.
C.
D.
Subcategury
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
1. BOF
a . Semi-Wet
b. Wet-SC
c. Wet-OC
2. Open Hearth
a. Serai- Wet
b. Wet
Selected
BAT-1
BAT-3
BAT-4
BPT
BAT-1
BAT-1
BPT
BAT-2
PROPOSED BAT POLLUTANTS
Discharge
Flow Phenols Benzene
(GPT) Anmonia (4AAP) Chlorine (004)
153 957.0(1) 1.60 - 3.19
75 31.3 3.13 15.6*
70 29.2 2.92 14.6*
0 - - - -
50 - - - -
65 - - -
0 - - - -
110 - - -
- MONTHLY AVERAGE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (kg/kkg x 103)
Benzo(a)
Naphthalene Pyrene Chromium Copper
(055) (073) (119) (120)
0.638 1.28
- - -
_
_
2.09
6.78 -
_
4.59 -
Cyanide(T) Lead Nickel
(121) (122) (124)
160.0(2) -
7.82 3.13
29.2 7.30
_
6.26
6.78
_
6.88 -
Zinc
(128)
-
3.13
8.76
-
6.26
8.13
-
13.8
3. Elec. Arc Furnace
E.
F.
G.
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
1 . Primary
a. wo/s
b. w/s
BPT
BAT-2
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
0
50 - -
25 - - -
25 - - - -
90 - - - -
140 - - -
_
3.13
1.04 -
1.04
3.75
5.84
_
6.26
1.04
1.04 -
3.75
5.84
-
7.30
1.04
1.04
3.75
5.84
-------
TABLE 1-4
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
PROPOSED
BAT POLLUTANTS - MONTHLY AVERAGE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (kg/kkg x 105 )
Discharge
Alternative
Subcategory Selected
2. Section
a. Carbon
b . Special ty
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip
b. Carbon
Plate
c. Specialty
Plate
4. Pipe & Tube
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
a. Acid
Recovery
b. Batch Neut.
c . Cont . Neut .
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BPT
BAT-1
BAT-1
Flow
(CPT)
200
130
260
140
60
220
320
100
0
70
55
Chromium Copper Cyanide
Fluoride (119) (120) (121)
8.34
5.42
10. 8 -
5.84
2.50
9.17
13.3
4.17 - 10.4
_
2.92
2.29
Lead
(122)
8.34
5.42
10.8
5.84
2.50
9.17
-
4.17
-
2.92
2.29
Nickel Zinc
(124) (128)
8.34
5.42
10.8
5.84
2.50
9.17
-
-
-
2.92
2.29
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Acid Reg.
b. Batch Neut.
c. Cont. Neut.
3. Combination Acid
a. Batch
b. Continuous
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
70
90
55
105
335
2.92
3.75
2.29
6.57.0(^,4.38 4.38
2,100.0 14.0 14.0
2.92
3.75
2.29
_
-
2.92
3.75
2.29
8.76
27.9
-------
TABLE 1-4
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirc.
b. Combination
c. Direct
Application
2. Pipe & Tube
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing
a. Strip/
Sheet/
Misc. Prod.
wo/ scrubbers
b. Strip/Sheet
Misc. Prod.
w/scubbers
c. Wire Prod.
& Fasteners
wo/scrubbers
d. Wire Prod.
& Fasteners
w/acrubbers
2. Terne
a. Without
Scrubbers
b. With
Scrubbers
3. Other Metals
a. Strip/Sheet
Misc. Prod.
wo/scrubbers
b. Strip/Sheet
Misc. Prod
% scrubbers
c. Wire Prod.
& Fasteners
wo/scrubbers
d. Wire Prod.
& Fasteners
w/scrubbers
Alternative
Selected
BAT- 2
BAT- 2
BAT-1
BPT
BPT
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
PROPOSED BAT POLLUTANTS - MONTHLY AVERAGE
1, 1, 1-Tri-
Discharge chloroe- 2-Nitro- Anthra-
Flow thane Phenol cene
(GPT) (Oil) (057) (078)
25 l.OA 0.261 0.104
250 10.4 2.61 1.04
400 -
0 - - -
50
150 -
200 -
600 -
750 -
150 -
200 -
150 - -
200 -
600 -
750 -
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (kg/kkg x 103)
Tetra-
chloro-
ethylene Cadmium Chromium Lead
(085) (118) (119) (122)
0.521 - 1.04 1.04
5.21 - 10.4 10.4
16.7 16.7
-
-
6.26 6.26
8.34 8.34
25.0 25.0
31.3 31.3
6.26 6.26
8.34 8.34
6.26(W 6.26 6.26
/ t.\
8.34lw' 8.34 8.34
25.0(A) 25.0 25.0
31. 3( 31.3 31.3
Zinc
(128)
1.04
10.4
16.7
-
-
6.26
8.34
25.0
31.3
6.26
8.34
6.26
8.34
25.0
31.3
-------
TABLE 1-4
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
Footnotes
(1) Average ammonia limits for physical/chemical (see cokemaking volume for definition) treatment systems
is 0.0258 kg/kkg.
(2) The stated cyanide limitation applies only to biological treatment systems.
(3) Fluoride is limited only at those combination acid pickling operations that use hydrofluoric acid.
(4) Cadmium is limited only at those operations that practice cadmium coating.
*: Maximum limit only.
NOTE: Maximum limitations are three times the average limits, except as noted below.
Multiplication Factors
A. Cokeraaking: Max CN =3.19x 10 kg/kkg O
Max Hienol - 6.38 x 10~ kg/kkg 4.0
Max NH -N = 5.10 x 10~ kg/kkg 5.3
Max Benzene - 6.38 x 10 kg/kkg 2.0
l_i Max Naphthalene = 1.28 x 10 kg/kkg 2.0
.03 Max Benzo(a)pyrene » 2.56 x 10 kg/kkg 2.0
B. Maximum for nickel equals 2.25 times the average values.
-------
TABLE 1-5
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
BCT Limitations (kg/kkg)
g-hcategory
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
Sintering
Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet-SC
c. Wet-OC
2. Open Hearth
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet
3. Electric Furnace
a. Semi-Wet
b. Wet
Vacuum Degassing
17 Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. wo/scarfers
b. w/scarfers
Total Suspended Solids
Ave. Max.
Oil and Grease
Ave.
Max.
0.0128 0.0255
Zero Discharge of Process Generated Pollutants
0.00469 0.0125
0.00439 0.0117
0.00638
0.00313
0.00290
Zero Discharge of Process Generated Pollutants
0.00313 0.00834
0.00407 0.0108
Zero Discharge of Process Generated Pollutants
0.00688 0.0183
Zero Discharge of Process Generated Pollutants
0.0104 0.0313
0.00520 0.0156
0.00156 0.00417
0.00104
0.00563
0.00878
0.0150
0.0234
0.00375
0.0136
19
-------
TABLE 1-5
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
2. Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip & Sheet
b. Carbon Plate
c. Specialty Plate
4. Pipe & Tube
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric
a. Acid Recovery
b. Batch Neut.
c. Cont. Neut.
w/spent pickle liquor
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Ave.
0.0125
0.00813
0.0521
0.00626
Max.
0.0333
0.0217
0.0163
0.00878
0.00375
0.0138
0.0435
0.0234
0.0100
0.0368
0.156
0.0167
Ave.
Zero Discharge of Process Generated Pollutants
(1)
0.0750
0.0521
0.225
0.156
0.0150'
0.0104
(1)
d. Cont. Neut. 0.0469 0.141 0.0094
wo/spent pickle liquor
(1)
Max.
0.008.°'
0.005^-
0.0108
0.0051
0.0025A
0.0091
0.0450-
0.0311
0.0281
20
-------
1-5
id EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
mom AND STEEL INDUSTRY
AM 3
lutrc^itegory
7. ydrochloric
a. Cont. Regeneration
b. Cont. Neutralization
c. Batch Neut. w/s
d. Batch Neut. wo/s
1. Combination
a. Continuous
b. Batch Pipe & Tube
c. Batch Other
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
2. Pipe & Tube
K Alkaline Cleaning
L Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing
a. s/s w/s
b. s/s wo/s
c. Wire w/s
c. Wire wo/s
Total Suspended
Ave.
0.00438
0.00344
0.0584
0.0480
0.104
0.0730
0.0209
0.00260
0.0156
0.0250
Zero Discharge of
0.0052
0.0125
0.00938
0.0469
0.0375
Solids
Max.
0.0117
0.00917
0.175
0.144
0.312
0.219
0.0627
0.00780
0.0416
0.0667
Process
0.0160
0.0334
0.0250
0.125
0.100
Oil and Grease
Ave . Max .
0.00292(1
0.00229(1
(1) (1)
0.0117V ' 0.0351V '
0.0096(1) 0.0288(1)
0.0417(1) 0.125(1)
0.0292^ 0.0876^
0.00830(1) 0.0249(1)
0.00104 0.00312
0.0104
0.0167
Generated Pollutants
-
0.00834
. 0.00626
0.0313
0.0250
21
-------
TABLE 1-5
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATION SUMMARY
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 4
Subcategory
2. Terne
a. w/s
b. wo/s
3. Other Metals
a. s/s w/s
b. s/s wo/s
c. Wire w/s
d. Wire wo/s
Total Suspended Solids
Ave. Max.
0.0125
0.125
0.0125
0.0188
0.813
0.0751
0.0334
0.375
0.0334
0.0375
2.439
0.150
Oil and Grease
Ave.
Max.
0.0375
0.244
o.i:
0.00834
0.01 >
0.732
o.o:
(1) Load allowed only when treated jointly with cold rolling wastes.
NOTE: pH is also regulated at BCT and is limited to 6.0 to 9.0 units.
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
SC : Suppressed Combustion
OC : Open Combustion
wo : Without
w : With
s/s: Strip & Sheet
22
-------
TABLE 1-6
STEEL INDUSTRY
OPTIONS AND REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Options
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Subcategory
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
BOF-SC
BOF-OC
OH -Wet
EAF-Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
No.
1
3<2>
4(2)
2
2
2
2
1
1
GPT
153
75
70
50
65
110
50( 50)
25(25)
25
,.» Monthly
BCT
4AAP
TSS O&G NH N Chlorine PBE
20 10* 15 - 0.025
15 10* 1.0 0.5* 0.1
15 10* 1.0 0.5* 0.1
15
15
15,,, -
50(3) -
50<3> .
15 10* - -
Average 'Concentrations (mg/1)
BAT
Toxic Organics Cr(T)
(4) (55) (73) (119)
0.05 0.01 0.02
. -
_
0.1
0.25
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.1
CN(T) Pb
(121) (122)
2.5
0.25 0.1
1.0 0.25
0.30
0.25
0.15
0.30
0.1
0.1
Zn
(128)
-
0.1
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.35
0.1
0.1
U)
-------
to
TABLE 1-6
STEEL INDUSTRY
OPTIONS AND REGULATED POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
/ 1\
BCT"
Options
G.
H.
I.
J.
Subcategory
Hot Forming
Scale Removal
Kolene
Hydride
Acid Pickling
SAP-Batch
SAP-Cont .
HAP-Batch
HAP-Cont .-Regen.
HAP-Cont.-Neut.
CAP-Batch
. CAP-Cont.
Cold Forming
CR-Rec
CR-Comb .
CR-D.A.
CF-Pipe & Tube
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2(5)
2(5)
1
BPT
GPT
-
320( 500)
100
70( 360)
55(250)
90(560)
70
55 ...
105(70014;)
335(1000)
25(25)
250
400
0
TSS
15
25(3)
15
50(3)
(3)
so:,'
50
15
15(3)
25(3)
25
25(3)
15
15
-
O&G FL Fe(d)
10*
- -
10(3) -
(3)
10), {
10
10*
10?3) "
l°(V> 15
10V ' 15
10(3) -
10*
10*
-
Monthly Average Concentrations (mg/1)
BAT
Toxic Organica Cr(T)
111) (57) (78) (85) (119)
- - - - 0.
- - 0.
- - - - 0.
- - - - 0.
- - 0.
- - - 0.
- - 0.
0.
- - 0.
- - - 0.1 0.
0.1 0.025 0.01 0.05 0.
0.1 0.025 0.01 0.05 0.
- - - 0.
- - -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cu CN(T)
Pb NUT)
(120) (121) (122) (124) (
- - 0.
_
0.25 0.
- - 0.
0.
- - 0.
- - 0.
0.
0.1-
- - 0.
- - 0.
0.
- - 0.
- - -
1
_
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.2
2
1
1
1
-
0
_
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Zn
128)
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
K. Alkaline Cleaning BPT
50
25
-------
ro
01
TABLE 1-6
STEEL INDUSTRY
OPTIONS AND REGULATED POLLUTANTS
PACE 3
Monthly Average Concentrations (mg/1)
BCT
Opt i cms
Subcategory No.
L. Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing
Strip-Sheet w/FHS 1
Strip-Sheet wo/FHS 1
Wire w/FHS 1
Wire wo/FHS 1
2. Terne
w/FHS 1
wo/FHS 1
3. Other Coatings
Strip-Sheet w/FHS 1
Strip-Sheet wo/FHS 1
Wire w/FIlS 1
Wire wo/FHS 1
GPT
200
150
750
600
200
150(150)
200
150
750(750)
600
TSS
25
25
25
25
2>
25
"(3)
2513'
25
Cd
O&C (118)
10*
10*
10*
10*
10?3) '
1013' -
10* o.iijj;
!?» S:l[«
10* 0.1
BAT
Cr(T)
(119)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Pb
(122)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Zn
(128)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
* : Daily maximum limitation only, as shown.
(): Flow in parentheses is the flow basis for proposed BPT limits.
(1) pH also limited at 6-9.
(2) Options using sulfide.
(3) BCT failed in this category. Limits for conventional pollutant based on the BPT concentration
shown and flow in parentheses.
(4) BCT limits for batch-pipe and tube operations are based on 700 gal/ton. BCT limits for batch-
other operations are based on 200 gal/ton.
(5) Limitations based on BAT-2 technology. Costs are based on BAT-1 systems.
(6) Limited only at cadmium coating operations.
-------
TABLE 1-7
IRON & STEEL TREATMENT MODEL TECHNOLOGIES
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
1. By-product
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Ironmakiog
D. Steelmaking
All semi-vet
operations
Basic Oxygen Furnace
(Wet)
Open Hearth Furnace
(Wet)
Electric Arc Furnace
(Wet)
Levels of Treatment
BPT
BAT
BCT
NSPS
Fixed still, recycle
final cooler, settling
basin, acid neutralization,
single stage bio-oxidation,
clarifier, vacuum filter.
Settling basin, 100Z
recycle
Extended bio-oxidation
recycle of barometric
condenser, clarifier,
filter.
(2)
(3)
(2)
Polymer, thickener, vacuum 9SZ recycle, lime addition, 95Z recycle,
filter, 93% recycle, acid
neutralization
Polymer, thickener, vacuum
filter, cooling tower,
96% recycle
Lime neutralization (open
hearth operations only)
polymer, clarifier/
thickener, vacuum filter,
100Z recycle
Polymer, clarifier/
thickener, vacuum filter,
95Z recycle, acid neutral-
ization
Lime neutralization &
polymer addition,
clarifier/thickener,
vacuum filter, 94Z recycle
Polymer, clarifier/
thickener, vacuum filter,
98Z recycle
alkaline chlorination, filter
clarifier, acid neu-
tralization (from BPT
(system), filter, dechlor-
ination.
981 recycle, lime addition, 981 recycle
alkaline chl orination, clarifier
clarifier, acid neutral-
ization, filter, dechlor-
ination1"
(!) (2)
Lime neutralization, Filter
inclined plate separator,
filter, acid neutral-
ization (from BPT system)
Lime addition, inclined Filter
plate separator, filter
Lime addition, inclined
plate separator, filter
(4)
(2)
(4)
(4)
PS US
(4)
(1)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(1)
(4)
(4)
(2)-for BOT, EAF
(l)-for OH
(4)
(1)
(5)
(4)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(4)
-------
TABLE 1-7
IRON & STEEL TREATMENT MODEL TECHNOLOGIES
PAGE 2
Subcategory
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Cooling
G. Hoc Forming
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
BPT
Scale pic, cooling cower,
98Z recycle
Scale pic, 96Z recycle,
flaC bed filter, cooling
tower
Scale pit, SOZ recycle,
clarifier, vacuum filter,
filter
Scale pit, clarifier,
vacuum filcer, filcer
Scale pic, 502 recycle,
seeding lagoon
Oil skimming, acid
addition, chromium, re-
duction, lime, polymer,
thickener, vacuum filter
Cyanide oxidation, acid
& polymer addition,
thickener, vacuum filcer
Levels of Treatment
BAT BCT
Filter (2)
99Z recycle, Filter (3)
Cooling tower, 96Z (3)
recycle
Cooling tower, 96Z (3)
recycle
Cooling Cower, 96Z (3)
recycle, filcer
Filter (2)
Filter (3)
NSPS PSNS
(4) (4)
Scale pit, 99Z (5)
recycle, flat
bed filter,
cooling tower
Scale pit, (5)
recycle, rough-
ing clarifier,
vacuum filter.
cooling tower,
recycle filter
blowdown
Scale pit, (5)
recycle, rough-
ing clarifier,
vacuum filter,
cooling tower,
recycle filter
blowdown
Scale pit, (5)
recycle, rough-
ing clarifier,
vacuum filter,
cooling tower,
recycle filter
blowdown
(4) (5)
(except settling
basin in place of
thickener)
(4) (5)
(except settling
basin in place of
thickener)
PSES
(4)
(2)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
-------
TABLE 1-7
IRON & STEEL TREATMENT MODEL TECHNOLOGIES
PAGE 3
[O
CD
Subcategory
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric
a. Neutralization
b. Acid Recovery
2. Hydrochloric
a. Neutralization
b. Acid
Regeneration
3. Combination
Levels of Treatment
BCT
Cascade Rinse
(2)
Cascade Rinse
Spent pickle liquor
storage tank, FHS recycle,
equalization of SPL,
rinse water and fume hood
scrubber blovdown, lime &
polymer addition, aeration,
settling basin
Spent acid storage system,
cascade rinse, FHS recycle,
acid recovery system
(zero discharge)
Spent pickle liquor
storage tank, FHS recycle,
equalization of SPL,
rinse water and fume hood
scrubber blowdown, lime &
polymer addition, aeration,
thickener, vacuum filter
Spent acid storage tank,
acid regeneration systems,
FHS recycle, equalization
tank, lime & polymer
addition, aeration,
thickener, vacuum filter
Spent pickle liquor storage Cascade Rinse
tank, FHS recycle,
equalization of SPL, rinse
water and fume hood
scrubber blowdown, oil
skimmer, lime & polymer,
clarifier, vacuum filter
PSNS
PSES
(2)
Cascade Rinse, AVS
recycle
(2)
Batch-(2)
Cont i nuous-
(2) plus a
filter
(3) plus a
filter
(2)
Acid recovery
system (acid
discharge)
(2)
(4)
(except
clarifier in
place of
thickener)
(4)
(except
clarifier in
(4)
(5)
(2)
(5)
(4)
(except
clarifier &
vacuum filter
in place of
settling basin)
(2)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(4)
(except no oil
skimmer is
provided)
-------
TABLE 1-7
IRON & STEEL TREATMENT MODEL TECHNOLOGIES
PAGE 4
Subcategory
BPT BAT
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Boiling Alum, acid (for emulsion Filter
breaking), lime & polymer,
air flotation, settling
basin
Levels of Treatment
BCT
Recirculation:
(2)
Direct applic-
tion and
combination
(3)
NSPS PSNS
(4) and the (5)
requirement
all new mills
will be of the
recirculation
type
PSES
(4)
2. Pipe & Tube
a. Water
b. Oil
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Scale pit, oil skimmer,
1001 recycle
Scale pit, oil skimmer,
recycle waste oil storage
tank (contractor removal
as required)
Equalization tank with
oil skimmer, acid &
polymer, thickener,
vacuum filter
(1)
(2)
(1)
Lime & polymer, thickener, FHS recycle,
vacuum filter Cascade Rinse
(2)
(2)
(2)
Same as BAT
plus a filti
Same as BPT
Same as BAT
(8)
,(10)
(2) (6)
(2) (2)
Equalization (6)
tank with oil
skimmer, acid,
polymer, aeration,
settling basin,
vacuum filter,
filter
(4) (4)
(6)
(2)
(6)
(4)
(1) No standards/limitations are presently proposed; therefore, no treatment model considered.
(2) Some as BPT.
(3) Same as BAT.
(4) Same as BPT plus BAT.
(5) Same as NSPS.
(6) Only general pretreatoent standards are proposed.
(7) Approximately 601 of the iron making plants are expected to install 98Z recycle and alag
evaporation in place of BAT.
(8) Applies to all galvanizing operations with and without scrubber, terne and other metals for
sheet and strip operations with scrubbers.
(9) Applies to all other metal coating operations without scrubbers.
(10) Applies to terne sheet and strip operations without scrubbers, other metal coating operations,
wire products and fasteners with scrubbers.
SPL: Spent Pickle Liquor
AVS: Absorber Vent Scrubber
FHS: Fume Hood Scrubber
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
I. Legal Authority
The regulation which this Development Document supports is
proposed by EPA under authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307
and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C §§ 1251 et seq., as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L.. 95-21 7) (the """Act").
This regulation is also being proposed in response to the
"Settlement Agreement" in Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., e_t al. v Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERC
1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
II. Background
A. The Clean Water Act .
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters," Section 101(a). By July 1, 1977, existing industrial
dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available" (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A); and,
by July 1, 1983, these dischargers were required to achieve
"effluent limitations requiring the application of the best
available technology economically achievable...which will result
in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants" (BAT), Section
301(b)(2)(A). New industrial direct dischargers were required to
comply with Section 306 new source performance standards (NSPS)
based on best available demonstrated technology; and new and
existing dischargers to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
were subject to pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) and
(c) of the .Act. While the requirements for direct dischargers
were to be incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under Section 402 of
the Act, pretreatment standards were made enforceable directly
against dischargers to POTWs (indirect dischargers).
Although Section 402(a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the setting
of requirements for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis,
Congress intended that, for the most part, control requirements
would be based on regulations promulgated by the Administrator of
EPA. Section 304(b) of the Act required the Administrator to
promulgate regulations providing guidelines for effluent
limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of BPT and BAT. Moreover,
31
-------
Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act required promulgation of
regulations for NSPS, and Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c)
required promulgation of regulations for pretreatment standards.
In addition to these regulations for designated industry
categories, Section 307(a) of the Act required the Administrator
to promulgate effluent standards applicable to all dischargers of
toxic pollutants. Finally, Section 501(a) of the Act authorized
the Administrator to prescribe any additional regulations
"necessary to carry out his functions" under the Act.
EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by tl._
dates contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit, EPA and
the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement Agreement" which was
approved by the Court. This Agreement required EPA to develop a
program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating, for 21 major
industries, BAT effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance standards for 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants. See Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. y_._ Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), as
modified 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean
Water Act of 1977. Although this law makes several important
changes in the Federal water pollution control program, its most
significant feature is its incorporation into the Act of several
of the basic elements of the Settlement Agreement program for
toxic pollution control. Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C)
of the Act now require the achievement by July 1, 1984 of
effluent limitations requiring application of BAT for "toxic"
pollutants, including the 65 "priority" pollutants and classes of
pollutants which Congress declared "toxic" under Section 307(a)
of the Act. Likewise, EPA's programs for new source performance
standards and pretreatment standards are now aimed principally at
toxic pollutant controls. Moreover, to strengthen the toxics
control program, Section 304(e) of the Act authorizes the
Administrator to prescribe "best management practices" (BMPs) to
prevent the release of toxic and hazardous pollutants from plant
site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and
drainage from raw material storage associated with, or ancillary
to, the manufacturing or treatment process.
In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water
Act of 1977 also revises the control program for nontoxic
pollutants. Instead of BAT for "conventional" pollutants
identified under Section 304(a)(4) (including biochemical oxygen
demand, oil and grease, suspended solids, fecal coliform and pH),
the new Section 301 (b') (2) (E) requires achievement by July 1,
1984, of "effluent limitations requiring the application of th_
best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT). The
factors considered in assessing BCT for an industry include the
costs of attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent
reduction benefits derived compared to the costs and effluent
reduction benefits from the discharge of publicly owned treatment
works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)). For nontoxic, nonconventional
32
-------
pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) require
achievement of BAT effluent limitations within three years after
their establishment or July 1, 1984, whichever is later, but not
later than July 1, 1987.
The purpose of this proposed regulation is to provide effluent
limitations for BPT, BAT and BCT, and to establish NSPS,
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES), and
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), under Sections
301,304,306,307 and 501 of the Clean Water Act.
Prior EPA Regulations
On June 28, 1974, EPA promulgated effluent limitations for BPT
and BAT, new source performance standards, and pretreatment
standards for new sources for basic steelmaking operations (Phase
I) of the integrated steel industry, 39 FR 24114-24133, 40 CFR
Part 420, Subparts A-L. That regulation covered 12 subcategories
of the industry: By-Product Cokemaking, Beehive Cokemaking,
Sintering, Blast Furnace (Iron), Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese),
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wet Air Pollution Control Methods),
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control Methods), Open
Hearth, Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-Wet Air Pollution Control
Methods), Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air Pollution Control
Methods), Vacuum Degassing, and Continuous Casting and Pressure
Slab Molding.
In response to several petitions for review, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded that regulation
on November 7, 1975, American Iron and Steel Institute, et al. v
EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir. 1975). While the Court rejected all
technical challenges to the BPT limitations, it held that the BAT
effluent limitations and NSPS for certain subcategories were "not
demonstrated." In addition, the court questioned the entire
regulation on the grounds that EPA had failed to consider
adequately the impact of plant age on the cost or feasibility of
retrofitting pollution controls, had failed to assess the impact
of the regulations on water scarcity in arid and semi-arid
regions of the country, and had failed to make adequate
"net/gross" provisions for pollutants found in intake water
supplies.*
On March 29, 1976, EPA promulgated BPT effluent limitations and
proposed BAT limitations, NSPS standards and PSNS standards for
steel forming and finishing operations (Phase II) within the
steel industry, 39 FR 12990-13030, 40 CFR Part 420, Subparts M-Z.
That regulation covered 14 subcategories of the industry: Hot
Forming- Primary; Hot Forming-Section; Hot Forming-Flat; Pipe &
1rne court also held that the "form" of the regulations was improper,
because they did not provide "ranges" of limitations to be selected by
permit issuers. This holding, however, was recalled in American Iron
and Steel Institute, ejt al. v EPA, (3d Cir. 1977).
-------
Tube; Pickling- Sulfuric Acid-Batch & Continuous;
Pickling-Hydrochloric Acid-Batch & Continuous; Cold Rolling; Hot
Coatings-Galvanizing; Hot Coatings- Terne; Miscellar._:>us
Runoffs-Storage Piles, Casting, and Slagging; Combination Acid
Pickling-Batch and Continuous; Scale Removal-Kolene and Hydride;
Wire Pickling and Coating, and Continuous Alkaline Cleaning.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded that
regulation on September 14, 1977, American Iron and Steel
Institute, et al. v EPA, 568 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1977). While the
court again rejected all technical challenges to the "?T
limitations, it again questioned the regulation in regard to the
age/retrofit and water scarcity issues. In addition, the court
invalidated the regulation for lack of proper notice to the
specialty steel industry, and directed EPA to reevaluate its cost
estimates in light of "site-specific costs" and to reexamine its
economic impact analysis.2
On June 26, 1978 the Agency promulgated General Pretreatment
Regulations applicable to existing and new indirect discharc,_rs
within the steel industry and other major industries, 43 rR
27936-27773 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations are currently in
effect.
C. Overview of the Industry
The manufacture of steel involves many processes which require
large quantities of raw materials and other resources. Steel
facilities range from comparatively small plants engaging in one
or more production processes to extremely large integrated
complexes engaging in several or all production processes. "i _.i
the smallest steel facility, however, represents a fairly large
industrial complex. Because of the wide variety of products and
processes, operations vary from plant to plant. Table II-l lists
the various products classified by the Bureau of the Census und_r
Major Group 33 - Primary Metal Industries.
The steel industry can be segregated into two major components -
raw steelmaking and forming and finishing operations. EPA
estimates that there are about 680 plant locations containing
over 2000 individual steelmaking and forming and finishing
operations. A listing of these plants is presented in Appendix B
to this volume. Table II-2 is an inventory of production
operations by subcategory.
In the first major process, coal is converted to coke which is
then combined with iron ore and limestone in a blast furnace to
produce iron. The iron is then purified into steel in eitl._r
open hearth, basic oxygen, or electric arc furnaces. Finally,
2The court also held that EPA had no statutory authority to exempt
plants in the Mahoning Valley region of Eastern Ohio frc^m compliant-
with the BPT limitations.
34
-------
the steel can be further refined by vacuum degassing. Following
these steelmaking operations the steel is subjected to a variety
of hot and cold forming and finishing operations. These
operations produce products of various shapes and sizes, and
imparts desired mechanical and surface characteristics. Figure
II-l is a process flow diagram of the steelmaking segment of the
industry.
Coke plants are operated at integrated facilities to supply coke
for the production of iron in blast furnaces. Nearly all active
coke plants are by-product plants which produce, in addition to
coke, such usable by-products as coke oven gas, coal tar, crude
or refined light oils, ammonium sulfate or anhydrous ammonia, and
napthalene. A by-product coke plant consists essentially of
ovens in which bituminuous coal is heated, in the absence of air,
to drive off volatile components. The coke remaining as residue
in the ovens is supplied to the blast furnaces, while the
volatile components are recovered and processed into materials of
potential value in the by-products recovery processes. Less than
one percent of domestic coke is produced in beehive cokemaking
processes.
The coke from by-product cokemaking and beehive cokemaking is
then supplied to blast furnace processes where molten iron is
produced for subsequent steelmaking. In blast furnaces, iron
ore, limestone and coke are placed into the top of the furnace
and heated air is blown into the bottom. Combustion of the coke
provides heat, which produces metallurgical reactions. The
limestone forms a fluid slag which combines with unwanted
impurities in the ore. Two kkg (2.2 tons) of ore, 0.54 kkg (0.6
tons) of coke, 0.45 kkg (0.5 tons) of limestone, and 3.2 kkg (3.5
tons) of air produce approximately 0.9 kkg (1 ton) of iron, 0.45
kkg (0.5 tons) of slag, and 4.5 kkg (5 tons) of blast furnace gas
containing the fines (flue dust) carried out by the blast.
Molten iron from the bottom of the furnace and molten slag, which
floats on top of the iron, are periodically withdrawn. Blast
furnace flue gas, which has considerable heating value, is
cleaned and then burned in stoves to preheat the incoming air
blast to the furnace.
Steel is an alloy of iron containing less than 1.0% carbon. The
basic raw materials for steelmaking are hot metal or pig iron,
steel scrap, limestone, burned lime, dolomite, fluorspar, iron
ores, and iron-bearing materials such as pellets or mill scale.
Steelmaking consists essentially of oxidizing constituents
(particularly carbon) to specified low levels, and then adding
various alloying elements according to the grade of steel to be
produced.
The principal steelmaking processes in use today are the Basic
Oxygen Furnace (BOF or BOP), the Open Hearth Furnace, and the
-lectric Arc Furnace. These processes refine the product of the
blast furnace (hot metal or, if cooled, pig iron) which contains
approximately 6% carbon. The charge to steelmaking operations
35
-------
consists of blast furnace hot metal, scrap, or both, and may
include alloying elements to produce various types of steel.
Although declining in recent years, 16% of the steel produced in
the United States is made in open hearth furnaces. Open hearth
furnaces, while similar in design, may vary widely in tonnage
capacity. Furnaces in this country range in capacity from 9 to
545 kkg (10 to 600 tons) per heat. The steelmaking ingredients
are charged into the front of the furnace through movable doors,
while the flame to refine the steel is supplied by liquid or
gaseous fuel ignited by hot air.
In the standard open hearth furnace, molten steel is tapped from
the furnace eight to ten hours after the first charge. Many
furnaces use oxygen lances which create more intense heat to
reduce tap-to-tap time. The tap-to-tap time for the
oxygen-lanced open hearth averages about eight hours. The
average is about ten hours when oxygen is not used. The open
hearth furnace allows the operator, in effect, to "cook" the
steel to required specifications. The nature of the furnac.
permits the operator to continually sample the contents and mal._
necessary additions. The major drawback of the process is tl._
long time required to produce a "heat."
Since the introduction in the United States of the moL_
productive basic oxygen process, open hearth production has
declined from a peak of 93 million kkg (102 million tons) in 1956
to 19 million kkg (21 million tons) in 1978. Most basic oxygen
furnaces can produce eight times the amount of steel produced by
a comparable open hearth furnace during the same production time.
The annual domestic production of steel by the basic oxygen
process has increased from about 545,000 kkg (600,000 tons) in
1957 to 75 million kkg (83 million tons) in 1978.
Vessels for the basic oxygen process generally are vertical
cylinders surmounted by a truncated cone. Scrap and molten iron
are lowered into the vessel and oxygen is then admitted.
High-purity oxygen is supplied at high pressure through a
water-cooled tube mounted above the center of the vessel. A
violent reaction occurs immediately, bringing the molten metal
and hot gases into intimate contact causing impurities to burn
off quickly. An oxygen blow of 18 to 22 minutes is normally
sufficient to refine the metal. Finally, alloys are added and
the steel is then tapped. A basic oxygen furnace can produce 180
to 270 kkg (200 to 300 tons) of steel per hour and permits very
close control of steel quality. Another major advantage of tl._
process is its ability to handle a wide range of raw. materials.
Scrap may be light or heavy, and the oxide charge may be iron
ore, sinter, pellets, or mill scale.
Another process for making steel is the electric arc furnace.
This process is uniquely adapted to the production of high
quality steels. Practically all stainless steel is produced in
electric arc furnaces. Electric furnaces range up to nine meters
36
-------
(30 feet) in diameter and produce from 1.8 to 365 kkg (2 to 400
tons) per cycle in 1.5 to 5 hours.
me cycle in electric furnace steelmaking consists of a scrap
charge, meltdown, a hot metal charge, a molten metal period,
boil, a refining period, and the pour. The electric arc furnace
generates heat by passing an electric current between electrodes
through the charge in the furnace. The refining process is
similar to that of the open hearth, but more precise control is
possible in the electric furnace. Use of oxygen in the electric
furnace has been common practice for many years.
Many mills operate only electric furnaces and use scrap as the
raw material. In most "cold shops" the electric arc furnace is
the sole steelmaking process. They are the principal steelmaking
process employed by the so-called mini steel plants which have
been built since World War II. The annual production of steel in
the electric arc furnace has increased from about 7.2 million kkg
(8 million tons) in 1957 to 29 million kkg (32 million tons) in
1978. Although electric arc furnaces are traditionally smaller
in capacity than open hearth or basic oxygen furnaces, a trend
toward furnaces with larger heating capacities has recently
developed.
rollowing the steelmaking processes are the hot forming
(including continuous casting) and cold finishing operations.
These operations are so varied that simple classification and
description is difficult. In general, hot forming primary mills
reduce ingots to slabs or blooms and secondary hot forming mills
reduce slabs or blooms to billets, plates, shapes, strip, and
other forms. Steel finishing operations involve a number of
other processes that do little to alter the dimensions of the hot
rolled product, but which impart desirable surface or mechanical
properties. The product flow of these operations is shown in
rigures II-2 and II-3.
It is possible, and often economical, to roll ingots directly
through the bloom, slab, or billet stages into more refined or
finished steel products in one continuous mill, frequently
without reheating. Large tonnages of standard rails, beams, and
plates are produced regularly by this practice. Most of the
ingot tonnage, however, is rolled into bloom, slabs, or billets
in one mill, then cooled, stored, and eventually reheated and
rolled in other mills or forged.
me basic operation in a primary mill is the gradual compression
of the steel ingot between two rotating rolls. Multiple passes
through the rolls, ususally in a reversing mill, are required to
t_3hape the ingot into a slab, bloom, or billet. As the ingot
begins to pass through the rolls, high pressure water jets remove
surface scale. The ingot is passed back and forth between the
horizontal and vertical rolls while manipulators turn the ingot.
When the desired shape is achieved in the rolling operation, the
_.id pieces (or crops) are removed by electric or hydraulic
37
-------
shears. The semi-finished pieces are stored or sent to reheating
furnaces for subsequent rolling operations.
As the requirement for high quality steel increases, increasing
attention is being devoted to the conditioning of semi-finished
products. This conditioning involves the removal of surface
defects from blooms, billets, and slabs prior to shaping.
Defects such as rolled seams, light scabs, and checks generally
retain their identity during subsequent forming processes and
result in inferior products. Surface defects may be removed by
manual chipping, machine chipping, scarfing, grinding, milling,
and hot steel scarfing. The various mechanical means of surface
preparation used are common in all metal working and machine shop
operations. Scarfing is a process of supplying jet streams of
oxygen to the surface of the steel product, while maintaining
high surface temperatures, which results in rapid oxidation and
localized melting of a thin layer of the metal. While the
process may be manual (consisting of the continuous motion of an
oxyacetylene torch along the length of the piece undergoing
treatment) in recent years the hot scarfing machine has come into
wide use. This machine is adapted to remove a thin layer (1/8
in. or less) of metal from the steel passed through the machii._
in a manner analogous to the motion through rolling mills.
Merchant-bar, rod, and wire mills are continuous operations which
produce a wide variety of products, ranging from shapes of small
size through bars and rods. The designations of the various
mills as well as the classification of their products are not
very well defined within the industry. In general, the small
cross-sectional area and very long lengths distinguish the
products of these mills. The raw materials for these mills are
reheated billets. Some older mills use hand looping operations
in which the material is manually passed from mill stand to mill
stand. Newer mills use mechanical methods to transfer the
material from stand to stand. As with other rolling operations,
the billet is progressively compressed and shaped to the desired
dimensions in a series of rolls. Water sprays are used
throughout the operation to remove scale.
The continuous hot strip mill processes slabs which are brought
to rolling temperatures in continuous reheating furnaces. Tl._
slabs then are passed through scale beakers and high pressure
water sprays which dislodge loosened scale. A series of roughing
stands and a rotary crop shear produce a section that can L_
finished into a coil of the proper weight and gauge. A second
scale breaker and high pressure water sprays precede tl._
finishing stands where final size reductions are made. Cooling
water is applied by sprays on the runout table, and the finished
strip is coiled. These mills can turn a 6 ft. thick slab of
steel into a thin strip or sheet a quarter of a mile long in
three minutes or less. The modern hot strip mill produces a
product as wide as 96 in., although the most common width in
newer mills is 80 in. Products of the hot strip mill are sold as
produced, or are further processed in cold reduction mills. Cold
38
-------
rolled products are sold as produced or are used in producing
plated or coated products.
V."_lded tubular products are made from hot-rolled skelp with
square or slightly beveled edges. The width and thickness of the
skelp is selected to suit the desired size and wall thicknesses.
me coiled skelp is uncoiled, heated, and fed through forming and
welding rolls where the edges are pressed together at high
temperatures to form a weld. Welded pipe or tube can also be
made by the electric weld processes, where the weld is made by
either fusion or resistance welding. Seamless tubular products
are made by rotary piercing of a solid round bar or billet,
followed by various forming operations to produce the required
size and wall thickness.
Correct surface preparation is the most important requirement for
satisfactory application of protective coatings to steel.
Without a properly cleaned surface, even the most expensive
coatings will fail to adhere or prevent rusting of the steel
base. A variety of cleaning methods are used to insure proper
surface preparation for subsequent coating. Also, the steel
surface must be cleaned at various production stages to insure
that the oxides which form on the surface are not worked into the
finished product causing marring, staining, or other surface
imperfections.
The pickling process chemically removes oxides and scale from the
surface of the steel by the action of water solutions of
inorganic acids. While pickling is only one of several methods
of removing undesirable surface oxides, this method is the most
widely used because of comparatively low operating costs and ease
of operation.
Some products such as tubes and wire are pickled in batch
operations. The product is immersed in an acid solution until
the scale or oxide film is removed. The material is lifted from
the bath, allowed to drain, and then rinsed by sequential
immersion in rinse tanks.
Pickling lines for hot-rolled strip operate continuously on coils
that are welded together. The steel passes through the pickler
countercurrent to the flow of the acid solution, and is then
sheared and recoiled. Most carbon steel is pickled with sulfuric
or hydrochloric acid; stainless steels are pickled with
hydrochloric, nitric, and hydrofluoric acids. Various organic
chemicals are used in the pickling process to inhibit acid attack
on the base metal, while permitting preferential attack on the
oxides. Wetting agents are used to improve the effective contact
of the acid solution with the metal surface. As in the batch
operation, the steel passes from the pickling bath through a
series of rinse tanks.
Alkaline cleaners are used where necessary to remove mineral and
animal fats and oils from the steel surface. Caustic soda, soda
ash, alkaline silicates, and phosphates are common alkaline
39
-------
cleaning agents. Merely dipping the steel in alkaline solutions
of various compositions, concentrations, and temperatures is
often satisfactory. The use of electrolytic cleaning may be
employed for large scale production, or where a cleaner product
is desired. Sometimes the addition of wetting agents to the
cleaning bath facilitates cleaning.
Blast cleaning is a process which uses abrasives such as sand,
steel, iron grit, or shot to clean the steel. The abrasives come
into contact with the steel by either a compressed air blast
cleaning apparatus or by rotary type blasting cleaning machines.
However, these methods usually result in a roughened surface.
The degree of roughness must be regulated to insure that the
product is satisfactory for its intended use. Newer methods of
blast cleaning produce smooth finishes and, consequently have
potential as substitues for some types of pickling.
Steel finishing also includes operations such as cold rolling,
cold reduction, cold drawing, tin plating, galvanizing, coating
with other metals, coating with organic compounds as well as
inorganic compounds, and tempering.
Cold reduced flat rolled products are made by cold rolling
pickled strip steel. The thickness of the steel is reduced by
25% to 99% in this operation to produce a smooth, dense surface.
The product may be sold as cold reduced, but is usually heat
treated.
The cold reduction process generates heat that is dissipated by
flooded lubrication systems. These systems use palm oil or
synthetic oils which are emulsified in water and directed in jets
against the rolls and the steel surface during rolling. The cold
reduced strip is then cleaned with alkaline detergent solutions
to remove the rolling oils prior to coating operations.
Tin plate is made from cleaned and pickled cold reduced strip by
either the electrolytic or hot dip process. The hot dip process
consists of passing the steel through a light pickling solution;
a tin pot containing a flux and the molten tin; and a bath of
palm oil. Effluent limitations for discharges from the
electrolytic processes are not included herein but are addressed
in the Development Document for the Electroplating Point Sourc-
Category (40 CFR 413).
Hot dipped galvanized sheets are produced on either batch or
continuous lines. The process consists essentially of a light
pickling in hydrochloric acid and the application of the zinc
coating by dipping in a pot containing molten zinc. Variations
in continuous hot dip operations include alkaline cleaning,
continuous annealing in controlled atmosphere furnaces, and a
variety of fluxing techniques.
In recent years, steel products which are coated with various
synthetic resins have become commercially important. Other steel
products are being produced with coatings of various metals and
40
-------
inorganic materials. Several major tin plate manufacturers are
currently substituting chromium plating for tin plating for
container products. Finishing operations for stainless steel
products requiring a bright finish consists of rolling on temper
mills or mechanical polishing.
A more detailed description of steel industry operations can be
found in the individual subcategory reports of this Development
Document, and in the references cited in Section XIV.
D. Summary of EPA Guidelines Development Methodology and Overview
Approach to the Study
In order to develop the proposed effluent limitations and
standards, EPA first studied the steel industry to determine
whether differences in raw materials, final products,
manufacturing processes, equipment, age and size of plants, water
usage, wastewater constituents, or other factors justified the
development of separate effluent limitations and standards for
different segments of the industry. This study included the
identification of raw waste and treated effluent characteristics,
including: (1) the sources and volume of water used, the
processes employed, and the sources of pollutants and wastewaters
in the plant, and (2) the constituents of wastewaters, including
toxic pollutants. EPA then identified the constituents of
wastewaters which should be considered for effluent limitations
and standards.
Next, EPA identified several distinct control and treatment
technologies, including both in-plant and end-of-process
technologies, which are in use or capable of being used in the
steel industry. The Agency compiled and analyzed historical data
and newly generated effluent quality data resulting from the
application of these technologies. Long term performance,
operational limitations, and reliability of each treatment and
control technologies were also identified where possible. In
addition, EPA considered the nonwater quality environmental
impacts of these technologies, including impacts on air quality,
solid waste generation, water consumption, and energy
requirements.
The Agency then developed the costs of each control and treatment
technology by using standard engineering cost analyses as applied
to steel industry wastewater characteristics. EPA then derived
unit process costs from model plant characteristics (production
and flow) applied to each treatment process unit (i.e., primary
coagulation-sedimentation, activated sludge, multi-media
filtration). These unit process costs were added to yield total
cost at each treatment level. After confirming the
reasonableness of this methodology by comparing EPA cost
estimates to treatment system costs supplied by the industry and
other data, the Agency evaluated the economic impacts of these
costs. (Costs are discussed in detail in each subcategory report
41
-------
and the economic impact on the industry is reviewed in tl._
economic impact analysis done for this study;)
Upon consideration of these factors, as more fully described
below, EPA identified various control and treatment technologies
as models for the BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS limitations
and standards. The proposed regulation, however, does not
require the installation of any particular technology. Ratl._r,
it requires the achievement of effluent limitations
representative of the proper operation of these technologies,
equivalent technologies, or operating practices.
The effluent limitations and standards for BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES,
PSNS and .NSPS are expressed as mass limitation (lbs/1000 Ibs of
product) and were calculated by multiplying three figures: (1)
effluent concentrations determined from analysis of control
technology performance data, (2) wastewater flow for _ach
subcategory, and (3) an appropriate conversion factor. PA
performed the basic calculation for each limited pollutant for
each subcategory of the industry.
Data and Information Gathering Program
Upon initiating this study, EPA reviewed the data underlying its
previous studies of the steel industry.3 The Agency conduced
that additional data were required to respond to the Third
Circuit's remands and to develop limitations and standards in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Clean Water Act
of 1977.
The Agency sent Data Collection Portfolios (DCPs) to all basic
steelmaking operations and to at least 85% of the steel fOLming
and finishing operations in the United States. The DCPs
requested information concerning production processes, production
capacity and rates, process water usage, wastewater generation
rates, wastewater treatment and disposal methods, treatment
costs, location, age of production and treatment facilities, as
well as general analytical information. The Agency received
responses from 388 steelmaking operations and from 1544 sl.el
forming and finishing operations.
The Agency also sent Detailed Data Collection Portfolios
(D-DCPs), under the authority of Section 308 of the Act, to 50
steelmaking facilities and 128 forming and finishing facilities.
3See EPA 440/l-74-024a; Development Document for Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steel Making
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category,
June 1974; and EPA 440/1-76/048-d; Development Document for Interim
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source
Performance Standards for the Forming, Finishing and Specialty Steel
Segments of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category;
March, 1976.
42
-------
The D-DCPs requested detailed information concerning the cost of
installing pollution control equipment including capital, annual
and retrofit costs. The . D-DCPs also requested long-term
analytical data and data regarding specific production
operations.
The Agency determined the presence and magnitude of the 129
specific toxic pollutants in iron and steel manufacturing
wastewaters in a two-part sampling and analysis program involving
31 steelmaking facilities and 83 forming and finishing
facilities. Table II-3 is a listing of facilities sampled for
this study. Table I1-4 is a summary of the number of sampled
plants and facilities responding to EPA questionnaires.
The primary objective of the field sampling program was to obtain
composite samples of wastewater from which to determine the
concentrations of toxic pollutants. Sampling visits were made
during two or three consecutive days of plant operation, with raw
wastewater samples taken either before treatment or after minimal
preliminary treatment. Treated effluent samples were taken
following application of in-place treatment technologies. EPA
also sampled intake water to determine the presence of toxic
pollutants prior to contamination by steelmaking processes.
This first phase of the sampling program detected and quantified
wastewater constituents included on the list of 129 toxic
pollutants. Wherever possible, each sample of an individual raw
wastewater stream, a combined waste stream, or a treated effluent
was collected by an automatic, time series compositor over three
24-hour sampling periods. Where automatic compositing was not
possible, grab samples were taken and composited manually. The
purpose of the second phase of the sampling program was to
confirm the presence and further quantify the concentrations and
waste loadings of the toxic pollutants found during the first
phase of the program.
EPA used the analytical techniques described in Sampling and
Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants, revised April, 1977. Significant quantities
of organic priority pollutants were found in wastewaters from
Cokemaking and Cold Rolling.
Metals analysis was performed by AA spectrophotometry. However,
the standard cold vapor method was used for mercury. This 304(h)
method was modified in order to avoid excessive matrix
interference that caused high limits of detection.
Analyses for total cyanide and cyanide amenable to chlorination
were also performed using 304(h) methods.
Analysis for asbestos fibers used transmission electron
microscopy with selected area difraction; results were reported
as chrysotile fiber count.
43
-------
Analyses for conventional pollutants (BODS^, TSS, pH, and oil and
grease) and nonconventional pollutants (total residual chlorine,
iron, ammonia, fluoride, and COD) were performed using 304(h)
methods.
Industry Subcateqorization
The Agency has adopted a revised subcategorization of the steel
industry to more accurately reflect production operations in the
industry and to simplify the implementation of the regulation.
The modified subcategorization is displayed in Table II-5. Table
I1-6 cross references the modified categorization with subparts
of the previous regulations. Additions and deletions to the
subcategories and their subdivisions are described below.
1 . Blast Furnace-Ferromanganese
The Agency has concluded that its original subcategorization
of blast furnace operations into ironmaking and
ferromanganese furnaces is not required beyond the BPT
level. BPT limitations for ferromanganese furnaces ai_
different from those for ironmaking blast furnaces and at_
being reproposed. Since there are no ferromanganese blast
furnaces in operation and most ferroalloy production is by
"submerged" electric furnaces, the Agency has concluded that
BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and standards for
ferromanganese blast furnaces are not necessary. Should any
ironmaking blast furnaces convert to ferromanganeL-
production, those limitations should be developed on a
case-by-case basis employing "best professional judgment"
and the respective technologies contained herein.
2. BOF-WET
Based upon its review of EOF air cleaning systems pursuant
to the Court's remand, the Agency concluded that the BOF wet
air cleaning subidivison should be further divided into
"open combustion" and "suppressed combustion" due to
differences in applied and discharge flow rates.
3. Open Hearth
A semi-wet segment was added to reflect the use of semi-wet
air pollution systems in the open hearth category.
4. Hot Forming-Primary
Based upon a review of specialty hot forming operations and
the respective applied flow rates, the specialty segment was
divided into operations with scarfing and those without
scarfing.
44
-------
5. Hot Forming - Section
The Agency further divided this operation into carbon and
specialty operations to take into account their different
applied flow rates.
6. Sulfuric Acid Pickling
Based on its review of the data base for this subcategory,
the Agency has added a batch neutralization segment.
Several examples of batch neutralization sulfuric acid
pickling plants were found.
7. Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
The Agency further divided this operation into batch and
continuous operations to take into account different applied
flow rates.
8. Combination Acid Pickling
The original subcategorization of this process provided for
different limitations for batch-pipe and tube and
batch-other lines. Based on the additional data, the Agency
has concluded that only one set of limitations is
appropriate for all batch operations.
9. Cold Forming
Cold worked pipe and tube operations have been separated
from the hot worked pipe and tube operations in this
proposed regulation. In addition, the cold worked pipe and
tube segment has been divided into operations that use water
and those that use oil solutions.
10. Alkaline Cleaning
No changes were made to this subcategory.
11. Hot Coatings
Two changes have been made to the hot coating subcategory.
First, the galvanizing segment has been modified to take
into account differences in applied flows between strip,
sheet and miscellaneous product operations, and those
operations that produce wire products and fasteners. Also,
an additional segment (Other Metal Coatings) has been added
to cover hot coating operations other than galvanizing and
terne coating.
As noted later in the development document, the prior BPT limitations
were modified only where they could not be supported. The revised
subcategorization is applicable to each group of effluent limitations
and standards proposed herein (BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS).
45
-------
Regulated Pollutants
The basis upon which EPA selected the pollutants to be specifically
limited, as well as the general nature and environmental effects of
these pollutants is set out in Section V.
A. BPT
The pollutants limited by this proposed regulation include, for
the most part, the same pollutants limited by the remanded "PT
regulations. Some pollutants have been deleted from the list of
limited pollutants (e.g., chromium for hydride scale removal
operations) because the sampling conducted subsequent to the
promulgation of the prior regulations showed that only very low
levels of these pollutants existed in the process wastewal,rs.
In no subcategories were additional pollutants proposed for
limitation at BPT. The discharge of BPT pollutants is controlled
by maximum monthly average and maximum daily mass effli .it
limitations in kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of
product, which are calculated by multiplying demonstrated
effluent concentrations, model flows for each subcategory, and
appropriate conversion factors.
B. BCT
The pollutants controlled by this regulation include conventional
pollutants, TSS, oil and grease, and pH. BCT limitations ai_
being proposed in all twelve steel industry subcategories. Wl._j.e
the BCT technologies failed to control conventional pollutants at
less cost than could be accomplished in POTWs, the proposed BCT
limitations are set at the BPT level.
C. BAT and NSPS
1. Nontoxic, Nonconventional Pollutants
The nontoxic, nonconventional pollutants limited by BAT and
NSPS include ammonia-n and fluoride. These pollutants at_
subject to numerical limitations expressed in kilograms i__r
1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of product.
2. Toxic Pollutants
Forty-eight toxic pollutants were found at concentrations
above treatability levels in steel industry wastewaters.
(Section V contains a list of these pollutants.) Most of
the toxic pollutants (29) are found in the cokemaking
subcategory. The Agency is proposing effluent limitations
for the following toxic pollutants: total cyanide, benzene,
naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
2-nitrophenol, anthracene, tetrachloro- ethylene, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. These pollutants
are subject to numerical limitations expressed in kilograms
per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of product. The remaining
toxic pollutants found in steel industry wastewaters, which
46
-------
are not specifically limited, will be controlled by
limitations established for "indicator" pollutants discussed
below.
3. Indicator Pollutants
The cost of analyses for the many toxic pollutants found in
steel industry wastewaters has prompted EPA to propose an
alternative method of regulating certain toxic pollutants.
Instead of proposing specific effluent limitations for each
of the forty-eight toxic pollutants found in steel industry
waste- waters at significant levels, the Agency is proposing
effluent limitations for certain "indicator" pollutants.
These include chromium, lead, zinc, phenol and certain other
toxic organic pollutants. The data available to EPA
generally show that the control of those "indicator"
pollutants will result in comparable control of toxic
pollutants not specifically limited. By establishing
specific limitations for only the "indicator" pollutants,
the Agency has reduced the high cost and delays of
monitoring and analyses that would result from
for each toxic pollutant. Industry will be
spend $8.9 million annually for monitoring the
pollutants compared to $17.1 million which would
if it were to monitor for all toxic pollutants in its
wastewaters. The pollutants found and those that have been
specifically limited at the BAT and NSPS levels of treatment
are listed in Section V. The bases for selection of
"indicator" pollutants is presented in Section X of each
subcategory report.
limitations
required to
"indicator"
be required
D. PSES and PSNS
The pollutants for which PSES
identical to those limited at
the conventional pollutants.
certain toxic pollutants, and
and PSNS have been proposed are
BAT and NSPS, with the exception of
Limitations are being proposed for
other "indicator" pollutants to
insure against POTW upsets, to prevent accumulation of toxic
pollutants in POTW sludges, and to guard against pass-through of
certain toxic pollutants. The PSES and PSNS are expressed as
maximum monthly average and maximum daily mass limitations in
kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of product.
<">"itrol and Treatment Technology
A. Status of In-Place Technology
There are many different treatment technologies currently
employed in the steel industry. Generally, primary wastewater
treatment systems rely upon physical/chemical methods including
neutralization, sedimentation, flocculation and filtration.
Treatment for toxic pollutants includes advanced technologies
such as biological oxidation, carbon adsorption, ion exchange,
ultrafiltration, multiple-effect evaporation, reverse osmosis,
and more sophisticated chemical techniques.
47
-------
Within the cokemaking subcategory, treatment systems .must include
a component to remove organic wastes. Organic removal steps
include biological methods such as bio-oxidation lagoons and
activated sludge plants and physical/chemical methods such as
ammonia stills, dephenolizers and activated carbon systems.
Sedimentation and filtration techniques are employed as well in
this subcategory.
Treatment facilities at plants in the ironmaking and steelmaking
subcategories rely heavily upon sedimentation and flocculation
techniques followed by recycle of treated wastewaters.
Wastewaters from nearly all hot forming operations are treated in
scale pits followed by lagoons, clarifiers, filters, or
combinations thereof with recycle of treated or partially treated
wastewaters. Coagulants such as lime, alum, and ferric sulfate
are normally used in conjunction with clarifiers. Filters are
usually of the multi-media pressure type.
Cold finishing treatment techniques include equalization prior to
further treatment, neutralization with lime, caustic or ~rid,
flocculation with polymer and sedimentation. Central or combir._d
treatment practices are employed widely with these operations.
The use of recycle is a common practice throughout the stc_l
industry. Recycle of treated process wastewater can be
effectively used as a means of significantly reducing discharge
loadings to receiving streams. Systems employing a high rat_ of
recycle are demonstrated in several subcategories. Recycl- may
be applied to specific sources such as barometric condensers
(coke) or fume scrubbers (pickling) or to the total effluent of a
treatment facility.
B. Advanced Technologies Considered
The Agency has considered advanced treatment systems to control
the level of toxic and conventional pollutants at the BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS levels of treatment. Some of these incluc_
in-plant control, however, most involve the installation of
additional treatment components.
In-plant control has been demonstrated in several subcategori_s
and as a result these are being incorporated into the treati.._nt
models at the BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels. Cascade
rinsing is a means to reduce wastewater volumes. This technology
significantly reduces the volume of wastewaters requiring
treatment.
Other in-plant control measures have been considered such ~s
reduction of wastewater generation by process water reduction and
recycle and process modifications. These control measures ai_
highly subcategory specific and are discussed in detail in tl._
respective subcategory reports.
Add-on technology to BPT level technology is also the basis for
the BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels of treatment. Some of
48
-------
these control measures for toxic pollutants include 2-stage or
extended biological treatment (cokemaking); granular activated
carbon; powdered carbon addition; pressure filtration; pressure
filtration accompanied with sulfide addition; and, multi-stage
evaporation/condensation systems. Details on these advanced
systems are presented in Section VI.
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates
Additional expenditures will be required by the steel industry to
achieve compliance with the proposed limitations. A short discussion
of the in-place and required capital costs and annual costs are
pt_j,-.ited below for each level of treatment, based upon the size and
status of the industry as of January 1, 1978. All costs are presented
in July 1, 1978 dollars.
A. BPT
EPA estimates that as of January 1, 1978, the steel industry had
expended about $1.5 billion towards compliance with BPT
limitations out of a total required cost of $2.3 billion.
Industry will incur annualized costs (including interest,
depreciation, operating and maintenance) of about $300 million
when BPT has been fully implemented.
Compliance with the proposed BPT effluent limitations will result
in the removal of about 45,000 tons per year of toxic organic
pollutants, 137,000 tons per year of toxic inorganic pollutants
and 14,500,000 tons per year of other pollutants from raw
wastewaters. EPA believes that these effluent reduction benefits
justify the associated costs, and other environmental impacts
which are minor in relation to these benefits.
BAT and BCT
EPA estimates that as of January 1, 1978, compliance with the
proposed BAT and BCT limitations may require the steel industry
to invest about $600 million in addition to the proposed BPT
investment and the money already spent on BAT systems. The
annualized costs for the steel industry, in addition to the
proposed BPT costs, may equal a total of about $150 million
(representing about a 0.4 percent increase in steel prices).
Compliance with the proposed BAT and BCT effluent limitations
will result in the removal of about 1900 tons per year of toxic
organic pollutants, 2500 tons per year of toxic inorganic
pollutants and 130,000 tons per year of other pollutants. The
Agency believes that the costs of compliance with the proposed
BAT and BCT limitations and other environmental impacts are
reasonable and acceptable in light of the effluent reduction
benefits obtained.
49
-------
Basis for Effluent Limitations and Standards .
As noted briefly above, the effluent limitations and standards for
BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS are expressed as mass limitations
in kilograms per 1000 kilograms (lbs/1000 Ibs) of product. The mass
limitation is derived by multiplying an effluent concentration
(determined from the analysis of treatment component performance) by a
model flow appropriate for each subcategory on a gallons/ton basis.
Conversion factors are applied to yield the appropriate kg/kkg
(lbs/1000 Ibs) value for each limited pollutant. The limitations
neither require the installation of any specific control technology
nor the attainment of any specific flow rate or effli.it
concentration. Various treatment alternatives or water conservation
practices can be employed to achieve a particular effluent limitation.
The model treatment systems presented in the development docun._.it
provide one means to achieve the proposed limitations. In many cases,
other technologies or operating practices are available to achieve the
proposed limitations and standards.
Since the limitations are expressed in terms of mass (kg/kkg or
lbs/1000 Ibs), NPDES permits should be based on mass limitations. In
order to convert the effluent limitations from kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs)
to a load allocation, a tonnage value of either kkg/day or 1000
Ibs/day is used. The tonnage values previously used for NPr^S
permitting have been the highest tonnage produced per month in the
last five years, converted to a daily value.
Suggested Monitoring Program
The suggested long term monitoring and analysis program includes
continuous flow monitoring, grab sampling for pH and oil and grea: (3
grabs/day, once/week) and the collection of 24-hour composite samples
once per week for all other pollutants. The composite samples would
be analyzed for those pollutants regulated at the BPT, BAT and _A
treatment levels for each contributing subcategory. Due to the high
cost of organic analysis ($750-$!000 per sample), monthly monitoring
of limited organics in the cokemaking and cold forming subcategories
is suggested.
More intensive monitoring is suggested for the period of time
necesssary to determine initial compliance with the proposed
limitations. Accordingly, as of July 1, 1984, (the compliance dal~
for BAT and BCT), monitoring and analysis should be carried out on a
schedule of five daily composites per week (once per week for GC/MS
pollutants). When the appropriate regulatory authority determii._s
that compliance has been demonstrated, monitoring can then L_
decreased to the frequencies indicated in the long . term program
discussed above.
Although total suspended solids and pH analysis are regulated for each
subcategory, the total number of monitored pollutants ranges from
three (alkaline cleaning) to ten (cold rolling - recirculation and
direct application). The type of analysis influences the overall cost
with organic analysis being the most expensive, and pH and the metals
analyses being the least expensive. , ..,».;
50
-------
Updated cost estimates were developed using three alternative
contractural arrangements (in-house laboratory, contract laboratory,
and C.W. Rice Laboratory), to obtain an estimate of the range of
onitoring costs and to demonstrate that the monitoring program is
feasible with the resources available to the industry.
Th_ subcategories with the largest annual monitoring expenses are the
coK_.naking ($17,000-$19,900) and cold forming - recirculation and
direct application ($18,600-$21,800) segments. The need for the GC/MS
organic analyses accounts largely for the high cost. The lowest
annual monitoring costs occurs in the alkaline cleaning subcategory
($2,794-$3,369). Annual monitoring costs for the remaining
subcategories are between $4,000-$7,000.
me total annual monitoring cost to the industry is estimated to be
approximately $6.0 to $8.9 million. However, actual expenses are
likely to be less due to the preponderance of central treatment
facilities in this industry, this substantially reduces the number of
monitoring points compared to that required with completely separate
ti_atment. Total BPT/BAT annual operating costs are estimated to be
$450 million. The monitoring cost is roughly 1.3% to 2.0% of the
annual costs of pollution control. The Agency considers these costs
reasonable in light of the size and complexity of this industry.
ronomic Impact on the Industry
The economic impact of the proposed regulation on the steel industry
is fully described in Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Guidelines - Integrated Iron and Steel ""industry.
anergy and Nonwater Quality Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one "form of pollution may aggravate
other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and 306 of
the Act require EPA to consider the nonwater quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements) of certain regulations. In
compliance with these provisions, EPA has considered the effect of
this regulation on air pollution, solid waste generation, water
scarcity, and energy consumption. There is no precise methodology for
balancing pollution impacts against each other and against energy use.
In proposing this regulation, EPA believes it is best serving often
comt-_iing national goals with respect to environmental concerns and
energy consumption.
xr._ nonwater quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) associated with the proposed regulation are described in
general below and more specifically in the respective subcategory
t_ports.
A. Air Pollution
Compliance with the proposed BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
limitations and standards will not create any substantial air
pollution problems. However, in several subcategories, slight
air impacts may be expected. First, minimal amounts of volatile
51
-------
organic compounds may be released to the atmosphere by aeration
in biological treatment in the cokemaking subcategory. Secondly,
minor air emissions may result in the ironmaking subcategory wl._n
wastewaters are used to quench the hot slag generated in tl._
process. And finally, water vapor containing some particulate
matter will be released from the cooling tower systems used in
several of the subcategories. None of these impacts are
considered significant.
B. Solid Waste
EPA estimates that 37.3 million tons per year of solid waste (at
30% solids) will be generated by the industry when full
compliance with BPT, BAT, BCT, and PSES is achived. Of this
amount, nearly all (37.0 million tons) is generated in the BPT
systems. This solid waste is comprised almost entirely of
treatment plant sludges. Much larger quantities of other solid
wastes are generated in the steel industry such as electric
furnace dust and blast furnace slag; however, these and other
solid wastes are not generated as a result of the water pollution
control regulation being proposed. Process solid wastes (i._.,
slag) are not included in this impact analysis.
The data gathered for this study demonstrate that most sludc,_s
are presently collected in the installed treatment systems. As a
result, the industry is currently incurring disposal costs and
finding necessary disposal sites. (It is unknown at this time
how many of these disposal sites are secure, well maintained
operations.) Also, the costs for disposal of these sludges are
included in the Agency's present cost estimate. For th_^_
reasons, the incremental solid waste impacts associated with the
proposed regulation are expected to be minimal.
C. Consumptive Water Loss
The question of water consumption in the steel industry as a
result of the installation of wastewater treatment systems is ~
remand issue of the proposed 1974 and 1976 regulations dealt with
in Section III. In summary, the Agency concludes the wat_r
consumed as a result of compliance with the proposed limitations
is justified on both a national level and on a "water-scarce"
regional level when compared to the effluent reduction benefits.
D. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the compliance with the proposed effluent
limitations will result in the following consumption of
electrical energy at the BPT and BAT/BCT levels of treatment:
52
-------
Treatment Level Net Energy Consumption (kw-hr)
BPT 1.20 billion
BAT/BCT/PSES 0.87 billion
Total 2.07 billion
mis represents 3.6% of the total 57 billion kw-hrs of electrical
_.iergy consumed by the steel industry in 1978, or about 0.6% of
the total energy consumed by the industry.
53
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION AND
APPLICABLE REGULATION LISTING
IRON & STEEL MANUFACTURING
SIC Code Name/Product Item
3312 Blast Furnaces
3312.01 Armor plate, rolled
3312.02 Axles, rolled
3312.03 Bars, iron rolled
3312.04 Bars, steel rolled
3312.05 Beehive coke products
3312.06 Billets, steel
3312.07 Blackplate
3312.08 Blast furnace prod.
3312.09 Blooms
3312.10 Car wheels, rolled
3312.11 Chem. rec. coke
3312.12 Coal Gas - coke
3312.13 Coal tar crudes
3312.14 Coke, beehive
3312.15 Chem. coke products
3312.16 Cold strip steel
3312.17 Distillates
3312.18 Fence posts, rolled
3312.19 Ferroalloys, BF (FeMn only)
3312.20 Flats, rolled
3312.21 Forgings
3312.22 Frogs
3312.23 Galvanized products
3312.24 Gun forgings
3312.25 Hoops, hot gal., rolled
3312.26 Hoops, hot rolled
3312.27 Hot rolled, iron & steel
3312.28 Ingots, steel
3312.29 Iron, pig
3312.30 Iron sinter
3312.31 Nut rods, rolled
3322.32 Pipe
3312.33 Plates, rolled
3312.34 Rail joints etc., rolled
3312.35 Railroad crossings
54
-------
TABLE II-1
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION AND
'"PLICABLE REGULATION LISTING
IRON & STEEL MANUFACTURING
PAGE 2
SIC
3312
3312.36
3312.37
3312.38
3312.39
3312.40
3312.41
3312.42
3312.43
3312.44
3312.45
3312.46
3312.47
3312.48
3312.49
3312.50
3312.51
3312.52
3312.53
3312.54
3312.55
3312.56
3312.57
3312.58
3312.59
3312.60
3312.61
3312.62
3312.63
3312.64
3312.65
3312.66
3313
3313.01
3313.02
3313.03
3313.04
3313.05
3313.06
3313.07
Code Name/Product Item
Blast Furnaces
Rails, iron and steel
Rails, rerolled or renewed
Rods, rolled
Rounds, tube
Sheet pilings, rolled
Sheets, rolled
Shell slugs, rolled
Skelp
Slabs, steel
Spiegeleisen
Spike rods, rolled
Sponge iron
Stainless steel
Steel works
Strips, galvanized
Strips, iron & steel
Structural shapes
Tar
Terneplate
Ternes
Tie plates
Tin free steel
Tin plate
Tool steel
Tube rounds
Tubes, iron & steel
Tubing, seamless
Well casings
Wheels
Wire products
Wrought pipe, tubing
Electrometallurgical Products
Additive alloys not BF
Electromet. ex. Al, Mg & Cu
Ferroalloys not in BF
Ferrochromium
Ferromanganese
Ferromolybdenum
Ferrophosphorus
55
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION AND
APPLICABLE REGULATION LISTING
IRON & STEEL MANUFACTURING
PAGE 3
SIC Code Name/Product Item
3313 . Electrometallurgical Products
3313.08 Ferrosilicon not in BF
3313.09 Ferrotitanium
3313.10 Ferrotungsten
3313.11 Ferrovanadium
3313.12 High & ferroalloys not BF
3313.13 Manganese metal not BF
3313.14 Molybdenum silicon
3313.15 Nonferrous alloys
3313.16 Steel, electromet.
3315 Steel Wire Drawing & Steel Nails & Spikes
3315.01 Brads, steel
3315.02 Cable, steel
3315.03 Horseshoe nails
3315.04 Spikes, steel
3315.05 Staples, steel
3315.06 Tacks, steel
3315.07 Wire, ferrous
3315.08 Wire products, ferrous
3315.09 Wire, steel
3316 Cold Rolled Steel Sheet, Strip, and Bars
3316.01 Cold finished bars
3316.02 Cold rolled strip
3316.03 Corrugating CR
3316.04 Flat bright CR
3316.05 Razor blade strip CR
3316.06 Sheet steel CR
3316.07 Wire, flat
3317 Steel Pipe and Tubes
3317.01 Boiler tubes
3317.02 Conduit
3317.03 Pipe, seamless
3317.04 Pipe, wrought
3317.05 Tubes, seamless
3317.06 Tubing, mechanical
3317.07 Well casing
3317.08 Wrought pipe & tubes
56
-------
TABLE II-l
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION AND
APPLICABLE REGULATION LISTING
IRON & STEEL MANUFACTURING
PAGE 4
SIC
3479
3479.01
3479.02
3479.03
3479.04
3479.05
3479.06
3479.07
3479.08
3479.09
3479.10
3479.11
3479.12
3479.13
3479.14
3479.15
3479.16
3479.17
3479.18
3479.19
3479.20
3479.21
3479.22
3479.23
Code Name/Product Item
Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services, NEC
Bonderizing
Chasing
Coating steel pipe
Coating (hot dipping)
Coating, plastic
Coating, silicon
Coating, rust prev.
Dipping in plastic
Enameling, porcelain
Engraving jewelry
Etching
Galvanizing
Japanning
Jewelry enameling
Lacquering
Name plates
Painting of metals
Pan glazing
Parkerizing
Retinning
Rust proofing
Sherardizing
Varnishing
57
-------
TABLE II-2
SUBCATEGORY INVENTORY
No. of
Subcategory Plant Sites
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Ironraaking
D. Steelmaking
1. EOF
a. Wet-Open Combustion
b. Wet-Suppressed Combustion
c. Semi-wet
2. Open Hearth
U1
0° a. Wet
b . Semi-wet
3. Electric Arc Furnace
a. Wet
b . Semi-wet
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
59
1
21
55
14
6
10
4
1
8
3
34
50
No. of
Individual
Units11'
64
2
21
164
15(35)
6(15)
10(20)
4(22)
1(7)
9(17)
3(8)
38
59
No. of Units
Direct
Discharging
31
0
16
144
14
5
8
4
1
8
2
35
40
No. of Units
Discharging
to POTWs
21
0
1
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
No. of Units
With Zero
Discharges
(2)
12k ;
2
4
17
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
14
-------
TABLE II-2
SUBCATEGORY INVENTORY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary
2. Section
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip & Sheet
b. Plate
No. of
Plant Sites
81
84
44
16
No. of
Individual
UnitsU'
111
240
55
25
No. of Units
Direct
Discharging
101
203
52
23
No. of Units
Discharging
to POTWs
7
16
3
2
No. of Units
With Zero
Discharges
21<3)
0
0
4. Hot Working Pipe & Tube
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
30
19
6
52
24
8
49
19
7
2.
3.
a. Batch
b. Continuous
Hydrochloric Acid
a. Batch
b. Continuous
Combination Acid
a. Batch
b. Continuous
95
32
7
40
50
19
136
55
7
91
63
66
100
49
6
64
41
64
30
3
1
27
21
2
5:
0
0
I
0
(4)
(4)
(4)
-------
TABLE II-2
SUBCATEGORY INVENTORY
PAGE 3
No. of
Subcategory Plant Sites
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation 46
b. Combination 10
c. Direct Application 23
2. Pipe & Tube
a. Water 20
b. Oil Emulsions 14
K. Alkaline Cleaning
1. Batch 29
2. Continuous - 36
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing 63
2. Terne 5
3. Other Metals 9
TOTAL 1044
No. of
Individual
Units*1'
144
19
67
72
52
51
123
146
6
18
2027
No. of Units
Direct
Discharging
113
19
67
22
0
34
94
100
5
5
1545
No. of Units
Discharging
to POTWs
18
0
0
24
0
17
29
34
1
13
286
No. of Units
With Zero
Discharges
13
0
0
26
52
12
0
0
196
( ) For steelmaking operations, the numbers in parentheses represent the number of furnaces at the specified
number of shops.
(1) Multiple operating units or pollution control facilities within a subcategory may exist at a plant site.
(2) These coke plant operations achieve zero discharge either by disposing of their effluent via quenching
or deep well disposal.
(3) Number includes four dry operations.
(4) Zero discharge achieved in this subcategory in some instances by having wastewater hauled off-site.
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
Sampling
Code
001(1)
002rn
003(1)
+
006
007
008
009VU
+
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
016
017
019
H
Plant
Reference Code
0732A
0464C
0868A
0860H
0584 B
0320
0920 F
0684 F
0402
0432B
0112
0384 A
0272
0428A
0428A
0724A
0112D
0432A
0060F
0432A
Plant
Name
Shenango (Neville Island)
Koppers (Erie)
U.S. S. (Fairfield)
U.S.S. (South Works)
National Steel (Great Lakes)
Ford Motor Co. (Dearborn)
Wheeling-Pit (Follansbee)
Republic STeel (Cleveland)
Ironton Coke (Ironton)
J & L (Pittsburgh)
Bethlehem (Bethlehem)
Inland (East Chicago)
Donne r-Hanna (Buffalo)
Jewell (Vans ant)
Jewell (Vans ant)
Sharon (Carpenter)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Armco (Houston)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Type of
Operation
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
1. EOF
Sampling
Code
I
J
K
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
L
M
N
0
P
Q
031
032
033
034
Plant
Reference Code
0291C
0396A
0112B
0196A
0856N
0860B
0860H
0112C
0112D
0432A
0684 H
0684 F
0112
0291C
0396A
044 8 A
0060F
0112B
0112C
0020B
0384A
0856B
085 6 N
Plant
Name
International Harvester (Chicago)
Interlake (Chicago)
Bethlehem (Buffalo-Lackawanna)
CF&I (Pueblo)
U.S. S. (Lorain)
U.S.S. (Gary Works)
U.S. S. (Chicago-South)
Bethlehem (Johnstown)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Republic (Chicago)
Republic (Cleveland)
Bethlehem (Bethlehem)
International Harvester (Chicago)
Inter lake (Chicago)
Kaiser (Font ana)
Armco (Houston)
Bethlehem (Buff alo-Lackawanna)
Bethlehem (Johnstown)
Allegheny-Ludlum (Brackenridge)
Inland (Indiana Harbor)
U.S.S. (Edgar Thompson)
U.S.S. (Lorain)
Type of
Operation
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
FeMn
W-OC
W-SC
W-OC
W-SC
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 3
CTi
00
Subcategory
2. Open Hearth
3. Electric Arc
Furnace
-
Sampling
Code
035
036
038
D*
R
S
T
U
V
042
OA3
W
Y
051
052
059B
AA
AB
Y
Z
Plant
Reference Code
0868A
0112D
0684 F
0248A
0432A
0060
0112A
0396D
0584 F
04 92 A
0864A
0112A
0060
0612
0492 A
0060F
0060F
0868B
0432C
0584A & B
Plant
Name
U.S. S. (Fairfield)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
Republic (Chicago)
Crucible (Midland)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Armco (Middletown)
Bethlehem (Sparrows Point)
Interlake (Chicago)
National (Weirton)
Lone. Star (Lone Star)
U.S. S. (Provo)
Bethlehem (Sparrows Point)
Armco (Middletown)
Northwestern Steel & Wire
(Sterling)
Lone Star (Lone Star)
Armco (Houston)
Armco (Houston)
U.S. S. (Texas Works, Bay town)
J & L (Cleveland)
National (Ecorse)
Type of
Operation
W-OC
W-OC
W-SC
W-OC
Semi-wet
W-SC
W-OC
Semi-Wet
W-OC
Wet
Semi-wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Semi-wet
Wet
Wet
Semi-wet
Semi-wet
-------
TABUE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 4
Subcategory
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
CTi
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary
Sampling
Code
062
065
068
AC
AD
E
G
071
072
075
079
AE
AF
B*
D*
Q*
081
082
082
083
D*
Plant
Reference Code
0496
0584 F
0684 H
0584 F
0868B
0020B
0856R
0284A
0496
0584F
0060K
0584F
0868B
0900
0248A &
0684 D
0176
0496 (140" only)
0496 (140",206" in
tandem)
0860H
0248B
Plant
Name
Lukens (Coatesville)
National (Weirton)
Republic (Chicago)
National (Weirton)
U.S.S. (Texas Works, Bay town)
Allegheny-Ludlum (Brackenridge)
U.S.S. (Duquesne)
Eastern Stainless (Baltimore)
Lukens (Coatesville)
National (Weirton)
Armco (Marion)
National (Weirton)
U.S.S. (Texas Works, Baytown)
Washington Steel (Washington)
Crucible (Midland)
Republic (Massilon)
Carpenter Technology (Reading)
Lukens (Coatesville)
Lukens (Coatesville)
U.S.S. (South Chicago)
Crucible (Midland)
Type of
Operation
Bloom
Slab/Rough
Plate
Slab/Rough
Plate
Slab/Bloom
Slab
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 5
Sampling
Subcategory Code
E*
H*
K*
M*
Q*
R*
A-2
B-2
C-2 & 088
(Revisited)
D-2
L-2
2. Section 083
087
088
088
C*
H*
K*
M*
0* & 081
(Revisited)
A-2
D-2
Plant
Reference Code
0020B
0248A
0256K
0432J
0684 D
0240A
0112B
0112B
0684 H
0946A
0060
0860H (02 & 03)
0432-02
0684 H-02
0684 H (01,03,05,06,07)
0424 (01-03)
0248A
0256K
0432J
0176 (01-03)
0112B
0946A
Plant
Name
Allegheny-Ludlum (Brackenridge)
Crucible (Midland)
Universal Cyclops (Bridgeville)
J & L (Warren)
Republic (Massillon)
Copperweld (Warren)
Bethlehem (Lackawanna)
Bethlehem (Lackawanna)
Republic (Chicago)
Wisconsin (Chicago)
Annco (Middletown)
U.S.S. (South Chicago)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Republic (Chicago)
Republic (Chicago)
Jess op (Washington)
Crucible (Midland)
Universal Cyclops (Bridgeville)
J & L (Warren)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Bethlehem (Lackawanna)
Wisconsin (Chicago)
Type of
Operation
Slab
Bloom
Slab/Bloom
Slab/Bloom
Bloom
Bloom
Bloom
Slab
Bloom
Bloom
Slab
34" & Rod
Mill
14" Mill
34" Mill
36",32",14",
10",11" Mills
Bar Mills
Merchant
Mill
Bar Mill
Billet
Mill
Bar
Mills
Rail Mill
02, 5, & 6
Mills
-------
TABLE 11-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 6
cr>
Sampling
Subcategory Code
E-2
F-2
G-2
H-2
1-2
3. Flat 082
082
083
086
086
087
D*
E*
F*
0
J-2
K-2
L-2
M-2
N-2
Plant
Reference Code
0196A (09 & 10)
0384A-06
0652A (01 & 02)
0432A-04
08560
0496 (01 & 03)
0496 (02 & 04)
0860H-01
0112D-01
0112D-02
0432A
0248B
0020 B
0856H
0176
0860B-01
0868B
0060
0384 A-02
0396D-02
Plant
Name
CF&I (Pueblo)
Inland (East Chicago)
Penn-Dixie (Joliet)
J & L (Aliquippa)
U.S.S. (Cleveland)
Lukens (Coatesville)
Lukens (Coatesville)
U.S.S. (South Chicago)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
J & L (Aliquippa)
Crucible (Midland)
Allegheny-Ludlum (Brackenridge)
U.S.S. (Homestead)
Carpenter Technology (Reading)
U.S.S. (Gary Works)
U.S.S. (Baytowri)
Armco (Middletown)
Inland (East Chicago)
Inter lake (Riverdale)
Type of
Operation
Bar &
Rod Mills
12" Bar
Mill
10" & 12"
Mills
Rod Mill
Rod Mill
140",112"/120"
140"/206"
112"/120",140"
Mills
30" Plate
Mill
160" Plate
Mill
80 " Hot
Strip
44" Hot
Strip
Hot Strip
Hot Strip
160" Plate
Mill
#4 Hot
Mill
84" Hot
Strip
160" Plate
Mill
Hot Strip
& Sheet
80" Hot
Strip
#4 Hot
Strip
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 7
Sampling
Subcategory Code
4. Pipe and Tube 087
088
E-2
GG-2
II-2
33-2
KK-2
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene 131
132
138
C*
L*
2. Hydride 132
139
L*
Q*
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid 092
094
095
096
097
Plant
Reference Code
0432A-01
0684 H
0196A-01
0240 B-05
091 6A
0728
0256G
0424
0176-04
0440A
0424
0440A
0176 (01-03)
0256N
0440A
0684 D
088A
0948C
0584 E
01121
0760
Plant
Name
J & L (Aliquippa)
Republic (Chicago)
CF&I (Pueblo)
Ohio Steel & Tube (Shelby)
Wheat land (Wheat land)
Sharon (Sharon)
Cyclops (Sawhill)
Jessop (Washington, Pennsylvania)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Joslyn (Fort Wayne)
Jessop (Washington, Pennsylvania)
Joslyn (Fort Wayne)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Universal Cyclops (Titusville)
Joslyn (Fort Wayne)
Republic (Massillon)
B&W (Beaver Falls)
YS&T (Indiana Harbor)
National (Midwest)
Bethlehem (Lebanon)
Stanley (New Britain)
Type of
Operation
Butt Weld
Seamless
Seamless
Seamless
Butt Weld
Butt Weld
Butt Weld
Plate
Rod,
Wire
Bar, Rod
Plate
Bar, Rod
Bar, Rod
Strip,Wire
Bar,Billet
Bar, Rod
Strip
B
C-N
C
B-N
C-AU
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 8
Oi
00
Sampling
Subcategory Code
098
R*
H-2
1-2
0-2
P-2
Q-2
R-2
S-2
T-2
QQ-2
SS-2
TT-2
WW-2
2. Hydrochloric Acid 091
093
095
099
100
1-2
U-2
V-2
W-2
X-2
Y-2
Z-2
AA-2
BB-2
Plant
Reference Code
0684 P
0240A
04 32 A
085 6 P
0590
0312
0894
0240B
0256G
0792B
0584 E
0112A
085 6 D
0868A
0612
0396D
0584 F
0528B
0384 A
0856P
04 80 A
0936
-
0060B
-
0396D
0384A
0060
Plant
Name
Republic (Massillon)
Copperweld (Warren)
J & L (Aliquippa)
U.S. S. (Cleveland)
Nelson Steel (Chicago)
Fitzsimons (Youngstovn)
Walker Steel & Wire (Ferndale)
Ohio Sheet & Tube (Shelby)
Cyclopa-Sawhill (Sharon)
Thompson Steel (Chicago)
National (Midwest)
Bethlehem (Sparrows Pt.)
U.S. S. (Irwin)
U.S. S. (Fairfield)
Northwestern S&W (Sterling)
Interlake (Riverdale)
National (Weirton)
McLouth (Gibralter)
Inland (East Chicago)
U.S. S. (Cuyahoga)
LaSalle (Hammond)
Wire Sales, Inc. (Chicago)
Dominion (Hamilton)
Annco (Ashland)
Steel Co. of Canada (Hamilton)
Interlake (Riverdale)
Inland (East Chicago)
Armco (Middletown)
Type of
Operation
B
B-N
B-N, C-N
B
B-AU
B-AU
B-AU
B-N
B-N
C-AU
C-N
C-N
C-N
C-N
C-N
C-N
C-AR
C-AR
C-N
C-N
B-N
B-N
C-AR
C-AR
C-AR
C-N
C-N
C-N
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 9
cn
Sampling
Subcategory Code
3. Combination Acid 121
122
123
124
125
A*
C*
D* '
F*
I*
L*
0*
U*
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling 101 A & B
102
103
104
105
105
106
107
107
D*
I*
P*
X-2
BB
DD-2
EE-2
FF-2
W-2
XX- 2
YY-2
Plant
Reference Code
0900
0176
0088A
0088D
0674 E
0900
0424
0248A & B
085 6 H
0432K
0440A
0176
00600
0020 B & C
0384A
0856F
0248B
0584 F
0584 F
0112B
0176
0176
0248B
0432K
0156B
0060B
0060
0584 E
0112D
0384A
0584 F
06841
0432D
Plant
Name
Washington Steel (Washington)
Carpenter Technology
Babcock & Wilcox (Beaver Falls)
Babcock & Wilcox (Koppel)
Plymouth Tube (Dunkirk)
Washington Steel (Washington)
Jessop (Washington, Pennsylvania)
Crucible (Midland)
U.S.S. (Homestead)
J & L (Louisville)
Joslyn (Fort Wayne)
Carpenter Technology
Tube Associates (Houston)
Allegheny-Ludlura (W. Lerchburg)
Inland (East Chicago)
U.S.S. (Fairless)
Crucible (Midland)
National (Weirton)
National (Weirton)
Bethlehem (Lackawanna)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Crucible (Midland)
J & L (Louisville)
Cabot Steel (Kokomo)
Armco (Ashland)
Armco (Middleton)
National (Midwest)
Bethlehem (Burns Harbor)
Inland (East Chicago)
National (Weirton)
Republic (Gadsden)
J & L (Hennepin)
Type of
Operation
C-N
B-N
B-N
B-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
C-N
B-N
Recirc.
Recirc.
Combination
Recirc.
Direct Appl.
Recirc.
Direct Appl.
Recirc.
Direct Appl.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Recirc.
Combination
Recirc,
Recirc.
Direct Appl.
Recirc.
Combination
-------
TABLE II-3
PLANTS SAMPLED DURING IRON AND STEEL STUDY
PAGE 10
-J
O
Subcategory
2. Pipe and Tube
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing
2. Terne
3. Other
Sampling
Code
HH-2
152
156
157
I*
Plant
Reference Code
04 92 A
0176
01121
0432K
0432K
Plant
Name
111
112
114
116
118
119
1-2
V-2
MM-2
NN-2
113
00-2
PP-2
116
0612
0396D
094 8C
01121
0920E
0476A
08560
0936
0856F
0920E
0856D
0060R
0856D
01121
Lone Star Steel (Lone Star)
Carpenter Technology
(Reading)
Bethlehem (Lebanon)
J ft L (Louisville)
J & L (Louisville)
Northwestern Steel (Sterling)
Inter lake (Riverdale)
YS&T (East Chicago)
Bethlehem (Lebanon)
Wheeling-Pitt (Martins Ferry)
Laclede (Alton)
U.S. S. (Cleveland)
Wire Sales (Chicago)
U.S.S. (Fairless)
Wheeling-Pitt (Martins Ferry)
U.S.S. (Irwin)
Armco (Middletown)
U.S.S. (Irwin)
Bethlehem (Lebanon)
Type of
Operation
Water
Continuous
Batch
& Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
Aluminum
(1) Data exists Cor more than one visit.
+ ! Data not included in the subcategory report.
*: Sampled by Datagraphics .
Key to Abbreviations;
W-OC: "Wet-Open Combustion" type air pollution control system.
W-SC: "Wet-Suppressed Combustion" type air pollution control system
B: Batch
C: Continuous
AU: Acid Recovery
AR: Acid Regeneration
-------
TABLE II-4
INDUSTRY-WIDE DATA BASE
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
No. of
Operations
Number Sampled for Original Guidelines Study 133
Number Sampled for Toxic Pollutant Study 114
Total Number Sampled (Not including re-visits) 206
Number Responding to the D-DCP's 174 incl.
44 above
Total Number Sampled or Surveyed via D-DCP's 336
Number Responding to the DCP's 2027
71
-------
TABLE II-5
REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
A. Cokemaking
1. Byproduct
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
1. EOF
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet - Open Combustion
c. Wet - Suppressed Combustion
2. Open Hearth
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet
3. Electric Arc Furnace
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. Carbon and Specialty w/o scarfing
b. Carbon and Specialty w/scarfing
2. Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
72
-------
TABLE II-5
REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 2
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip and Sheet (Carbon and Specialty)
b. Plate - Carbon
c. Plate - Specialty
4. Pipe and Tube
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
a. Acid Recovery - Batch
b. Acid Recovery - Continuous
c. Neutralization - Batch
d. Neutralization - Continuous
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Acid Regeneration
b. Neutralization - Batch
c. Neutralization - Continuous
3. Combination Acid Pickling
a. Batch
b. Continuous
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
2. Pipe and Tube
a. Water
b. Oil Emulsion
K. Alkaline Cleaning
73
-------
TABLE II-5
REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 3
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing
a. Strip, Sheet, and Miscellaneous Products without scrubbers
b. Strip, Sheet, and Miscellaneous Products with scrubbers
c. Wire Products and Fasteners without scrubbers
d. Wire Products and Fasteners with scurbbers
2. Terne
a. Without scrubbers
b. With scrubbers
3. Other Coatings
a. Strip, Sheet, and Miscellaneous Products without scrubbers
b. Strip, Sheet, and Miscellaneous Products with scrubbers
c. Wire Products and Fasteners without scrubbers
d. Wire Products and Fasteners with scrubbers
74
-------
TABLE II-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORIZATION TO PRIOR SUBCATEGORIZATION
Bvised Subcategorization
(1980 Regulations)
B.> Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
Blast Furnace
Steelmaking
1. BOF
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet - Open Combustion
c. Wet - Suppressed Combustion
2. Open Hearth
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet
3. EAF
a. Serai-wet
b. Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
1. Primary
a. Carbon and Specialty wo/scarfers
b. Carbon and Specialty w/scarfers
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulations)
A. By-Product Coke
B. Beehive Coke
C. Sintering
D. Blast Furnace - Iron
E. Blast Furnace - FeMn
F. BOF - Semi-wet
G. BOF - Wet
Remarks
H. Open Hearth - Wet
I. EAF - Semi-wet
J. EAF - Wet
K. Vacuum Degassing
L. Continuous Casting
M. Hot Forming - Primary
1. Carbon wo/scarfers
,. 2. Carbon w/scarfers
3. Specialty
(New Segment)
(New Segment)
75
-------
TABLE II-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORIZATION TO PRIOR SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 2
Revised Subcategorization
(1980 Regulations)
2. Section
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
3. Flat
a. Hot Strip and Sheet
b. Plate
(1) Carbon
(2) Specialty
4. Pipe and Tube
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
a. Acid Recovery - Batch
b. Acid Recovery - Continuous
c. Neutralization - Batch
d. Neutralization - Continuous
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Acid Regneration
b. Neutralization - Batch
c. Neutralization - Continuous
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulations) Remarks
N. Hot Forming - Section
1. Carbon
2. Specialty
0. Hot Forming - Flat
1. Hot Strip & Sheet
2. Plate
a. Carbon
b. Specialty
P. Hot Forming - Pipe and Tube
1. Isolated
2. Integrated
X. Scale Removal
a. Kolene
b. Hydride
Q. Pickling - Sulfuric Acid -
Batch and Continuous
a. Batch ' spent liquor,
no rinses
b. Continuous - Neutralization
(liquor)
c. Continuous - Neutralization
(R, FHS)
d. Continuous - Acid Recovery
(new facilities)
R. Pickling - Hydrochloric Acid -
Batch and Continuous
a. Concentrates - nonregenerative
b. Regeneration
c. Rinses
d. Fume hood scrubbers
76
-------
TABLE II-6
CROSS REFERENCE OF REVISED STEEL INDUSTRY
SUBCATEQORIZATION TO PRIOR SUBCATEGORIZATION
PAGE 3
Revised Subcategorization
(1980 Regulations)
3. Combination Acid
a. Batch
b. Continuous
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
2. Pipe and Tube
a. Water
b. Oil emulsion
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing
a. Strip, Sheet, and Miscellaneous
Products
b. Wire Products and Fasteners
2. Terne
3. Other Coatings
a. Strip, Sheet, and Miscellaneous
Products
b. Wire Products and Fasteners
Prior Subcategorization
(1974 and 1976 Regulations)
W. Combination Acid Pickling
(Batch and Continuous)
Subcategory
a. Continuous
b. Batch - Pipe and Tube
c. Batch - other
S. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct Application
Remarks
(New Segment]
(New Segment)
Z. Continuous Alkaline Cleaning
T. Hot Coatings - Galvanizing
a. Galvanizing
b. Fume hood scrubber
U. Hot Coatings - Terne
(New Segment)
(New Segment)
77
-------
AIR
03
CAST STEEL
INTERMEDIATES
FINISHED
CAST STEEL
PRODUCTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
STEEL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
COAL
DISTILLATION
PRODUCTS
Own. 5/8/79
SLAI
FIGURE IL'.-I
-------
BUTT WELD
PIPE
PLATE
PRODUCTS
HOT BAND(SKELP)
HOT ROLLED FLAT
PRODUCT-SHEET, STRIP
SEAMLESS PIPE
SEAMLESS
PIPE PRODUCTS
LARGE
STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS
HOT ROLLED
BAR PRODUCTS
HOT ROLLED BARS
CAST STEEL
INTERMEDIATES
ROD (INTERMEDIATE)
HOT ROLLED
ROD PRODUCTS
EXTRUDED
PRODUCTS
EXTRUSIONS
FORGED STEEL PRODUCTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
HOT FORMING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn.4/25/79
FIGURE H -2
-------
SLABS
HOT
BAND
COILS
oo
o
COLD
ROLLED
PRODUCT
COLD
COATING
(ELECTROLYTIC)
PICKLED 8
OILED
PRODUCT
UNCOATED
COATED
COATED
PRODUCT
COATED
PRODUCT
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
FLAT PRODUCTS GENERAL
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn.7/ S/ 10
FIGURE n-3
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION III
REMAND ISSUES ON PRIOR REGULATIONS
Introduction
After reviewing the 1974 (Phase I) and 1976 (Phase II) regulations for
the steel industry, the Court of Appeals ordered EPA to reconsider
L-/eral matters. This section provides a general summary of EPA's
_/aluation of the "remand issues". The respective subcategory reports
provide the Agency's response to subcategory specific remand issues.
1. Site-Specific Costs
In its challenge to the Phase I regulation, the industry asserted
that EPA's cost estimates did not include allowances for "site-
specific costs." EPA responded that it included all costs which
could be reasonably estimated (the industry had submitted no data
showing the magnitude of "site-specific costs") and that it
believed its estimates were sufficiently generous to cover
site-specific costs. On this basis, the court rejected this
challenge to the regulation. American Iron and Steel Institute
v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1975), modified in part, 560 F.2d
589 (3d Cir. 1977), cert, den. 98 S. Ct 1467 (1978).
In the Phase II proceedings, however, evidence of the possible
magnitude of "site-specific" cost was presented.4 On this basis,
the court ordered EPA to reevaluate its cost estimates in light
of "site-specific costs." In particular, the court ordered EPA
to include these costs, or analyze the generosity of its
estimates by comparing model cost estimates with actual reported
costs, or explain why such an analysis could not be done.
In response the the court's decisions, EPA has reevaluated its
cost estimates for Phase I and Phase II operations. First, the
Agency included in its estimates many "site-specific" costs which
were not included in prior estimates.5 In EPA's view, it has
included all "site-specific costs" that can be reasonably and
accurately estimated without site-specific studies. The
remaining "site-specific" costs not included are so highly
variable and inherently site-specific that reasonably accurate
estimates would require inspection of each operation in the
4This evidence consisted of the plant-by-plant compliance estimates
for facilities located in the Mahoning Valley region of Eastern Ohio.
*rnese newly added cost items include: land acquisition costs, site
clearance costs, utility connections, and some miscellaneous utility
t-^uirements.
81
-------
country, obviously beyond EPA resources and time constraints and
beyond the intent of the Act. It should be noted that studies
commissioned by AISI, itself, also exclude site-specific costs.
For example, in Arthur D. Little's Steel and the Environment - A
Cost Impact Analysis, site-specific costs and land acquisition
costs were excluded "...because detailed site-specific studies
would be required."
Second, EPA has included in its cost estimates allowances for
unforeseen expenses. The model-based cost estimates for each
subcategory include a 15% contingency fee.6
Third, the Agency has based its cost estimates on many
conservative assumptions. For instance, in most subcategories,
EPA's cost estimates are based on individual treatment of each
process waste stream. In fact, however, many plants have
installed and will continue to install less costly "central
treatment" systems to treat combined waste streams.7
Additionally, EPA's model based estimates reflect off-the-shelf
par£s and costs for "outside" engineering and construction
services.8 In fact, however, the industry often uses "in-house"
engineering and construction resources, and improve wastewater
quality by "gerrymandering" existing treatment systems and
upgrading operating and maintenance practices. EPA's cost
estimates reflect treatment in place as of 1976 and treatment to
have been installed by January, 1978. In fact, the industry has
installed or is in the process of installing additional treatr.._nt
systems.
Fourth, EPA has compared its model-based cost estimates to the
costs reported by the industry. This comparison shows that EPA's
estimates are sufficiently generous to reflect all costs,
including "site-specific" costs. Before proceeding to this
analysis, some preparatory comments are in order. Model-based
estimates cannot be expected to precisely reflect the costs
incurred or to be incurred by each individual plant. Variations
of ±50% would not be considered outside normal confidence levels.
For example, in Steel and the Environment - h Cost Impact
Analysis, a study commissioned byNAISI, itself, Arthur D. Little
indicated that its cost estimates were within ± 50% for
individual process steps and ± 85% for individual plants.9
Often, variations from model estimates cannot be explained. ri._
validity of model estimates, therefore, should be judged by the
6This contingency fee also was included in previous cost estimates.
7In the hot forming subcategory, however, EPA's estimates do reflect
cost savings from "central treatment" within the subcategory but not
across subcategories other than hot forming.
8The model estimates includes 15% for engineering services.
*See pages B-64 and B-65 of Steel and the Environment - A Cost Impact
Analysis which AISI submitted to EPA during the Phase II rulemaking.
82
-------
ability to depict actual costs for subcategories of the industry
or for the industry, as a whole.
-?A's comparison of model-based cost estimates and costs reported
by industry involved two complimentary analyses. First, the
Agency compared actual reported treatment costs (including all
site-specific costs) to the model cost estimates for the
treatment components in place at the reporting plant. These
comparisions include all plants providing sufficiently detailed
cost information, regardless of the level of treatment in place.
TO generate valid comparisons, the model cost estimate was scaled
to the actual production of the reporting plant by the
application of the accepted engineering "six-tenths" factor. EPA
scaled production of the model to actual production of the
reporting plant because, in its view, this produces the most
reliable cost comparison. Another possible method of comparison
would be to scale the flow of the model to the actual flow of the
reporting plant. This method of scaling would overstate
treatment costs because those costs are highly dependent on flow
volume (higher flows require larger and more costly treatment
systems) and many plants in the industry use and discharge more
water than necessary. Also, flow data are not available for all
plants while production data are known for most operations and
plants in the industry. This comparative analysis is summarized
L_low for those subcategories where reliable subcategory-specific
reported costs were found:
Treatment In Place v. Model Estimates for Same Treatment
Subpart Reported
(process)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
T
(
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Coatings
Cost
;$xio-*)
63.65
6.43
100.56
37.61
3.39
29.38
4.24
Model
Estimate
($xlO-*)
77.01
8.60
115.01
47.74
6.45
23.00
6.64
Actual as %
of Model
83
75
87
79
51
128
64
Total
245.26
284.45
86.2
mis summary shows that actual reported costs for the industry
(including all site-specific costs) represent about 86% of the
model estimates for the same treatment components. On this
basis, EPA concludes that its model estimates are sufficiently
generous to reflect site-specific costs.
In the second comparison of reported costs and model estimates,
?A compared the reported costs (including all site-specific
costs) of plants meeting BPT (or BAT) to the model estimate for
the BPT (or BAT) treatment system. This methodology, which EPA
presented in its brief in the Phase II proceedings, demonstrates
83
-------
that required effluent levels can be achieved by treatment
systems described by EPA at estimated costs comparable to actual
reported costs. This comparison, also involving scaling of
production by the "six-tenths factor," is summarized below:
SUMMARY
Complying Plant Costs v. Model Compliance Estimates
Subcategory Reported Model Actual as
(process) Cost Estimate of Moc_l
($x!0-«) ($x10-«)
A. Cokemaking 40.71 40.60 100
B. Sintering 5.92 6.35 93
C. Ironmaking 33.16 51.97 64
D. Steelmaking 37.61 47.74 79
E. Vacuum Degassing 2.08 2.48 84
F. Continuous Casting 19.36 18.61 104
Total 138.84 167.75 82.8
Again, this summary shows that total reported costs (including
all site-specific costs) for plants meeting required effluent
levels is only about 83% of model estimates. On this basis, EPA
likewise concludes that its model-based cost estimates ai_
sufficiently generous to reflect site-specific costs.
As noted in the subcategory reports for many of the Phase II
operations, central treatment of wastewaters from finishing
operations is common in the steel industry. The cost data
reported by the industry for these central treatment systems are
often not directly usable for the purpose of verifying th_
Agency's cost estimates for individual subcategory treatn._nt
systems. As noted earlier, the Agency considered co-treatment of
wastewaters at plants within subcateogries, but did not consider
co-treatment or control treatment across subcategories in
developing cost estimates. To determine the impact of tl._
extensive amount of central treatment in the industry on the
Agency's ability to accurately estimate costs, the Agency
compared actual industry control treatment costs with the
Agency's model based cost estimates for the respective
subcategories included in the industry's central treatn._nt
systems. This comparison is shown below.
84
-------
TREATMENT IN PLACE vs MODEL ESTIMATES FOR CENTRAL TREATMENT
PLANT SUBCATEGORIES
0112B Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
0112H Pickling (HC1, Combination)
0432K Pickling, Scale Removal, Alkaline
Cleaning
0796 & Vacuum Degassing, Continuous
0796A Casting, Hot Forming (Primary,
Section, Pipes and Tube),
Pickling (H2S04), Cold Rolling
0868A Cold Rolling, Pickling
(HC1, H2S04), Hot Coating,
Alkaline Cleaning
0868A Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
0176 Hot Forming (Primary and Section),
Cold Rolling (Direct Application),
Cold Worked Pipe and Tube, Pickling
(HC1, H2S04, Combination), Scale
Removal, Alkaline Cleaning
0460A Hot Forming (Primary, Section)
0612 Hot Coating (Galvanizing),
Pickling (HC1)
0728 Hot Forming (Pipe and Tube),
Pickling (H2SO4), Hot Coating
(Galvanizing)
TOTAL
ACTUAL COST
$ 2,578,000
746,000
935,000
16,770,000
4,857,000
303,000
2,775,000
340,000
1 ,645,000
220,000
31 ,169,000
MODEL COST
$ 5,747,000
1,451,000
2,500,000
15,793,000
10,109,000
3,890,000
4,720,000
2,534,000
2,106,000
1 ,192,000
50,042,000
These data clearly indicate that in total, the Agency's estimates
for separate subcategory-specific treatment systems far exceed
those costs reported by the industry for central treatment. Of
particular interest are the data reported for plants 0796-0796A
which are for a control treatment facility that achieves the
proposed BAT limitations -for the operations included in the
central treatment facility. The Agency's estimate is within six
percent of the actual cost reported by the company. This system
includes several miles of retrofitted wastewater collection and
distribution piping not likely to be included in most central
treatment systems. Based upon the above, the Agency concludes
that its separate subcategory-specific cost estimates for the
Phase II operations are sufficiently generous to include those
site specific costs likely to be incurred for most central
treatment facilities, and may be overly generous in depicting
potential costs for steel finishing operations as a whole.
Another approach to judging the sufficiency of the Agency's model
estimates to account for "site-specific" costs involved the
analysis of compliance estimates for several mills located in the
Mahoning Valley of Ohio. These studies, which were completed in
1977, estimated the cost of compliance with the previously
promulgated and proposed Phase I and Phase II requirements for
eight of the oldest plants in the country. Estimated compliance
costs were furnished by the owners of the plants, based on actual
85
-------
site inspections and engineering studies, and were verfied, by
EPA's engineering contractor.
The tables summarizing those studies, which were part of tl._
record of the Phase II rulemaking, are reproduced as Tables III-l
through III-3. Table III-l summarizes the estimated compliant-
costs for Youngstown Sheet and Tube Corporation's Brier Hill,
Campbell, and Struthers Works. Column #1 shows YS&T's estimat-
of BAT compliance costs, totaling $54,106,000, including all
site-specific costs.10 EPA's contractor estimated $51,214,000,
as shown in Column #2. In Columns #3 and #4, EPA's contractor
scaled the flow and production of the BAT cost model to the
actual flow and production of the mills involved, yielding cost
estimates of $53,218,000 and $60,568,000, respectively. By
either method of scaling, EPA's estimate (including all
site-specific costs) is representative of YS&T's estimate. In
fact, the estimate scaled by production (the method now used foi.
all cost estimations) more than accounted for the significant
"site-specific" costs the industry claimed the model could not
reflect.»»
Analyses of estimated compliance costs for facilities owned by
United States Steel Corporation and Republic Steel Corporation
yield similar results. Table III-2 shows that U.S. Steel's
$33,110,000 BAT estimate (including $13,145,000 site costs) for
its McDonald Mills and Ohio Works plants was within 4% of EPA's
model estimate of $34,389,000 (scaled by production). Similarly,
Table III-3 shows that Republic Steel's BPT estimate of
$70,099,000 (including $15,590,000 site costs) for its Warren,
Youngstown, and Niles plants was withing 4% of EPA's model
estimated of $72,640,000 for physical/chemical treatment (scal.Jl
by production) and within 5% of EPA's model estimate of
$73,486,000 for biological treatment (scaled by production).
As a final comparison, EPA has compared its model cost12 estimal
against those prepared by an engineering company for a treatment
system for a blast furnace facility. This company costed tt._
BAT-2 system for blast furnaces and supplied its cost estimal- to
the Agency in its comments to the October 1979 draft development
10Column #5 reflects the judgment of EPA's contractor that YS&T's
$54,106,000 estimate (Column #1) included "site-specific" costs of
$18,176,000.
"Columns #6 and |7 add site-specific costs to model estimates scaled
by flow and production, yielding $71,394,000 and $78,744,000,
respectively. If accurate estimation required addition of
"site-specific" costs to model estimates, as industry claimed, then
YS&T's compliance costs would be overstated by $17,288,000 (scaled by
flow) or $24,638,000 (scaled by production).
12Volume 3, Draft Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Point Source Category; EPA 440/1-79/024a, October 1979.
86
-------
document. The company's cost and flow basis is compared below to
the estimate made by the Agency. Both estimates are based upon
the same model size ironmaking operation.
EPA Estimate Company Estimate
Flow 50 gal/ton 100 gal/ton
Capital $2.49 million $3.94 million
If both estimates are costed on the same flow basis (100 gal/ton)
the costs are as follows:
EPA Estimate Company Estimate
$3.78 million $3.94 million
These data show that EPA's estimate is within 4.1% of the
unsolicited estimate made by the engineering firm. This
comparison further substantiates the reasonableness and accuracy
of the Agency's cost models and costing methodology.
In summary, EPA has thoroughly reevaluated its model cost
estimates in light of "site-specific" costs. It has added
additional site costs to the models (see Section VII); included
contingency fees in the models; used conservative cost
assumptions; compared reported costs for treatment in place to
model estimates for similar treatment; compared reported costs
for compliance and model estimates for compliance; and compared
plant-by-plant compliance estimates with model-based cost
estimates. Based upon the above, EPA concludes that its cost
estimates are sufficiently generous to reflect "site-specific"
costs and other compliance costs likely to be incurred by the
industry.
2. The Impact of Plant Age on the Cost or Feasibility of
Retrofitting Control Facilities
The industry challenged both the 1974 and 1976 regulations on the
basis that EPA had failed to adequately consider the impact of
plant age. In the Phase I decision, the Court held that while
EPA had adequately considered the impact of age on waste
characteristics and treatability, it had failed to adequately
consider the impact of age on the "cost or feasibility of
retrofitting" controls.
In the Phase II proceedings, EPA strenuously argued that plant
age was not a meaningful criteria in the steel industry because
plants are continually rebuilt and modernized. In response to
this argument, the Court stated:
"Were we writing on a clean slate, we might find this argument
convincing. But since the facts in this case cannot be properly
distinguished from the facts in the earlier case we must reject
EPA's contention ... We note, however, that we have not dismissed
the EPA's resolution of the retrofit question on the merits. We
87
-------
merely require that the Agency reexamine the relevance of age
specifically as it bears on retrofit." 568 F.2d at 299-300.
In light of these decisions, EPA has throughly examined the
impact of plant "age" on the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting controls. First, in the basic Data Collection
Portfolio (DCP) sent to all "steelmaking" operations and about
85% of "forming and finishing" operations, the Agency solicited
information on the "age" of plants (including the first year of
on-site production and the dates of major rebuilds and
modernizations), and the "age" of treatment facilities in place.
Next, EPA sent Detailed Data Collection Portfolios (D-DCPs) to a
selected number of plants, asking owners of these plants, among
other things, for the costs of treatment in place and the portion
of those costs attributable to "retrofitting" controls. Finally,
the Agency and its engineering consultant evaluated these data to
determine whether plant "age" affected the "cost or feasibility
of retrofitting" and, if so, whether altered subcategorization or
relaxed requirements for "older" plants were warranted.
EPA's evaluation of .all available data confirms its earlier
conclusion that plant "age" does not significantly affect tt._
"cost or feasibility of retrofitting" pollution controls to
existing production facilities. In the first place, plant "age"
is not a particularly meaningful criteria in the industry. "Age"
is extremely difficult to define. Judging from the first year of
on-site production, the industry, as a whole, is "old." But,
production facilities are continually rebuilt and modernized,
some on periodic "campaign" schedules. Moreover, "campaign"
schedules for operations in different subcategories, or even for
operations within the same process (e.g., coke batteries) usually
are different. Complicating this further is the fact that
integrated mills contain many processes of different "ages" with
different dates of first on-site production and different rebuild
schedules.
Therefore year of first on-site production does not represent the
true plant "age." For instance, at the "oldest" (1901) coke
facility (based on first year of production), the "oldest" activ_
battery dates from 1968. At several "old" plants (based on first
year of production) the "oldest" active batteries range between
1953 and 1973 and the "newest" active batteries date between 1967
and 1979.
The "age" of coke plants, therefore, changes dramatically with
the criteria for determining "age." Based on "oldest" acti\_
battery, 7.4% of the plants date from 1920 or before; 5.9% date
between 1921- 1940; 65.5% date between 1941-1960; and 20.8% date
between 1961 and the present. Based on "newest" active battery,
4.4% of the plants date from 1920 or before, 40.2% date between
1941-1960, and the "age" of the majority (55.2%) of the plants is
between 1960 and the present. Depending on the criteria
selected, the age of a particular cokemaking plant, or tl._
cokemaking industry as a whole, can vary significantly.
88
-------
In the ironmaking subcategory, the date of first on-site
production ranges between 1883 and 1974. However, most blast
furnaces undergo major rebuilds every 9 or 10 years. Therefore,
the age when determined by the last year of major rebuild would
be much younger than that based on the first year of production
criteria.
Among most of the other subcategories the situation is similar.
rabies II1-4 summarize the "age" of plants in the steel industry
by subcategory. In each case, the "age" of plants is difficult
to define because production facilities are periodically rebuilt
and modernized. In many of the remaining subcategories, such as
electric arc furnaces, "age" is not relevant because all plants
are of the same vintage.
Modernization of production facilities provides an impetus for
construction or modernization of treatment facilities. Thus, EPA
concludes that because of the continual rebuilding and
modernization of production facilities, plant "age" is not a
meaningful factor in the steel industry. This conclusion is
buttressed by studies commissioned by the industry itself. For
_xample, in Steel and the Environment - A Cost Impact Analysis,
which AISI submitted to EPA in its comments on the 1976
rulemaking, Arthur D. Little, Inc. concluded (at page 484) that:
"In the iron and steel industry it is difficult to define the age
of a plant because many of the unit operations were installed at
different times and also are periodically rebuilt on different
schedules. Thus, by definition, the age of steel facilities
should offer only limited benefits as a means of categorizing
plants for purposes of standard setting or impact analysis."
Despite the difficulty of defining plant "age," EPA did not
t_rminate its analysis of the impact of "age" on the "cost or
feasilbilty" of retrofitting controls. On the contrary, the
Agency selected determinants of "age" and then analyzed the
impact on the "cost or feasibility" of retrofitting.
With regard to the "feasibility" of retrofitting, the evidence is
conclusive: Plant "age" does not affect the "ease" or
"feasibility" of retrofitting pollution controls. Table III-5
shows that, in all subcategories, some of the "oldest" facilities
(based on first year of on-site production) have among the
"newest" and most efficient treatment systems. Among coke
plants, for example, the oldest by-product plant (024B) had
treatment installed as recently as 1977.
With regard to the cost of retrofitting, the impact of plant"
age" is more difficult to ascertain. Only 15% of the plants
responding to EPA's D-DCPs and reporting retrofitted treatment
facilities were able to isolate treatment construction costs
attributable to retrofitting. Of those plants that could isolate
"retrofit" costs, 73% reported retrofit costs of less than 6% of
pollution control costs. On the basis of these survey responses,
the Agency concludes that "age" of plants does not have a
89
-------
significant impact on the cost of retrofitting controls on an
industry wide basis.
The Agency's examination of the Mahoning Valley plants ~lso
supports the conclusion that "age" of plants does not
significantly impact the "cost or feasibility" of retrofitting.
This examination, which was discussed in regard to
"site-specific" costs, showed that, for eight of the olc_st
plants in the country, the estimated compliance costs did not
vary significantly from EPA's model cost estimates.
On the basis of the foregoing, EPA concludes that plant "age"
does not significantly affect the "cost or feasibility" of
retrofitting controls. However, even assuming that "age" does
significantly impact the "cost or feasibility" of retrofitting,
EPA concludes that altered subcategorization or relaxed
requirements within subcategories for "older" plants are
unwarranted. "Older" steel facilities are responsible for as
much water pollution as "newer" facilities. Thus, even if it
could be shown that plant "age" did affect the "cost or
feasibility" of retrofitting controls, EPA would not alter its
subcategorization or provide relaxed effluent limitations within
subcategories for "older" plants as control of the discharge of
pollutants from those plants justify the expenditures of
reasonable additional amounts.
3. The Impact of the Regulation on Consumptive Water Loss
In the 1974 BPT and BAT regulation for the steelmaking segiL._nt,
many of EPA's model treatment systems included partial recycle of
wastewaters. Some of these model systems incorporated
evaporative cooling towers to insure that the temperature of
recycled wastewater did not reach excessive levels for process
use.13 CF&I Steel Corporation, located in Pueblo, Colorado,
claimed that cooling through evaporative means would cauL_
additional consumptive water losses which would be inconsistent
with state law and would aggravate water scarcity in arid ~id
semi-arid regions of the country. The Court held that to tJ._
extent that the regulations were inconsistent with state law, tl._
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution required that federal
law and regulations prevail. The Court agreed with Cr&I,
however, in . holding that EPA had failed to adequately consic.r
the impact of the regulation on water sources in arid and
semi-arid regions.
13The treatment models that included evaporative cooling towers were
the BPT and BAT models in the cokemaking, blast furnace, steelmaking,
vacuum degassing, and continuous casting subcategories. Although
there are other available means of temperature equalization (such as
lagoons and nonevaporative coolers), only cooling towers were incluc.d
in treatment models.
90
-------
The 1976 regulation on the forming and finishing segment also
included treatment models with evaporative cooling towers.14 In
its response to CF&I's comments, EPA stated:
"A means to dissipate heat is frequently a necessity if a recycle
system is to be employed. The evaporation of water in cooling
towers or from ponds is the most commonly employed means to
accomplish this. However, fin-tube heat exchangers can be used
to a.chieve cooling without evaporation of water. Such systems
are used in the petroleum processing and electric utility
industries.
The Agency also feels that recognition of the evaporation of
water in recycle systems (and hence loss of availability to
potential downstream users) should be balanced with recognition
that evaporation also occurs in once-through systems, when the
heated discharge causes evaporation in the stream. This is not
an obvious phenomenon, since it occurs downstream of the
discharge point, but to the downstream user it is as real as with
consumptive in-plant usage. Assuming that the stream eventually
gets back to temperature equilibrium with its environment, it
will get there primarily by evaporation, i.e., with just as
certain a loss of water. Additionally, the use of a recycle
system permits lessening the intake flow requirements." 41 FR
12990.
In addition, in its brief the Agency argued that, because of
current evaporative losses, the impact of the regulations was not
as severe as claimed by CF&I, and that the water scarcity issue
was pertinent only in arid and semi-arid regions of the country.
The Court, however, held:
"...Since EPA may have proceeded under a mistaken assumption of
fact as to the water loss attributable to the interim final
[Phase I] regulations, the matter will be remanded to the Agency
for further consideration of whether fin-tube heat exchangers or
dry type cooling towers may be employed despite any fouling or
scaling problems - assuming that cooling systems of some kind
will be employed in order to meet the effluent limitations
prescribed in the regulations.
[Also], the Agency may not decline to estimate the water loss due
to the interim final regulations as accurately as possible on the
grounds that, whatever the cost in water consumption, the
specified effluent limitations are justified. In order to insure
that the Agency completes a sufficiently specific and definite
study of the water consumption problem on remand, the Agency must
address the question of how often the various cooling systems
will be employed, or present reasons why it cannot make such an
assessment."
14The treatment models that included evaporative cooling towers were
th_ BAT models in the hot forming subcategories.
91
-------
In light of these decisions, EPA has evaluated the "consumptive
water loss" issue in the context of this proposed regulation.
Several of the underlying model treatment systems include recycle
of wastewaters requiring cooling mechanisms. Although cooling
can be accomplished by several means (i.e.,lagoons, spray ponds,
dry cooling towers), the model treatment systems are based on
evaporative cooling towers, which are the most commonly used,
least space intensive, and least costly cooling means. In
evaluating possible consumptive water losses, however, EPA has
also analyzed the effects of several cooling mechanisms other
than evaporative cooling towers.
On the average, the steel industry currently uses 6.3 billion
gallons of process water per day. Not all of the process water
requires cooling. A breakdown of this water usage by subcategory
is given in Table II1-6. Large amounts of this process water are
currently recycled through cooling towers, cooling ponds, and
spray ponds as shown below:
Approximate
Cooling Device Evaporation Rate % Utilization
(1) Cooling Tower
(wet-mechanical draft) 2.0% 75%
(2) Cooling ponds 1.7% 20%
(3) Spray ponds 2.0% 5%
b
'in
Based on the foregoing, EPA estimates that evaporative losses
from currently installed recycle/cooling systems, and fro
once-through discharges of heated water is about 45.2 MGD or 0.7%
of total industry process water usage. EPA estimates that nearly
50% of this consumption results from the once-through discharc,-
of heated wastewater and run-of-the-river cooling).
Assuming that the relative utilization rate of the various
cooling mechanisms remains the same, EPA estimates that total
evaporative water losses will be 51.2 MGD or 0.8% of process
water usage at the BPT level, and 81.2 MGD or 1.3% of process
water usage at the BAT level when fully implemented.
The important factor for regulatory purposes, however, is not tl._
above gross water losses, but the additional or net water loss
attributable to compliance with the proposed regulation. This
analysis indicates that net water losses attributable to
compliance with the proposed regulation will be 6.0 MGD or 0.1%
of process water usage at the BPT level and 36.1 MGD or 0.6% of
process water usage at the BAT level. This analysis is detailed
for those subcategories where recycle and cooling systems ai_
envisioned in Table III-7 and is summarized below:
92
-------
Flow per Day
(MGD) % of Total
Total process water used 6262 100.0
Present water consumption1 45.2 0.7
Gross water consumption a) BPT 51.2 0.8
Net water consumption a) BPT 6.1 0.1
Gross water consumption 5) BAT2 81.2 1.3
Net water consumption 5) BAT2 36.1 0.6
1 As of January 1, 1978.
2 This total includes the water consumed at BPT.
Assuming that cooling towers will be installed by all plants
requiring additional cooling (rather than current utilization
cl_/ices), the net water losses attributable to compliance with
the proposed regulation would be 9.2 MGD or 0.1% of total process
water usage at the BPT level and 51.5 MGD or 0.8% of process
water usage at the BAT level.
In EPA's view, the net water consumption attributable to
compliance with the proposed regulation is not significant when
compared to the benefits derived from the use of recycle systems.
The use of recycle systems at the BAT level will result in a 60%
reduction in the total process water usage of the industry. This
reduction will prevent 3.8 billion gallons of water per day from
being contaminated in steel manufacturing processes. Moreover,
recycle systems permit a reduction in the load of pollutants by
over 21 million tons per year at the BAT level (including 63,823
tons/year of toxic organic and toxic inorganic pollutants).
Finally, it is significant to note that the use of recycle
systems is often the least costly means to reduce pollution. On
a nation-wide basis, therefore, EPA concludes that the
_.ivironmental and economic benefits of recycle systems justify
the evaporative water losses attributable to cooling mechanisms.
In addition, the Agency evaluated the water consumption issue as
it relates to plants in arid and semi-arid regions. The Agency
surveyed four major steel plants it considers to be in arid or
semi-arid regions of the country. Those plants are as follows.
0196A CF&I Steel Corporation
Pueblo, Colorado
0448A Kaiser Steel Corporation
Fontana, California
0492A Lone Star Steel Company
Lone Star, Texas
0864A United States Steel Corporation
Provo, Utah
me Agency finds that most of the recycle and evaporative cooling
systems included in the model treatment systems which are the
bases for the proposed limitations and standards have been
93
-------
installed at those plants. Thus, these plants are incurring
most, if not all, of the consumptive water losses associated with
compliance with the proposed regulation. Hence, the incremental
impact of the proposed regulation on water consumption at steel
plants located in arid or semi-arid regions is either minimal or
nonexistant.
Despite the significant benefits and relatively small evaporativ-
losses from recycle/cooling systems, CF&I of Pueblo, Colorado,
claims that recycle/cooling systems will cause severe problems by
compounding the water scarcity problems in the arid and semi-arid
regions of the country. Therefore, this company suggests that
required effluent levels be based on once-through systems or less
strigent recycle rates in arid or semi-arid areas.
EPA believes this proposal to be deficient in several respects.
First, discharging the heated wastes once through would not
conserve a significant amount of water. For example, for an
average sized steel mill with a 100 MGD process flow, discharging
wastes once through would only conserve 0.4 MGD or 0.4% of the
total process water flow, a very small water savings. The
savings is small because even in a once-through system, a certain
amount of water is evaporated (the evaporation will occur in the
receiving body of water as the temperature of the heated wastes
approaches the equilibrium temperature of the stream or lake).
In this case, the evaportion rate is approximately one-half of
the evaporation rate of a cooling tower. However, while a small
water savings is achieved, certain disadvantages result, some of
which are outlined below:
a. A heated discharge (potentially up to 150°) will be allowed
to enter a receiving body of water which may cause localized
environmental damage.
b. The once-through system will allow a significantly higher
pollutant load to enter the receiving body of water.
c. The once-through system will require additional water to L_
taken from the water supply to meet the plant's water
requirements.
While the use of recycle/cooling systems now result in some
additional evaporative water losses in arid and semi-arid
regions, EPA believes that here, too, the benefits of recycl-
systems justify these losses. The Agency considered establishing
alternative limitations for facilities located in arid and
semi-arid regions, but concluded that alternative limitations are
not appropriate. Thus, even if the Agency were to establish a
separate subcategory for facilities located in arid or semi-arid
regions, the effluent limitations for those plants would be the
same as those established for the general subcategory.
94
-------
TABLE III-l
YOUNCSTOUM SHEET AMD TUBE CAPITAL COSTS
Ul
Treatment Systems
I Electric Held Tube
Brier Hill
II Blooming Hill
Brier Hill
III Dlast Furnace
Brier Hill
IV Seamleaa Tube
Campbell
V&VA Cold Reduced Hill
Campbe 1 1
VI Central Treatment
Campbell
VII Coke Plant
Campbell
VIII Galvanized Conduit
Strutliera
IX Merchant Hill
Strutliera
TOTAL
HC1 ttegeneration
Campbell
Blaat Furnace
Cambpi 11
Cold Uraun bar
Brier Hill
TOTAL
BATEA »
BATEA BATEA + Site Coats
BATEA Scaled By Site Coata Scaled By
Scaled By Production Scaled By Production
YSiT EPA Flou Rate Site Coata Flow Bate
1,018,000 985,000 216,000 1,113,000 602,000 818,000 1,715,000
5,390,000 5,141,000 5,114,000 10,645,000 1,150,000 6,264,000 11,795,000
1,576,000* 1,522,000 980,000 1,466,000 1,151,000 2,131,000 2,617,000
3,562,000 3,595,000 2,890,000 2,284,000 748,000 3,638,000 3,032,000
3,817,000 3,523,000 2,466,000 2,771,000 507,000 2,973,000 3,278,000
25,221,000 25,007,000 28,656,000 30,331,000 10,321,000 38,997,000 40,652,000
8,973,000 7,300,000 6,822,000 7,691,000 2,074,000 8,896,000* 9,765,000
1,179,000 860,000 596,000 493,000 266,000 862,000 759,000
3,370,000 3,283,000 5,478,000 3,774,000 1,357,000 6,835,000 5,131,000
54,106,000 51,214,000 53,218,000 60,568,000 18,176,000 71,394,000 78,744,000
3,470,000
2,262,000
84,000
59,922,000
*i Includes 325,000 for bloudoun treatment.
-------
TABLE III-2
UNITED STATES STEEL CAPITAL COSTS
Treatment Systems
McDonald Plant -
Rolling Hills (Outfall 005)
Batch & Continuous Pickling
(Outfall 006)
Ohio Plant
Blast Furnace (Outfall 001)
Rolling Mills (Outfall 003)
Batch Pickling
USS
12,800,000
550,000
13.440.000*1*
5,800,000
520,000
EPA
12,131,000
549,000
11,479,000
5,675,000
540,000
BATEA T.M.
Scaled by
Flow
17,612,000
586,000
5,288,000(2)
3,842,000
441,000
BATEA T.M.
Scaled by
Production
19,787,000
586,000
5,179, 000<2>
8,453,000
402,000
Site Costa
4,400,000
35,000
6,000,000(2)
2,500,000
210,000
BATEA
T.M. +
Site Costs
by Flow
22,012,000
621,000
(11
11,288,000* '
6,342,000
651,000
,=
BATEA T.M.
t Site
Coats by
Production
24,187,000
603,000
1 'I \
11,179,000* J
10,953,000
612,000
(Outfall 004)
TOTAL
33,110,000
30,374,000
27,769,000
34,389,000
13,145,000
40,914,000
47,534,000
(1) Including dismantling of blast furnace.
(2) With base level of treatment.
-------
TABLE II1-3
BEPUBLIC STEEL CAPITAL COSTS**
BPCTCA
Module
Treatment Syatema
Warren Plant
Finishing Hilla Area
Finishing Hilla Pickling
Hot Hailing Hilla Area
Blast Furnace Area
Coke Plant
Phy a ic at /Chemical
Biological
Youngatown Plant
Poland Avenue
Blase Furnacea
Coke Plant
Phy a ica I/Chemical
Biological
Miles Plant
TOTAL
Physical/Chemical*
Biological*
Republic
BPCTCA
8 , 000 , 000
8,800,000
9,700,000
7,300,000
8,000,000
8,000,000
10,899,000
7,900,000
7,700,000
7,700,000
1,800,000
70,099,000
Scaled By
5
9
a
3
5
5
4
5
5
5
2
50
51
Flow
,879,000
,610,000
,518,000
,676,000
187,000
,173,000*
414,000
,500,000*
,501,000
,388,000
193,000
,333,000*
530,000
,670,000*
,852,000
,930,000
,594,000
BPCTCA
Module
Scaled By
Production
14, "387, 000
12,243,000
12,543,000
4,444,000
189,000
5, 2 18, "000*
519,000
5,548,000*
8,010,000
5,4)7,000
296,000
8,164,000*
812,000
8,680,000*
2,214,000
72,640,000
73,486,000
BATEA
Module
Scaled By
Flow
8,765,000
9,678,000
11,826,000
.4,105,000
1,121,000
6,106,000*
1,207,000
6,193,000*
8,742,000
6,023,000
959,000
6,099,000*
1,054,000
6,239,000*
3,160,000
64,504,000
64,731,000
BATEA
Module
Scaled By
Product ion
23,943,000
12,330,000
21,075,000
4,968,000
937,000
5,966,000*
1,074,000
6,103,000*
14,633,000
6,054,000
1,466,000
9,335,000
1,680,000
9,549,000
2,386,000
100,690,000
101,041,000
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
By Flow + By Production
Site Costa
1,294,000
0
7,645,000
1,468,000
566,000
566,000
566,000
566,00
3,314,000
0
535,000
535,000
535,000
535,000
768,000
15,590,000
15,590,000
Site Costa
7,458,000
9,610,000
16,163,000
5,144,000
753,000
5,739,000*
1,080,000
6,066,000*
7,815,000
5,388,000
728,000
5,868,000*
1,065,000
6,205,000*
3,620,000
66,815,000
67,479,000
* Site Costa
15,681,000
12,243,000
20,188,000
5,912,000
755,000
5,784,000*
1,085,000
6,144,000*
11,324,000
5,417,000
831,000
8,699,000*
1,347,000
9,216,000*
2,982,000
88,230,000
89,076,000
BATEA
BATEA
By Flow * By Production
Site Coats
10,059,000
9,678,000
19,471,000
5,571,000
1,681,000
6,672,000*
1,773,000
6,759,000*
12,056,000
6,023,000
1,494,000
6,634,000*
1,594,000
6,774,000*
3,928,000
80,094,000
80,321,000
' Site Coata
25,237,000
12,330,000
28,720,000
6,436,000
1,503,000
6,532,000*
1,640,000
6,699,000*
17,94'7,000
6,054,000
2,001,000
9,870,000
2 , 2 1 5 , 000
10,084,000
3,154,000
116,280,000
116,631,000
* : Including Level A Coats.
**: BPCTCA and BATEA coats are baaed on March, 1975 dollar valued.
-------
oo
TABLE
PLANT AGE ANALYSIS
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Subcategory
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cokemaking
Sintering
Ironroaking
Steelmaking
1. BOF
2. Open Hearth
3. Electric Arc
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
1. Primary
2. Section
3. Flat
a. Strip & Sheet
b. Flat Plate.
4. Pipe & Tube
1919
and before
33
0
68
0
0
0
0
0
33
67
4
10
5
1920 .
1929 t0
16
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
12
49
9
1
8
1939t0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
11
21
11
3
11
1940fn
l<*9t0
6
7
31
0
1
1
0
0
14
29
3
1
7
1950..
1959to
5
8
28
2
4
2
7
0
26
33
14
2
11
I960,.
1969t0
3
2
11
21
0
4
21
23
11
23
12
6
4
1970
and later
3
3
6
8
0
5
10
36
4
14
2
2
2
-------
TABLE Ill-It
PLANT AGE ANALYSIS
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
1919
and before
1920
1929
to
1930
1939
to
1940
1949
to
1950
1959
to
1960
1969
to
1970
and later
H. Scale Removal
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric
Acid
2. Hydrochloric
15
16
25
41
(1) Ages based on first year of production.
(2) Does not include the ages for four confidential plants.
Note: Count based on number of individual operations.
12
43
31
14
J.
K.
L.
Acid
3. Combination
Acid
Cold Forming
1. CR-Reci rculation
2. CR-Combi nation
3. CR-Direct
4. Pipe & Tube
Alkaline Cleaning
Hot Coating
1
6
21
0
0
0
0
5
1
16
4
0
28
4
4
16
17
9
11
1
18
7
20
20
14
22
23
3
5
8
14
26
17
25
28
5
8
23
41
40
38
36
32
8
7
34
59
51
7
11
13
2
1
20
23
12
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
Plant
Reference
Code
012A
024A
024B
112A
272
396A
432B
464 C
464 E
584 F
And Others
060B
060F
112B
112C
448A
548C
584 C
864A
868A
920F
946A
060B
112A
320
396A
396C
426
432A
432B
584 C
584 D
And Others
Plant Age*
(Year)
1920
1916
1901
1920
1919
1906-1955
1919-1961
1925-1973
1914-1970
1923-1971
1958
1957
1950
1948
1943
1959
1959
1944
1941
1944
1939
1942
1941
1920-1947
1907-1909
1903-1905
1958
1910-1919
1900-1966
1956-1961
1904-1911
Treatment
(Year)
1977
1953-1977
1969-1977
1977
1957-1977
1972
1930-1972
1971
1914-1977
1977
1968
1975
1970
1960
1971
1965
1965
1962
1954
1973
1972
1958
1948
1976
1929
1929
1979
1951
1930
1965
1953
Ag£
,_, ^
100
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 2
Subcategory
D. Steelmaking
1. Basic Oxygen Furnace
2. Open Hearth
3. Electric Furnace
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
1. Hot Forming - Primary
Plant
Reference
Code
432C
684C
684F
724F
060
112A
492A
864A
748C
06 OF
432C
528A
612
88A
496
084A
432A
476A
584
652
780
020B
06 OD
0601
088D
112
112A
112B
176
188A
188B
248C
320
And Others
Plant Age*
(Year)
1961
1970
1966
1966
1952
1957
1953
1944
1952
1951
1959
1949
1936
1963-1968
1965
1970-1975
1969
1969
1968
1968
1966-1975
1948
1910
1941
1959
1907
1930
1928
1917
1959
1940
1962
1936
Treatment Age
(Year)
1964
1971
1976
1976
1970
1971
1966
1962
1967
1968
1964
1954
1971
1971
1971
1975
1974
1977
1970
1971
1975
1971
1959
1958
1971
1979
1970
1970
1965
1970
1946
1975
1952
101
-------
TABLE II1-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
2. Hot Forming - Section
3. Hot Forming - Flat
a. Plate
b. Hot Strip & Sheet
4. Pipe and Tube
Plant
Reference
Code
06 OC
06 OF
0601
060K
088D
112
112A
112F
136B
316
112C
424
448A
496
860B
020B
396D
432A
476A
684F
856D
856P
06 OC
06 OF
06 OR
432A
476A
548A
652A
728
856N
85 6Q
And Others
Plant Age*
(Year)
1913
1942
1956
1920
1962
1907
1937
1922
1908
1959
1902
1970
1943
1918
1936
1953
1960
1957
1915
1937
1938
1929
1913
1950
1930-1947
1957-1958
1930
1945-1960
1954
1929
1930
1930
Treatment Age
1920-1975
1965
1958
1955
1971
1954-1979
1971-1977
1947-1978
1959-1969
1966
1964
1971-1978
1948
1948-1977
1967
1971
1970
1974
1977
1969
1980
1966
1948
1971
1961
1974
1977
1969
1962
1952
1961
1963
102
-------
"LE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
KILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
GE 4
iibcategory
H. Scale Removal
. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
2. Hydrochloric Acid
3. Combination Acid
Plant
Reference
Code
0601
088A
256L
424
284A
176
256K
248B
020B
048F
06 OD
06 OM
088A
088D
112
112C
256F
384A
And Others
020C
112B
176
320
384A
396D
432C
448A
580A
And Others
020B
088A
112A
112H
256F
284A
584D
860F
And Others
Plant Age*
(Year)
1970
1962
1962
1971
1957
1941
1956
1950
1954
1944
1957
1970
1936
1962
1922
1926
1953
1958
1946
1936
1961
1936
1932
1967
1952
1954
1962
1947
1952
1926
1940
1953
1957
1940
1962
Treatment Age
(Year)
1972
1969
1969
1978
1971
1965
1971
1978
1974
1969
1968
1977
1969
1971
1977
1977
1975
1964
1977
1971
1956
1955
1970
1969
1964
1970
1967
1974
1969
1977
1951
1975
1971
1970
1977
103
-------
TABLE III-5
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT BY SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 5
Subcategory
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
Plant
Reference
Code
020C
060
112A
112B
176
396D
432B
448A
584A
684D
And Others
112A
1121
240B
256N
384A
432A
448A
476A
5 48 A
580A
And Others
112B
112G
384A
448A
460A
476A
492A
580A
584C
640
Plant Age*
(Year)
1951
1936
1947
1936
1921
1938
1937
1952
1948
1939
1936
1927
1938
1956
1968
1940
1959
1960
1957
1962
1962
1922
1968
1967
1932
1930
1962
1962
1956
1936
Treatment Age
(Year)
1975
1967
1971
1971
1963
1959
1966
1969
1971
1970
1971-1977
1950-1977
1968
1973
1970
1970
1969
1977
1967
1967
1971
1973
1970
1970
1968
1977
1976
1967
1965
1961
* Where ranges of ages are listed, this shows that these are multiple facilities on
site that vary in age as indicated.
104
-------
TABLE II1-6
WATER USAGE IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY
Water Recycled Over Water Recycled Over
Total Process Cooling Systems Cooling Systems
Subcategory Water Usage (MGD) at BPT (MGD) at BAT (MGD)
lA. Cokemaking 36.9 32.4(1) 41.98(1)
B. Sintering 122.6 0 0
5. Ironmaking 1036.8 996.3 1030.1
;. Steelmaking 284.4 0 0
E. Vacuum Degassing 57.1 56.1 56.1
~?. Continuous Casting 238.0 229.2 236.3
;. Hot Forming 4188.0 0 2502.5
.1. Scale Removal 0.9 0 0
I. Pickling 172.7 0 0
F. Cold Forming 87.3 0 0
:. Alkaline Cleaning 2.9 0 0
L. Hot Coating 34.7 0 0
6262.3 1314.0 3867.0
(1) Flow not included as part of the total process water flow.
105
-------
TABLE III-7
CONSUMPTIVE USE OP WATER (BY EVAPORATION IN COOLING SYSTEMS) IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY
(1)
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
C. Ironmaking
E. Vacuum Degaasing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
Present
Water
Consumption (MGD)
0.69
11.90
0.83
3.55
28.20
45.17
Additional
Consumption at
BPT over
Present
(MGD)
0.16
5.40
0.13
0.37
0
6.06
Water
Consumption
Anticipated at
BPT (MGD)
0.85
17.30
0.96
3.92
28.20
51.23
Additional
Consumption at
BAT over
Present
(MGD)
0.40
19.30
0.13
0.37
15.85
36.05
Water Consumption
Anticipated at
BAT (MGD)
1.09
31.20
0.96
3.92
44.05
81.22
(1) Only those subcategories which utilize recycle and cooling systems are included in this analysis.
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
TO develop the proposed regulation it was necessary for the Agency to
determine whether different effluent limitations and standards should
t_ developed for distinct segments or subcategories of the steel
industry. The EPA subcategorization of the industry included an
examination of the same factors and rationale described in the
Agency's previous studies. Those factors are:
1. Manufacturing processes and equipment
2. Raw materials
3. Final products
4. Wastewater characteristics
5. Wastewater treatment methods
6. Size and age of facilities
7. Geographic location
8. Process water usage and discharge rates
9. Costs and economic impacts
For this regulation, the Agency has adopted a revised
subc~tegorization of the industry to more accurately reflect
production operations and to simplify the use of the regulation. The
Agency found that manufacturing process is the most significant factor
and divided the industry into 12 main process subcategories on this
basis. Section IV of each subcategory report contains a detailed
discussion of the factors considered and the rationale for selecting
and subdividing the subcategories. The Agency determined that process
based subcategorization is warranted in many cases because the
wastewaters of the various processes contain different pollutants,
requiring treatment by different control systems (e.g., phenol by
biological systems in cokemaking). However, in some cases, the
wast_*aters of different processes were found to contain similar
characteristics. In those instances, the Agency determined that
subcategorization was appropriate because the process water usage and
discharge flow rates varied widely thus affecting estimates of
treatment system costs. The twelve subcategories of the steel
industry are as follows:
107
-------
A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Scale Removal
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coatings
The subcategories of the steel industry are defined below. Also
discussed are any subdivisions within the main subcategories and the
rationale for the subdivision and segmentation.
Subcategory A: Cokemaking
Cokemaking operations involve the production of coke in by-product or
beehive ovens. The production of metallurgical coke is an essential
part of the steel industry, since coke is one of the basic raw
materials necessary for the operation of ironmaking blast furnaces.
Extreme variations exist in the quantity and quality of waste
generated between the old beehive ovens and the newer by-product
ovens. In order to prepare effluent limitations that would adequal ly
reflect these variations, a subdivision of the cokemaking subcategory
was necessary. The first subdivision is by-product cokemaking, a
method employed by 99 percent of the coke plants in the U.S. In
by-product ovens, coke oven gas, light oil, ammonium sulfate and
sodium phenolate are recovered rather than allowed to escape to tl._
atmosphere. Beehive cokemaking is the other subdivision in tl._
cokemaking subcategory. This process is only found in one percent of
the U.S. cokemaking operations. In beehive ovens no effort is mac_ to
recover volatile material generated by the process.
Subcategory B: Sintering
Sintering operations involve the production of an agglomerate which is
then reused as a feed material in iron and steelmaking processes.
This agglomerate or "sinter" is made up of large quantities of
particulate matter (fines, mill scale, flue dust) which have been
generated by blast furnaces, open hearth furnaces, and basic oxygen
furnaces, and scale recovered from hot forming operations.
Wastewaters are generated in sintering operations as a result of the
scrubbing of dusts and gases produced in the sintering process. The
quenching and cooling of the sinter generates additional wastewater.
Various methods are used to control water pollution in sintering
operations. However, the Agency determined that the slight variation
in quantity and quality of wastewater generated did not warrant
further subdivision of this subcategory.
108
-------
Subcategory C: Ironmaking
Iroriiuaking operations involve the conversion of iron bearing
mat-rials, limestone, and coke into molten iron in a reducing
atmosphere in a tall cylindrical furnace. The gases produced as a
result of this combustion are a valuable heat source but require
cleaning prior to reuse. Blast furnace wastewaters are generated as a
result of the scrubbing and cooling of these effluent gases. Both
pig-iron and ferromanganese iron can be produced in blast furnace
op-rations. Because the wastewaters produced at these two types of
operations vary significantly, different BPT limitations are being
proposed. However, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS are proposed only for
ironmaking blast furnaces since no ferromanganese furnaces are in
operation or scheduled for operation and ferroalloy production has
shifted to electric furnaces.
Subcategory D: Steelmaking
Steelmaking operations involve the production of steel in basic
oxygen, open hearth, and electric arc furnaces. These furnaces
receive iron produced in blast furnaces along with scrap metal and
fluxing materials. During Steelmaking, large quantities of fume,
Smoke, and waste gases are generated which require cleaning prior to
uission to the atmosphere. Steelmaking wastewaters are generated as
a result of these gas cleaning operations.
ach of the three types of furnaces operates differently. These
differences result in significant variations in waste loads generated.
In order to develop effluent, limitations that would adequately reflect
these. variations, the Agency determined that a subdivision of the
st__lmaking Subcategory was necessary. The Steelmaking Subcategory
has been divided into three subdivisions as follows: basic oxygen
furnace; open hearth furnace; and electric arc furnace. However, the
Ag_.icy determined that further segmentation of each subdivision was
appropriate because of the different of methods used to treat furnace
gases.
-,? different scrubbing systems, each of which could result in a
wastewater discharge, are presently used to clean waste gases from
basic oxygen furnaces: semi-wet; wet-open combustion; and
wet suppressed combustion. Semi-wet systems are characterized by
wastewaters containing relatively small quantities of particulate
matter having a large particle size. Wet systems result in much
higher raw wastewater loading due to the increased amount of water
UL-J. In an open combustion system, 90 percent of the particulates
are of a submicron size, because combustion is more complete. By
comparison, suppressed combustion systems generate larger particles.
Only 30-40 percent are of submicron size. However, because heavier
particulate matter remains in the furnace, the suspended solids
concentration in the wastewater of a suppressed combustion system is
lower.
Two different scrubbing systems resulting in a wastewater discharge
-re presently used in the open hearth furnace and electric arc furnace
subcategories. These systems are the semi-wet and the wet systems,
109
-------
and they are very similar to the methods used to clean basic oxyc,_n
furnace waste gases. In the semi-wet system, there is only brief
contact between water and particle laden gases. Therefore, the
concentration of particles in the wastewater is very low and the
wastewater flow rate is relatively small. The purpose of the water is
not to scrub or clean the gas but to condition the gas for tl._
electrostratic precipitator or bag house which is the principle devic_
for removal of solids in the semi-wet systems. By comparision, tl._
wet scrubber system is designed to remove all of the particulate
matter from the gases. Therefore, both the wastewater flow rate and
the concentration of particulate matter are higher in the v._t
scrubbing system.
Subcategory E: Vacuum Degassing
Vacuum degassing is the process whereby molten steel is subjected to a
vacuum in order to remove gaseous impurities. It is advantageous to
remove hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen from the molten steel as these
gases impart undesirable qualities to the finished steel product. The
particle laden steam, coming from the steam ejectors used to produce
the vaccum, is condensed in barometric condensers thus producing a
wastewater requiring treatment. The venturi action in the ejector
throat and the condensation of the steam that combine to produce th_
vaccum.
The industry uses various types of degassers and degasses steels
containing a variety of different components. However, the Agency has
determined these variations do not affect the quantity or quality of
wastewaters produced in the vacuum degassing operations. Accordingly,
the Agency determined that further subdivision of this subcategory was
not warranted.
Subcategory F: Continuous Casting
The continuous casting process takes molten steel from basic pxyc,_.i,
open hearth, or electric arc furnaces, and continuously casts the
molten steel into a water cooled copper mold resulting in a
semi-finished product. After leaving the copper mold, the
semi-solidified steel is sprayed with water to further cool and
solidify it. In addition to cooling, the water sprays also ser\_ to
remove scale and other impurities from the steel's surface. The water
which directly cools the steel is the particle laden wastewater which
must be treated prior to discharge.
Although there are three varieties of continuous casters in use, tl._y
only differ in physical orientation. When the Agency analyzed these
and other factors relating to the continuous casting subcategory, it
determined that there were no significant variations in the quantity
or quality of wastewaters produced. Therefore, the Agency determit._.3
that further subdivision of the continuous casting subcategory was
unwarranted.
no
-------
Subcategory G: Hot Forming
Hot forming is the steel forming process in which hot steel is
transformed in size and shape through a series of forming steps to
ultimately produce semi-finished and finished steel products. Feed
materials may be ingots, continuous caster billets, or blooms and
slabs from a primary hot forming mill (as feed to hot forming section
or hot forming flat mills). The steel products consist of many types
of cross-sections, sizes and lengths. Four different types of hot
foLming mills are required to produce the-many types of hot formed
st_3l products. The four types of mills (primary, section, flat, and
pipe and tube) are the basis for the principal segments of the hot
fOLn.ing subcategory. Variations in flow rates and configuration
between these segments were the most important factors in making this
subdivision. Further subdivision has found to be necessary because of
product shape, type of steel, process used, and mill size.
Wastewaters result from several sources in hot forming operations.
The hot steel is reduced in size by a number of rolling steps where
contact cooling water is continuously sprayed over the rolls and hot
st_3l product to cool the steel rolls and the flush away scale as it
is broken off from the surface. Scarfing is used at some mills to
remove imperfections in order to improve the quality of steel
surfaces. Scarfing generates large quantities of fume, smoke, and
wast- gases which require scrubbing. The scrubbing of these fumes
generates additional wastewater.
Th_ Agency found that variations exist in the quantity of wastewaters
c,_.._rated in the four segments of the hot forming subcategory. In
order to develop effluent limitations that would adequately reflect
tK-.se variations, the Agency determined that further division of the
hot forming subcategory was necessary.
The primary mill subdivision has been split into two segments: (1)
carbon and specialty without scarfing, and (2) carbon and specialty
with scarfing. The use of scarfing equipment results in an additional
applied process flow of 1100 gal/ton, making the division necessary.
xr._ section mill subdivisions has also been separated into two
segments, carbon and specialty steels. Carbon section mills use on
tf._ average, 1900 gal/ton more water than do specialty mills. Based
on this factor the Agency determined that it was appropriate to
further divide the section mill segment.
me flat mill subdivision has been split into three segments: (1) hot
strip and sheet (both carbon and specialty), (2) plate (carbon) and
(3) plate (specialty). As in the section mills, carbon and specialty
plate operations differ significantly in several areas. Carbon flat
plate operations use 1900 gal/ton more water than do specialty flat
plate operations. Also, carbon plate mills produce approximately
tlu__ times as much steel per day as do specialty plate mills. While
no differences were noted between carbon and specialty hot strip and
sheet operations, hot strip operations in general require 4900 gal/ton
more water than do plate operations. That difference resulted in the
hot strip and sheet division in the hot forming flat segment.
ill
-------
The Agency determined that no further segmentation of the hot wor)._3
pipe and tube subdivision is necessary.
Subcategory H: Scale Removal
Scale removal is the operation in which specialty steel products are
processed in molten salt solutions. Two types of scale removal
operations are in use: kolene and hydride. The kolene process uses
highly oxidizing salt baths which react far more aggressively with the
scale than with base metal. This chemical action causes surface scale
to crack so that subsequent pickling operations are more effective in
removing the scale. Hydride descaling depends upon the strong
reducing properties of sodium hydride. During that operation most
scale forming oxides are reduced to base metal.
Flow rates and wastewater characteristics differ between the kolene
and hydride scale removal operations. Hydride operations can
discharge quantities of cyanide not contained in kolene wastewater.
Kolene operations discharge large amounts of hexavalent chromium,
which are not usually found in hydride wastewaters. In order to
develop effluent limitations that would adequately reflect these
variations, the Agency determined that subdivision of the seal-
removal subcategory into kolene and hydride segments was appropriate.
Subcategory I: Acid Pickling
Acid pickling is the process of chemically removing oxides and seal-
from the surface of the steel by the action of water solutions of
inorganic acids. The three major wastewater sources associated with
pickling are spent pickle liquor, rinse water, and the water used to
scrub acid vapors and mists. These wastewaters contain free acids and
ferrous salts in addition to other organic and inorganic impurities.
Most carbon steels are pickled in sulfuric or hydrochloric acids.
Most stainless and alloy steels are pickled in a mixture of nitric and
hydrofluoric acids. Since wastewater characteristics are dependent on
the acid used, the Agency has decided to establish three primary
segments of this subcategory.
The first subdivision, sulfuric acid pickling, was further separated
into four segments based upon the method used to treat the wastewaters
produced. The acid recovery method crystallizes the iron salts,
predominately ferrous sulfate, out of the pickling wastewater. TL_
sulfuric acid which remains may then be strengthened to its original
concentration with make-up acid. This solution is then ready for
reuse. Acid recovery is practiced with both batch and continuous
operations. Zero discharge can be achieved with acid recovery for
batch operations. Continuous operations usually have a discharge.
Another method of treating waste sulfuric acid wastewater is by
neutralization and sedimentation of batch and continuous operation
wastewaters. Because the respective flows are significantly different
the Agency decided to establish separate subdivisions for batch and
continuous neutralization operations.
112
-------
me hydrochloric acid subdivision was separated into three segments.
The first segment is the acid regeneration method used for continuous
processes (it is 'not cost effective to install a regeneration system
for batch operations). In this method, the pickling reaction is
t_/ersed. Ferrous chloride is hydrolyzed to an iron oxide by-product
and HC1 gas. This step is followed by the absorption of the gas and
reformation of liquid hydrochloric acid. The liquid hydrochloric acid
can then be reused for pickling. Acid recovery differs from acid
regeneration in that the unreacted sulfuric acid is merely recovered
as opposed to being chemically regenerated.
As with sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid wastewaters can also be
treated through neutralization. Again the quantities and qualities of
the waste streams differ significantly between continuous and batch
r._jtralization systems. Based upon these differences, the Agency
decided to establish two other segments of the hydrochloric acid
pickling subdivision: batch and continuous neutralization.
Th_ combination acid subdivision has been separated into two segments,
batch and continuous neutralization systems. The continuous
o^-rations normally discharge much greater quantities of wastewater
than do the batch operations and the Agency determined that further
subdivision was appropriate based on that difference.
In all three subdivisions, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and
combination acid, some operations use fume scrubbing systems while
others do not. Allowances, at the BPT level, for higher water flow
wet_ made for operations with scrubbers.
Subcategory J: Cold Forming
Cold forming operations transform steel of various configurations
(i.e., bar, slab, sheet) to the final configuration desired. The cold
foiniing subcategory is separated into two subdivisions: cold rolling
and cold working pipe and tube. The Agency concluded that subdivision
was appropriate because of the differences between equipment used to
form flat sheets and tubular shapes.
Cold rolling is the operation which passes unheated metal through a
pair of rolls for the purpose of reducing its thickness, producing a
Smooth dense surface and developing controlled mechanical properties
in the metal. An oil-water emulsion lubricant is sprayed on the
material prior to its entering the rolls of a cold rolling mill, and
the material is coated with oil prior to recoiling. This oil prevents
rust while the material is in transit or in storage this oil must be
rtmoved before the material can be further processed or formed. Oil
from the oil water emulsion lubricant is the major pollutant load in
wastewaters resulting from this operation.
In cold rolling operations, the main element that affects the
segmentation of this subdivision is the variety of oil application
methods used. The methods are direct application, recirculation, and
combinations. Because the recycle rate if any is dependent upon the
oil application system chosen, flow rates vary for the three systems.
113
-------
This difference in flow rate, and hence the pollutant load allocation,
makes further segmentation of the cold rolling segment appropriate.
Pipe and tube operations form the other subdivision of the cold
forming subcategory. In pipe and tube operations (cold worked) cold
flat steel strips are formed into hollow cylindrical products.
Wastewaters are generated as a result of continuous flushing with
soluble oil lubrication solutions. There are a variety of methods of
cold forming pipes and tubes, there are significant differences in the
quantity or quality of wastewaters generated by these methods.
Therefore, the Agency determined that further segmentation of the pit-
and tube subdivision was warranted.
Subcategory K: Alkaline Cleaning
Alkaline cleaning baths are used to remove mineral and animal fats and
oils from steel. The cleaning baths used are not very aggressive and
therefore do not generate many pollutants. The alkaline clr-ning
solution is usually a dispersion of chemicals such as carbonates,
alkaline silicates, and phosphates in water. The cleaning bath itself
and the rinse water used are the two sources of wastewaters in ti._
alkaline cleaning process. Although both continuous and batch
operations are employed industry-wide, the Agency did not find a
significant difference in the quality and quantity of wastewat_rs
generated between the two types of processes. Therefore, the Ac,_ncy
determined that no further subdivision of the alkaline cleaning
subcategory was warranted.
Subcategory L: Hot Coatings
Hot coating processes involve the immersion of clean steel into baths
of molten metal for the purpose of depositing a thin layer of metal
onto the steel surface. These metal coatings can impart such
desirable qualities as corrosion resistance or a decorative appearanc_
to the steel. Hot coating processes can be carried out on eitl._r a
continuous or batch basis. The physical configuration of the product
being coated usually determines the method of coating to be used.
The hot coating subcategory has been divided into three subdivisions.
This division is based on the type of coating used. Galvanizing is
basically a zinc coating operation. Terne coating consists of a l_ad
and tin application in a ratio of five or six parts lead to one part
tin. Other metal coatings can include aluminum, cadmium, hot dip£,_d
tin, or mixtures of metals. These three different types of coatings
generate different pollutants due to the variety of metals used. FoL
this reason they have been designated as subdivisions of the hot
coating subcategory.
These subdivisions have been further divided. In the galvanizing
(zinc coating) subdivision, a significant difference was found between
flow rates for processing strips and sheets and flow rates for
processing wire products. On a gallon per ton basis, the wire product
flow rates are as much as four times greater than the strip and sht_t
rates. This increased flow rate is a result of the physical
configuration of the wire products which have a much greater surface
114
-------
area to tonnage ratio than do strips or sheets. Since the surface
area is being coated, the volume of the coating and rinse and, hence
tl._ wastewater volume, will be much greater for wire products.
In the terne coating subdivision, no further segmentation due to
product is necessary. Strips and sheets are normally the only shapes
which are be terne coated. Terne coating provides corrosion
resistance. A major portion of all terne coated material is used in
the automobile industry.
xr._ subdivision for other coatings has also been separated into two
s__.iiC|ents. The same rationale applies in this instance. The surface
area to tonnage ratio is much greater for wire products than it is for
sheets or strips. Therefore, the volume of wastewaters generated per
ton of steel coated is also much greater for wire products than it is
for sheets or strips. For this reason, the Agency determined that
further segmentation of this subdivision is appropriate.
115
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION V
SELECTION OF REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Introduction
xnree types of pollutants were considered for regulation in the steel
industry: conventional, nonconventional and toxic pollutants.
Sampling and subsequent analysis of process wastewaters were carried
out industry-wide. Average wastewater concentrations of each
pollutant were determined by subcategory, and these concentrations in
conjunction with the waste loading, formed the basis for determining
whether a particular pollutant is proposed for regulation.
Development of_ Regulated Pollutants
The concentration data were reviewed for 141 pollutants; 130 toxic, 8
nontoxic nonconventional, and 3 conventional. These values ranged
from "not detected" to 71,000 mg/1 (ppm). Each concentration value
was reviewed individually and the respective pollutant was assigned to
one of four categories.
1. Not Detected - Reserved for any pollutant which was not detected
during industry-wide plant sampling.
2. Unique Occurrence - Pollutants detected at levels of 0.010 mg/1
(10 ppb) or less in industry-wide plant sampling.
3. Not Treatable - Pollutants which were detected at levels greater
than 10 ppb yet less than the treatability level determined for
that pollutant and discussed in Section VI.
4. Regulation Considered - Any pollutant detected at a level greater
than the corresponding treatability level outlined in Section VI
was designated as being considered for regulation.
The results of the categorization are presented in Table V-l. Of the
141 pollutants initially considered, 58 (48 toxic, 10 others) have
been considered for regulation. In order to further analyze the
source of these pollutants, their presence by subcategory was
tabulated. Table V-2 lists pollutants appearing in the twelve
subcategories at levels greater than treatability. These 58
pollutants are reviewed in a report entitled "Summary of Pollutants
Detected in the Steel Industry". The physical properties, toxic
_Zfects in humans and aquatic life and behavior in POTWs of the
various pollutants are discussed in the following material.
Particular weight has been given to documents generated by the EPA
Criteria and Standards Division and Monitoring and Data Support
Division.
117
-------
Acrylonitrile (3). Acrylonitrile (CH2=CHCN) is an explosive
liquid having a normal boiling point of 77°C and a vapor pressui- of
80 mmHg at 20°C. It is miscible with most organic solvents. It is
manufactured by the reaction of propylene with ammonia and oxygen in
the presence of a catalyst. Annual U.S. production is eight hundL_d
thousand tons.
The major use of acrylonitrile is in the manufacture of copolymers for
the production of acrylic and modacrylic fibers. It is also used in
the plastics, surface coatings, and adhesives industries.
The acute toxicity of acrylonitrile is well known. The compound
appears to exert part of its toxic effect through the release of
inorganic cyanide. Inhalation has been reported to be the major route
of exposure in lethal cases of acrylonitrile poisoning. Toxic
manifestations of acrylonitrile inhalation include disorders of the
central nervous system and chronic upper respiratory tract irritation.
The next most likely route of exposure is dermal. Dermatologic
conditions include contact allergic dermatitis, occupational ecj-_.ua
and toxodermia. The least likely route of exposure of acrylonitrile
is through ingestion. Ingestion usually occurs through exposure to
water or aquatic life containing acrylonitrile or exposure to food
products packaged in materials which leach acrylonitrile to the food.
There is suggestive evidence that acrylonitrile is carcinogenic to
humans and animals. NIOSH 1978 states, "...acrylonitrile must L_
handled in the workplace as a suspect human carcinogen." Laboratory
rats which had acrylonitrile administered to them through inhalation
and drinking water developed central nervous system tumors and zymbal
gland carcinomas not evident in the control animals. Numerous reports
have been made of the embryotoxicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity
of acrylonitrile in laboratory animals.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to acrylonitrile through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of acrylonitrile estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risk at levels of 10~7, 10~* and
10-s are 5.79 x 10~« mg/1, 5.79 x 10~s mg/1 and 5.79 x 10~4 mg/1,
resepctively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed
excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration should be
less than 6.52 x 10~3 mg/1 to keep the lifetime cancer risk below
10~5. Limited acute and chronic toxicity data for fresh water aquatic
life show that adverse effects occur at concentrations higher than
those cited for human health risks.
Some studies have been reported regarding the behavior of
acrylonitrile in POTW. Biochemical oxidation of acrylonitrile unc_r
laboratory conditions at concentrations of 86-162 mg/1, produced 0, 2,
and 56 percent degradation in 5, 10, and 20 days, respectively, using
unacclimated seed cultures. Degradation of 72 percent was produc_d in
10 days using acclimated seed cultures. Based on these data -nd
general conclusions relating molecular structure to biochemical
oxidation, it is expected that acrylonitrile will be biochemically
oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological
118
-------
treatment in POTW. Other reports suggest that acrylonitrile entering
an activated sludge process in concentrations of 50 ppm or greater,
may inhibit certain bacterial processes such as nitrification.
Benzene (4). Benzene (C6H6) is a clear, colorless, liquid obtained
mainly from petroleum feedstocks by several different processes. Some
is recovered from light oil obtained from coal carbonization gases.
It boils at 80°C and has a vapor pressure of 100 mm Hg at 26°C. It is
slightly soluble in water (1.8 g/1 at 25°C) and it disolves in
hydrocarbon solvents. Annual U.S. production is three to four million
tons.
Most of the benzene used in the U.S. goes into chemical manufacture.
About half of that is converted to ethylbenzene which is used to make
styrene. Some benzene is used in motor fuels.
"3nzene is harmful to human health according to numerous published
studies. Most studies relate effects of inhaled benzene vapors.
These effects include nausea, loss of muscle coordination, and
excitement, followed by depression and coma. Death is usually the
result of respiratory or cardiac failure. Two specific blood
disorders are related to benzene exposure. One of these, acute
myelogenous leukemia, represents a carcinogenic effect of benzene.
However, most human exposure data are based on exposure in
occupationed settings and benzene carcinogenisis is not considered to
be firmly established.
Oral administration of benzene to laboratory animals produced
leukopenia, a reduction in number of leukocytes in the blood.
Subcutaneous injection of benzene-oil solutions has produced
suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence of benzene carcinogenisis.
Benzene demonstrated teratogenic effects in laboratory animals, and
nidtagenic effects in humans and other animals.
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
_ff_cts of exposure to benzene through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is
i._ro. Concentrations of benzene estimated to result in additional
lif_time cancer risk at levels of 10~7, 10~«, and 10~5 are 8 x 10~5
mg/1, 8 x 10~4 mg/1, and 8 x 10~3 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated
aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of
water, the water concentration should be less than 0.478 mg/1 to keep
the lifetime cancer risk below 10~5. Available data show that adverse
effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations higher than those
cited for human health risks.
Son.- studies have been reported regarding the behavior of benzene in
POTW. Biochemical oxidation of benzene under laboratory conditions,
at concentrations of 3 to 10 mg/1, produced 24, 27, 24, and 29 percent
degradation in 5, 10, 15, and 20 days, respectively, using
unacclimated seed cultures in fresh water. Degradation of 58, 67, 76,
and 80 percent was produced in the same time periods using acclimated
st_d cultures. Other studies produced similar results. Based on
tl._3e data and general conclusions relating molecular structure to
119
-------
biochemical oxidation, it is expected that benzene will L_
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. Other reports indicate that «.ost
benzene entering a POTW is removed to the sludge and that influ-nt
concentrations of 1 g/1 inhibit sludge digestion. An EPA study of tt._
fate of priority pollutants in POTW reveals removal efficiencies of 70
to 98 percent for three POTW where influent benzene levels were 5 x
10~3 to 143 x 10~3 mg/1. Four other POTW samples had influent beni._ne
concentrations of 1 or 2 x 10~3 mg/1 and removals appeared
indeterminate because of the limits of quantification for analy^-s.
There is no information about possible effects of benzene on crops
grown in soils amended with sludge containing benzene.
Hexachlorobenzene (9). Hexachlorobenzene (C«C16) is a nonflammabl_
crystalline substance which is virtually insoluble in water. Howev_r,
it is soluble in benzene, chloroform, and ether. Hexachlorobenzene
(HCB) has a density of 2.044 g/ml. It melts at 231°C and boils at
323-326°C. Commercial production of HCB in the U.S. was discontinued
in 1976, though it is still generated as a by-product of other
chemical operations. In 1972, an estimated 2425 tons of HCB wet-
produced in this way.
Hexachlorobenzene is used as a fungicide to control fungal diseases in
cereal grains. The main agricultural use of HCB is on wheat sc_d
intended soley for planting. HCB has been used as an impurity in
other pesticides. It is used in industry as a plasticizer for
polyvinyl chloride as well as a flame retardant. HCB is also used as
a starting material for the production of pentachlorophenol which is
marketed as a wood preservative.
Hexachlorobenzene can be harmful to human health as was seen in Turkey
from 1955-1959. Wheat that had been treated with HCB in preparation
for planting was consumed as food. Those people affected by HC"
developed cutanea tarda porphyria, the symptoms of which included
blistering and epidermolysis of the exposed parts of the body,
particularly the face and the hands. These symptoms disappeared after
consumption of HCB contaminated bread was discontinued. However, tl._
HCB which was stored in body fat contaminated maternal milk. As a
result of this, at least 95 percent of the infants feeding on this
milk died. The fact that HCB remains stored in body fat afl_r
exposure has ended presents an additional problem. Weight loss may
result in a dramatic redistribution of HCB contained in fatty tissue.
If the stored levels of HCB are high, adverse effects might ensue.
Limited testing suggests that hexachlorobenzene is not teratogenic or
mutagenic. However, two animal studies have been conducted which
indicate that HCB is a carcinogen. HCB appears to have multipotential
carcinogenic activity; the incidence of hepatomas,
haemangioendotheliomas and thyroid adenomas was significantly
increased in animals exposed to HCB by comparison to control animals.
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to hexachlorobenzene through ingestion of water
and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is
zero. Concentrations of HCB estimated to result in additior-1
120
-------
lifetime cancer risk at levels of 10~7, 10~6, and 10~5 are 7.2 x 10~8
mg/1, 7.2 x 10~6mg/l, and 7.2 x 10~* mg/1, respectively. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the water concentration should be less than 7.4
x 10~6 mg/1 keep the increased lifetime cancer risk below 10~5.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations higher than those cited for human health risks.
No detailed study of hexachlorobenzene behavior in POTW is available.
Hov._/er, general observations relating molecular structure to ease of
c_:)radation have been developed for all of the organic priority
pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of the limited data is
that biological treatment produces little or no degradation of
h_xachlorobenzene. No evidence is available for drawing conclusions
t_.garding its possible toxic or inhibitory effect on POTW operations.
1,1,l-Trichlproethane(11). 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is one of the two
possible trichlorethanes. It is manufactured by hydrochlorinating
vinyl chloride to 1,1-dichloroethane which is then chlorinated to the
c_3ired product. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is a liquid at room
t_.nperature with a vapor pressure of 96 mm Hg at 20°C and a boiling
point of 74°C. Its formula is CC1,CH3. It is slightly soluble in
water (0.48 g/1) and is very soluble in organic solvents. U.S.
annual production is greater than one-third of a million tons.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane is used as an industrial solvent and degreasing
agent.
Most human toxicity data for 1,1,1-trichloroethane relates to
inhalation and dermal exposure routes. Limited data are available for
c_L_rmining toxicity of ingested 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and those data
at_ all for the compound itself not solutions in water. No data are
available regarding its toxicity to fish and aquatic organisms. For
th_ protection of human health from the toxic properties of
1,1,1-trichloroethane ingested through the consumption of water and
fish, the ambient water criterion is 18.4 mg/1. If aquatic organisms
alone are consumed, the water concentration should be less than 1030
mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects in aquatic species can
occur at 18 mg/1.
No detailed study of 1,1,1-trichloroethane behavior in POTW is
available. However, it has been demonstrated that none of the organic
priority pollutants of this type can be broken down by biological
treatment processes as readily as fatty acids, carbohydrates, or
proteins.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has
been investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at
concentrations higher than commonly expected in municipal wastewater.
General observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation have been developed for all of these pollutants. From
study of the limited data, it is expected that 1,1,1-trichloroethane
will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage
by biological treatment in POTW. No evidence is available for drawing
conclusions about its possible toxic or inhibitory effect on POTW
121
-------
operation. However, for degradation to occur a fairly constant input
of the compound would be necessary.
Its water solubility would allow 1,1,1-trichloroethane, present in the
influent and not biodegradable, to pass through a POTW into the
effluent. One factor which has received some attention, but no
detailed study, is the volatilization of the lower molecular weight
organics from POTW. If 1,1,1-trichloroethane is not biodegraded, it
will volatilize during aeration processes in the POTW.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (21 ). 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (C13C6H2OH,
abbreviated here to 2,4,6 TCP) is a colorless crystalline solid at
room temperature. It is prepared by the direct chlorination of
phenol. 2,4,6-TCP melts at 68°C and is slightly soluble in water (0.8
gm/1 at 25°C). This phenol does not produce a color with
4-aminoantipyrene, therefore does not contribute to the
nonconventional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." No data \._i_
found on production volumes.
2,4,6-TCP is used as a fungicide, bactericide, glue and wood
preservative, and for antimildew treatment. It is also used for the
manufacture of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol and pentachlorophenol.
No data were found on human toxicity effects of 2,4,6-TCP. Reports of
studies with laboratory animals indicate that 2,4,6-TCP produced
convulsions when injected interperitoneally. Body temperature was
also elevated. The compound also produced inhibition of AiP
production in isolated rat liver mitochondria, increased mutation rat_
in one strain of bacteria, and produced a genetic change in rats. No
studies on teratogenicity were found.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration should be zero. The estimated levels which would
result in increased lifetime cancer risks of 10~7, 10~6, and 10~5 are
1.18 x ID-5 mg/1, 1.18 x 10~* mg/1, and 1.18 x 1Q-3 mg/1,
respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration should be
less than 3.6 x 10~3 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer risk
below 10~5. Available data show that adverse effects in aquatic
species can occur at 9.7 x 10~4 mg/1.
Although no data were found regarding the behavior of 2,4,6-TCP in
POTW, studies of the biochemical oxidation of the compound have 1 n
made in a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than those
normally expected in municipal wastewaters. Biochemical oxidation of
2,4,6-TCP at 100 mg/1 produced 23 percent degradation using a
phenol-adapted acclimated seed culture. Based on these results, it is
expected that 2,4,6-TCP will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser
extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW. Another
study indicates that 2,4,6-TCP may be produced in POTW by chlorination
of phenol during normal chlorination treatment.
122
-------
Para-chloro-meta-cresol (22). Para-chloro-meta-cresol (C1C7H6OH) is
thought to be 4-chloro-3-methyl-phenol (4-chloro-meta-cresol, or 2
chloro-5-hydroxy-toluene), but is also used by some authorities to
i-I-.: to 6-chloro-3-methyl-phenol (6-chloro-meta-cresol, or
4-chloro-3-hydroxy-toluene), depending on whether the chlorine is
considered to be para to the methyl or to the hydroxy group. It is
-ssumed for the purposes of this document that the subject compound is
2-chloro-5-hydroxy-toluene. This compound is a colorless crystalline
solid melting at 66-68°C. It is slightly soluble in water (3.8 gm/1)
and soluble in organic solvents. This phenol reacts with
4-aminoantipyrene to give a colored product and therefore contributes
to the nonconventional pollutant parameter designated "Total Phenols."
No information on manufacturing methods or volumes produced was found.
Para-chloro-meta cresol (abbreviated here as PCMC) is marketed as a
microbicide, and was proposed as an antiseptic and disinfectant, more
than forty years ago. It is used in glues, gums, paints, inks,
textiles, and leather goods. PCMC was found in raw wastewaters from
the die casting quench operation from one subcategory of foundry
operations.
Although no human toxicity data are available for PCMC, studies on
laboratory animals have demonstrated that this compound is toxic when
administered subcutaneously and intravenously. Death was preceeded by
L_v_re muscle tremors. At high dosages kidney damage occurred. On
the other hand, an unspecified isomer of chlorocresol, presumed to be
PCMC, is used at a concentration of 0.15 percent to preserve mucous
heparin, a natural product administered intervenously as an
anticoagulant. The report does not indicate the total amount of PCMC
typically received. No information was found regarding possible
t-ratogenicity, or carcinogenicity of PCMC. Based on available
organoleptic data, for controlling undesirable taste and odor quality
of ambient water, the estimated level is 3 mg/1. Available data show
that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as
0.03 mg/1.
Two reports indicate that PCMC undergoes degradation in biochemical
oxidation treatments carried out at concentrations higher than are
exf._cted to be encountered in POTW influents. One study showed 59
percent degradation in 3.5 hours when a phenol-adapted acclimated seed
culture was used with a solution of 60 mg/1 PCMC. The other study
showed 100 percent degradation of a 20 mg/1 solution of PCMC in two
weeks in an aerobic activated sludge test system. No degradation of
PCMC occurred under anaerobic conditions. From a review of limited
data, it is expected that PCMC will be biochemically oxidized to a
lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTWs.
rMoroform(23). Chloroform is a colorless liquid manufactured
commercially by chlorination of methane. Careful control of
conditions maximizes chloroform production, but other products must be
separated. Chloroform boils at 61°C and has a vapor pressure of
200 mm Hg at 25°C. It is slightly soluble in water (8.22 g/1 at 20°C)
and readily soluble in organic solvents.
123
-------
Chloroform is used as a solvent and to manufacture refrigerents,
Pharmaceuticals, plastics, and anesthetics. It is seldom used as an
anesthetic.
Toxic effects of chloroform on humans include central nervous system
depression, gastrointestinal irritation, liver and kidney damage and
possible cardiac sensitization to adrenalin. Carcinogenicity has In
demonstrated for chloroform on laboratory animals.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to chloroform through ingestion of
water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of chloroform estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risks at the levels of 10~7,
10-«, and 10-s were 1.89 x 10~s mg/1, 1.89 x 10-* mg/1, and 1.89 x
10~3 mg/1, respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are
consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration
should be less than 0.157 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer
risk below 10~5. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic
life occur at concentrations higher than those cited for human health
risks.
Few data are available regarding the behavior of chloroform in a POxrt.
However, the biochemical oxidation of this compound was studied in one
laboratory scale study at concentrations higher than those expected to
be contained by most municipal wastewaters. After 5, 10, and 20 days
no degradation of chloroform was observed. The conclusion reached is
that biological treatment produces little or no removal by degradation
of chloroform in POTW. An EPA study of the fate of priority
pollutants in POTW reveals removal efficiencies of 0 to 80 percent for
influent concentrations ranging from 5 to 46 x 10~3 mg/1 at J i-.n
POTW.
The high vapor pressure of chloroform is expected to result in
volatilization of the compound from aerobic treatment steps in POTW.
Remaining chloroform is expected to pass through into the POTW
effluent.
2-Chlorophenol (24). 2-Chlorophenol (C1C6H4OH), also called
ortho-chlorophenol, is a colorless liquid at room temperatui_,
manufactured by direct chlorination of phenol followed by distillation
to separate it from the other principal product, 4-chlorophenol.
2-Chlorophenol solidifies below 7°C and boils at 176°C. It is soluble
in water (28.5 gm/1 at 20°C) and soluble in several types of organic
solvents. This phenol gives a strong color with 4-aninoantipyrene and
therefore contributes to the nonconventional pollutant parameter
"Total Phenols." Production statistics could not be found.
2-Chlorophenol is used almost exclusively as a chemical intermediate
in the production of pesticdes and dyes. Production of some phenolic
resins uses 2-chlorophenol.
Very few data are available on which to determine the toxic effects of
2-chlorophenol on humans. The compound is more toxic to laboratory
mammals when administered orally than when administered subcataneously
or intravenously. This affect is attributed to the fact that the
124
-------
compound is almost completely in the un-ionized state at the low pH of
the stomach and hence is more readily absorbed into the body. Initial
symptoms are restlessness and increased respiration rate, followed by
motor weakness and convulsions induced by noise or touch. Coma
follows. Following lethal doses, kidney, liver, and intestinal damage
were observed. No studies were found which addressed the
teratogenicity or mutagenicity of 2-chlorophenol. Studies of
2-chlorophenol as a promoter of carcinogenic activity of other
carcinogens were conducted by dermal application. Results do not bear
a c-ierminable relationship to results of oral administration studies.
ror controlling undesirable taste and odor quality of ambient water
due to the organoleptic properties of 2-chlorophenol in water, the
_3timated level is 1 x 10~4 mg/1. Available data show that adverse
_ff_cts on aquatic life occur at concentrations higher than that cited
for organaleptic effects.
Data on the behavior of 2-chlorophenol in POTW are not available.
However, laboratory scale studies have been conducted at
concentrations higher than those expected to be found in municipal
wastewaters. At 1 mg/1 of 2-chlorophenol, an acclimated culture
produced 100 percent degradation by biochemical oxidation after 15
days. Another study showed 45, 70, and 79 percent degradation by
biochemical oxidation after 5, 10, and 20 days, respectively. From
study of these limited data, and general observations on all organic
priority pollutants relating molecular structure to ease of
biochemical oxidation, it is expected that 2-chlorophenol will be
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. Undegraded 2-chlorophenol is expected
to pass through POTW into the effluent because of the water
solubility. Some 2-chlorophenol is also expected to be generated by
chlorination treatments of POTW effluents containing phenol.
2,4-Dimethylphenol(34). 2,4-Dimethylphenol (2,4-DMP), also called
2,4-xylenol, is a colorless, crystalline solid at room temperature
(25°C), but melts at 27 to 28°C. 2,4-DMP is slightly soluble in water
and, as a weak acid, is soluble in alkaline solutions. Its vapor
pt-3sure is less than 1 mm Hg at room temperature.
2,4-DMP is a natural product, occurring in coal and petroleum sources.
It is used commercially as a intermediate for manufacture of
t/esticides, dystuffs, plastics and resins, and surfactants. It is
found in the water runoff from asphalt surfaces. It can find its way
into the wastewater of a manufacturing plant from any of several
adventitious sources.
Analytical procedures specific to this compound are used for its
identification and quantification in wastewaters. This compound does
not contribute to "Total Phenol" determined by the 4-aminoantipyrene
method.
mree methylphenol isomers (cresols) and six dimethylphenol isomers
(xylenols) generally occur together in natural products, industrial
processes, commercial products, and phenolic wastes. Therefore, data
ai_ not available for human exposure to 2,4-DMP alone. In addition to
125
-------
this, most mammalian tests for toxicity of individual dimethylphenol
isomers have been conducted with isomers other than 2,4-DMP.
In general, the mixtures of phenol, methylphenols, and dimethylphenols
contain compounds which produced acute poisoning in laboratory
animals. Symptoms were difficult breathing, rapid muscular spasms,
disturbance of motor coordination, and assymetrical body position. In
a 1977 National Academy of Science publication the conclusion was
reached that, "In view of the relative paucity of data on the
mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, teratqgenicity, and long term oral
toxicity of 2,4 dimethylphenol, estimates of the effects of chronic
oral exposure at low levels cannot be made with any confidence." No
ambient water quality criterion can be set at this time. In order to
protect public health, exposure to this compound should be minimized
as soon as possible.
Toxicity data for fish and freshwater aquatic life are limited. Acute
toxicity to freshwater aquatic life occurs at 2,4-dimethylphenol
concentrations of 2.12 mg/1. For controlling undesirable taste and
odor quality of ambient water due to the organoleptic effects of
2,4-dimethylphenol in water the estimated level is 0.4 mg/1.
The behavior of 2,4-DMP in POTW has not been studied. As a weak acid
its behavior may be somewhat dependent on the pH of the influent to
the POTW. However, over the normal limited range of POTW pH, little
effect of pH would be expected.
Biological degradability of 2,4-DMP as determined in one study, shov._3
94.5 percent biochemical oxidation after 110 hours using an adapted
culture. Thus, it is expected that 2,4-DMP will be biochemically
oxidized to about the same extent as domestic sewage by biological
treatment in POTW. Another study determined that persistance of
2,4-DMP in the environment is low, thus any of the compound which
remained in the sludge or passed through the POTW into the efflu_nt
would be degraded within moderate length of time (estimated as 2
months in the report).
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (35). 2,4-Dinitrotoluene [(N02)2C6H3CH3], a yellow
crystalline compound, is manufactured as a coproduct with the 2,6
'isomer by nitration of nitrotoluene. It melts at 71°C.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene is insoluble in water (0.27 g/1 at 22°C) and
soluble in a number of organic solvents. Production data for tl._
2,4-isomer alone are not available. The 2,4-and 2,6-isomers are
manufactured in an 80:20 or 65:35 ratio, depending on the proc_3S
used. Annual U.S. commercial production is about 150 thousand tons of
the two isomers. Unspecified amounts are produced by the U.S.
government and further nitrated to trinitrotoluene (TNT) for military
use.
The major use of the dinitrotoluene mixture is for production of
toluene diisocyanate used to make polyurethanes. Another use is in
production of dyestuffs.
The toxic effect of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in humans is primarily
methemoglobinemia (a blood condition hindering oxygen transport by tl._
126
-------
blood). Symptoms depend on severity of the disease, but include
cyanosis, dizziness, pain in joints, headache, and loss of appetite in
workers inhaling the compound. Laboratory animals fed oral doses of
2,4-dinitrotoluene exhibited many of the same symptoms. Aside from
the effects in red blood cells, effects are observed in the nervous
system and testes.
Chronic exposure to 2,4-dinitrotoluene may produce liver damage and
reversible anemia. No data were found on teratogenicity of this
compound. Mutagenic data are limited and are regarded as confusing.
Data resulting from studies of carcinogenicity of 2,4-dinitrotoluene
point to a need for further testing for this property.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to 2,4-dinitrotoluene through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration is zero. Concentrations of 2,4-dinitrotoluene
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk at risk levels
of 10~7, 10-*, and 10-« are 1.11 x 10-s mg/1, 1.11 x 10~4 mg/1, and
1.11 x 10~3 mg/1, respectively. If aquatic organisms alone are
consumed, the water concentration should be less than 0.091 mg/1 to
K_=p the increased lifetime cancer risk below 10~5. Available data
show that adverse effects in aquatic life occur at concentrations
higher than those cited for human health risks.
Data on the behavior of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in POTW are not available.
However, biochemical oxidation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene was investigated
on a laboratory scale. At 100 mg/1 of 2,4-dinitrotoluene, a
concentration considerably higher than that expected in municipal
wastewaters, biochemical oxidation by an acclimated, phenol-adapted
L__J culture produced 52 percent degradation in three hours. Based on
this limited information and general observations relating molecular
structure to ease of degradation for all the organic priority
pollutants, it is expected that 2,4-dinitrotoluene will be
biochemically oxidized to about the same extent as domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. No information is available regarding
possible interference by 2,4-dinitrotoluene in POTW treatment
processes, or on the possible detrimental effect on sludge used to
an._.id soils in which food crops are grown.
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 13.61. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene [ (N02)2C6H3CH3 ] is a
crystalline solid produced as a coproduct with 2,4-dinitrotoluene by
nitration of nitrotoluene. It melts at 66C. No solubility or vapor
pressure data are given in the literature, but this compound is
expected to be insoluble just as the 2,4-dinitrotoluene isomer is
(0.27 g/1 at 22C). Production data for the 2,6-isomer are not
available. The 2,4- and 2,6- isomers are manufactured in an 80:20 or
65:35 ratio depending on the process used. Annual U.S. commercial
production is about 150 thousand tons of the two isomers. Unspecified
amounts are produced by the U.S. government and further nitrated to
trinitrotoluene (TNT) for military use.
me major use of the dinitrotoluene mixture is for production of
toluene diisocyanate used to make polyurethanes. Another use is in
production of dyestuffs.
127
-------
No toxicity data are available in the literature for
2,6-dinitrotoluene. The 2,4-isomer is toxic and is classed as a
potential carcinogen on the basis of tumerogenic effects and other
considerations. No ambient water criterion has been established for
2,6-dinitrotoluene.
Data on the behavior of 2,6-dinitrotoluene in POTW are not available.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants have
been investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at
concentrations higher than those expected to be contained by most
municipal wastewaters. General observations have been develo^-d
relating molecular structure to ease of degradation for all the
organic priority pollutants. Based on study of the limited data, it
is expected that 2,6-dinitrotoluene will be biochemically oxidized to
a lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW.
No information is available regarding possible interferance by
2,6-dinitrotoluene in POTW processes, or the possible detrimental
effect on sludge used to amend soils in which crops are grown.
Ethylbenzene(38). Ethylbenzene is a colorless, flammable liHuid
manufactured commercially from benzene and ethylene. Approximately
half of the benzene used in the U.S. goes into the manufacture of more
than three million tons of ethylbenzene annually. Ethylbenzene boils
at 136°C and has a vapor pressure of 7 mm Hg at 20°C. It is slightly
soluble in water (0.14 g/1 at 15°C) and is very soluble in organic
solvents.
About 98 percent of the ethylbenzene produced in the U.S. goes into
the production of styrene, much of which is used in the plastics and
synthetic rubber industries. Ethylbenzene is a constituent of xylene
mixtures used as diluents in the paint industry, agricultural
insecticide sprays, and gasoline blends.
Although humans are exposed to ethylbenzene from a variety of sources
in the environment, little information on effects of ethylbenzene in
man or animals is available. Inhalation can irritate eyes, affect the
respiratory tract, or cause vertigo. In laboratory animals
ethylbenzene exhibited low toxicity. There are no data available on
teratogenicity, mutagenicity, or carcinogenicity of ethylbenzene.
Criteria are based on data derived from inhalation exposure limits.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
ethylbenzene - ingested through water and contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is 1.4 mg/1. If contaminated
aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of
water, the ambient water criterion is 3.28 mg/1. Available data show
that at concentrations, of 0.43 mg/1, adverse effects on aquatic life
occur.
The behavior of ethylbenzene in POTW has not been studied in detail.
Laboratory scale studies of the biochemical oxidation of ethylbenzene
at concentrations greater than would normally be found in municipal
wastewaters have demonstrated varying degrees of degradation. In one
study with phenol-acclimated seed cultures 27 percent degradation was
observed in a half day at 250 mg/1 ethyl- bezene. Another study at
r 128
-------
unspecified conditions showed 32, 38, and 45 percent degradation after
5, 10, and 20 days, respectively. Based on these results and general
observations relating molecular structure to ease of degradation, it
is _xpected that ethylbenzene will be biochemically oxidized to a
lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTW.
An EPA study of seven POTW showed removals of 77 to 100 percent in
fi\_ POTW having influent ethylbenzene concentrations of 10 to 44 x
10~3 mg/1. The other two POTW had influent concentrations of 2 x 10~3
mg/1 or less. Other studies suggest that most of the ethylbenzene
entering a POTW is removed from the aqueous stream to the sludge. The
ethylbenzene contained in the sludge removed from the POTW may
volatilize.
Fluoranthene(39). Fluoranthene (1,2-benzacenaphthene) is one of the
compounds called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). A pale
yellow solid at room temperature, it melts at 111°C and has a
negligible vapor pressure at 25°C. Water solubility is low (0.2
mg/1). Its molecular formula is C16H,0.
Fluoranthene, along with many other PAH's, is found throughout the
environment. It is produced by pyrolytic processing of organic raw
materials, such as coal and petroleum, at high temperature (coking
processes). It occurs naturally as a product of plant biosyntheses.
Cigarette smoke contains fluoranthene. Although it is not used as the
pure compound in industry, it has been found at relatively higher
concentrations (0.002 mg/1) than most other PAH's in at least one
industrial effluent. Furthermore, in a 1977 EPA survey to determine
levels of PAH in U.S. drinking water supplies, none of the 110 samples
analyzed showed any PAH other than fluoranthene.
ExE-_riments with laboratory animals indicate that fluoranthene
presents a relatively low degree of toxic potential from acute
exposure, including oral administration. Where death occured, no
information was reported concerning target organs or specific cause of
death.
ir._re is no epidemiological evidence to prove that PAH in general, and
fluoranthene, in particular, present in drinking water are related to
the development of cancer. The only studies directed toward
c_L_rmining carcinogenicity of fluoranthene have been skin tests on
laboratory animals. Results of these, tests show that fluoranthene has
no activity as a complete carcinogen (i.e., an agent which produces
cancer when applied by itself, but exhibits significant
cocarcinogenicity (i.e., in combination with a carcinogen, it
increases the carcinogenic activity).
Based on the limited animal study data, and following an establishing
procedure, the ambient water criterion for fluoranthene through water
and contaminated aquatic organisms is determined to be 0.042 mg/1 for
the protection of human health from its toxic properties. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is 0.054 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations of 0.016 mg/1.
129
-------
Results of studies of the behavior of fluoranthene in conventional
sewage treatment processes found in POTW have been published. Removal
of fluoranthene during primary sedimentation was found to be 62 to 66
percent (from an initial value of 0.00323 to 0.0435 mg/1 to a final
value of 0.00122 to 0.0146 mg/1), and the removal was 91 to 99 percent
(final values of 0.00028 to 0.00026 mg/1) after biological
purification with activated sludge processes.
A review was made of data on.biochemical oxidation of many of the
organic priority pollutants investigated in laboratory scale studies
at concentrations higher than would normally be expected in municipal
wastewater. General observations relating molecular structure to ease
of degradation have been developed for all of these pollutants. The
conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that biological
treatment produces little or no degradation of fluoranthene. The same
study however concludes that fluoranthene would be readily removed by
filtration and oil water separation and other methods which rely on
water insolubility, or adsorption on other particulate surfaces. This
latter conclusion is supported by the previously cited study showing
significant removal by primary sedimentation.
No studies were found to give data on either the possible interference
of fluoranthene with POTW operation, or the persistance of
fluoranthene in sludges on POTW effluent waters. Several studies have
documented the ubiquity of fluoranthene in the environment and it
cannot be readily determined if this results from persistance of
anthropogenic fluoranthene or the replacement of degraded fluoranthene
by natural processes such as biosynthesis in plants.
Isophorone(54). Isophorone is an industrial chemical produced at a
level of tens of millions of pounds annually in the U.S. The chemical
name for isophorone is 3,5,5-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-l-one and it is
also known as trimethyl cyclohexanone and isoacetophorone. The
formula is C6H5(CH3)30. Normally, it is produced as the gamma isomer;
technical grades contain about 3 percent of the beta isomer
(3,5-5-trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-l-one). The pure gamma isomer is a
water-white liquid, with vapor pressure less than 1 mm Hg at room
temperature, and a boiling point of 215.2°C. It has a camphor- or
peppermint-like odor and yellows upon standing. It is slightly
soluble (12 mg/1) in water and dissolves in fats and oils.
Isophorone is synthesized from acetone and is used commercially as a
solvent or cosolvent for finishes, lacquers, polyvinyl and
nitrocellulose resins, pesticides, herbicides, fats, oils, and gums.
It is also used as a chemical feedstock.
Because isophorone is an industrially used solvent, most toxicity data
are for inhalation exposure. Oral administration to laboratory
animals in two different studies revealed no acute or chronic effects
during 90 days, and no hematological or pathological abnormalities
were reported. Apparently, no studies have been completed on the
carcinogenicity of isophorone.
Isophorone does undergo bioconcentration in the lipids of aquatic
organisms and fish.
130
-------
The ambient water criterion for isophorone ingested through
consumption of water and fish is determined to be 5.2 mg/1 for the
protection of human health from its toxic properties. If contaminated
aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the consumption of
water, the ambient water criteria is 520 mg/1. Available data show
that adverse effects in aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as
12.9 mg/1.
The behavior of isophorone in POTW has not been studied. However, the
biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has
L_^n investigated in laboratory-scale studies at concentrations higher
than would normally be expected in municipal wastewater. General
observations relating molecular structure to ease of degradation have
t i developed for all of these pollutants. Based on the study of the
limited data, it is expected that isophorone will be biochemically
oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological
treatment in POTW. This conclusion is consistant with the findings of
an experimental study of microbiological degradation of isophorone
which showed about 45 percent biooxidation in 15 to 20 days in
don._3tic wastewater, but only 9 percent in salt water. No data were
found on the persistence of isophorone in sewage sludge.
Naphthalene(55). Naphthalene is an aromatic hydrocarbon with two
orthocondensed benzene rings and a molecular formula of C,0H8. As
such it is properly classed as a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH). Pure naphthalene is a white crystalline solid melting at 80°C.
ror a solid, it has a relatively high vapor pressure (0.05 mm Hg at
20°C), and moderate water solubility (19 mg/1 at 20°C). Naphthalene
is the most abundant single component of coal tar. Production is more
than a third of a million tons annually in the U.S. About three
fourths of the production is used as feedstock for phthalic anhydride
manufacture. Most of the remaining production goes into manufacture
of insecticide, dystuffs, pigments, and Pharmaceuticals. Chlorinated
and partially hydrogenated naphthalenes are used in some solvent
mixtures. Naphthalene is also used as a moth repellent.
Napthalene, ingested by humans, has reportedly caused vision loss
(cataracts), hemolytic anemia, and occasionally, renal disease. These
effects of naphthalene ingestion are confirmed by studies on
laboratory animals. No carcinogenicity studies are available which
can be used to demonstrate carcinogenic activity for naphthalene.
Naphthalene does bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms.
The available data base is insufficient to establish an ambient water
criterion for the protection of human health from the toxic properties
of naphthalene. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic
life occur at concentrations as low as 0.62 mg/1.
Only a limited number of studies have been conducted to determine the
_ffects of naphthalene on aquatic organisms. The data from those
studies show only moderate toxicity.
Naphthalene has been detected in sewage plant effluents at
concentrations up to 22 Mg/1 in studies carried out by the U.S. EPA.
Influent levels were not reported. The behavior of naphthalene in
131
-------
POTW has not been studied. However, recent studies have determii.-d
that naphthalene will accumulate in sediments at 100 times the
concentration in overlying water. These results suggest that
naphthalene will be readily removed by primary and secondary settling
in POTW, if it is not biologically degraded.
Biochemical, oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has
been investigated in laboratory-scale studies at concentrations higL_r
than would normally be expected in municipal wastewater. General
observations relating molecular structure to ease of degradation have
been developed for all of these pollutants. Based on the study of the
limited data, it is expected that naphthalene will be biochemically
oxidized to about the same extent as domestic sewage by biological
treatment in POTW. One recent study has shown that microorganisms can
degrade naphthalene, first to a dihydro compound, and ultimately to
carbon dioxide and water.
2-Nitrophenol (57). 2-Nitrophenol (N02C6H4OH), also called
ortho-nitrophenol, is a light yellow crystalline solid, manufactured
commercially by hydrolysis of 2-chloro-nitrobenzene with aqueous
sodium hydroxide. 2-Nitrophenol melts at 45°C and has a va^or
pressure of 1 mm Hg at 49°C. 2-Nitrophenol is slightly soluble in
water (2.1 g/1 at 20°C) and soluble in organic solvents. This phenol
does not react to give a color with 4-aminoantipyrene, and therefoL_
does not contribute to the nonconventional pollutant parameter "Total
Phenols. U.S. annual production is five thousand to eight thousand
tons.
The principle use of ortho-nitrophenol is to synthesize
ortho-aminophenol, ortho-nitroanisole, and other dyestuff
intermediates.
The toxic effects of 2-nitrophenol on humans have not been extensively
studied. Data from experiments with laboratory animals indicate that
exposure to this compound causes kidney and liver damage. Other
studies indicate that the compound acts directly on cell membranes,
and inhibits certain enzyme systems in vitro. No information
regarding potential teratogencity was found. Available data indicate
that this compound does not pose a mutagenic hazard to humans. Very
limited data for 2-nitrophenol do not reveal potential carcinogenic
effects.
The available data base is insufficient to establish an ambient water
criterion for protection of human health from exposure to
2-nitrophenol. No data are available on which to evaluate tl._
adverse effects of 2-nitrophenol on aquatic life.
Data on the behavior of 2-nitrophenol in POTW were not available.
However, laboratory-scale studies have been conducted at
concentrations higher than those expected to be found in municipal
wastewater. Biochemical oxidation using adapted cultures from various
sources produced 95. percent degradation in three to six days in oi._
study. Similar results were reported for other studies. Based on
these data, and general observations relating molecular structure to
ease of biological oxidation, it is expected that 2-nitrophenol will
132
-------
be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTWs.
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (60). 4,6-dinitrp-o-cresol (DNOC) is a yellow
crystalline solid derived from o-cresol. DNOC melts at 85.8°C and has
a vapor pressure of 0.000052 mm Hg at 20°C. DNOC is sparingly soluble
in water (100 mg/1 at 20°C), while it is readily soluble in alkaline
aqu_jus solutions, ether, acetone, and alcohol. DNOC is produced by
sulfonation of o-cresol followed by treatment with nitric acid.
YOC is used primarily as a blossom thinning agent on fruit trees and
as a fungicide, insecticide and miticide on fruit trees during the
dormant season. It is highly toxic to plants in the growing stage.
DNOC is not manufactured in the U.S. as an agricultural chemical.
Imports of DNOC have been decreasing recently with only 30,000 Ibs
being imported in 1976.
While DNOC is highly toxic to plants, it is also very toxic to humans
and is considered to be one of the more dangerous agricultural
pesticides. The available literature concerning humans indicates that
DNOC may be absorbed in acutely toxic amounts through the respiratory
and gastrointestinal tracts and through the skin, and that it
accumulates in the blood. Symptoms of poisoning inlude profuse
sv._ating, thirst, loss of weight, headache, malaise, and yellow
staining to the skn, hair, sclera, and conjunctiva.
Th__*e is no evidence to suggest that DNOC is teratogenic, mutagenic,
or carcinogenic. The effects of DNOC in the human due to chronic
exposure are basically the same as those effects resulting from acute
exposure. Although DNOC is considered a cumulative poison in humans,
cataract formation is the only chronic effect noted in any human or
_x]L_rimental animal study. It is believed that DNOC accumulates in
tL_ human body and that toxic symptoms may develop when blood levels
_xceed 20 mg/kg.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
dinitro-o-cresol ingested through water and contaminanted aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.0134
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding
th_ consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is determined to
be 0.765 mg/1. No data are available on which to evaluate the adverse
_If_cts of 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol on aquatic life.
Some studies have been reported regarding the behavior of DNOC in
POrW. Biochemical oxidation of DNOC under laboratory conditions at a
concentration of 100 mg/1 produced 22 percent degradation in 3.5
hours, using acclimated phenol adapted seed cultures. In addition,
th_ nitro group in the number 4 (para) position seems to impart a
destabilizing effect on the molecule. Based on these data and general
conclusions relating molecular structure to biochemical oxidation, it
is _xpected that 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol will be biochemically oxidized
to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in
POTW.
133
-------
Pentachlorophenol(64). Pentachlorophenol (C«C15OH) is a white
crystalline solid produced commercially by chlorination of phenol or
polychlorophenols. U.S. annual production is in excess of 20,000
tons. Pentachlorophenol melts at 190°C and is slightly soluble in
water (14 mg/1). Pentachlorophenol is not detected by the 4-amino
antipyrene method.
Pentachlorophenol is a bactericide and fungacide and is used for
preservation of wood and wood products. It is competative with
creosote in that application. It is also used as a preservati\_ in
glues, starches, and photographic papers. It is an effective algicic-
and herbicide.
Although data are available on the human toxicity effects of pentc.
chlorophenol, interpretation of data is frequently uncertain.
Occupational exposure observations must be examined carefully because
exposure to pentachlorophenol is frequently accompained by exposure to
other wood preservatives. Additionally, experimental results and
occupational exposure observations must be examined carefully to make
sure that observed effects are produced by the pentachloroph_nol
itself and not by the by-products which usually contaminat-
pentachlorophenol.
Acute and chronic toxic effects of pentachlorophenol in humans are
similar; muscle weakness, headache, loss of appetite, abdominal pain,
weight loss, and irritation of skin, eyes, and respiratory tract.
Available literature indicates that pentachlorophenol does not
accumulate in body tissues to any significant extent. Studies on
laboratory animals of distribution of the compound in body tissues
showed the highest levels of pentachlorophenol in liver, kidney, and
intestine, while the lowest levels were in brain, fat, muscle, and
bone.
Toxic effects of pentachlorophenol in aquatic organisms are much
greater at pH of 6 where this weak acid is predominantly in tl._
undissociated form than at pH of 9 where the ionic form predominates.
Similar results were observed in mammals where oral lethal doses of
pentachlorophenol were lower when the compound was administered in
hydrocarbon solvents (un-ionized form) than when it was administered
as the sodium salt (ionized form) in water.
There appear to be no significant teratogenic, mutagenic, or
carcinogenic effects ofTpentachlorophenol.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of penta-
chlorophenol ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is determined to be
1.01 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consuu._3,
excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is
determined to be 29:4 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects
on aquatic life occur at concentration as low as 0.0032 mg/1.
Only limited data are available for reaching conclusions about the
behavior of pentachlorophenol in POTW. Pentachlorophenol has I .1
found in the influent to POTW. In a study of one POTW the ,i._an
134
-------
removal was 59 percent over a 7 day period. Trickling filters removed
44 percent of the influent pentachlorophenol suggesting that
biological degradation occurs. The same report compared removal of
t-.itachlorophenol of the same plant and two additional POTW on a later
dat_ and obtained values of 4.4, 19.5 and 28.6 percent removal, the
last value being for the plant which was 59 percent removal in the
original study. Influent concentrations of pentachloropehnol ranged
from 0.0014 to 0.0046 mg/1. Other studies, including the general
review of data relating molecular structure to biological oxidation,
indicate that pentachlorophenol is not biochemically oxidized by
biological treatment processes in POTW. Anaerobic digestion processes
are inhibited by 0.4 mg/1 pentachlorophenol.
Th_ low water solubility and low volatility of pentachloro- phenol
l_ad to the expectation that most of the compound will remain in the
sludge in a POTW. The effect on plants grown on land treated with
sludge containing pentachlorophenol is unpredicatable. Laboratory
studies show that this compound affects crop germination at 5.4 mg/1.
However, photodecbmposition of pentachlorophenol occurs in sunlight.
Th_ -ffects of the various breakdown products which may remain in the
soil was not found in the literature.
Phenol(65). Phenol, also called hydroxybenzene and carbolic acid, is
a cl~ar, colorless, hygroscopic, deliquescent, crystalline solid at
room temperature. Its melting point is 43°C and its vapor pressure at
room temperature is 0.35 mm Hg. It is very soluble in water (67 gm/1
at 16°C) and can be dissolved in benzene, oils, and petroleum solids.
Its formula is C«H5OH.
Although a small percent of the annual production of phenol is derived
from coal tar as a naturally occuring product, most of the phenol is
synthesized. Two of the methods are fusion of benzene sulfonate with
sodium hydroxide, and oxidation of cumene followed by clevage with a
c~talyst. Annual production in the U.S. is in excess of one million
tons. Phenol is generated during distillation of wood and the
microbiological decomposition of organic matter in the mammalian
int-3tinal tract.
Phenol is used as a disinfectant, in the manufacture of resins,
dyestuffs, and Pharmaceuticals, and in the photo processing industry.
Phenol was detected on only one day in one coil, coating raw waste
stream out of 14 days of sampling and analysis at 11 coil coating
plants. In this discussion, phenol is the specific compound which is
separated by methylene chloride extraction of an acidified sample and
identified and quantified by GC/MS. Phenol also contributes to the
' iotal Phenols", discussed elsewhere which are determined by the 4-AAP
colorimetric method.
PK_.iol exhibits acute and sub-acute toxicity in humans and laboratory
animals. Acute oral doses of phenol in humans cause sudden collapse
and un- consciousness by its action on the central nervous system.
Death occurs by respiratory arrest. Sub-acute oral doses in mammals
are rapidly absorbed then quickly distributed to various organs, then
cl_ared from the body by urinary excretion and metabolism. Long term
exposure by drinking phenol contaminated water has resulted in
135
-------
statistically significant increase in reported cases of diarrhea,
mouth sores, and burning of the mouth. In laboratory animals long
term oral administration at low levels produced slight liver and
kidney damage. No reports were found regarding carcinogenicity of
phenol administered orally - all carcinogenicity studies were skin
tests.
For the protection of human health from phenol ingested through water
and through contaminated aquatic organisms the ambient water criterion
is determined to be 3.5 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms aloi._
are consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the ambient wal_r
criterion is 769 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects in
aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 2.56 mg/1.
Data have been developed on the behavior of phenol in POTW. Phenol is
biodegradable by biota present in POTW. The ability of a POTW to
treat phenol-bearing influents depends upon acclimation of the biota
and the constancy of the phenol concentration. It appears that an
induction period is required to build up the population of organisms
which can degrade phenol. Too large a concentration will result in
upset or pass through in the POTW, but the specific level causing
upset depends on the immediate past history of phenol concentrations
in the influent. Phenol levels as high as 200 mg/1 have been treated
with 95 percent removal in POTW, but more or less continuous presence
of phenol is necessary to maintain the population of microorganisms
that degrade phenol. An EPA study of seven POTWs revealed that only
three POTW showed a decrease in phenol concentration between influent
(14, 1, and 1 x 10-3 mg/1) and effluent (1 x 10~3 mg/1, and 0,
respectively).
Phenol which is not degraded is expected to pass through the POrW
because of its very high water solubility. However, in POTW wi._re
chlorination is practiced for disinfection of the POTW efflu_nt,
chlorination of phenol may occur. The products of that reaction may
be priority pollutants.
The EPA has developed data on influent and effluent concentrations of
total phenols in a study of 103 POTW. However, the analytical
procedure was the 4-AAP method mentioned earlier and not the GC/MS
method specifically .for phenol. Discussion of the study, which of
course includes phenol, is presented under the pollutant heading
"Total Phenols."
Phthalate Esters (66-71). Phthalic acid, or 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic
acid, is one of three isomeric benzenedicarboxylic acids produced by
the chemical industry. The other two isomeric forms are called
isophthalic and terephathalic acids. The formula for all three acids
is C6H4(COOH)2. Some esters of phthalic acid are designated as
priority pollutants. They will be discussed as a group here, and
specific properties of individual phthalate esters will be discussed
afterwards.
Phthalic acid esters are manufactured in the U.S. at an annual rate in
excess of 1 billion pounds. They are used as plasticizers - primarily
in the production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins. The most widely
136
-------
used phthalate plasticizer is bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (66) which
accounts for nearly one third of the phthalate esters produced. This
particular ester is commonly referred to as dioctyl phthalate (DOP)
and should not be confused with one of the less used esters,
di-n-octyl phthalate (69), which is also used as a plastcizer. In
addition to these two isomeric dioctyl phthalates, four other esters,
also used primarily as plasticizers, are designated as priority
pollutants. They are: butyl benzyl phthalate (67), di-n-butyl
phthalate (68), diethyl phthalate (70), and dimethyl phthalate (71).
Industrially, phthalate esters are prepared from phthalic anhydride
and the specific alcohol to form the ester. Some evidence is
available suggesting that phthalic acid esters also may be synthesized
by certain plant and animal tissues. The extent to which this occurs
in nature is not known.
Phthalate esters used as plasticizers can be present in concentrations
up to 60 percent of the total weight of the PVC plastic. The
plasticizer is not linked by primary chemical bonds to the PVC resin.
Rather, it is locked into the structure of intermeshing polymer
molecules and held by van der Waals forces. The result is that the
plasticizer is easily extracted. Plasticizers are responsible for the
odor associated with new plastic toys or flexible sheet that has been
contained in a sealed package.
Although the phthalate esters are not soluble or are only very
slightly soluble in water, they do migrate into aqueous solutions
placed in contact with the plastic. Thus industrial facilities with
tank linings, wire and cable coverings, tubing, and sheet flooring of
PVC are expected to discharge some phthalate esters in their raw
waste. In addition to their use as plasticizers, phthalate esters are
used in lubricating oils and pesticide carriers. These also can
contribute to industrial discharge of phthalate esters.
From the accumulated data on acute toxicity in animals, phthalate
esters may be considered as having a rather low order of toxicity.
Human toxicity data are limited. It is thought that the toxic effects
of the esters is most likely due to one of the metabolic products, in
particular the monoester. Oral acute toxicity in animals is greater
for the lower molecular weight esters than for the higher molecular
weight esters.
Orally administered phthalate esters generally produced enlarging of
li\_r and kidney, and atrophy of testes in laboratory animals.
Specific esters produced enlargement of heart and brain, spleenitis,
and degeneration of central nervous system tissue.
Subacute doses administered orally to laboratory animals produced some
decrease in growth and degeneration of the testes. Chronic studies in
animals showed similar effects to those found in acute and subacute
studies, but to a much lower degree. The same organs were enlarged,
but pathological changes were not usually detected.
A i_cent study of several phthalic esters produced suggestive but not
conclusive evidence that dimethyl and diethyl phthalates have a cancer
137
-------
liability. Only four of the six priority pollutant esters were
included in the study. Phthalate esters do biconcentrate in fish.
The factors, weighted for relative consumption of various aquatic ~nd
marine food groups, are used to calculate ambient water quality
criteria for four phthalate esters. The values are included in the
discussion of the specific esters.
Studies of toxicity of phthalate esters in freshwater and salt water
organisms are scarce. Available data show that adverse effects on
aquatic life occur at phthalate ester concentrations as low as 0.003
mg/1.
The behavior of phthalate esters in POTW has not been studi_d.
However, the biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority
pollutants has been investigated in laboratory-scale studies at
concentrations higher than would normally be expected in municipal
wastewater. Three of the phthalate esters were studied.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found to be degraded slightly or not
at all and its removal by biological treatment in a POTW is expected
to be slight or zero. Di-n-butyl phthalate and diethyl phthalate \._i_
degraded to a moderate degree and it is expected that they will be
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. Based on these data and other
observations relating molecular structure to ease of biochemical
degradation of other organic pollutants, it is expected that butyl
benzyl phthalate and dimethyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized
to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by biological treatment in
POTW. On the same basis, it is expected that di-n-octyl phthalate
will not be biochemically oxidized to a significant extent by
biological treatment in POTW. An EPA study of seven POTW reveaI_J
that for all but di-n-octyl phthalate, which was not studied, removals
ranged from 62 to 87 percent.
No information was found on possible interference with POTW operation
or the possible effects on sludge by the phthalate esters. The water
insoluble phthalate esters - butylbenzyl and di-n-octyl phthalate -
would tend to remain in sludge, whereas the other four priority
pollutant phthalate esters with water solubilities ranging from 50
mg/1 to 4.5 mg/1 would probably pass through into the POTW effluent.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate(66). In addition to the general remarks
and discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is provided. Little information is
available about the physical properties of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate. It is a liquid boiling at 387°C at 5mm Hg and is insoluble
in water. Its formula is C«H4(COOC8H17)2. This priority pollutant
constitutes about one third of the phthalate ester production in tl._
U.S. It is commonly referred to as dioctyl phthalate, or OOP, in tl._
plastics industry where it is the most extensively used compound for
the plasticization of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate has been approved by the FDA for use in plastics in contact
with food. Therefore, it may be found in wastewaters coming in
contact with discarded plastic food wrappers as well as the PVC fij.mS
and shapes normally found in industrial plants. This priority
138
-------
pollutant is also a commonly used organic diffusion pump oil where its
low vapor pressure is an advantage.
ror the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ingested through water and through
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is
c_l_rmined to be 15 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are
consumed, excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water
criteria is determined to be 50 mg/1.
Although the behavior of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in POTW has not
been studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has
been studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
nominally be expected in municipal wastewater. In fresh water with a
nonacclimated seed culture no biochemical oxidation was observed after
5, 10, and 20 days. However, with an acclimated seed culture,
biological oxidation occurred to the extents of 13, 0, 6, and 23 of
U._oretical after 5, 10, 15 and 20 days, respectively.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations were 3 to 10 mg/1. Little
or no removal of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate by biological treatment
in POTW is expected.
Butyl benzyl phthalate(67). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on butyl benzyl
phthalate is provided. No information was found on the physical
properties of this compound.
"utyl benzyl phthalate is used as a plasticizer for PVC. Two special
applications differentiate it from other phthalate esters. It is
approved by the U.S. FDA for food contact in wrappers and containers;
and it is the industry standard for plasticization of vinyl flooring
because it provides stain resistance.
No ambient water criterion is proposed for butyl benzyl phthalate.
"utyl benzyl phthalate removal in POTWs is discussed in the general
discussion of phthalate esters.
Di-n-butyl phthalate (68). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on di-n-butyl
phthalate (DBP) is provided. DBP is a colorless, oily liquid, boiling
at 340°C. Its water solubility at room temperature is reported to be
0.4 g/1 and 4.5g/l in two different chemistry handbooks. The formula
for DBP, C6H4(COOC4H,)2 is the same as for its isomer, di-isobutyl
phthalate. DCP production is one to two percent of total U.S.
phthalate ester production.
Dibutyl phthalate is used to a limited extent as a plasticizer for
polyvinylchloride (PVC). It is not approved for contact with food.
It is used in liquid lipsticks and as a diluent for polysulfide dental
impression materials. DBP is used as a plasticizer for nitrocellulose
in making gun powder, and as a fuel in solid propellants for rockets.
Further uses are insecticides, safety glass manufacture, textile
lubricating agents, printing inks, adhesives, paper coatings and resin
solvents.
139
-------
For protection of human health from the toxic properties of dibutyl
phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 34 mg/1.
If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is 154 mg/1.
Although the behavior of di-n-butyl phthalate in POTW has not t n
studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has t_an
studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
normally be expected in municipal wastewater. Biochemical oxidation
of 35, 43, and 45 percent of theoretical oxidation were obtained aft_r
5, 10, and 20 days, respectively, using sewage microorganisms as an
unacclimated seed culture. Based on these data, it is expected that
di-n-butyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent
than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTWs.
Biological treatment in POTW is expected to remove di-n-butyl
phthalate to a moderate degree.
Di-n-octyl phthalate(69). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on di-n-octyl
phthalate is provided. Di-n-octyl phthalate is not to be confused
with the isomeric bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate which is commonly
referred to in the plastics industry as OOP. Di-n-octyl phthalate is
a liquid which boils at 220°C at 5 mm Hg. It is insoluble in wat_r.
Its molecular formula is C6H4(COOC8H,7)2. Its production constitutes
about one percent of all phthalate ester production in the U.S.
Industrially, di-n-octyl phthalate is used to plasticize polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) resins.
No ambient water criterion is proposed for di-n-octyl phthalate.
Biological treatment in POTW is expected to lead to little or no
removal of di-n-octyl phthalate.
Diethyl phthalate (70). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on diethyl
phthalate is provided. Diethyl phthalate, or DEP, is a colorless
liquid boiling at 296°C, and is insoluble in water. Its molecular
formula is C6H4(COOC2H5)2. Production of diethyl phthalate
constitutes about 1.5 percent of phthalate ester production in the
U.S.
Diethyl phthalate is approved for use in plastic food containers by
the U.S. FDA. In addition to its use as a polyvinylchloride (PVC)
plasticizer, DEP is used to plasticize cellulose nitrate for gun
powder, to dilute polysulfide dental impression materials, and as an
accelerator for dying triacetate fibers. An additional use which
would contribute to its wide distribution in the environment is as an
approved special denaturant for ethyl alcohol. The alcohol-containing
products for which DEP is an approved denaturant include a wide range
of personal care items such as bath preparations, bay rum, colognes,
hair preparations, face and hand creams, perfumes and toilet soaps.
Additionally, this denaturant is approved for use in biocic_s,
140
-------
cl_aning solutions, disinfectants, insecticides, fungicides, and room
deodorants which have ethyl alcohol as part of the formulation. It is
expected, therefore, that people and buildings would have some surface
loading of this priority pollutant which would find its way into raw
wastewaters.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
diethyl phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be
350 mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed,
excluding the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is
1800 mg/1.
Although the behavior of diethylphthalate in POTW has not been
studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has been
studied on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
noLiually be expected in municipal wastewater. Biochemical oxidation
of 79, 84, and 89 percent of theoretical was observed after 5, 5, and
20 days, respectively. Based on these data it is expected that
di_thyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent
than domestic sewage by biological treatment in POTWs.
Diu.-ihyl phthalate (71). In addition to the general remarks and dis-
cussion on phthalate esters, specific information on dimethyl
phthalate (BMP) is provided. DMP has the lowest molecular weight of
the phthalate esters - N.W. = 194 compared to M.W. of 391 for
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. DMP has a boiling point of 282°C. It is
a colorless liquid, soluble in water to the extent of 5 mg/1. Its
molecular formula is C6H4(COOCH3)2.
Dimethyl phthalate production in the U.S. is just under one percent of
total phthalate ester production. DMP is used to some extent as a
plasticizer in cellulosics. However, its principle specific use is
for dispersion of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). PVDF is resistant
to most chemicals and finds use as electrical insulation, chemical
process equipment (particularly pipe), and as a base for long-life
finishes for exterior metal siding. Coil coating techniques are used
to apply PVDF dispersions to aluminum or galvanized steel siding.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
dimethyl phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 313
mg/1. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding
the consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is 2800 mg/1.
Based on limited data and observations relating molecular structure to
ease of biochemical degradation of other organic pollutants, it is
expected that dimethyl phthalate will be biochemically oxidized to a
lesser extent than domestic sewage of biological treatment in POTWs.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons(72-84). The polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) selected as priority pollutants are a group of 13
compounds consisting of substituted and unsubstituted polycyclic
aromatic rings. The general class of PAH includes hetrocyclics, but
none of those were selected as priority pollutants. PAH are formed as
141
-------
the result of incomplete combustion when organic compounds are burned
with insufficient oxygen. PAH are found in coke oven emissions,
vehicular emissions, and volatile products of oil and gas burning.
The compounds chosen as priority pollutants are listed with their
structural formula and melting point (m.p.). All are insoluble in
water.
72 Benzo(a)anthrancene (1,2-benzanthracene)
m.p. 162°C
73 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
m.p. 176°C
74 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
m.p. 168°C
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
m.p. 217°C
76 Chrysene (1,2-benzphenanthrene)
HC=CH
(0181
77 Acenaphthylene
m.p. 92<>C
78 Anthracene
m.p. 216<>C
79 Benzo(ghi )perylene ( 1 , 1 2-benzoperylene)
m.p. not reported
80 Fluorene (alpha-diphenylenemethane)
81 Phenanthrene
m.p. 101°C
82 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzoanthracene)
m.p. 269°C
142
-------
83 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (2;3-o-phenyleneperylene)
m.p. not available
84 Pyrene
m.p. 156°C
Son._ of these priority pollutants have commercial or industrial uses.
Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, anthracene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and pyrene are all used as antioxidants.
Chrysene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and
pyrene are all used for synthesis of dyestuffs or other organic
cK_.nicals. 3,4-Benzof luoranthrene, benzo(k)f luoranthene,
L_.izo(ghi )perylene, and indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene have no known
industrial uses, according to the results of a recent literature
search.
S_i_ral of the PAH priority pollutants are found in smoked meats, in
smoke flavoring mixtures, in vegetable oils, and in coffee. They are
found in soils and sediments in river beds. Consequently, they are
also found in many drinking water supplies. The wide distribution of
these pollutants in complex mixtures with the many other PAHs which
ha\_ not been designated as priority pollutants results in exposures
by humans that cannot be associated with specific individual
compounds.
The screening and verification analysis procedures used for the
organic priority pollutants are based on gas chromatography (GO.
Three pairs of the PAH have identical elution times on the column
specified in the protocol, which means that the pollutants of the pair
are not differentiated. For these three pairs [anthracene (78)
phenanthrene (81); 3,4-benzofluoranthene (74) - benzo(k)fluoranthene
(75); and benzo(a)anthracene (72) - chrysene (76)] results are
obtained and reported as "either-or." Either both are present in the
comoined concentration reported, or one is present in the
concentration reported. When detections below reportable limits are
i-corded no further analysis is required. For samples where the
concentrations of coeluting pairs have a significant value, additional
analyses are conducted, using different procedures that resolve the
particular pair.
There are no studies to document the possible carcinogenic risks to
humans by direct ingestion. Air pollution studies indicate an excess
of lung cancer mortality among workers exposed to large amounts of PAH
containing materials such as coal gas, tars, and coke-oven emissions.
However, no definite proof exists that the PAH present in these
materials are responsible for the cancers observed.
Animal studies have demonstrated the toxicity of PAH by oral and
dermal administration. The carcinogenicity of PAH has been traced to
formation of PAH metabolites which, in turn, lead to tumor formation.
L_cause the levels of PAH which induce cancer are very low, little
143
-------
work has been done on other health hazards resulting from exposure.
It has been established in animal studies that tissue damage and
systemic toxicity can result from exposure to noncarcinogenic PAH
compounds.
Because there were no studies available regarding chronic oral
exposures to PAH mixtures, proposed water quality criteria were
derived using data on exposure to a single compound. Two studies were
selected, one involving benzo(a)pyrene ingestion and one involving
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ingestion. Both are known animal carcinogens.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential car-
cinogenic effects of exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydro- carbons
(PAH) through ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms,
the ambient water concentration is zero. Concentrations of PAH
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk of 10~7, 10~6,
and 10~5 are 2.8 x 10~7 mg/1, 2.8 x aO~« mg/1 and 2.8 x 10~5 mg/1,
respectively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consui.._d,
excluding the consumption of water, the water concentration should be
less than 3.11 x 10~4 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer risk
below 10~5. Available data show the adverse effects on aquatic life
occur at concentrations higher than those cited for human health i_isk.
The behavior of PAH in POTW has received only a limited amount of
study. It is reported that up to 90 percent of PAH entering a POiW
will be retained in the sludge generated by conventional sewage
treatment processes. Some of the PAH can inhibit bacterial growth
when they are present at concentrations as low as 0.018 i»g/l.
Biological treatment in activated sludge units has been shown to
reduce the concentration of phenanthrene and anthracene to some
extent. However, a study of biochemcial oxidation of fluorene on a
laboratory scale showed no degradation after 5, 10, and 20 days. On
the basis of that study and studies of other organic priority
pollutants, some general observations were made relating molecular
structure to ease of degradation. Those observations lead to the
conclusion that the 13 PAH selected to represent that group as
priority pollutants will be removed only slightly or not at all by
biological treatment methods in POTW. Based on their wat_r
insolubility and tendency to attach to sediment particles very little
pass through of PAH to POTW effluent is expected.
No data are available at this time to support any conclusions about
contamination of land by PAH on which sewage sludge containing PAH is
spread.
Tetrachloroethylene(85). Tetrachloroethylene (CC12CC12), also called
perchloroethylene and PCE, is a colorless nonflammable liquid produced
mainly by two methods - chlorination and pyrolysis of ethane and1
propane, and oxychlorination of dichloroethane. U.S. annual
production exceeds 300,000 tons. PCE boils at 121°C and has a vapor
pressure of 19 mm Hg at 20°C. It is insoluble in water but soluble ir
organic solvents.
144
-------
Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. production of PCE is used for dry
cleaning. Textile processing and metal degreasing, in equal amounts
consume about one-quarter of the U.S. production.
The principal toxic effect of PCE on humans is central nervous system
c.pression when the compound is inhaled. Headache, fatigue,
sleepiness, dizziness and sensations of intoxication are reported.
Se\_rity of effects increases with vapor concentration. High
integrated exposure (concentration times duration) produces kidney and
liver damage. Very limited data on PCE ingested by laboratory animals
indicate liver damage occurs when PCE is administered by that route.
PCE tends to distribute to fat in mammalian bodies.
Or._ report found in the literature suggests, but does not conclude,
that PCE is teratogenic. PCE has been demonstrated to be a liver
carcinogen in B6C3-F1 mice.
ror the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to tetrachloroethylene through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration is zero. Concentrations of tetrachloroethylene
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk levels of 10~7,
10-*, and 10-s are 8 x 10-« mg/1, 8 x 10~4 mg/1, and 8 x 10-3 mg/1
res^-Jtively. If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed,
_xcluding the consumption of water, the water concentration should be
less than 0.088 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer risk below
10~5. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur
at concentrations higher than those cited for human health risks.
F_v data were found regarding the behavior of PCE in POTW. Many of
the organic priority pollutants have been investigated, at least in
laboratory scale studies, at concentrations higher than those expected
to be contained by most municipal wastewaters. General observations
have been developed relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation for all of the organic priority pollutants. Based on
study of the limited data, it is expected that PCE will be
biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. An EPA study of seven POTW revealed
removals of 40 to 100 percent. Sludge concentrations of
tetrachloroethylene ranged from 1 x 10~3 to 1.6 mg/1. Some PCE is
_xj_--ted to be volatilized in aerobic treatment processes and little,
if any, is expected to pass through into the effluent from the POTW.
Toluene(86). Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid with a benzene like
odor. It is a naturally occuring compound derived primarily from
petroleum or petrochemical processes. Some toluene is obtained from
th_ manufacture of metallurgical coke. Toluene is also referred to as
totuol, methylbenzene, methacide, and phenymethane. It is an aromatic
hydrocarbon with the formula C6H5CH3. It boils at 111°C and has a
vapor pressure of 30 mm Hg at room temperature. The water solubility
of toluene is 535 mg/1, and it is miscible with a variety of organic
solvents. Annual production of toluene in the U.S. is greater than 2
million metric tons. Approximately two-thirds of the toluene is
com_rted to benzene and the remaining 30 percent is divided
approximately equally into chemical manufacture, and use as a paint
145
-------
solvent and aviation gasoline additive. An estimated 5,000 metric
tons is discharged to the environment annually as a constituent in
wastewater.
Most data on the effects of toluene in human and other mammals have
been based on inhalation exposure or dermal contact studies. There
appear to be no reports of oral administration of toluene to human
subjects. A long term toxicity study on female rats revealed no
adverse effects on growth, mortality, appearance and behavior, organ
to body weight ratios, blood-urea nitrogen levels, bone marrow counts,
peripheral blood counts, or morphology of major organs. The effects
of inhaled toluene on the central nervous system, both at high and low
concentrations, have been studied in humans and animals. Hov._/er,
ingested toluene is expected to be handled differently by the body
because it is absorbed more slowly and must first pass through t\.~
liver before reaching the nervous system. Toluene is extensively and
rapidly metabolized in the liver. One of the principal metabolic
products of toluene is benzoic acid, which itself seems to have little
potential to produce tissue injury.
Toluene does not appear to be teratogenic in laboratory animals or
man. Nor is there any conclusive evidence that toluene is mutac,_nic.
Toluene has not been demonstrated to be positive in any ir± vitro
mutagenicity or carcinogenicity bioassay system, nor to be
carcinogenic in animals or man.
Toluene has been found in fish caught in harbor waters in the vicinity
of petroleum and petrochemical plants. Bioconcentration studies have
not been conducted, but bioconcentration factors have been calculated
on the basis of the octanol-water partition coefficient.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
toluene ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 14.3 ».g/l.
If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding tl._
consumption of water, the ambient water quality criterion is 424 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations as low as 5 mg/1.
Acute toxicity tests have been conducted with toluene and a variety of
freshwater fish and Daphnia magna. The latter appears to be
significantly more resistant than fish. No test results have been
reported for the chronic effects of toluene on freshwater fish or
invertebrate species.
Only one study of toluene behavior in POTW is available. However, the
biochemical oxidation of many of the priority pollutants has I~
investigated in laboratory scale studies at con- centrations greater
than those expected to be contained by most municipal wastewaters. At
toluene concentrations ranging from 3 to 250 mg/1 biochemical
oxidation proceeded to fifty percent of theroetical or greater. The
time period varied from a few hours to 20 days depending on whether or
not the seed culture was acclimated. Phenol adapted acclimated seed
cultures gave the most rapid and extensive biochemical oxidation.
Based on study of the limited data, it is expected that toluene wil]
146
-------
be biochemically oxidized to a lesser extent than domestic sewage by
biological treatment in POTW. The volatility and relatively low water
solubility of toluene lead to the expectation that aeration processes
will remove significant quantities of toluene from the POTW. The EPA
studied toluene removal in seven POTW. The removals ranged from 40 to
100 percent. Sludge concentrations of toluene ranged from 54 x 10~3
to 1.85 mg/1.
Antimony(114). Antimony (chemical name - stibium, symbol Sb)
classified as a nonmetal or metalloid, is a silvery white , brittle,
crystalline solid. Antimony is found in small ore bodies throughout
the world. Principal ores are oxides of mixed antimony valences, and
an oxysulfide ore. Complex ores with metals are important because the
antimony is recovered as a by-product. Antimony melts at 631°C, and
is a poor conductor of electricity and heat.
Annual U.S. consumption of primary antimony ranges from 10,000 to
20,000 tons. About half is consumed in metal products - mostly
antimonial lead for lead acid storage batteries, and about half in non
- metal products. A principal compound is antimony trioxide which is
used as a flame retardant in fabrics, and as an opacifier in glass,
ceramincs, and enamels. Several antimony compounds are used as
("talysts in organic chemicals synthesis, as fluorinating agents (the
antimony fluoride), as pigments, and in fireworks. Semiconductor
applications are economically significant.
ssentially no information on antimony - induced human health effects
has been derived from community epidemiolocy studies. The available
data are in literature relating effects observed with therapeutic or
u._jicinal uses of antimony compounds and industrial exposure studies.
T'*!.«,_ therapeutic doses of antimonial compounds, usually used to treat
schistisomiasis, have caused severe nausea, vomiting, convulsions,
irr_gular heart action, liver damage, and skin rashes. Studies of
acute industrial antimony poisoning have revealed loss of appetitie,
diarrhea, headache, and dizziness in addition to the symptoms found in
studies of therapeutic doses of antimony.
ror the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
antimony ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.146 mg/1.
If contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the ambient water criterion is determined to be
45 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life
occur at concentrations higher than those cited for human health
risks.
V_ry little information is available regarding the behavior of
antimony in POTW. The limited solubility of most antimony compounds
exp_jted in POTW, i.e. the oxides and sulfides, suggests that at least
part of the antimony entering a POTW will be precipitated and
incorporated into the sludge. However, some antimony is expected to
t_.nain dissolved and pass through the POTW into the effluent.
Antimony compounds remaining in the sludge under anaerobic conditions
may be connected to stibine (SbH3), a very soluble and very toxic
compound. There are no data to show antimony inhibits any POTW
147
-------
processes. Antimony is not known to be,essential to the growth of
plants, and has been reported to be moderately toxic. Therefore,
sludge containing large amounts of antimony could be detriment"! to
plants if it is applied in large amounts to cropland.
Arsenic(115). Arsenic (chemical symbol As), is classified as a
nonmetal or metalloid. Elemental arsenic normally exists in tl._
alpha-crystalline metallic form which is steel gray and brittle, and
in the beta form which is dark gray and amorphous. Arsenic sublimes
at 615°C. Arsenic is widely distributed throughout the world in a
large number of minerals. The most important commercial sourc_ of
arsenic is as a by-product from treatment of copper, lead, cobalt, and
gold ores. Arsenic is usually marketed as the trioxide (As203).
Annual U.S. production of the trioxide approaches 40,000 tons.
The principal use of arsenic is in agricultural chemicals (herbicides)
for controlling weeds in cotton fields. Arsenicals have various
applications in-medicinal and veterinary use, as wood preservatives,
and in semiconductors.
The effects of arsenic in humans were known by the ancient Greeks and
Romans. The principal toxic effects are gastrointestinal
disturbances. Breakdown of red blood cells occurs. Symptoms of acute
poisoning include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, lassitude,
dizziness, and headache. Longer exposure produced dry, falling hair,
brittle, loose nails, eczema; and exfoliation. Arsenicals also
exhibit teratogenic and mutagenic effects in humans. Oral
administration of arsenic compounds has been associated clinically
with skin cancer for nearly a hundred years. Since 1888 numerous
studies have linked occupational exposure to, and therapeutic
administration of arsenic compounds to increased incidence of
respiratory and skin cancer.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to arsenic through ingestion of water
and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is
zero. Concentrations of arsenic estimated to result in additional
lifetime cancer risk levels of 10~7, 10~6, and 10~s are 2.2 x 10~7
mg/1, 2.2 x 10-* mg/1, and 2.2 x 10~5 mg/1, respectively. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the water concentration should be less than 2.7
x 1 0~4 mg/1 to keep the increased lifetime cancer risk below 10 5.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations higher than those cited for human health risks.
A few studies have been made regarding the behavior of arsenic in
POTW. One EPA survey of 9 POTW reported influent concentrations
ranging from 0.0005 to 0.693 mg/1; effluents from 3 POTW having
biological treatment contained 0.0004 - 0.01 mg/1; 2 POTW showed
arsenic removal efficiencies of 50 and 71 percent in biological
treatment. Inhibition of treatment processes by sodium arsenate is
reported to occur at 0.1 mg/1 in activated sludge, and 1.6 mg/1 in
anaerobic digestion processes. In another study based on data from 60
POTW, arsenic in sludge ranged from 1.6 to 65.6 mg/kg and the median
value was 7.8 mg/kg. Arsenic in sludge spread on cropland may be
148
-------
taken up by plants grown on that land. Edible paints can take up
arsenic, but normally their growth is inhibited before the paints are
t_ady for harvest.
Cadmium(118). Cadmium is a relatively rare metallic element that is
seldom found in sufficient quantities in a pure state to warrant
mining or extraction from the earth's surface. It is found in trace
amounts of about 1 ppm throughout the earth's crust. Cadmium is,
however, a valuable by-product of zinc production.
Cadmium is used primarily as an electroplated metal, and is found as
an impurity in the secondary refining of zinc, lead, and copper.
Cadmium is an extremely dangerous cumulative toxicant, causing
progressive chronic poisoning in mammals, fish, and probably other
organisms. The metal is not excreted.
Toxic effects of cadmium on man have been reported from throughout the
world. Cadmium may be a factor in the development of such human
pathological conditions as kidney disease, testicular tumors,
hypertension, arteriosclerosis, growth inhibition, chronic disease of
old age, and cancer. Cadmium is normally ingested by humans through
food and water as well as by breathing air contaminated by cadmium
dust. Cadmium is cumulative in the liver, kidney, pancreas, and
thyroid of humans and other animals. A severe bone and kidney
syndrome known as itai-itai disease has been documented in Japan as
cau£._d by cadmium ingestion via drinking water and contaminated
irrigation water. Ingestion of as little as 0.6 mg/day has produced
the disease. Cadmium acts synergistically with other metals. Copper
and zinc substantially increase its toxicity.
Cadmium is concentrated by marine organisms, particularly mollusks,
which accumulate cadmium in calcareous tissues and in the viscera. A
concentration factor of 1000 for cadmium in fish muscle has been
i.ported, as have concentration factors of 3000 in marine plants and
up to 29,600 in certain marine animals. The eggs and larvae of fish
are apparently more sensitive than adult fish to poisoning by cadmium,
and crustaceans appear to be more sensitive than fish eggs and larvae.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
cadmium ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations in the same range as those cited for human health, and
th_y are highly dependent on water hardness.
Cadmium is not destroyed when it is introduced into a POTW, and will
either pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated into the
POTW sludge. In addition, it can interfere with the POTW treatment
proc_3S.
In a study of 189 POTW, 75 percent of the primary plants, 57 percent
of the trickling filter plants, 66 percent of the activated sludge
plants and 62 percent of the biological plants allowed over 90 percent
of the influent cadmium to pass thorugh to the POTW effluent. Only 2
149
-------
of the 189 POTW allowed less than 20 percent pass-through, and noi.-
less than 10 percent pass-through. POTW effluent concentrations
ranged from 0.001 to 1.97 mg/1 (mean 0.028 mg/1, standard deviation
0.167 mg/1).
Cadmium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the sludge
where it is likely to build up in concentration. 'Cadmium
contamination of sewage sludge limits its use on land since it
increases the level of cadmium in the soil. Data show that cadmium
can be incorporated into crops, including vegetables and grains, from
contaminated soils. Since the crops themselves show no adv_rL_
effects from soils with levels up to 100 mg/kg cadmium, these
contaminated crops could have a significant impact on human health.
Two Federal agencies have already recognized the potential adx_rse
human health effects posed by the use of sludge on cropland. Tl._ rDA
recommends that sludge containing over 30 mg/kg of cadmium should not
be used on agricultural land. Sewage sludge contains 3 to 300 mg/kg
(dry basis) of cadmium mean = 10 mg/kg; median = 16 mg/kg. The USDA
also recommends placing limits on the total cadmium from sludge that
may be applied to land.
Chromium(119). Chromium is an elemental metal usually found as a
chromite (FeO»Cr203). The metal is normally produced by reducing the
oxide with aluminum. A significant proportion of the chromium ui,_J is
in the form of compounds such as sodium dichromate (Na2Cr04), ~Tid
chromic acid (Cr03) - both are hexavalent chromium compounds.
Chromium is found as an alloying component of many steels and its
compounds are used in electroplating baths, and as corrosion
inhibitors for closed water circulation systems.
The two chromium forms most frequently found in industry wastewaters
are hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Hexavalaent chromium is U._
form used for metal treatments. Some of it is reduced to trivlent
chromium as part of the process reaction. The raw wastewat_r
containing both valence states is usually treated first to reduce
remaining hexavalent to trivalent chromium, and second to precipitate
the trivalent form as the hydroxide. The hexavalent form is not
removed by lime treatment.
Chromium, in its various valence states, is hazardous to man. It can
produce lung tumors when inhaled, and induces skin sensitizations.
Large doses of chromates have corrosive effects on the intestinal
tract and can cause inflammation of the kidneys. Hexavalent chromium
is a known human carcinogen. Levels of chromate ions that show no
effect in man appear to be so low as to prohibit determination, to
date.
The toxicity of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic life varies
widely with the species, temperature, pH, valence of the chromiLm., and
synergistic or antagonistic effects, especially the effect of wat_r
hardness. Studies have shown that trivalent chromium is more toxic tc
fish of some types than is hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium
retards growth of one fish species at 0.0002 mg/1. Fish fooc
organisms and other lower forms of aquatic life are extren._li
150
-------
sensitive to chromium. Therefore, both hexavalent and trivalent
chromium must be considered harmful to particular fish or organisms.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
chromium (except hexavalent chromium) ingested through water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is 0.050
n.g/1. For the maximum protection of human health from the potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to hexavalent chromium through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration is zero. The estimated levels which would result
in increased lifetime cancer risks of 10~7, 10-*, and 10~5 are 7.4 x
10~8 mg/1, 7.4 x 10~7 mg/1, and 7.4 x 10-* mg/1 respectively. If
contaminated aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding the
consumption of water, the water concentration should be less than 1.5
x 10~5 mg/1 to keet the increased lifetime cancer risk below 10~5.
Chromium is not destroyed when treated by POTW (although the oxidation
state may change), and will either pass through to the POTW effluent
or be incorporated into the POTW sludge. Both oxidation states can
cause POTW treatment inhibition and can also limit the usefuleness of
municipal sludge.
Influent concentrations of chromium to POTW facilities have been
observed by EPA to range from 0.005 to 14.0 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.1 mg/1. The efficiencies for removal of chromium
by the activated sludge process can vary greatly, depending on
chromium concentration in the influent, and other operating conditions
at the POTW. Chelation of chromium by organic matter and dissolution
due to the presence of carbonates can cause deviations from the
predicted behavior in treatment systems.
me systematic presence of chromium compounds will halt nitrification
in a POTW for short periods, and most of the chromium will be retained
in the sludge solids. Hexavalent chromium has been reported to
severely affect the nitrification process, but trivalent chromium has
litte or no toxicity to activated sludge, except at high
concentrations. The presence of iron, copper, and low pH will
increase the toxicity of chromium in a POTW by releasing the chromium
into solution to be ingested by microorganisms in the POTW.
The amount of chromium which passes through to the POTW effluent
depends on the type of treatment processes used by the POTW. In a
study of 240 POTWs 56 percent of the primary plants allowed more than
80 percent pass through to POTW effluent. More advanced treatment
t_jults in less pass-through. POTW effluent concentrations ranged
from 0.003 to 3.2 mg/1 total chromium (mean = 0.197, standard
deviation = 0.48), and from 0.002 to 0.1 mg/1 hexavalent chromium
in.ean = 0.017, standard deviation = 0.020).
Chromium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the sludge,
where it is likely to build up in concentration. Sludge
concentrations of total chromium of over 20,000 mg/kg (dry basis) have
been observed. Disposal of sludges containing very high
concentrations of trivalent chromium can potentially cause problems in
uncontrollable landfills. Incineration, or similar destructive
151
-------
oxidation processes can produce hexavalent chromium from lower valance
states. Hexavalent chromium is potentially more toxic than trivalent
chromium. In cases where high rates of chrome sludge application on
land are used, distinct growth inhibition and plant tissue uptake have
been noted.
Pretreatment of discharges substantially reduces the concentration of
chromium in sludge. In Buffalo, ' New York, pretreatment of
electroplating waste resulted in a decrease in chromium concentrations
in POTW sludge from 2,510 to 1,040 mg/kg. A similar reduction
occurred in in Grand Rapids, Michigan POTW where the chromium
concentration' in sludge decreased from 11,000 to 2,700 mg/kg when
pretreatment was made a requirement.
Copper(120). Copper is a metallic element that sometimes is found
free, as the native metal, and is also found in minerals such as
cuprite (Cu20), malechite [CuC03»Cu(OH)2], azurite [2CuC03»Cu(OH)2],
chalcopyrite (CuFeS2), and bornite (Cu5FeS4). Copper is obtained from
these ores by smelting, leaching, and electrolysis. It is used in the
plating, electrical, plumbing, and heating equipment industries, as
well as in insecticides and fungicides.
Traces of copper are found in all forms of plant and animal life, ~7id
the metal is .an essential trace element for nutrition. Copper is not
considered to be a cumulative systemic poison for humans as it is
readily excreted by the body, but it can cause symptoms of
gastroenteritis, with nausea and intestinal irritations, at relatively
low dosages. The limiting factor in domestic water supplies is taste.
To prevent this adverse organoleptic effect of copper in water, a
criterion of 1 mg/1 has been established.
The toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly, not
only with the species, but also with the physical and chemical
characteristics of the water, including temperature, hardness,
turbidity, and carbon dioxide content. In hard water, the toxicity of
copper salts may be reduced by the precipitation of copper carbonate
or other insoluble compounds. The sulfates of copper and zinc, and of
copper and calcium are synergistic in their toxic effect on fish.
Relatively high concentrations of copper may be tolerated by adult
fish for short periods of time; the critical effect of copper api__ars
to be its higher toxicity to young or juvenile fish. Concentrations
of 0.02 to 0.031 mg/1 have proven fatal to some common fish species.
In general the salmonoids are very sensitive and the sunfishes are
less sensitive to copper.
The recommended criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life is
0.00097 mg/1 as a 24-hour average, and 0.018 mg/1 maximum
concentration.
Copper salts cause undesirable color reactions in the food industry
and cause pitting when deposited on some other metals such as aluminum
and galvanized steel. To control undesirable taste and odor quality
of ambient water due to the organoleptic properties of copper, the
estimated level is 1.0 mg/1. For . .total recoverable copper the
152
-------
criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is 5.6 x 10~3 mg/1 as a
24 hour average.
Irrigation water containing more than minute quantities of copper can
L_ detrimental to certain crops. Copper appears in all soils, and its
concentration ranges from 10 to 80 ppm. In soils, copper occurs in
association with hydrous oxides of manganese and iron, and also as
soluble and insoluble complexes with organic matter. Copper is
essential to the life of plants, and the normal range of concentration
in plant tissue is from 5 to 20 ppm. Copper concentrations in plants
normally do not build up to high levels when toxicity occurs. For
-jtample, the concentrations of copper in snapbean leaves and pods was
1_3S than 50 and 20 mg/kg, respectively, under conditions of severe
copper toxicity. Even under conditions of copper toxicity, most of
th_ excess copper accumulates in the roots; very little is moved to
the aerial part of the plant.
Copper is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It
can interfere with the POTW treatment processes and can limit the
usefulness of municipal sludge.
The influent concentration of copper to POTW facilities has been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 1.97 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.12 mg/1. The copper that is removed from the
influent stream of a POTW is adsorbed on the sludge or appears in the
sludge as the hydroxide of the metal. Bench scale pilot studies have
shown that from about 25 percent to 75 percent of the copper passing
through the activated sludge process remains in solution in the final
_ffluent. Four-hour slug dosages of copper sulfate in concentrations
exceeding 50 mg/1 were reported to have severe effects on the removal
-fficiency of an unacclimated system, with the system returning to
normal in about 100 hours. Slug dosages of copper in the form of
copper cyanide were observed to have much more severe effects on the
activated sludge system, but the total system returned to normal in 24
hours.
In a recent study of 268 POTW, the median pass-through was over 80
percent for primary plants and 40 to 50 percent for trickling filter,
activated sludge, and biological treatment plants. POTW effluent
concentrations of copper ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1 (mean 0.126,
st~ndard deviation 0.242).
Copper which does not pass through the POTW will be retained in the
sludge where it will build up in concentration. The presence of
_xc_3sive levels of copper in sludge may limit its use on cropland.
£_vage sludge contains up to 16,000 mg/kg of copper, with 730 mg/kg as
the mean value. These concentrations are significantly greater than
those normally found in soil, which usually range from 18 to 80 mg/kg.
Experimental data indicate that when dried sludge is spread over
tillable land, the copper tends to remain in place down to the depth
of tillage, except for copper which is taken up by plants grown in the
soil. Recent investigation has shown that the extractable copper
content of sludge-treated soil decreased with time, which suggests a
re\__-sion of copper to less soluble forms was occurring.
153
-------
Cyanide(121). Cyanides are among the most toxic of pollutants
commonly observed in industrial wastewaters. Introduction of cyanide
into industrial processes is usually by dissolution of potassium
cyanide (KCN) or sodium cyanide (NaCN) in process waters. However,
hydrogen cyanide (HCN) formed when the above salts are dissolved in
water, is probably the most acutely lethal compound.
The relationship of pH to hydrogen cyanide formation is \_ry
important. As pH is lowered to below 7, more than 99 percent of the
cyanide is present as HCN and less than 1 percent as cyanide ions.
Thus, at neutral pH, that of most living organisms, the more toxic
form of cyanide prevails.
Cyanide ions combine with numerous heavy metal ions to form comple:._s.
The complexes are in equilibrium with HCN. Thus, the stability of ti._
metal-cyanide complex and the pH determine the concentration of HCN.
Stability of the metal-cyanide anion complexes is extremely variable.
Those formed with zinc, copper, and cadmium are not stable - they
rapidly dissociate, with production of HCN, in near neutral or acid
waters. Some of the complexes are extremely stable. Cobaltocyanide
is very resistant to acid distillation in the laboratory. Iron
cyanide complexes are also stable, but undergo photodecomposition to
give HCN upon exposure to sunlight. Synergistic effects have been
demonstrated for the metal cyanide complexes making zinc, copper, and
cadmiun, cyanides more toxic than an equal concentration of sodiu.n
cyanide.
The toxic mechanism of cyanide is essentially an inhibition of oxyc,_n
metabolism, i.e., rendering the tissues incapable of exchanging
oxygen. The cyanogen compounds are true noncummulative protoplasmic
poisons. They arrest the activity of all forms of animal lif_.
Cyanide shows a very specific type of toxic action. It inhibits the
cytochrome oxidase system. This system is the one which facilitates
electron transfer from reduced metabolites to molecular oxygen. The
human body can convert cyanide to a nontoxic thiocyanate and elminiate
it. However, if the quantity of cyanide ingested is too great at one
time, the inhibition of oxygen utilization proves fatal before tl._
detoxifying reaction reduces the cyanide con- centration to a safe
level.
Cyanides are more toxic to fish than to lower forms of aquatic
organisms such as midge larvae, crustaceans, and mussels. Toxicity to
fish is a function of chemical form and con- centration, and is
influenced by the rate of metabolism (temperature), the level of
dissolved oxygen, and pH. In laboratory studies free cyanide
concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 mg/1 have been proven to be
fatal to sensitive fish species including trout, bluegill, and fatl._ad
minnows. Levels above 0.2 mg/1 are rapidly fatal to most fish
species. Long term sublethal concentrations of cyanide as low as
0.01 mg/1 have been shown to affect the ability of fish to function
normally, e.g., reproduce, grow, and swim.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties lof
cyanide ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.200 mg/1.
154
-------
Available data .show taht adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations as low as 3.5 x 10~3 mg/1.
Pt-Distance of cyanide in water is highly variable and depends upon
the chemical form of cyanide in the water, the concentration of
cyanide, and the nature of other constituents. Cyanide may be
destroyed by strong oxidizing agents such as permanganate and
chlorine. Chlorine is commonly used to oxidize strong cyanide
solutions. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are the products of complete
oxidation. But if the reaction is not complete, the very toxic
compound, cyanogen chloride, may remain in the treatment system and
subsequently be released to the environment. Partial chlorination may
occur as part of a POTW treatment, or during the disinfection
treatment of surface water for drinking water preparation.
Cyanides can interfere with treatment processes in POTW, or pass
through to ambient waters. At low concentrations and with acclimated
microflora, cyanide may be decomposed by microorganisms in anaerobic
and aerobic environments or waste treatment systems. However, data
indicate that much of the cyanide introduced passes through to the
POTW effluent. The mean pass-through of 14 biological plants was 71
f,_rcent. In a recent study of 41 POTW the effluent concentrations
ranged from 0.002 to 100 mg/1 (mean = 2.518, standard
deviation = 15.6). Cyanide also enhances the toxicity of metals
coiiimonly found in POTW effluents, including the priority pollutants
cadmium, zinc, and copper.
Data for Grand Rapids, Michigan, showed a significant decline in
cyanide concentrations downstream from the POTW after pretreat- ment
regulations were put in force. Concentrations fell from 0.66 mg/1
before, to 0.01 mg/1 after pretreatment was required.
Lead (122). Lead is a soft, malleable, ductible, blueish-gray,
metallic element, usually obtained from the mineral galena (lead
sulfide, PbS), anglesite (lead sulfate, PbS04), or cerussite (lead
.carbonate, PbC03). Because it is usually associated with minerals of
zinc, silver, copper, gold, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, special
purification methods are frequently used before and after extraction
of the metal from the ore concentrate by smelting.
L_ad is widely used for its corrosion resistance, sound and vibration
absorption, low melting point (solders), and relatively high
imperviousness to various forms of radiation. Small amounts of
copper, antimony and other metals can be alloyed with lead to achieve
gt_ater hardness, stiffness, or corrosion resistance than is afforded
by the pure metal. Lead compounds are used in glazes and paints.
About one third of U.S. lead consumption goes into storage batteries.
About half of U.S. lead consumption is from secondary lead recovery.
U.S. consumption of lead is in the range of one million tons annually.
T3ad ingested by humans produces a variety of toxic effects including
impaired reproductive ability, disturbances in blood chemistry,
neurological disorders, kidney damage, and adverse cardiovascular
_ff_cts. Exposure to lead in the diet results in permanent increase
in lead levels in the body. Most of the lead entering the body
155
-------
eventually becomes localized in the bones where it accumulates. Lead
is a carcinogen or cocarcinogen in some species of experimental
animals. Lead is teratogenic in experimental animals. Mutangenicity
data are not available for lead.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of lead
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion is 0.050 mg/1. Available data show that
adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 7.5
x 10-* mg/1.
Lead is not destroyed in POTW, but is passed through to the effluent
or retained in the POTW sludge; it can interfere with POTW treatment
processes and can limit the usefulness of POTW sludge for application
to agricultural croplands. Threshold concentration for inhibition of
the activated sludge process is 0.1 mg/1, and for the nitrification
process is 0.5 mg/1. In a study of 214 POTW, median pass through
values were over 80 percent for primary plants and over 60 percent for
trickling filter, activated sludge, and biological process plants.
Lead concentration in POTW effluents ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1
(means = 0.106 mg/1, standard deviation = 0.222).
Application of lead-containing sludge to cropland should not aff_,rt
the uptake by crops under most conditions because normally lead is
strongly bound by soil. However, under the unusual conditions of low
pH (less than 5.5) and low concentrations of labile phosphorus, lead
solubility is increased and plants can accumulate lead.
Nickel(124). Nickel is seldom found in nature as the pure elemental
metal. It is a reltively plentiful element and is widely distributed
throughout the earth's crust. It occurs in marine organisms and is
found in the oceans. The chief commercial ores for nickel are
pentlandite [(Fe,Ni)9SB], and a lateritic ore consisting of hydrat_i
nickel-iron-magnesium silicate.
Nickel has many and varied uses. It is used in alloys and as the pure
metal. Nickel salts are used for electroplating baths.
The toxicity of nickel to man is thought to be very low, and systemic
poisoning of human beings by nickel or nickel salts is almost unknown.
In nonhuman mammals nickel acts to inhibit insulin release, depi__ss
growth, and reduce cholesterol. A high incidence of cancer of the
lung and nose has been reported in humans engaged in the refining of
nickel.
Nickel salts can kill fish at very low concentrations. However,
nickel has been found to be less toxic to some fish than copper, zinc,
and iron. Nickel is present in coastal and open ocean water at con-
centrations in the range of 0.0001 to 0.006 mg/1 although the most
common values are 0.002 - 0.003 mg/1. Marine animals contain up to
0.4 mg/1 and marine plants contain up to 3 mg/1. Higher nicJ.-l
concentrations have been reported to cause reduction in photosynthetic
activity of the giant kelp. A low concentration was found to kill
oyster eggs.
156
-------
For the protection of human health based on the toxic properties of
nickel ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.134 mg/1.
If contaminated aquatic organisms are consumed, excluding consumption
of water, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 1.01 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur for
total recoverable nickel concentrations as low as 0.032 mg/1.
Nickel is not destroyed when treated in a POTW, but will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It
can interfere with POTW treatment processes and can also limit the
usefulness of municipal sludge.
Nickel salts have caused inhibition of the biochemical oxidation of
sewage in a POTW. In a pilot plant, slug doses of nickel
significantly reduced normal treatment efficiencies for a few hours,
but the plant acclimated itself somewhat to the slug dosage and
appeared to achieve normal treatment efficiencies within 40 hours. It
has been reported that the anaerobic digestion process is inhibited
only by high concentrations of nickel, while a low concentration of
nickel inhibits the nitrification process.
The influent concentration of nickel to POTW facilities has been
obs,_rved by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 3.19 mg/1, with a median of
0.33 mg/1. In a study of 190 POTW, nickel pass-through was greater
than 90 percent for 82 percent of the primary plants. Median
pass-through for trickling filter, activated sludge, and biological
process plants was greater than 80 percent. POTW effuent
concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 40 mg/1 (mean = 0.410, standard
deviation = 3.279).
Nickel not passed through the POTW will be incorporated into the
sludge. In a recent two-year study of eight cities, four of the
cities had median nickel concentrations of over 350 mg/kg, and two
v._i_ over 1,000 mg/kg. The maximum nickel concentration observed was
4,010 mg/kg.
Nickel is found in nearly all soils, plants, and waters. Nickel has
no known essential function in plants. In soils, nickel typically is
found in the range from 10 to 100 mg/kg. Various environmental
exposures to nickel appear to correlate with increased incidence of
tumors in man. For example, cancer in the maxillary antrum of snuff
users may result from using plant material grown on soil high in
nickel.
Nickel toxicity may develop in plants from application of sewage
sludge on acid soils. Nickel has caused reduction of yields for a
variety of crops including oats, mustard, turnips, and cabbage. In
one study nickel decreased the yields of oats significantly at 100
mg/kg.
Whether nickel exerts a toxic effect on plants depends on several soil
factors, the amount of nickel applied, and the contents of other
n.-ials in the sludge. Unlike copper and zinc, which are more
available from inorganic sources than from sludge, nickel uptake by
157
-------
plants seems to be promoted by the presence of the organic matter in
sludge. Soil treatments, such as liming reduce the solubility of
nickel. Toxicity of nickel to plants is enhanced in acidic soils.
Selenium(125). Selenium (chemical symbol Se) is a nonmetallic element
existing in several allotropic forms. Gray selenium, which has a
metallic appearance, is the stable form at ordinary temperatures and
melts at 220°C. Selenium is a major component of 38 minerals and a
minor component of 37 others found in various parts of the world.
Most selenium is obtained as a by-product of precious metals recovery
from electrolytic copper refinery slimes. U.S. annual production at
one time reached one million pounds.
Principal uses of selenium are in semi-conductors, pigments,
decoloring of glass, zerography, and metallurgy. It also is used to
produce ruby glass used in signal lights. Several selenium compounds
are important oxidizing agents in the synthesis of organic chemicals
and drug products.
While results of some studies suggest that selenium may L_ an
essential element in human nutrition, the toxic effects of selenium in
humans are well established. Lassitude, loss of hair, discoloration
and loss of fingernails are symptoms of selenium poisoning. In a
fatal case of ingestion of a larger dose of selenium acid, peripl._ral
vascular collapse, pulumonary edema, and coma occurred. Selenium
produces mutagenic and teratogenic effects, but it has not been
established as exhibiting carcinogenic activity.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
selenium ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determind to be 0.010 mg/1.
Available data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at
concentrations higher than that cited for human toxicity.
Very few data are available regarding the behavior of selenium in
POTW. One EPA survey of 103 POTW revealed one POTW using biological
treatment and having selenium in the influent. Influent concentration
was 0.0025 mg/1, effluent concentration was 0.0016 mg/1 giving a
removal of 37 percent. It is not known to be inhibitory to POrvtf
processes. In another study, sludge from POTW in 16 cities was found
to contain from 1.8 to 8.7 mg/kg selenium, compared to 0.01 to 2 mg/kg
in untreated soil. These concentrations of selenium in sludge present
a potential hazard for humans or other mammuals eating crops grown on
soil treated with selenium containing sludge.
Silver(126). Silver is a soft, lustrous, white metal that is
insoluble in water and alkali. In nature, silver is found in the
elemental state (native silver) and combined in ores such as argentite
(Ag2S), horn silver (AgCl), proustite (Ag3AsS3), and pyrargyrite
(Ag3SbS3). Silver is used extensively in several industries, among
them electroplating.
Metallic silver is not considered to be toxic, but most of its salts
are toxic to a large number of organisms. Upon ingestion by humans,
many silver salts are absorbed in the circulatory system and deposited
158
-------
in various body tissues, resulting in generalized or sometimes
localized gray pigmentation of the skin and mucous membranes know as
argyria. There is no known method for removing silver from the
tissues once it is deposited, and the effect is cumulative.
Silver is recognized as a bactericide and doses from 1 x 10~6 to 5 x
10~4 mg/1 have been reported as sufficient to sterilize water. The
cuiioient water criterion to protect human health from the toxic
properties of silver ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms is 0.05 mg/1. Available data show that adverse
effects on aquatic life occur at total recoverable silver
concentrations as low as 1.2 x 10~3 mg/1.
Th._ chronic toxic effects of silver on the aquatic environment have
not been given as much attention as many other heavy metals. Data
from existing literature support the fact that silver is very toxic to
aquatic organisms. Despite the fact that silver is nearly the most
toxic of the heavy metals, there are insufficient data to adequately
evaluate even the effects o.f hardness on silver toxicity. There are
no data available on the toxicity of different forms of silver.
mere is no available literature on the incidental removal of silver
by POTW. An incidental removal of about 50 percent is assumed as
being representative. This is the highest average incidental removal
of any metal for which data are available. (Copper has been indicated
to have a median incidental removal rate of 49 percent).
"ioaccumulation and concentration of silver from sewage sludge has not
been studied to any great degree. There is some indication that
silver could be bioaccumulated in mushrooms to the extent that there
could be adverse physiological effects on humans if they consumed
large quantites of mushrooms grown in silver enriched soil. The
effect, however, would tend to be unpleasnat rather than fatal.
There is little summary data available on the quantity of silver
discharged to POTW. Presumably there would be a tendency to limit its
discharge from a manufacturing facility because of its high intrinsic
value.
Thallium (127). Thallium (Tl) is a soft, silver-white, dense,
malleable metal. Five major minerals contain 15 to 85 percent
thallium, but they are not of commerical importance because the metal
is produced in sufficient quantity as a by-product of lead-zinc
Smelting of sulfide ores. Thallium melts at 304°C. U.S. annual
production of thallium and its compounds is estimated to be 1500 Ib.
Industrial uses of thallium include the manufacture of alloys,
electronic devices and special glass. Thallium catalysts are used for
industrial organic syntheses.
Acute thallium poisoning in humans has been widely described.
Gastrointestinal pains and diarrhea are followed by abnormal sensation
in the legs and arms, dizziness, and, later, loss of hair. The
c-.itral nervous system is also affected. Somnolence, delerium or coma
may occur. Studies on the teratogenicity of thallium appear
159
-------
inconclusive; no studies on mutagenicity were found; and no published
reports on carcinogenicity of thallium were found.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
thallium ingested through water and contaminated aquatic organisms,
the ambient water criterion is 1.34 x 1 0~2 mg/1. If contaminated
aquatic organisms alone are consumed, excluding consumption of wat_r,
the ambient water criterion is determined to be 48 mg/1. Available
data show that adverse effects on aquatic life occur at concentrations
higher than those cited for human health risks.
No reports were found regarding the behavior of thallium in POTW. It
will not be degraded, therefore it must pass through to the effluent
or be removed with the sludge. However since the sulfide (T1S) is
very insoluble, if appreciable sulfide is present dissolved thallium
in the influent to POTW may be precipitated into the sludc,_.
Subsequent use of sludge bearing thallium compounds as a soil
amendment to crop bearing soils may result in uptake of this elen._nt
by food plants. Several leafy garden crops (cabbage, lettuce, leek,
and endive) exhibit relatively higher concentrations of thallium than
other foods such as meat.
Zinc(128). Zinc occurs abundantly in the earth's crust, concentrat_3
in ores. It is readily refined into the pure, stable, silvery-whit_
metal. In addition to its use in alloys, zinc is used as a protectiv_
coating on steel. It is applied by hot dipping (i.e. dipping the
steel in molten zinc) or by electroplating.
Zinc can have an adverse effect on man and animals at high con-
centrations. Zinc at concentrations in excess of 5 mg/1 causes an
undesirable taste and odor which persists through conventional
treatment. For the prevention of adverse effects due to tl._L_
organoleptic properties of zinc, concentrations in ambient water
should not exceed 5 mg/1. Available data show that adverse effects on
aquatic life occur at concentrations as low as 0.047 mg/1.
Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse changes in the
morphology and physiology of fish. Lethal concentrations in the range
of 0.1 mg/1 have been reported. Acutely toxic concentrations induce
cellular breakdown of the gills, and possibly the clogging of the
gills with mucous. Chronically toxic concentrations of zinc compounds
cause general enfeeblement and widespread histological changes to many
organs, but not to gills. Abnormal swimming behavior has been
reported at 0.04 mg/1. Growth and maturation are retarded by zinc.
It has been observed that the effects of zinc poisoning may not become
apparent immediately, so that fish removed from zinc-contaminated
water may die as long as 48 hours after removal.
In general, salmonoids are most sensitive to elemental zinc in soft
water; the rainbow trout is the most sensitive in hard waters. A
complex relationship exists between zinc concentration, dissolved zinc
concentration, pH, temperature, and calcium and magnesium
concentration. Prediction of harmful effects has been less than
reliable and -controlled studies have not been extensively document-i.
160
-------
me major concern with zinc compounds in marine waters is not with
acute lethal effects, but rather with the long-term sublethal effects
of the metallic compounds and complexes. Zinc accumulates in some
marine species, and marine animals contain zinc in the range of 6 to
1500 mg/kg. From the point of view of acute lethal effects,
invertebrate marine animals seem to be the most sensitive organism
Usted.
Toxicities of zinc in nutrient solutions have been demonstrated for a
numoer of plants. A variety of fresh water plants tested manifested
harmful symptoms at concentrations of 10 mg/1. Zinc sulfate has also
bt_n found to be lethal to many plants and it could impair
agricultural uses of the water.
Zinc is not destroyed when treated by POTW, but will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It
can interfere with treatment processes in the POTW and can also limit
the usefuleness of municipal sludge.
\
In slug doses, and particularly in the presence of copper, dissolved
zinc can interfere with or seriously disrupt the operation of POTW
biological processes by reducing overall removal efficiencies, largely
as a result of the toxicity of the metal to biological organisms.
Hov._/er, zinc solids in the form of hydroxides or sulfides do not
apj-_ar to interfere with biological treatment processes, on the basis
of available data. Such solids accumulate in the sludge.
The influent concentrations of zinc to POTW facilities have been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.017 to 3.91 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.33 mg/1. Primary treatment is not efficient in
removing zinc; however, the microbial floe of secondary treatment
readily adsorbs zinc.
In a study of 258 POTW, the median pass-through values were 70 to 88
percent for primary plants, 50 to 60 percent for trickling filter and
biological process plants, and 30-40 percent for activated process
p]~its. POTW effluent concentrations of zinc ranged from 0.003 to
3.6 mg/1 (mean = 0.330, standard deviation = 0.464).
The zinc which does not pass through the POTW is retained in the
sludge. The presence of zinc in sludge may limit its use on cropland.
£_vage sludge contains 72 to over 30,000 mg/kg of zinc, with
3,366 mg/kg as the mean value. These concentrations are significantly
gt_.ater than those normally found in soil, which range from 0 to
195 mg/kg, with 94 mg/kg being a common level. Therefore, application
of sewage sludge to soil will generally increase the concentration of
zinc in the soil. Zinc can be toxic to plants, depending upon soil
pH. Lettuce, tomatoes, turnips, mustard, kale, and beets are
especially sensitive to zinc contamination.
X"l_/ie (130J. Xylene (C«H4 (CH3)2) is a colorless flammable liquid
with a density of 0.86 g/ml. The boiling point ranges from 137 to
140°C, and the flash point is 29°C. Xylene is practically insoluble
in water, but it is miscible with alcohol, ether, and many other
organic liquids. Xylene is commonly a mixture of three isomers,
161
-------
ortho, meta, and para-xylene, with m-xylene predominating. Xylene is
manufactured from pseudocumene, or by catalytic isomerization of a
hydrocarbon fraction.
Xylene is predominately used as a solvent, for the manufacture of dyes
and other organics, and as a raw material for production of benzoic
acid, phthalic anhydride and other acids and esters used , in the
manufacture of polyester fibers.
Xylene has been shown to have a narcotic effect on humans exposed to
high concentrations. The chronic toxicity of xylene has not In
defined, however, it is less toxic than benzene.
Data on the behavior of xylene in POTW are not available. However,
the methyl groups in xylene tend to transfer electrons to the beni._j._
ring and make it more susceptible to biochemical oxidation. This
observation in addition to the low water solubility of xylene, l_ads
to the expectation that aeration processes will remove some xylene
from the POTW.
Aluminum. Aluminum is a nonconventional pollutant. It is a silv_ry
white metal, very abundant in the earths crust (8.1%), but never found
free in nature. Its principal ore is bauxite. Alumina (A1203) is
extracted from the bauxite and dissolved in molten cryolite. Aluminum
is produced by electrolysis of this melt.
Aluminum is light, malleable, ductile, possesses high thermal and
electrical conductivity, and is non-magnetic. It can be foiK.-d,
machined or cast. Although aluminum is very reactive, it forms a
protective oxide film on the surface which prevents corrosion under
many conditions. In contact with other metals in presence of moisture
the protective film is destroyed and voluminous white corrosion
products form. Strong acids and strong alkali also break down the
protective film. Aluminum is one of the principal basis metals uL_d
in the coil coating industry.
Aluminum is nontoxic and its salts are used as coagulants in wat_r
treatment. Although some aluminum salts are soluble, alkalir.-
conditions cause precipitation of the aluminum as a hydroxide.
Aluminum is commonly used in cooking utensils. There are no report_d
adverse physiological effects on man from low concentrations of
aluminum in drinking water.
Aluminum does not have any adverse effects on POTW operation at any
concentrations normally encountered.
Ammon i a. Ammonia (chemical formula NH3) is a non-conventional
pollutant. It is a colorless gas with a very pungent odor, detectable
at concentrations of 20 ppm in air by the nose, and is very soluble in
water (570 gm/1 at 25°C). Ammonia is produced industrially in \_ry
large quantities (nearly 20 millions tons-annually in the U.S.). It
is converted to ammonium compounds or shipped in the liquid form (it
liquifies at -33°C). Ammonia also results from natural processes.
Bacterial action on nitrates or nitrites, as well as dead plant and
162
-------
animal tissue and animal wastes produces ammonia. Typical domestic
wastewaters contain 12 to 50 mg/1 ammonia.
The principal use of ammonia and its compounds is as fertilizer. High
amounts are introduced into soils and the water runoff from
agricultural land by this use. Smaller quantities of ammonia are used
as a refrigerant. Aqueous ammonia (2 to 5 percent solution) is widely
used as a household cleaner. Ammonium compounds find a variety of
uses in various industries.
Ammonia is toxic to humans by inhalation of the gas or ingestion of
aqu_ous solutions. The ionized form {NH4+) is less toxic than the
un-ionized form. Ingestion of as little as one ounce of household
aimnonia has been reported as a fatal dose. Whether inhaled or
ingested, ammonia acts distructively on mucous membrane with resulting
loss of function. Aside from breaks in liquid ammonia refrigeration
equipment, industrial hazard from ammonia exists where solutions of
auiinonium compounds may be accidently treated with a strong alkali,
releasing ammonia gas. As little as 150 ppm ammonia in air is
i-ported to cause laryngeal spasm, and inhalation of 5000 ppm in air
is considered sufficient to result in death.
Freshwater ambient water criteria for total ammonia are pH and
temperature dependent; un-ionized ammonia criteria is 0.02 mg/1. The
reported odor threshold for ammonia in water is 0.037 mg/1.
Un-ionized ammonia is acutely or chronically toxic to many important
freshwater and marine aquatic organisms at ambient water
concentrations below 4.2 mg/1. Salmonoid fishes are especially
sensitive to the toxic effects of un-ionized ammonia at concentrations
as low as 0.025 mg/1 during prolonged exposure. Because the
proportion of un-ionized ammonia varies with environmental conditions
and cannot be directly controlled in the ambient water, total ammonia
is the pollutant which must be controlled.
me behavior of ammonia in POTW is well documented because it is a
natural component of domestic wastewaters. Only very high
concentrations of ammonia compounds could overload POTWs. One study
has shown that concentrations of un-ionized ammonia greater than
90 mg/1 reduce gasification in anaerobic digesters and concentrations
of 140 mg/1 stop digestion competely. Corrosion of copper piping and
excessive consumption of chlorine also result from high ammonia
concentrations. Interference with aerobic nitrification processes can
occur when large concentrations of ammonia suppress dissolved oxygen.
Nitrites are then produced instead of nitrates. Elevated nitrite
concentrations in drinking water are known to cause infant
methemoglobinemia.
rluoride. Fluoride ion (F~) is a nonconventional pollutant. Fluorine
is an extremely reactive, pale yellow, gas which is never found free
in nature. Compounds of fluorine - fluorides - are found widely
distributed in nature. The principal minerals containing fluorine are
fluorspar (CaF2) and cryolite (Na3AlF6). Although fluorine is
produced commercially in small quantities by electrolysis of potassium
bifluoride in anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, the elemental form bears
little relation to the combined ion. Total production of fluoride
163
-------
chemicals in the U.S. is difficult to estimate because of the varied
uses. Large volume usage compounds are: Calcium fluoride (est.
1,500,000 tons in U.S.) and sodium fluoroaluminate (est. 100,000 tons
in U.S.). Some fluoride compounds and their uses are: sodium
fluoroaluminate - aluminum production; calcium fluoride - steelmaking,
hydrofluoric acid production, enamel, iron foundry; boron trifluoride
- organic synthesis; antimony pentafluoride - fluorocarbon production;
fluoboric acid and fluoborates - electroplating; perchloryl fluoride
(C103F) - rocket fuel oxidizer; hydrogen fluoride - organic fluoride
manufacture, pickling acid in stainless steelmaking, manufacture of
alumium fluoride; sulfur hexafluoride - insulator in high voltage
transformers; polytetrafluoroethylene - inert plastic. Sodium
fluoride is used at a concentration of about 1 ppm in many public
drinking water supplies to prevent tooth decay in children.
The toxic effects of fluoride on humans include sevei_
gastroenteritis, vomiting diarrhea, spasms, weakness, thirst, failing
pulse and delayed blood coagulation. Most observations of toxic
effects are made on individuals who intentionally or accidentally
ingest sodium fluoride intended for use as rat poison or insecticic_.
Lethal doses for adults are estimated to be as low as 2.5 g. At 1.5
ppm in drinking water, mottling of tooth enamel is reported, and 14
ppm, consumed over a period of years, may lead to deposition of
calcium fluoride in bone and tendons.
Very few data are available on the behavior of fluoride in POTW.
Under usual operating conditions in POTW, fluorides pass through into
the effluent. Very little of the fluoride entering conventior-1
primary and secondary treatment processes is removed. In one study of
POTW influents conducted by the U.S. EPA, nine POTW report-3
concentrations of fluoride ranging from 0.7 mg/1 to 1.2 mg/1, which is
the range of concentrations used for fluoridated drinking water.
Iron. Iron is a nonconventional polluant. It is an abundant n._tal
found at many places in the earth's crust. The most common iron ore
is hematite (Fe203) from which iron is obtained by reduction with
carbon. Other forms of commercial ores are magnetite (Fe304) and
taconite (FeSiO). Pure iron is not often found in commercial use, but
it is usually alloyed with other metals and minerals. The most coauTion
of these is carbon.
Iron is the basic element in the production of steel. Iron with
carbon is used for casting of major parts of machines and it can be
machined, cast, formed, and welded. Ferrous iron is used in paints,
while powdered iron can be sintered and used in powder metallurgy.
Iron compounds are also used to precipitate other metals and
undesirable minerals from industrial wastewater streams.
Corrosion products of iron in water cause staining of porcelain
fixtures, and ferric iron combines with tannin to produce a dark
violet color. The presence of excessive iron in water discourac,_s
cows from drinking and thus reduces milk production. High
concentrations of ferric and ferrous ions in water kill most fish
introduced to the solution within a few hours. The killing action is
attributed to coatings of iron hydroxide precipitates on the gills.
164
-------
Iron oxidizing bacteria are dependent on iron in water for growth.
These bacteria form slimes that can affect the aesthetic values of
bodies of water and cause stoppage of flows in pipes.
Iron is an essential nutrient and micro-nutrient for all forms of
growth. Drinking water standards in the U.S. set a limit of 0.3 mg/1
of iron in domestic water supplies based on aesthetic and organoleptic
properties of iron in water.
High concentrations of iron do not pass through a POTW into the
effluent. In some POTW iron salts are added to coagulate precipitates
and suspended sediments into a sludge. In an EPA study of POTW the
concentration of iron in the effluent of 22 biological POTW meeting
secondary treatment performance levels ranged from 0.048 to 0.569 mg/1
with a median value of 0.25 mg/1. This represented removals of 76 to
97 percent with a median of 87 percent removal.
Iron in sewage sludge spread on land used for agricultural purposes is
not expected to have a detrimental effect on crops grown on the land.
Ph_.iols(Total). "Total Phenols" is a nonconventional pollutant
parameter. Total phenols is the result of analysis using the 4-AAP
(4-aminoantipyrene) method. This analytical procedure measures the
color development of reaction products between 4-AAP and some phenols.
Tt._ results are reported as phenol. Thus "total phenol" is not total
phenols because many phenols (notably nitrophenols) do not react.
Also, since each reacting phenol contributes to the color development
to a different degree, and each phenol .has a molecular weight
different from others and from phenol itself, analyses of several
mixtures containing the same total concentration in mg/1 of several
phenols will give different numbers depending on the proportions in
the particular mixture.
L_3pite these limitations of the analytical method, total phenols is a
u£._Iul analysis when the mix of phenols is relatively constant and an
inexpensive monitoring method is desired. In any given plant or even
in an industry subcategory, monitoring of "total phenols" provides an
indication of the concentration of this group of priority pollutants
as well as those phenols not selected as priority pollutants. A
further advantage is that the method is widely used in, water quality
determinations.
In an EPA survey of 103 POTW the concentration of "total phenols"
ranged grom 0.0001 mg/1 to 0.176 mg/1 in the influent, with a median
concentration of 0.016 mg/1. Analysis of effluents from 22 of these
same POTW which had biological treatment meeting secondary treatment
performance levels showed "total phenols" concentrations ranging from
0 i.ig/1 to 0.203 mg/1 with a median of 0.007. Removals were 64 to 100
p_.rcent with a median of 78 percent.
It must be recognized, however, that six of the eleven priority
pollutant phenols could be present in high concentrations and not be
detected. Conversely, it is possible, but not probable, to have a
high "total phenol" concentration without any phenol itself or any of
the ten other priority pollutant phenols present. A characterization
165
-------
of the phenol mixture to be monitored to establish constancy of
composition will allow "total phenols" to be used with confidence.
Oil and Grease. Oil and grease are taken together as one pollutant
parameter. This is a conventional polluant and some, of its components
are:
1. Light Hydrocarbons - These include light fuels such as gasoline,
kerosene, and jet fuel, and miscellaneous sol- vents used for
industrial processing, degreasing, or cleaning purposes. The
presence of these light hydro- carbons may make the removal of
other heavier oil wastes more difficult.
2. Heavy Hydrocarbons, Fuels, and Tars - These include the cruel-
oils, diesel oils, #6 fuel oil, residual oils, slop oils, and in
some cases, asphalt and road tar.
3. Lubricants and Cutting Fluids - These generally fall in- to two
classes: nonemulsifiable oils such as lubrica- ting oils and
greases and emulsifiable oils such as water soluble oils, rolling
oils, cutting oils, and draw- ing compounds. Emulsifiable oils
may contain fat soap or various other additives.
4. Vegetable and Animal Fats and Oils - These originate primarily
from processing of foods and natural products.
These compounds can settle or float and may exist as solids or liquids
depending upon factors such as method of use, production process, and
temperature of wastewater.
Oil and grease even in small quantities cause troublesome taste and
odor problems. Scum lines from these agents are produced on wat_r
treatment basin walls and other containers. Fish and water fowl are
adversely affected by oils in their habitat. Oil emulsions may adhere
to the gills of fish causing suffocation, and the flesh of fish is
tainted when microorganisms that were exposed to waste oil are eaten.
Deposition of oil in the bottom sediments of water can serve to
inhibit normal benthic growth. Oil and grease exhibit an oxyc,_n
demand.
Many of the organic priority pollutants will be found distribuld
between the oily phase and the aqueous phase in industrial
wastewaters. The presence of phenols, PCBs, PAHs, and almost any
other organic pollutant in the oil and grease make characterization of
this parameter almost impossible. However, all of these otl._r
organics add to the objectionable nature of the oil and grease.
Levels of oil and grease which are toxic to aquatic organisms vary
greatly, depending on the type and the species susceptibility.
However, it has been reported that crude oil in concentrations as low
as 0.3 mg/1 is extremely toxic to fresh-water fish. It has been
recommended that public water supply sources be essentially free from
oil and grease.
166
-------
Oil and grease in quantities of 100 1/sq km show up as a sheen on the
surface of a body of water. The presence of oil slicks decreases the
aesthetic value of a waterway.
Oil and grease is compatible with a POTW activated sludge process in
limited quantity. However, slug loadings or high concentrations of
oil and grease interfere with biological treatment processes. The
oils coat surfaces and solid particles, preventing access of oxygen/
and sealing in some microorganisms. Land spreading of POTW sludge
containing oil and grease uncontaminated by toxic pollutants is not
-/jL-cted to affect crops grown on the treated land, or animals eating
those crops.
"H, Although not a specific pollutant, pH is related to the acidity
or alkalinity of a wastewater stream. It is not, however, a measure
of either. The term pH is used to describe the hydrogen ion
concentration (or activity) present in a given solution. Values for
pH range from 0 to 14, and these numbers are the negative logarithms
of the hydrogen ion concentrations. A pH of 7 indicates neutrality.
Solutions with a pH above 7 are alkaline, while those solutions with a
pH below 7 are acidic. The relationship of pH and acidity and
alkalinity is not necessarily linear or direct. Knowledge of the
water pH is useful in determining necessary measures for corroison
control, sanitation, and disinfection. Its value is also necessary in
the treatment of industrial wastewaters to determine amounts of
chemcials required to remove pollutants and to measure their
_If-Jtiveness. Removal of pollutants, especially dissolved solids is
affected by the pH of the wastewater.
Waters with a pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works structures,
distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures and can thus add
constituents to drinking water such as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium,
and lead. The hydrogen ion concentration can affect the taste of the
water and at a low pH, water tastes sour. The bactericidal effect of
chlorine is weakened as the pH increases, and it is advantageous to
;keep the pH close to 7.0. This is significant for providng safe
drinking water.
""xtremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or kill
aquatic life outright. Even moderate changes from acceptable criteria
limits of pH are deleterious to some species. The relative toxicity
to aquatic life of many materials is increased by changes in the water
pH. For example, metallocyanide complexes can increase a
thousand-fold in toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units.
Because of the universal nature of pH and its effect on water quality
and treatment, it is selected as a pollutant parameter for many
industry categories. A neutral pH range (approximately 6-9) is
generally desired because either extreme beyond this range has a
deleterious effect on receiving waters or the pollutant nature of
other wastewater constituents.
Pretreatment for regulation of pH is covered by the "General
PL-treatment Regulations for Exisiting and New Sources of Pollution,"
40 CFR 403.5. This section prohibits the discharge to a POTW of
167
-------
"pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POrW
but in no case discharges with pH lower than 5.0 unless the works is
specially designed to accommodate such discharges."
Sulfides. Sulfides are constituents of many industrial wastes such as
those from tanners, paper mills, chemical plants, and gas works; but
they are also generated in sewage and some natural waters by the
anerobic decomposition of organic matter. When added to water,
soluble sulfide salts such as Na2S dissociate into sulfide ions which
in turn react with the hydrogen ions in the water to form HS- or H2S,
the proportion of each depending upon the resulting pH value.
, ij Due to the unpleasant taste and odor which exist when sulfides are
I Hpresent in water, it is unlikely that any person or animal would
'"'consume a harmful dose. The threshold level of taste and smell ai _
reported to be 0.2 mg/1 of sulfides in pump-mill wastes. For
industrial uses, however, even small traces of sulfides are often
detrimental.
The toxicity of sulfide solutions toward fish increases as the pH
value is lowered, i.e., the H2S or HS- appears to be the principle
toxic agent. Experiments with trout substantiate this stater.._nt.
However, inorganic sulfides have also proved fatal to trout at
concentrations between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1 as sulfide, even in neutral
and somewhat alkaline solutions.
11
Tin.
Tin is
silver-white, lustrous and malleable metal with a
density of 7.31 g/ml. The melting point of tin is 231.9°C while tl._
boiling point is 2507°C.
Tin is used chiefly for tin-plating, soldering alloys and babbitt tyi-_
metals.
Tin is not present in natural waters but it may occur in industrial
wastes. Tin salts therefore, may reach surface waters or groundwa1__r;
but because many of the salts are insoluble in water, it is unlikely
that much of the tin will remain in solution or suspension. No
reports have been uncovered to indicate that tin can be detrimental in
domestic water supplies.
Rats have tolerated 25 mg or more of sodium stannuous tartrate in tl._
diet over a period of 4-12 months without ill effects. Similar tests
I with other animals had similar results - no ill effects. On the basis
' >'of these feeding experiments, it is unlikely that any concentration of
tin that could occur in water would be detrimental to livestock.
It is apparent that trace concentrations of tin are beneficial to
fish. However, higher levels have proved fatal to eels which v._i_
test 3d.
Total Suspended Solids(TSS). Suspended solids include both organic
and inorganic materials. The inorganic compounds include sand, silt,
.and clay. The organic fraction includes such materials as grease,
joil, tar, and animal and vegetable waste products. These solids i«ay
'settle out rapidly, and bottom deposits are often a mixture of both
168
-------
organic and inorganic solids. Solids may be suspended in water for a
time and then settle to the bed of the .stream or lake. These solids
discharged with man's wastes may be inert, slowly biodegradable
materials, or rapidly decomposable substances. While in suspension,
suspended solids increase the turbidity of the water, reduce light
p-.ietration, and impair the photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
Suj._.ided solids in water interfere with many industrial processes and
cause foaming in boilers and incrustastions on equipment exposed to
such water, especially as the temperature rises. They are undesirable
in process water used in the manufacture of steel, in the textile
industry, in laundries, in dyeing, and in cooling systems.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When they settle
to form sludge deposits on the stream or lake bed, they are often
damaging to the life in the water. Solids, when transformed to sludge
deposit, may do a variety of damaging things, including blanketing the
stream or lake bed and thereby destroying the living spaces for those
benthic organisms that would otherwise occupy the habitat. When of an
organic nature, solids use a portion or all of the dissolved oxygen
available in the area. Organic materials also serve as a food source
for sludgeworms and associated organisms.
Disregarding any toxic effect attributable to substances leached out
by water, suspended solids may kill fish and shellfish by causing
abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages
of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids are inimical
to aquatic life because they screen out light, and they promote and
maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen
depletion. This results in the killing of fish and fish food
organisms. Suspended solids also reduce the recreational value of the
water.
xotal suspended solids is a traditional pollutant which is compatible
with a well-run POTW. This pollutant with the exception of those
components which are described elsewhere in this section, e.g., heavy
n._ial components, does not interfere with the operation of a POTW.
However, since a considerable portion of the innocuous TSS may be
inseparably bound to the constituents which do interfere with POTW
O£,_ration, or produce unusable sludge, or subsequently dissolve to
produce unacceptable POTW effluent, TSS may be considered a toxic
waste hazard.
Regulated Pollutants
Most of the toxic pollutants (29) are found in the coke- making
subcategory. In order to avoid costly analytical work three organic
indicator pollutants are proposed for limitation.
Th_ final list of pollutants proposed for limitation is found in Table
V 3. This list consists of 21 pollutants; 14 toxic, 4 nontoxic
nonconventional, and 3 conventional. Table V-4 lists the pollutants
proposed for limitation by subcategory.
169
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1 , 2 , 4- tr i chl orobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1, 2-dichloroethane
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
Hexachlorethane
1, 1-di chl oroe thane
1,1, 2-trichloroethane
1,1,2, 2-tetrachloroethane
Chl oroe thane
bis (chloromethyl )ether
bis ( 2-chl oroethyl )ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-chl oronaph thai ene
2,4, 6-trichlorophenol
Parachlorometacresol
Chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1, 2-dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene
3, 3 '-dichlorobenzidine
1 , 1-dichloroethylene
1, 2-trans-dichloroethylene
2, 4-dichlorophenol
1 , 2-dichloropropane
1, 2-dichloropropylene
2,4-dimethyl phenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2, 6-dinitrotoluene
1, 2-diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis( 2-chl oroethoxy) methane
Methylene chloride
Not
Detected
_
X
-
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
Environmentally
Insignificant
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not , jv Regulati
Treatable Consi^red
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
170
-------
\BLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
ION & STEEL INDUSTRY
AGE 2
NO. Pollutant
45 Methyl chloride
046 Methyl bromide
47 Bromoform
48 Dichlorobromomethane
u49 Trichlorofluoromethane
"50 Dichlorodifluoromethane
51 Chlorodibromomethane
_52 Hexachlorobutadiene
053 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54 Isophorone
55 Naphthalene
056 Nitrobenzene
57 2-nitrophenol
58 4-nitrophenol
u59 2,4-dinitrophenol
060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61 N-nitrosodimethylamine
'62 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64 Pentachlorophenol
65 Phenol
066 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
"57 Butyl benzyl phthaiate
58 Di-n-butyl phthalate
u69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
H70 Diethyl phthalate
71 Dimethyl phthalate
72 Benzo(a)anthracene
073 Benzo(a)pyrene
74 3,4-benzofluoranthene
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
076 Chrysene
"77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene
o79 benzo(ghi)perylene
080 Fluorene
'81 Phenathrene
82 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
083 Indeno(l,2,3,cd)pyrene
Pyrene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
086 Toluene
^87 Trichlorethylene
88 Vinyl chloride
J89 Aldrin
Not Environmentally Not ,.^ Regulation
Detected Insignificant Treatable Considered
X - -
X - - -
X - - -
X -
x - -
X - -
X - - -
X - - -
X - - -
X
- X
X -
X -
X
X -. - -
X - - -
X - - -
- X
- X
X
- X
- X
X
- X
X
X
- X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
171
-------
TABLE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Not Environmentally Not ,.^ Regulatic
No. Pollutant Detected Insignificant Treatable Considered
090 Dieldrin - X - -
091 Chlordane - X -
092 4,4'-DDT - X - -
093 4,4'-DDE - X - -
094 4,4'-ODD - X - - .
095 a-endosulfan-Alpha - X - -
096 b-endosulfan-Beta - X
097 Endosulfan sulfate - X
098 Endrin - X - -
099 Endrin aldehyde - X - -
100 Heptachlor - X -
101 Heptachlor epoxide - X
102 a-BHC-Alpha - X -
103 b-BHC-Beta - X - -
104 r-BHC-Gamma - X -
105 g-BHC-Delta - X -
106 PCB-1242 - X - -
107 PCB-1254 - X - -
108 PCB-1221 - X
109 PCB-1232 - X - -
110 PCB-1248 - X - -
111 PCB-1260 - X -
112 PCB-1016 - X - -
113 Toxaphene - X - -
114 Antimony - - X
115 Arsenic - - ~ X
116 Asbes tos X - - -
117 Beryllium - - X -
118 Cadmium - - - X
119 Chromium - - ~ X
120 Copper - - X
121 Cyanide - - X
122 Lead - - - X
123 Mercury - - X -
124 Nickel - - - X
125 Selenium - - - X
126 Silver - - - X
127 Thallium - - X
128 Zinc - - - X
129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-
p-dioxin X - -
130 Xylene - - X
172
-------
"LE V-l
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
ION & STEEL INDUSTRY
fiF, U
No. Pollutant
Aluminum
Ammonia
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Hexavalent Chromium
Manganese
Oil and Grease
pH
Phenolic Compounds
Chlorine Residual
Total Suspended Solids
Not Environmentally Not ,... Regulation
Detected Insignificant Treatable Considered
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: Indicates heading which applies to pollutant.
-: Indicates heading which does not apply to pollutant.
L) Concentration of pollutant found at levels below treatability.
However, pollutant load could be reduced by recycle.
173
-------
TABLE V-2
POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION BY SUBCATEGORY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Ho. Pollutant
003 Acrylonitrile
004 Benzene
009 Hexachlorobenzene
Oil 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane
021 2,4,6-trichlorb-
phenol
022 Parachlorometa-
cresol
023 Chloroform
024 2-chlorophenol
031 2,4-Dichlprophenol
034 2,4-dimethylphenol
035 2,4-dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-dinitrotoluene
038 Ethylbenzene
039 Fluoranthene
054 Isopiiorone
055 'Naphthalene
057 2-nitrophenol
058 4-Nitrophenol
060 4, 6-dini tro-o-cresol
064 - Pentachlorophenol
065 Phenol
066-
071 Phthalates, total
072 Benzo(a)anthracene
073 Benzo(a )pyrene
076 Chrysene
077 Acenaphthylene
078 Anthracene
080 Fluorene
084 Pyrene
085 Tetrachloroethylene
086 Toluene
Coke-
making
X
X
Iron-
Sintering making
Steel Vacuum Continuous Hot
making Degaaaing Caating Forming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Scale Cold Alkaline Hot
Removal Pickling Forming Cleaning Coatings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
in
TABLE V-2
POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION BY SUBCATEGORY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
No.
114
115
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
126
127
128
130
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Xylene
Aluminum
Ammoni a
Dissolved Iron
Fluoride
Hexavalent Chromium
Oil and Grease
pH
Phenolic Compounds
TRC
Total Suspended Solids
Coke-
maki ng
X
X
-
-
X
X
-
-
X
-
-
X
X
_
X
-
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
Sintering
_
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
_
-
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
Iron-
maki ng
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
Steel- Vacuum Continuous Hot Scale Cold Alkaline Hot
making Degassing Casting Forming Removal Pickling Forming Cleaning Coatings
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X: Selected for consideration in development of regulated pollutant list in this subcategory.
-: Not selected for consideration in development of regulated pollutant list in this subcategory.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE V-3
REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
004 Benzene .
Oil 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
055 -^Naphthalene
057 2-nitrophenol
073 Benzo(a)pyrene
078 Anthracene
085 Tetrachloroethylene
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
Ammoni a
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
PH
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine Residual
Total Suspended Solids
176
-------
TABLE V-4
REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST BY SUBCATEQORY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
No.
004
Oil
055
057
073
078
085
118
119
120
121
122
124
128
Pollutant Cokemaking Sintering Ironmaking
Benzene X - -
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane -
Naphthalene X -
2-Nitrophenol -
Benzo(a)pyrene X
Anthracene -
Tetrachloroethylene -
Cadmium _
Chromium _ - _
Copper -
Cyanide XXX
Lead - X X
Nickel -
Zinc - X X
Basic
Oxygen
Furnace
(Steelmaking)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
X
Open
Hearth
Furnace
(Steelmaking)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
X
Electric
Arc
Furnace Vacuum Continuous
(Steelmaking) Degassing Casting
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
XXX
_
_
XXX
_
XXX
Hot
Formii
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
X
Ammonia
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
pH
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine (Residual)
Total Suspended Solids
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE V-4
REGULATED POLLUTANT LIST BY SUBCATEOORY
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
CD
No.
004
on
055
057
073
078
085
118
119
120
121
122
124
128
Kolene
(Scale
Pollutant Removal )
Benzene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Naphthalene
2-nitrophenol
Benzo(a)pyrene
Anthracene ~
Tetrachloroethylene
Cadmium
Chromium X
Copper ~
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Ammonia
Fluoride
Oil & Grease
pH X
Phenol (4AAP)
Chlorine 'Residual
Total Suspended Solids X
Hydride Sulfuric
(Scale Acid
Removal) Pickling
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X X
-
X
X X
-
X
-
-
X
X X
-
-
X X
Hydrochloric
Acid
Pickling
Combination
Acid
Pickling-
Recirculation
and
Combination
(Cold
Rolling)
Direct
Application
(Cold Alkaline
Rolling) Cleaning
X: Selected for regulation in this subcategory.
-: Not selected for regulation in this subcategory.
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VI
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
A. Introduction
This section describes in-plant and end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment technologies currently in use or available for use in
the steel industry. The technology descriptions are grouped as
follows: recycle; solids removal; oil removal; metals removal;
organic pollutant removal; advanced technologies; and zero
discharge technologies. The application and performance;
advantages and limitations; reliability; maintainability; and
demonstration status of each technology are presented. The
treatment processes include both technologies presently
demonstrated within the steel industry, and those demonstrated in
other industries with similar wastewaters.
jB. End of Pipe Treatment
Recycle Systems
Recycle is both an in-plant and end of pipe treatment operation
to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged. In recycle
systems, a percentage of the process wastewater is returned for
reuse. Wastewater reuse reduces the discharge flow by reducing
both the amount of water supplied to and the pollutant load
discharged from the process.
Application and Performance
Recycle systems are included in the model technologies in eight
of the twelve steel industry subcategories. The Agency estimates
that the use of these recycle systems can result in a 53%
i.eduction in process water discharges at the BPT level and a 95%
reduction at the BAT level. To achieve these reductions, high
degrees of recycle demonstrated in the industry have been
included in model treatment systems as shown below:
179
-------
Proposed BAT
Subcategory Recycle Rate (%)
Cokemaking (Barometric Condenser) 95
Sintering 95
Ironmaking 98
Steelmaking 94-100
Vacuum Degassing 98
Continuous Casting 99
Hot Forming 96
Acid Pickling (fume scrubber) 95-98
At high recycle rates, two problems can be encountered. First,
if the wastewater is contaminated, a build-up of dissolved solids
in the recycled water can cause plugging and corrosion. This
difficulty can be avoided by providing sufficient treatment of
the wastewater prior to recycle, by adding chemicals that inhibit
scaling or corrosion, and by having sufficient blowdown to
further control the build-up of other pollutants (i.e. dissolv_d
solids) in the system. The second problem that can occur is
excessive heat build-up in the recycled water. If the
temperature of the water to be recycled is too high for its
intended purpose, it must be cooled prior to recycle. The most
common method of reducing the heat load of recycled water in the
steel industry is with mechanical draft cooling towers.
Mechanical draft evaporative cooling systems are capable of
handling the wide range of operating conditions encountered in
the steel industry. Cooling towers are included in the model
treatment systems in four of the eight subcategories whet_
recycle systems are considered.
Advantages and Limitations
As discussed above, recycle systems can achieve significant
pollutant load reductions at relatively low cost. The system is
controlled by simple instrumentation and relatively little
operator attention is required.
The only potential limitation on the use of recycle systems is
plugging and scaling. However, based upon the industry's
response to basic and detailed questionnaires, the Agency
believes that with proper attention and maintenance, plugging and
scaling should not present a significant problem at the recycle
rates proposed.
Operational Factors
1. Reliability
The reliability of recycle systems is high, although proper
monitoring and control are required for high rate systems.
Chemical aids are often used in the recycle loops to
maintain optimum operating conditions.
180
-------
2. Maintainability
/
Most recycle systems include only simple pump stations and
piping. These components require very little attention
aside from routine maintenance.
Demonstration Status
Recycle systems are well demonstrated in the steel industry as
well as numerous other industral applications. Full scale
recycle systems have been in existence in the steel industry for
many years. The recycle rates used to develop effluent
limitations and standards for each subcategory have been
c_.nonstrated on a full scale basis in the industry.
Solids Removal
Many types of solids removal devices are in use in the steel
industry including clarifiers, thickeners, inclined plate
separators, settling lagoons, and filtration (mixed or single
media; pressure or gravity). To simplify the discussion of
solids removal only three broad categories are covered: (1)
L_itling lagoons, (2) clarification which includes clarifiers,
thickeners, and inclined plate separators and (3) filtration.
1. Settling Lagoon (or Basin)
Settling (sedimentation) is a process which removes solid
particles from a liquid matrix by gravitational force. The
operation reduces the velocity of the wastewater stream in a
large volume tank or lagoon so that gravitational settling
can occur. Because of the large wastewater volumes involved
in the steel industry, lagoons are often large, on the order
of 0.1 to 10 acres of surface area with a standard working
depth of 7.5 feet. However, a survey of the industry has
found lagoons up to 400 acres.
Long retention times are generally required for
sedimentation. Accumulated sludge is removed either
periodically or continuously and either manually or
mechanically. But because simple sedimentation may require
an excessively large settling area, and because high
retention times (days as compared with hours) are usually
required to effectively treat the wastewater, the addition
of settling aids such as alum or polymetric flocculants is
often used.
Sedimentation is often preceeded by chemical precipitation
and coagulation. Chemical precipitation converts dissolved
pollutants to solid form, while coagulation enhances
settling by gathering together suspended precipitates into
larger, faster settling particles.
181
-------
Application and Performance
Settling lagoons are used in all steel industry
subcategories. Most are terminal treatment lagoons which
serve as a final treatment step prior to discharge. Often
these lagoons are a main component in central treatment
systems and are used to settle out solids from several
process waste streams.
A properly operated sedimentation system is capable of
efficiently removing suspended solids (including metal
hydroxides), and other impurities from wastewater. The
performance of the lagoon depends on a variety of factors,
including the density and particle size of the solids, tl._
effective charge of the suspended particles, and the types
of chemicals used in pretreatment, if any.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of solids removal by settling is tl._
simplicity of the process itself. The major problem with
simple settling is the long retention time necessary to
achieve complete settling, especially if the specific
gravity of the suspended matter is close to that of water.
In addition, some materials are not removed by simpl-
sedimentation alone (i.e., dissolved solids).
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Settling can be a highly reliable
technology for removing suspended solids. Sufficient
retention time and regular sludge removal are important
factors affecting the reliability of all settling
systems. The proper control of pH, chemical
precipitation, and coagulation or flocculation are
additional factors which affect settling efficiencies.
b. Maintainability: Little maintenance is required for
lagoons other than periodic sludge removal.
Demonstration Status
Based upon the survey of the industry through questionnaires
and sampling trips, the Agency estimates that there are ov_r
140 settling lagoons in use at 39 steel plant sites. Hence
their use in the steel industry is well demonstrated.
2. Clarifiers
Clarifiers are another type of sedimentation device widely
used in the steel industry. The chief benefit of a
clarifier over a lagoon is that a clarifier reduces the land
area requirements and the detention time. Solids removal
efficiencies are generally in the same range as for settling
lagoon systems. Conventional Clarifiers consist of a
182
-------
circular or rectangular tank with either a mechanical sludge
collecting device or with a sloping funnel- shaped bottom
designed for sludge collection. In advanced clarifier
designs, inclined plates or, slanted tubes may be placed in
the the clarifier tank to increase the effective settling
area and thus increase the capacity of the clarifier. As
with settling lagoons, chemical aids are often added prior
to clarification to enhance solids removal.
Application and Performance
The application of clarification is very similar to that
described above for settling lagoons. Clarifiers are used
in most subcategories to remove solids and suspended
inorganic pollutants. Performance is also very similar to
well operated lagoons as shown by the data presented in
Appendix A.
The Agency statistically analyzed long-term data for several
clarification systems. The Agency calculated the mean,
standard deviation and other common statistical values, as
well as the monthly average and daily maximum performance
standards. A monthly average concentration was calculated
based upon a 95 percentile while the daily maximum
concentration was calculated with a 99 percentile. The
methods used to determine these values are explained in
Appendix A.
Based upon the data presented above, and other data
presented in the subcategory reports, the Agency concluded
that a 30-day average of 30 mg/1 TSS and a 24 hour maximum
of 60 mg/1 TSS are attainable with clarification technology.
Advantages and Limitations
Clarification is more effective for removing suspended
matter than simple settling systems. However, the cost of
installing and maintaining a clarifier is greater than the
costs associated with simple settling.
Inclined plate and slant tube settlers have removal
efficiencies similar to conventional Clarifiers, but have a
greater capacity per unit area. The installed costs for
these advanced clarifier systems are claimed to be one half
the cost of conventional systems of similar capacity.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Similar to lagoon systems with proper
control and maintenance. Clarifiers can achieve
consistently low concentrations of solids and other
pollutants in the wastewater.
183
-------
Those advanced clarifiers using slanted tubes or
inclined plates may require prescreening of th_
wastewater in order to eliminate any materials which
could potentially clog the system.
b. Maintainability: The systems used for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a
regular basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts
is also necessary.
Demonstration Status
Clarifiers are used extensively in all subcategories of the
steel industry. While the design may change slightly
depending on the wastewaters being treated (i.e.,
steelmaking vs. pickling), all systems operate in a similar
manner.
3. Filtration
Filtration is another common method used in the steel
industry to remove solids (including particulate metals) and
oils. Numerous types of filters and filter media are used
in the steel industry and all work by similar mechanisms.
Filters may be pressure or gravity type; single, dual, or
mixed media; and the media can be sand, diatomaceous earth,
walnut shells or some other material.
A filter may use a single media such as sand. However, by
using dual or mixed (multiple) media, higher flow rates and
efficiencies can be achieved. The dual media filter usually
consists of a fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of
another media. The coarse media removes most of the
influent solids, while the fine sand performs fir~l
polishing.
In the steel industry, several considerations are important
when filter systems are being designed. While eitl._r
pressure or gravity systems may be used, the pressure
systems are the most common and provide several advantages.
A higher working pressure can be used with a pressure syst_.u
and backwash storage and pumping facilities can be
eliminated.
For typical steel industry applications, filter rates are in
the range of 6 gpm per square foot to perhaps 18 gpm y_r
square foot. At the higher rates, the efficiency of
suspended solids removal is dependent upon the filtration
rate, and the particle size. A knowledge of particl-
density, size distribution, and chemical composition is
useful when selecting a filter design rate.
Filter media must be selected in conjunction with the filt_r
design rate. The size and depth of the media is a primary
consideration and other important factors are the chemical
184
-------
composition, sphericity, and hardness of the media chosen.
The presence of relatively large amounts of oil in the
wastewater to be filtered also affects the selection of the
appropriate media.
During the filtration process, solids and oils accumulate in
the bed and reduce the ability of the wastewater to flow
through the media properly. To alleviate this problem, most
fi.lters go through a periodic cleaning cycle called
backwashing. The method of backwashing and the design of
backwash systems is an integral part of any deep-bed
filtration system. Solids penetrate deeply into the bed and
must be adequately removed during the backwashing cycle or
problems may develop within the filtration system.
Occasionally auxiliary means are employed to aid filter
cleaning. Water jets used just below the surface of the
expanded bed will aid solids and oil removals. Also, air
can be used to augment the cleaning action of the backwash
water to "scour" the bed free of solids and oils.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The
filter backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure
drop basis with a terminal value which triggers backwash, or
a solids carryover basis from turbidity monitoring of the
outlet stream. Each of these methods is well demonstrated.
Application and Performance
In wastewater treatment plants, filters are often employed
for final treatment following clarification, sedimentation
or other similar operations. Filtration thus has potential
application in nearly all industrial plants. Chemical
additives which enhance the upstream treatment equipment may
or may not be compatible with or enhance the filtration
process. Normal operating flow rates for various types of
filters are as follows:
Slow Sand 2.04-5.30 1/sq m-hr
Rapid Sand 40.74-51.48 1/sq m-hr
High Rate Mixed Media 81.48-122.22 1/sq m-hr
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater
streams by filtering through a deep 0.3-0.9 m (1-3 feet)
granular filter bed. The porous media bed can be designed
to remove practically all suspended particles. Even
colloidal suspensions (roughly 1 to 100 microns) are
adsorbed on the surface of the media grains as they pass in
close proximity in the narrow bed passages.
Data gathered from short-term sampling visits show that
filter plants in all subcategories readily produce effluents
with less than 10 mg/1 TSS (See Appendix A). However, the
analysis of long-term data for ten filtration systems has
shown that higher values are more appropriate for
performance standards. Based upon the statistical analysis
185
-------
for long-term TSS data the Agency has determined that a
30-day average of 15 mg/1 TSS and a 24 hour maximum of 40
mg/1 TSS are attainable with filtration. Moreover, data for
many steel industry subcategories demonstrate that these
limits apply to all filtration systems regardless of the
wastewater being treated.
Advantages and Limitations
The principal advantages of filtration are low initial and
operating costs, modest land requirements, lower effluent
solids concentration, and the reduction or elimination of
chemical additions which add to the discharge stream.
However, the filter may require pretreatment if the solids
level is high (over TOO mg/1). In addition, operator
training is necessary due to the controls and periodic
backwashing involved.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The recent improvements in filter
technology have significantly improved filtration
reliability. Control systems, improved designs, and
good operating procedures have made filtration a highly
reliable method of water treatment.
b. Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with
either manual or automatic backwashing. In either
case, they must be periodically inspected for media
retention, partial plugging and leakage.
Demonstration Status
Filtration is one of the more common treatment methods used
for steel industry wastewaters especially in the hot forming
subcategory. This technology is used to treat a variety of
wastewaters with similar results. Its ability to reduce the
amount of solids, oils and metals in the wastewater is well
demonstrated by both short and long-term data in the steel
industry.
Oil Removal
Oils and greases are removed from process wastewaters by several
methods in the steel industry including oil skimming, filtration,
and air flotation. Also, ultrafiltration is used at one cold
rolling plant to remove oils. Oils may also be incidentally
removed through other treatment processes such as clarification.
The source of these oils is usually lubricants and preservative
coatings used in the various steelmaking and finishing
operations.
As a general matter, the most effective first step in oil removal
is to prevent it from mixing with the large volume wastewater
flows by segregating the sumps in all cellars and by appropriat-
186
-------
maintenance of the lubrication and greasing systems. If the
segregation is accomplished, more efficient removals of the oils
and greases from the wastewater can be accomplished. The oil
removal equipment used in the steel industry is described below.
1. Skimming
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will
often float unassisted to the surface of the wastewater.
Skimming is used to remove these floating wastes. Skimming
normally takes place in a tank designed to allow the
floating debris to rise and remain on the surface, while the
liquid flows to an outlet located below the floating layer.
Skimming devices are therefore suited to the removal of
nonemulsified oils from raw wastewaters. Common skimming
mechanisms include the rotating drum type, which picks up
oil from the surface of the water as the drum rotates. A
doctor blade scrapes oil from the drum and collects it in a
trough for disposal or reuse. The water portion is allowed
to flow under the rotating drum. Occasionally, an underflow
baffle is installed after the drum; this has the advantage
of retaining any floating oil which escapes the drum
skimmer. The belt type skimmer is pulled vertically through
the water, collecting oil which is then scraped off from the
belt surface and is collected in a drum. Gravity
separators, such as the API type, use overflow and underflow
baffles to skim a layer of floating oil from the surface of
the wastewater. An overflow-underflow baffle allows a small
amount of wastewater (the oil portion) to flow over into a
trough for disposition or reuse while most of the water
flows underneath the baffle. This is followed by an
overflow baffle, which is set at a height relative to the
first baffle such that only the oil bearing portion will
flow over the first baffle during normal plant operation. A
diffusion device, such as a vertical slot baffle, aids in
creating a uniform flow through the system and increasing
oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance
Skimming may be used on any wastewater containing pollutants
which float to the surface. It is commonly used to remove
free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is often used in
conjunction with air flotation or clarification in order to
increase its effectiveness.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is partly a function of
the retention time of the water in the tank. Larger, more
buoyant particles require less retention time than smaller
particles. Thus, the efficiency also depends on the
composition of the wastewater. The retention time required
to allow phase separation and subsequent skimming varies
from 1 to 15 minutes, depending on the wastewater
characteristics.
187
-------
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more
suitable for use where the amount of surface oil flowing
through the system is fairly high and consistent. Drum and
belt type skimmers are suitable where surges of floating oil
are not a problem. Using an API separator system in
conjunction with a drum type skimmer could be a very
effective method of removing floating contaminants frc/m
nonemulsified oily waste streams. Data for various oil
skimming operations are presented in Appendix A.
Advantages and Limitations
Skimming as pretreatment is effective in removing naturally
floating waste material. It also improves the performanc-
of subsequent downstream treatments.
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil,
will not float "naturally" but require additional treatment.
Therefore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants
capable of being removed by air flotation or other more
sophisticated technologies.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Because of its simplicity, skimming is a
very reliable technique. During cold weather, heating
is usually required for the belt-type skimmers.
b. Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires
periodic lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of
worn parts.
Demonstration Status
Skimming is a common method used to remove floating oil in
many industrial categories, including the steel industry.
Skimming is used widely in the hot forming, continuous
casting, and cold forming subcategories.
2. Filtration
As explained above, filtration is also used to remove oils
and greases from steel industry wastewaters. The mechanism
for removing oils is very similar to the solids removal
mechanism. The oils and grease, either floating or
emulsified types, are directed into the filter where they
are adsorbed on the filter media. Significant oil
reductions can be achieved with filtration, and problems
with the oils are not experienced unless high concentrations
of oils are allowed to reach the filter bed. When this
occurs the bed can be "blinded" and must be backwashed
immediately. If too much oil is in the filter wastewater,
frequent backwashing is necessary which makes the use of the
technology unworkable. Therefore, proper pretreatment is
essential for the proper operations of filtration equipment.
188
-------
Application and Performance
The discussion presented above for filtration systems
applies equally well here. The filter will reduce oil from
moderate levels down to extremely low levels. Analysis of
long-term data for eight filtration systems shows that an
oil and grease limit as low as 3.5 mg/1 can be readily
attained on a 30-day average basis and 10 mg/1 oil and
grease on a daily maximum basis. However, because of
problems with obtaining consistent analytical results in the
range of 5 mg/1, EPA has decided to propose only a maximum
effluent limitation based upon a daily maximum concentration
of 10 mg/1.
Operational Factors and Demonstrated Status
See prior discussion on filtration.
3. Flotation
Flotation is a process which causes particles such as metal
hydroxides or oil to float to the surface of a tank where
they are concentrated and removed. Gas bubbles are released
in the wastewater and attach to the solid particles, which
increase their buoyancy and causes them to float. In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewaters
that carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids or
oil. Solids having a specific gravity only slightly greater
than 1.0, which require abnormally long sedimentation times,
may be removed in much less time by flotation.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam,
dispersed air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation
are the most commonly used techniques. Chemical additives
are often used to enhance the performance of the flotation
process. For example, cold rolling operations often use
acid and chemical aids to break emulsions used in the
rolling solutions prior to flotation. This process greatly
enhances the efficiency of flotation.
The principal difference between types of flotation
techniques is the method of generating the minute gas
bubbles (usually air) in a suspension of water and small
particles. The use of chemicals to improve the efficiency
may be employed with any of the basic methods. The
different flotation techniques and the method of bubble
generation for each process are described below.
Froth Flotation: Froth flotation is based upon the
differences in the physiochemical properties of various
particles. Wetability and surface properties affect
particle affinity to gas bubbles. In froth flotation, air
is blown through the solution containing flotation reagents.
189
-------
The particles with water repellent surfaces stick to air
bubbles and are brought to the surface. A mineralized froth
layer, with mineral particles attached to air bubbles, is
formed. Particles of other minerals which are readily
wetted by water do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation: In dispersed air flotation, gas
bubbles are generated by introducing the air by means of
mechanical agitation with impellers or by forcing air
through porous media. Dispersed air flotation is used
mainly in the metallurgical industry.
Dissolved Air Flotation: In dissolved air flotation,
bubbles are produced as a result of the release of air from
a supersaturated solution under relatively high pressure.
There are two types of contact between the gas bubbles and
particles. The first involves the entrapment of rising gas
bubbles in the flocculated particles as they increase in
size. The bond between the bubble and particle is one of
physical capture only. This is the predominant type of
contact. The second type of contact is one of adhesion.
Adhesion results from the intermolecular attraction exerted
at the interface between the solid particle and gaseous
bubble.
Vacuum Flotation: This process consists of saturating the
wastewater with air either directly in an aeration tank, or
by permitting air to enter the suction of a wastewater pump.
A partial vacuum causes the dissolved air to come out of
solution as minute bubbles. The bubbles attach to solid
particles and form a scum blanket on the surface, which is
normally removed by a skimming mechanism. Grit and other
heavy solids which settle to the bottom are generally raked
to a central sludge pump for removal. A typical vacuum
flotation unit consists of a covered cylindrical tank in
which a partial vacuum is maintained. The tank is equipped
with scum and sludge removal mechanisms. The floating
material is continuously swept to the tank periphery,
automatically discharged into a scum trough, and removed
from the unit by a pump also under partial vacuum.
Application and Performance
Flotation is commonly used in the cokemaking and cold
forming subcategories of the steel industry. Several
cokemaking plants use gas (hydrogen) flotation to control
oil levels. Also, plants in the cold forming (cold rolling)
subcategory use dissolved air flotation after emulsion
breaking and prior to final settling. Data for two steel
industry flotation units are presented below. Plant 684F
represents data on coke wastes while plant 0060B represents
treatment of cold rolling wastes.
190
-------
Performance of Flotation Units
Plant
Oil
In
&
Grease
(mq/1)
Out
0684F 83 45
0060B 41,140 98
Advantages and Limitations
Some of the advantages of the flotation process are the high
levels of solids and oil separation which are achieved in
many applications; the relatively low energy requirements;
and, the capability to adjust air flow to meet the varying
requirements of treating different types of wastewaters.
The limitations of flotation are that it often requires
addition of chemicals to enhance process performance, and it
generates large quantities of solid waste.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of a flotation system is
normally high and is governed by the sludge collector
mechanism and by the motors and pumps used for
aeration.
b. Maintainability: Routine maintenance is required on
the pumps and motors. The sludge collector mechanism
is subject to possible corrosion or breakage and may
require periodic replacement.
Demonstration Status
Flotation is a fully developed process and is readily
available for the treatment of industrial wastewaters.
4. Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a process which uses semipermeable
polymeric membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal
materials suspended in a liquid phase by pressurizing the
liquid so that it permeates the membrane. The membrane of
an ultrafilter forms a molecular screen which retains
molecular particles based on their differences in size,
shape, and chemical structure. The membrane permits passage
of solvents and lower molecular weight molecules. At
present, an ultrafilter is capable of removing materials
with molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 and
particles of comparable or larger sizes.
In an ultrafiltration process, the wastewater is pumped
through a tubular membrane unit. Water and some low
molecular weight materials pass through the membrane under
the applied pressure of 10 to 100 psig. Emulsified oil
droplets and suspended particles are retained, concentrated,
191
-------
and removed continuously. In contrast to ordinary
filtration, retained materials are washed off the membrane
filter rather than held by it.
Application and Performance
Ultrafiltration has potential , application in cold Tolling
plants for separating oils and residual solids from the
process wastes. Because of its ability to remove emulsified
oils with little or no pretreatment, it is ideally suited
for many of the wastewaters generated by cold rolling mills.
Also, some organic compounds of suitable molecular weight
may be bound in the oily wastes which are removed. Hence,
ultrafiltration could prove to be an effective means to
achieve organic toxic pollutant removal for the cold rolling
subdivision.
The following test data depict ultrafiltration performance
at one plant which treats a combined waste from eleven cold
rolling mills:
Ultrafiltration Performance
Feed (mq/1) Permeate (mg/1)
Oil (freon extractable) 82,210 140
TSS 2,220 199
Chromium 6.5 1.2
Copper 7.5 0.07
2-chlorophenol 35.5 ND
2-nitrophenol 70.0 0.02
When the concentration of pollutants in the wastewater is
high (as above) the ultrafiltration unit may not adequately
treat the wastewater alone. Additional clarification may be
necessary prior to discharge.
Advantages and Limitations
Ultrafiltration is sometimes an attractive alternative to
chemical treatment because of lower capital installation,
and operating costs, very high oil and suspended solids
removal and little required pretreatment. It places a
positive barrier between pollutants and effluent which
reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant discharge due
to operator error or upset in settling and skimming systems.
Another possible application is recovering alkaline values
from alkaline cleaning solutions.
A limitation on the use of ultrafiltration for treating
wastewaters is its narrow temperature range (18 to 30
degress C) for satisfactory operation. Membrane life is
decreased with higher temperatures, but flux increases at
elevated temperatures. Therefore, the surface area
requirements are a function of temperature and become a
192
-------
tradeoff between initial costs and replacement costs for the
membrane. In addition, ultrafiltration is not suitable for
certain solutions. Strong oxidizing agents, solvents, and
other organic compounds can dissolve the membrane. Fouling
is sometimes a problem, although the high velocity of the
wastewater normally creates enough turbulence to keep
fouling at a minimum. Large solids particles are also
sometimes capable of puncturing the membrane and must be
removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to the
ultrafiltration unit.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of an ultrafiltration
system is dependent on the proper filtration, settling
or other treatment of incoming waste streams to prevent
damaging the membrane. Careful pilot studies should be
done in each instance to determine necessary
pretreatment steps and the exact membrane type to be
used.
b. Maintainability: A limited amount of regular
maintenance is required for the pumping system. In
addition, membranes must be periodically changed. The
maintenance associated with membrane plugging can be
reduced by selecting a membrane with optimum physical
characteristics and having a sufficient velocity of the
wastewater. It is often necessary to occasionally pass
a detergent solution through the system to remove an
oil and grease film which accumulates on the membrane.
With proper maintenance membrane life can be greater
than twelve months.
Demonstration Status
The ultrafiltration process is well developed and
commercially available for treatment of wastewater or
recovery of certain high molecular weight liquid and solid
contaminants. Over 100 units are presently in operation in
the United States. Ultrafiltration is demonstrated in the
steel industry in the cold forming subcategory.
Metals Removal
Steel industry wastewaters contain significant levels of toxic
metal pollutants including chromium, lead, nickel, zinc . and
others. These pollutants are generally removed by chemical
precipitation and sedimentation or filtration. Most can be
effectively removed by precipitating metal hydroxides or
carbonates through reactions with lime, sodium hydroxide, or
sodium carbonate. Sodium sulfide, ferrous sulfide, or sodium
bisulfide can also be used to precipitate metals as sulfide
compounds with low solubilities.
193
-------
Hexavalent chromium is generally present in galvanizing and
kolene scale removal wastewater. Reduction of this pollutant to
the trivalent form is required if precipitation as the hydroxide
is to be achieved. Where sulfide precipitation is used,
hexavalent chromium is reduced directly by the sulfide. Chromium
reduction using sulfur dioxide or sodium bisulfite or by
electrochemical techniques may be necessary, however, when
hydroxides are precipitated.
Details on various metal removal technologies are presented below
with typical treatability levels where data are available.
1 . Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be
chemically precipitated and removed by physical means such
as sedimentation, filtration, or centrifugation. Several
reagents are commonly used to effect this precipitation.
a. Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may
be used to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal
hydroxides. Lime also may precipitate phosphates as
insoluble calcium phosphate and fluorides as calcium
fluoride.
b. Both soluble sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or
sodium sulfide and insoluble sulfides such as ferrous
sulfide may be used to precipitate many heavy metal
ions as insoluble metal sulfides.
c. Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals
either by direct precipitation using a carbonate
reagent such as calcium carbonate or by converting
hydroxides into carbonates using carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or
rapid mix tank, a presettling tank, or directly to a
clarifier or other settling device. Because metal
hydroxides tend to be colloidal in nature, coagulating
agents may be added to facilitate settling. After the
solids have been removed, a final pH adjustment may be
required to reduce the high pH created by the alkalir._
treatment chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals
from wastewater is a complex process made up of at least two
steps: precipitation of the unwanted metals and removal of
the precipitate. A small amount of metal will remain
dissolved in the wastewater after complete precipitation.
The amount of residual dissolved metal depends on the
treatment chemicals used the solubility of the metal and
co-precipitation effects. The effectiveness of this method
of removing any specific metal depends on the fraction of
the specific metal in the raw waste1 (and hence in the
194
-------
precipitate) and the effectiveness of suspended solids
removal.
Application and Performance
Chemical precipitation is used in the steel industry for
precipitation of dissolved metals including aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel,
tin, and zinc. The process is also applicable to any
substance that can be transformed into an insoluble form
such as fluorides, phosphates, soaps, sulfides, and others.
Because it is simple and effective, chemical precipitation
is extensively used for industrial 'waste treatment.
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables; the most important are:
a. Maintenance of an alkaline pH throughout the
precipitation reaction and subsequent settling.
b. Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to
drive the precipitation reaction to completion.
c. Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such
as iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and
removal of specific target ions.
d. Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
appropriate technologies discussed under "Solids
Removal").
A discussion of the performance of some of the chemical
precipitation technologies used in the steel industry is
presented below.
Lime Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance
Lime is sometimes used in conjunction with sedimentation
technology to precipitate metals. Numerous examples of this
technology are demonstrated in the steel industry, mostly in
the pickling subcategory. Data for two plants using this
technology are shown below. Plant 0684F has a lime
precipitation/sedimentation treatment system which treats
steelmaking wastes. Plant 0396A has a pickling operation
which includes lime precipitation and sedimentation
technology.
195
-------
Lime Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance
Pollutant
Concentration of
(mg/1)
Pollutants
Plant 684H
Plant 0396A
In
Out
In
Out
0.15
0.63
1.17
22.30
1.20
30.00
1640
10.2
0.01
0.009
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.33
44
8.2-8.8
<0.02
0.44
0.99
2.40
0.59
3.20
3050
9.2
<0.02
0.07
0.17
0.57
0.27
0.24
43
9.0
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
TSS
PH
Lime Precipitation - Filtration Performance
A metals removal technology that is used in the steel
industry similar to the lime/sedimentation system includes
lime precipitation and filtration. These systems accomplish
better solids and oil removal and also achieves slightly
better control of the effluent concentration of the metallic
elements. Data for two plants that employ lime
precipitation/filtration technology are shown below.
Pickling and galvanizing wastewaters are treated at plant
0612, while pickling, galvanizing and alkaline cleaning
wastes are treated at plant 01121. Pilot plant data for
steelmaking wastewaters are presented in Table A-35 of
Appendix A.
Lime Precipitation - Filtration Performance
Plant 0612
In
Pollutant
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
TSS
pH
Sulfide Precipitation
Concentration of
(mq/1)
Pollutants
Plant 01121
Out
In
Out
0.02
1.60
0.60
2.400
0.60
285.00
350.00
2.9-
3.9
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.18
0.02
0. 12
11 .00
8.3-
8.5
0.01 0.01
0.12
0.17
0.19
0.08
18.00
199.00
5.2-
5.6
0.03
0.02
<0.10
0.03
0.13
1 .00
7.3-
7.7
Most metal sulfides are less soluble than hydroxides and the
precipitates are frequently more dependably removed from
water. Solubilities for selected metal hydroxides and
sulfide precipitates are shown below:
196
-------
Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and Sulfides
of Heavy Metals in Pure Water
Metal
Cadmium(Cd+2)
Chromium (Cr+3)
Copper (Cu+2)
Iron (Fe+2)
Lead (Pb+2)
Nickel (Ni+2)
Silver (Ag+2)
Tin (Sn+2)
Solubility of Metal, mg/1
As hydroxide
2
8
2
8
2
6
13
1
.3
.4
.2
.9
.1
.9
.0
.1
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o-
o-
o-
o-
o-
o-
o-
o-
5
5
2
1
0
3
0
4
As sulfide
6.7 x 10~10
No precipitate
5.8 x 10-1"
3.4 x 10-5
3,8 x 10~9
6.9 x 10-»
7.4 x 10-12
2.3 x 10~7
Sulfide treatment has not been used in the steel industry on
a full-scale basis. However, it has been used in other
manufacturing process (e.g. electroplating) to remove metals
from wastewaters with similar characteristics and pollutants
to those of the steel industry.
In assessing whether this technology is transferable for use
in steel industry, the Agency consulted numerous references;
contacted sulfide precipitation equipment manufacturers, and
gathered data from operating sulfide precipitation systems.
The wastewaters treated by these sulfide precipitation
systems were contaminated with many of the same toxic metals
found in steel industry wastewaters and at similar
concentrations. Accordingly, the Agency concluded that a
transfer of the effectiveness of this technology is
possible. However, as noted above there are no full scale
systems currently in use in the steel industry.
Data for several sulfide/filtration systems are shown below.
Sulfide Precipitation/Filtration Performance
Concentration of Pollutants (mq/1)
Data Set #1
Pollutant In
Chromium
Iron
Nickel
Zinc
TSS
PH
2.0
85.0
0.6
27.0
320
2.9
Out
0.04
0.10
<0.1
4.0
8.2
Data Set 12
In Out
2.4
108
0.68
33.9
7.7
0.60
7.4
Another benefit of the sulfide precipitation technology is
the ability to precipitate hexavalent chromium (Cr+«)
without prior reduction to the trivalent state as is
required in the hydroxide process. When ferrous sulfide is
used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act as reducing
197
-------
agents for the hexavalent chromium according to the
reaction:
Cr203 + 2FeS + 7H20 -> 2Fe(OH)3 + 2Cr(OH)3 + 2S + 20H
In this reaction, the sludge produced consists mainly of
ferric hydroxides, chromic hydroxides and various metallic
sulfides. Some excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this
process, possibly requiring a downward pre-adjustment of pH.
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical precipitation is an effective technique for
removing many pollutants from industrial wastewaters. It
operates at ambient conditions and is well suited to
automatic control. The use of chemical precipitation may be
limited due to interference of chelating agents, chemical
interferences from mixing wastewaters and treatment
chemicals, and potentially hazardous situations involved
with the storage and handling of those chemicals. Lime is
usually added as a slurry when used in hydroxide
precipitation. The slurry must be well mixed and the
addition lines periodically checked to prevent fouling. In
addition, hydroxide precipitation usually makes recovery of
the precipitated metals difficult, because of the
heterogeneous nature of most hydroxide sludges.
The major advantage of the sulfide precipitation process is
that due to the low solubility of most metal sulfides, very
high metal removal efficiencies can be achieved. Also, the
sulfide process has the ability to remove chromates and
dichromates without preliminary reduction of the chromium to
the trivalent state. In addition, it will precipitate
metals complexed with most complexing agents. However, care
must be taken to maintain the pH of the solution at
approximately 10 in order to prevent the generation of toxic
sulfide gas during this process. For this reason
ventilation of the treatment tanks may be a necessary
precaution in most installations. The use of ferrous
sulfide reduces or virtually eliminates the problem of
hydrogen sulfide evolution. As with hydroxide
precipitation, excess sulfide ion must be present to drive
the precipitation reaction to completion. Since the sulfide
ion itself is toxic, sulfide addition must be carefully
controlled to maximize heavy metals precipitation with a
minimum of excess sulfide to avoid the necessity of post
treatment. Where excess sulfide is present, aeration of the
effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual sulfide to the
less harmful sodium sulfate (Na2S04). The cost of sulfide
precipitants is high in comparison with hydroxide
precipitants, and disposal of metallic sulfide sludges may
pose problems. An essential element in effective sulfide
precipitation is the removal of precipitated solids from the
wastewater and proper disposal in an appropriate site.
Sulfide precipitation will also generate a higher volume of
198
-------
sludge than hydroxide precipitation, resulting in higher
disposal and dewatering costs. This is especially true when
ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a final tratement step
after hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation. This treatment
configuration may provide the better treatment effectiveness
of sulfide precipitation while minimizing the variability
caused by changes in raw waste and reducing the amount of
sulfide precipitant required.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: The reliability of alkaline chemical
precipitation is high, although proper monitoring and
control are necessary. Sulfide precipitation systems
provide similar reliability.
b. Maintainability: The major maintenance needs involve
periodic upkeep of monitoring equipment, automatic
feeding equipment, mixing equipment, and other
hardware. Removal of accumulated sludge is necessary
for the efficient operation of
precipitation-sedimentation systems.
Demonstration Status
Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides is a classic
waste treatment technology used in many industrial waste
treatment systems. Chemical precipitation of metals in the
carbonate form alone has been found to be feasible and, is
used in commercial application to permit metals recovery and
water reuse. Full scale commercial sulfide precipitation
units are in operation at numerous installations, however,
none are presently installed in the steel industry.
2. Filtration (for Metal Removal)
As discussed previously, filtration is a proven technology
for the control of TSS and oil and grease. However, the
filtration mechanism which reduces the concentration of the
solids and oils also treats the metallic elements present.
To determine the treatability levels for metals using
filtration the Agency compiled all available data on these
systems. Data on seventeen filtration systems were averaged
to develop the treated effluent concentrations. The average
treated effluent concentrations and the proposed monthly
average concentration for five toxic metals are shown below:
199
-------
Metal Removal with Filtration Systems
Pollutant
Monthly Average
Concentration (mq/1)
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.08
Daily Maximum
Concentration (mg/1)
0.12
0. 12
0.24
0.16
0.24
For purposes of developing effluent limitations, the Agency
is using monthly average concentrations of 0.10 mg/1 and
daily maximum concentrations of 0.30 mg/1 for each toxic
metal. Reference is made to Appendix A for development of
toxic metals effluent concentrations.
Advantages and Limitations
See prior discussion on filtration systems.
Operational Factors and Demonstration Status
See prior discussion on filtration systems.
Organic Removal
Thirty-three organic toxic pollutants were detected in steel
industry wastewaters above treatability levels. Because some of
these pollutants were present in significant levels, treatment
was considered in several steel industry categories for toxic
organics. Basically two demonstrated technologies were
considered: carbon adsorption and biological treatment
(activated sludge). These technologies are discussed separately
below.
1. Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon for removal of dissolved
organics from water and wastewater has been demonstrated and
is one of the most efficient organic removal procesL_3
available. Activated carbon has also been shown to be an
effective adsorbent for many toxic metals, including
mercury. This process is reversible, thus allowing
activated carbon to be regenerated and reused by the
application of heat and steam or solvent. Regeneration of
carbon which has adsorbed significant metals, however, may
be difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of
carbon that has been specially treated to give high
adsorption capacities. Typical raw materials include coal,
wood, coconut shells, petroleum base residues and char from
sewage sludge pyrolysis. A carefully controlled process of
200
-------
dehydration, carbonization, and oxidation yields a product
which is called activated carbon. This material has a high
capacity for adsorption due primarily to the large surface
area available for adsorption (500- 1500 square meters/gram)
which result from a large number of internal pores. Pore
sizes generally range in radius from 10-100 angstroms.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the
process of adsorption (the attraction and accumulation of
one substance on the surface of another). Activated carbon
preferentially adsorbs organic compounds and, because of
this selectivity, is particularly effective in removing
organic compounds from wastewaters.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment (usually filtration)
to remove excess suspended solids, oils, and greases.
Suspended solids in the influent should be less than 50 mg/1
to minimize backwash requirements. A downflow carbon bed
can handle much higher levels (up to 2000 mg/1), but
frequent backwashing is required. Backwashing more than two
or three times a day is not desirable. Oil and grease
should be less than about 15 mg/1. A high level of dissolved
inorganic material in the influent may cause problems with
thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of
activity) unless appropriate preventive steps are taken.
Such steps might include pH control, softening, or the use
of an acid wash on the carbon prior to reactivation.
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular
form. Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit weight and
may have slightly higher adsorption capacity but it is more
difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance
Activated carbon has been used in a variety of applications
involving the removal of objectional organics from
wastewater streams. One of the more frequent uses is to
reduce the COD and BOD concentration in sanitary treatment
system effluents. It is also used to remove specific
organic contaminants in the wastewaters of various
manufacturing operations such as petroleum refining. There
are two full scale activated carbon systems in use in the
steel industry treating cokemaking wastes.
Tests performed on single compound systems indicate that
processing with activated carbon can achieve residual levels
on the order of 1 microgram per liter for many of the
organic compounds on the toxic pollutant list. Compounds
which respond well to adsorption include carbon
tetrachloride, chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated ethanes,
chlorinated phenols, haloethers, phenols, nitrophenols, DDT
and metabolites, pesticides, polynuclear aromatics and
PCB's. Plant scale systems treating a mixture of many
201
-------
organic compounds must be carefully designed to optimize
certain critical factors.
Factors which affect overall adsorption of mixed solutes
include relative molecular size, the relative adsorptive
affinities, and the relative concentration of the solutes.
Data indicate that column treatment with granular carbon
provides for better removal of organics than clarifier
contact treatment with powdered carbon.
Data from two activated carbon column systems used in the
steel industry and EPA treatability data for carbon
adsorption systems were combined to develop performance
standards for carbon column systems. The average
concentration values attainable with carbon adsorption
systems are shown in Table VI-1 for those toxic organics
found above treatability levels in steel industry
wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations
The major benefits of carbon treatment include applicability
to a wide variety of organics, and a high removal
efficiency. Inorganics such as cyanide, chromium, and
mercury are also removed effectively by this system. The
system also tolerated variations in concentration and flow
rates. The system is compact, and recovery of adsorbed
materials is sometimes practical. However, the destruction
of adsorbed compounds often occurs during thermal
regeneration. If carbon cannot be thermally desorbed, it
must be disposed of along with any adsorbed pollutants.
When thermal regeneration is used, capital and operating
costs are generally economical when carbon usage exceeds
about 1,000 Ib/day. Carbon cannot remove low molecular
weight or highly soluble organics.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: This system is very reliable assuming
upstream protection and proper operation and
maintenance procedures.
b. Maintainability: This system requires periodic
regeneration or replacement of spent carbon and is
dependent upon raw waste load and process efficiency.
Demonstration Status
Carbon adsorption systems have been demonstrated to be
practical and economical for the reduction of COD, BOD and
related pollutants in secondary municipal and industrial
wastewaters; for the removal of toxic or refractory organics
from isolated industrial wastewaters; for the removal and
recovery of certain organics from wastewaters; and for the
removal, at times with recovery, of selected inorganic
202
-------
chemicals from aqueous wastes. Carbon adsorption is
considered a viable and economic process for organic waste
streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of refractory or
toxic organics. It also has been used to remove toxic
inorganic pollutants such as metals.
Granular carbon adsorption is demonstrated at two plants in
the cokemaking subcategory. Additionally, a powdered carbon
addition study has been piloted at one coke plant, and a
full scale granular carbon system is being installed at a
blast furnace site.
2. Biological Oxidation
Biological treatment is another method of reducing the
concentration of organics from process wastewater.
Biological systems, both single and two-stage, have been
used effectively to treat sanitary wastes. The activated
sludge system is the type of biological system that has been
demonstrated in the steel industry, although other systems
including rotating biological disks have also been studied.
In the activated sludge process, wastewater is stablized
biologically in a reactor under aerobic conditions. The
aerobic environment is achieved by the use of diffused or
mechanical aeration. After the wastewater is treated in the
reactor, the resulting biological mass is separated from the
liquid in a settling tank. A portion of the settled
biological solids is recycled and the remaining mass is
wasted. The level at which the biological mass should be
maintained in the system depends upon the desired treatment
efficiency, the particular pollutants that are to be removed
and other considerations related to growth kinetics.
The activated sludge system generally is sensitive to
temperature and various pollutants. Temperature not only
influences the metabolic activities of the microbiological
population, but also has an effect.on such factors as gas
transfer rates and the settling characteristics of the
biological solids. Some pollutants are extremely toxic to
the microorganisms in the system, such as ammonia at high
concentrations and metals. Therefore, sufficient
pretreatmnet must be installed ahead of the biological
reactor so that high levels of toxic pollutants do not enter
the system and "kill" the microorganism population. If the
biological conditions in an activated sludge plant are
upset, it can be a matter of days or weeks before biological
activity returns to normal.
Application and Performance
Although a great deal of information is available on the
performance of activated sludge units in controlling
phenolic compounds, cyanides, ammonia, and BOD, limited
long-term data are available regarding toxic pollutants
203
-------
other .than phenolic compounds, cyanides, and ammonia. Only
lately has there been an emphasis upon the performance of
the activated sludge units on the toxic organic pollutants.
Originally, advanced levels of treatment using a biological
system were expected to involve multiple stages for
accomplishing selective degradation of pollutants in series,
e.g., phenolic compounds and cyanide removal, nitrification,
and dentrification. The Agency sampled the wastewaters of
two well operated biological plants in the coke- making
subcategory. Both of these plants achieved good removals of
toxic pollutants with organic removal averaging better than
90% and completely eliminating phenolic compounds,
napthalene, and xylene. The analytical data for theL-
plants together with EPA treatability data for biological
systems were used to develop performance standards for toxic
organic pollutants for biological oxidation systems. These
standards are shown in Table VI-4 for those toxic pollutants
found in the steel industry wastewaters above treatability
levels.
Advantages and Limitations
The activated sludge system achieves significant reductions
of most organic pollutants at significantly less capital and
operating costs than for carbon adsorption. Also,
consistent effluent quality can be maintained if sufficient
pretreatment is practiced and shock loadings of specific
pollutants are eliminated. The temperature of the systt.u
must be maintained within certain ranges or fluctuating
removal efficiencies of some pollutants will occur.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: This system is very reliable assuming
upstream protection and proper operation and
maintenance procedures.
b. Maintainability: As long as adequate pretreatment is
practiced, acceptable effluent quality can be
maintained. If the system is upset, the operation can
be brought under control by seeding with biological
floe or POTW sludges.
Demonstration Status
Activated sludge systems are well demonstrated for removing
organic constituents from wastewater. Also, eightc_n
cokemaking plants have various types of biological oxidation
systems presently installed.
Advanced Technologies
The Agency considered other advanced treatment technologies as
possible alternative treatment systems. Ion exchange and reverse
204
-------
osmosis were considered because of their treatment effectiveness
and because, in certain applications, they allow the recovery of
certain process material. A discussion of these technologies
follows. ;
1. Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by
electrostatic forces to charged functional groups on the
surface of the ion exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of.
similar charge from the solution in which the resin is
immersed. This is classified as absorption process because
the exchange occurs on the surface of the resin, and the
exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer from solution
phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in a
wastewater can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
The Wastewater stream passes through a filter which removes
suspended solids, and then through a cation exchanger which
contains the ion exchange resin. The exchanger retains
metallic impurities such as copper, iron, and trivalent
chromium. The wastewater then passes through the anion
exchanger and its associated resin. Hexavalent chromium,
for example, is retained in this stage. If the wastewater
is not effectively treated in one pass through it may be
passed through another series of exchangers. Many ion
exchange systems are equipped with more than one set of
exchangers for this reason.
The other major portion of the ion exhcange process concerns
the regeneration of the resin, which holds impurities
removed from the wastewater. Metal ions such as nickel are
removed by an acid cation exchange resin, which is
regenerated with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid, replacing
the metal ion with one or more hydrogen ions. Anions such
as dichromate are removed by a basic anion exchange resin,
which is regenerated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the
anion with one or more hydroxyl ions. The three principal
methods employed by industry for regenerating the spent
resin are:
a. Replacement Service: A regeneration service replaces
the spent resin with regenerated resin, and regenerates
the spent resin at its own facility. The service then
treats and disposes of the spent regenerant.
b. In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find it
less expensive to conduct on-site regeneration. The
spent resin column is shut down for perhaps an hour,
and the spent resin is regenerated. This results in
one or more waste streams which must be treated in an
appropriate manner. Regeneration is performed as the
resins require it, usually every few months.
205
-------
c. Cyclic Regeneration: In this process, the regeneration
of the spent resins takes place within the ion exchange
unit itself in alternating cycles with the ion removal
process. A regeneration time permits operation with a
very small quantity of resin and with fairly
concentrated solutions, resulting in a very compact
system. Again, this process varies according to
application,/ but the regeneration cycle generally
begins with caustic being pumped through the anion
exchanger, which carries out hexavalent chromium, for
example, as sodium dichromate. The sodium dichromate
stream then passes through a cation exchanger,
converting the sodium dichromate to chromic acid.
After being concentrated by evaporation or other means,
the chromic acid can be returned to the process line.
Meanwhile, the cation exchanger is regenerated with
sulfuric acid, resulting in a waste acid stream
containing the metallic impurities removed earlier.
Flushing the exchangers with water completes the cycle.
Thus, the wastewater is purified and, in this example,
chromic acid is recovered. The ion exchangers, with
newly regenerated resin, then enter the ion removal
cycle again.
Application and Performance
The list of pollutants for which the ion exchange system has
proven effective includes, among others, aluminum, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium,
silver, tin, and zinc. Thus, it can be applied to a wide
variety of industrial concerns. Because of the heavy
concentrations of metals in metal finishing wastewaters, ion
exchange is used in several ways in that industry. As an
end-of-pipe treatment, ion exchange is certainly feasible,
but its greatest value is in recovery applications. It is
commonly used as an integrated treatment to recover rinse
water and process chemicals. Some electroplating facilities
use ion exchange to concentrate and purify plating baths.
Also, many industrial concerns use ion exchange to reduce
salt concentrations in incoming water sources.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing
solutions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate
solution, and sulfuric acid from anodizing is commercially
viable. A chromic acid recovery efficiency of 99.5 percent
has been demonstrated. Ion exchange systems are reported to
be installed at three pickling operations, however, none of
these systems were sampled during this study. Data for two
plants in the coil coating category are shown below.
206
-------
Pollutant
Prior to
All Values Purifi-
mg/1 cation
Ion Exchange Performance
Plant A Plant B
Al
Cd
Cr+3
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
S04
Sn
Zn
5.6
5.7
3. 1
7. 1
4.5
9.8
7.4
4.4
6.2
1 .5
1 .7
14.8
After
Purifi-
cation
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
Prior to
Purifi-
cation
After
Purifi-
cation
43.0
3.40
2.30
1 .70
1
9
210
1
60
10
00
10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.00
0.10
Advantage and Limitations
Ion exchange is a versatile technology applicable to a great
many situations. This flexibility, along with its compact
nature and performance, makes ion exchange an effective
method of wastewater treatment. However, the resins in
these systems can prove to be a limiting factor. The
thermal limits of the anion resins, generally placed in the
vicinity of 60°C, could prevent its use in certain
situations. Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid, and
hydrogen peroxide can all damage the resins as will iron,
manganese, and copper when present with sufficient
concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Removal of a particular
trace contaminant may be uneconomical because of the
presence of other ionic species that are preferentially
removed. The regeneration of the resins presents its own
problems. The cost of the regenerative chemicals can be
high. In addition, the waste streams originating from the
regeneration process are extremely high in pollutant
cncentrations, although low in volume. These must be
further processed for proper disposal.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: With the exception of occasional clogging
or fouling of the resins, ion exchange is a highly
dependable technology.
b. Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps,
valves, piping and other hardware used in the
regeneration process is usually encountered.
207 -
-------
Demonstration Status
All of the applications mentioned in this section are
available for commercial use, and industry sources estimate
the number of units currently in the field at well over 120.
The research and development in ion exchange is focusing on
improving the quality and efficiency of the resins, rather
than new applications. Work is also being done on a
continuous regeneration process whereby the resins at-
contained on a fluid-transfusible belt. The belt passes
through a compartmented tank with ion exchange, washing, and
regeneration sections. The resins are therefore continually
used and regenerated. No such system, however, has been
reported to be beyond the pilot stage. Ion exchange is us d
in at least three different plants in the steel industry.
Also, ion exchange is used in a variety of other metal
working situations.
2. Reverse Osmosis
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid
through a semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more
concentrated solution. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation
in which pressure is applied to the more concentraid
solution, forcing the permeate to diffuse through the
membrane and into the more dilute solution. This filtering
action produces a concentrate and a permeate on opposit-
sides of the membrane. The concentrate can then be furtl._r
treated or returned to the original operation for continued
use, while the permeate water can be recycled for use as
clean water.
There are three basic configurations used in commercially
available RO modules: tubular, sprial-wound, and hollow
fiber. All of these operate on the principle descriL_d
above, the major difference being their mechanical and
structural design characteristics.
The tubular membrane module utilizes a porous tube with a
cellulose acetate membrane-lining. A common tubular module
consists of a length of 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter tube wound
on a supporting spool and encased in a plastic shroud. Feed
water is driven into the tube under pressures varying from
40-55 atm (600-800 psi). The permeate passes through the
walls of the tube and is collected in a manifold while the
concentrate is drained off at the end of the tube. A less
widely used tubular RO module used a straight tube contained
in a housing, under the same operating conditions.
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing
sandwiched between two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and
bonded along three edges. The fourth edge of the composite
sheet is attached to a large permeate collector tube. A
spacer screen is then placed on top of the membrane sandwich
and the entire stack is rolled around the centrally locat_d
208
-------
-14-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT CUHPANY OR PLANT NAME FTRME" CROUP
CITY STATE IIP RfF/PLT
5U8CATECORIE5
0432 JONES AMD LAUGHLIN STEEL CCRP .
PITTSBURGH
A ALIQUIPPA WORKS
All QUIP? A
b PITTSBURGH WORKS
PITTSBURGH
C CLEVELAND WORKS
CLEVELAND
0 HENNEPIN WORKS
HEKNEPIN
E OIL CITY WORKS
OIL CITY
PA 25230
PA 15001
PA IS203
OH 44101
II 61321
PA 16301
F JUNES AND LAUGHLIN STEEL
GAINESVILLE TX 16240
G JUKES AND LAUGHLIN STEEL
MUNCY PA 17756
H JONES AND LAUGHLIN STEEL
HAKHOKO IK 46320
I JGNES AND LAUGHLIN STEEL
WULIMANTtC
CT 06226
J WARREN PLANT
WARREN HI 48090
K JONES AND LAUGHLIN
LOUISVILLE OH 44641
L YOUNGSTOUU WORKS
YOUNGSTQUN OH 44501
M 1MMANAPOLIS WORKS
INDIANAPOLIS IN 44241
N JUNES AND LAUGHLIN
inS ANGELES CA 50052
0 JUNES AND LAUGHLIN
MILES OH 44446
P JONES AND LAUGHLIN
NEW KENSINGTON PA 15068
A A,C,0,FiL.«,N,0,P,OfS,
T,Z
A A,0,H,M,N,0,0,S,T
A C,D.F,I,M,O.R,-<
C R.S.T
c o.w
B I.N.N
C O.W.X
C 0
0436 JCRGENSEN CO. E.P.
LOS ANGELES CA S0054
BE I.K
0440 JCSLYN KANUFACTURIKG AKO CD.
CHICAGO It £060<
A JOSLYH STAINLESS STEELS DIVISICN
FORT WAYNE IN 46804
B l,H.N,U,X
0444 JUOSON STEEL CCRFQRAT1CN
EMERYVILLE CA f4608
BE I.L
0448 KAISER STEEL CORPORATION
OAKLAND CA S«612
A STEEL MANUFACTURING OIVISICN
FUNTAMA CA S2335
B KAISER STEEL CORPORATION
NAPA CA f455«
A A.C ,D.F,H,«,N,0,P,R ,5,
T.Z
324
-------
-13-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY"
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCRHER CROUP SUBCATEGORIES
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLT
H ALABAMA METALLURGICAL CORPORATION
SELMA AL 36701
I MUEGANAEJ CORPORATION
RIVER TON MJ 08071
0400 SEE 0946
A StE 0946A
0402 IRONTON COKE COMPANY D A
IRPNTO* CH 45638 C024C
0404 ITT HARPER, INC. OE I
NORTON GROVE IL 60053
0408 IVY STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY
JACKSONVILLE FL 32205
0412 JACKSON IRON AND STEEL COMPANY
JACKSON OH 45640
0416 JAMES STEEL AND TUBE COMPANY
ROYAL OAK HI 48067
A JAMES STEEL AND TUBE COMPANY
MADISON HEIGHTS MI 43071
0420 JERSEY SHORE STEEL COMPANY
JERSEY SHORE PA 17740
A JERSEY SHORE STEEL COMPANY
SOUTH AVIS PA 17721
0424 JESSOP STEEL CCHFAH* BE I,M.N,0,V,X
WASHINGTON PA 19301
A GREEN RIVER STEEL B 1,K
CUENS30RC KY 42301
0426 JIM WALTER RESOURCES AE A.O
BIRMINGHAM Al 35202 CB48
0428 JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CCRPC.RAT10N
KHOXVHLE II 37902
A JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION
VANSAUT VA 24656
0430 JOHNSON STEEL ANO HIRE CQPPANY E
WORCESTER HA 01607 C920H
A AKRON PLANT
AKRCN OH 44309 09201
B LOS ANGELES PLANT
LOS ANGELES CA 9COS9 C920J
C INGERSOLL STEEL B I.M.C
HEN CASTLE III 47362 01360
323
-------
tubular permeate collector. The rolled up package is
inserted into a pipe able to withstand the high operating
pressures employed in this process, up to 55 atm (800 psi)
with the spiral-wound module. When the system is operating,
the pressurized product water permeates the membrane and
flows through the backing material to the central collector
tube. The concentrate is drained off at the end of the
container pipe and can be reprocessed or sent to further
treatment facilities.
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a
bundle of polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003
in.) OD and 0.0043 cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used
hollow fiber module contains several hundred thousand of the
fibers placed in a long tube, wrapped around a flow screen,
and rolled into a spiral. The fibers are bent in a U-shape
and their ends are supported by an epoxy bond. The hollow
fiber unit is operated under 27 atm (400 psi), the feed
water being dispersed from the center of the module through
a porous distributor, tube. Permeate flows through the
membrane to the fibers hollow interiors and is collected at
the ends of the fibers.
The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct
advantage over the tubular system in that they are able to
load a very large membrane surface area into a relatively
small volume. However, these two membrane types are much
more susceptible to fouling than the tubular system, which
has a larger flow channel. This characteristic also makes
the tubular membrane much easier to clean and regenerate
than either the spiral-wound or hollow fiber modules. One
manufacturer claims that their helical tubular module can be
physically wiped clean by passing a soft porous polyurethane
plug under pressure through the module.
Application and Performance
In a number of metal processing plants, the overflow from
the first rinse in a countercurrent setup is directed to a
reverse osmosis unit, where it is separated into two
streams. The concentrated stream contains dragged out
chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the loss of
solution due to evaporation and dragout. The dilute stream
(the permeate) is routed to the last rinse tank to provide
water for the rinsing operation. The rinse flows from the
last tank to the first tank and the cycle is complete.
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented
by the addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in
order to further reduce the volume of reverse osmosis
concentrate. The evaporated vapor can be condensed and
returned to the last rinse tank or sent on for further
treatment.
209
-------
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel
solutions. It has been shown that RO can generally be
applied to most acid metal baths with a high degree of
performance, providing that the membrane unit is not
overtaxed. The limitations most critical here are the
allowable pH range and maximum operating pressure for each
particular configuration. Adequate prefiltration is also
essential- Only three membrane types are readily available
in commercial RO units, and their overwhelming use has been
for the recovery of various acid metal baths. For the
purpose of calculating performance predictions of this
technology, a rejection rate of 98 percent is assumed for
dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of reverse osmosis for treating
wastewaters is its ability to concentrate dilute solutions
for recovery of salts and chemicals with low power
requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or fusion is
required for effecting separations; the main energy
requirement is for a high pressure pump. It requires
relatively little floor space for compact, high capactiy
units, and it exhibits good recovery and rejection rates for
a number of typical process solutions. A limitation of the
reverse osmosis process is its limited temperature range for
satisfactory operation. For cellulose acetate systems, the
preferred limits are 18 to 30°C (65 to 85°F); higher
temperatures will increase the rate of membrane hydrolysis
and reduce system life, while lower temperatures will result
in decreased fluxes with no damage to the membrane. Another
limitation is the inability to handle certain solutions.
Strong oxidizing agents, strong acidic or basic solutions,
solvents, and other organic compounds can cause dissolution
of the membrane. Poor rejection of some compounds such as
borates and low molecular weight organics is another
problem. Fouling of membranes by failures, and fouling of
membranes by wastewaters with high levels of suspended
solids can be a problem. A final limitation is the
inability to treat or achieve high concentration with some
solutions. Some concentrated solutions may have initial
osmotic pressures which are so high that they either exceed
available operating pressures or are uneconomical to treat.
Operational Factors
a. Reliability: Very good reliability is achieved so long
as the proper precautions are taken to minimize the
chances of fouling or degrading the membrane.
Sufficient testing of the waste stream prior to
application of an RO system will provide the
information needed to insure a successful application.
b. Maintainability: Membrane life is estimated to fall
between 6 months and 3 years, depending on the use of
210
-------
the system. Down time for flushing or cleaning is on
the order of two hours as often as once each week; a
substantial portion of maintenance time must be spent
on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of the
reverse osmosis unit.
Demonstration Status
There are presently a£ least one hundred reverse osmosis
wastewater applications in a variety of industries. In
addition to these, there are thirty to forty units being
used to provide pure process water for several industries.
Despite the many types and configurations of membranes, only
the spiral-wound cellulose acetate membrane has had
widespread success in commercial applications. There are no
known RO units presently in operation in the steel industry.
Z_ro Discharge Technologies
Zero discharge of process water is achieved in several
subcategories of the steel industry in a variety of ways. The
most commonly used method is to treat the waste sufficiently so
it can be completely reused in the originating process or to
control water application in semi-wet air pollution control
systems so that no discharge results. This method is used
principally in steelmaking. Since recycle systems were discussed
_arlier in this section, no further details are presented here.
Another potential means to achieve zero discharge is by the use
of evaporation technology. Evaporation systems concentrate the
wastewater constituents and produce a distillate quality water
that can be recycled to the process. Although this technology is
\_ry costly and energy intensive, it may be the only treatment
method available that allows the universal attainment of zero
discharge in many steel industry subcategories. Details on
various types of evaporation technology are discussed below.
A third method to achieve zero discharge has been demonstrated in
the ironmaking subcategory: quenching. In quenching systems,
flows are reduced and the blowdown from the operation is used to
quench (cool) slag. The wastewater is eliminated by evaporation
on the hot slag. This system is relatively inexpensive and can
t_ used at many ironmaking operations. However, it does result
in some air emissions which can contain particulates and other
contaminants. Since this technology is specific mainly to
ironmaking, it is discussed in detail in the ironmaking
subcategory report.
Evaporation
~vaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from
a solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the
remaining solution. If the resulting water vapor is condensed
back to liquid water, the evaporation-condensation process is
called distillation. However evaporation is used in this report
211
-------
to describe both processes. Both atmospheric and vacuum
evaporation are commonly used in industry today. Atmospheric
evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling the liquid.
However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid is sprayed on an
evaporation surface, and air is blown over the surface and
subsequently released to the atmosphere. Thus, evaporation
occurs by humidification of the air stream, similar to a drying
process. Equipment for carrying out atmospheric evaporation is
quite similar for most applications. The major element is
generally a packed column with an accumulator bottom.
Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the base of the column,
through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of the column,
where it is sprayed into the packing. At the same time, air
drawn upward through the packing by a fan is heated as it
contacts the hot liquid. The liquid partially vaporizes and
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air
to the outside atmosphere. A scrubber is often unnecessary
because the packed column itself acts as ta scrubber.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
for reuse by condensation. These air humidification techniques
operate well below the boiling point of water and can use waste
process heat to supply the energy required.
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at reduced temperature. All of tl._
water vapor is condensed and, to maintain the vacuum condition,
noncondensible gases (air in particular) are removed by a vacuum
pump. Vacuum evaporation may be either single or double effect.
In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are used, and the
water vapor from the first evaporator (which may be heated by
steam) is used to supply heat to the second evaporator. As it
supplies heat, the water vapor from the first evaporator
condenses. Approximately equal quantities of wastewater at_
evaporated in each unit; thus, the double effect system
evaporates twice the amount of water that a single effect systu
does, at nearly the same cost in each unit; thus, the doubl_
effect system evaporates twice the amount of water that a singl_
effect system does, at nearly the same cost in energy but with
added capital cost and complexity. The double effect techniqu_
is thermodynamically possible because the second evaporator is
maintained at lower pressure (high vacuum) and, therefore, lower
evaporation temperature. Another means of increasing energy
efficiency is vapor recompression (thermal or mechanical), which
enables heat to be transferred from the condensing water vapor to
the evaporating wastewater. Vacuum evaporation equipment may I
classified as sumberged tube or climbing film evaporation units.
In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the heating
and condensing coil are contained in a single vessel to reduc.
capital cost. The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an
ejector-type pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water through a venturi. Wastewal»r
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and it is evaporated by
212
-------
means of submerged steam coils. The resulting water vapor
condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing coils into
a collection trough that carries it out of the vessel.
Concentrate is removed from the bottom of the vessel.
me major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the
_/aporator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Wastewater is
"drawn" into the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid
level is maintained in the separator. Liquid enters the
steam- jacketed evaporator tubes, and part of it evaporates so
that a mixture of vapor and liquid enters the separator. The
design of the separator is such that the liquid is continuously
circulated from the separator to the evaporator. The vapor
_.itering the separator flows out through a mesh entrainment
separator to the condenser, where it is condensed as it flows
down through the condenser tubes. The condensate, along with any
_.itrained air, is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser by a
liquid ring vacuum pump. The liquid seal provided by the
condensate keeps the vacuum in the system from being broken.
Application and Performance
atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are used in many
industrial plants, mainly for the concentration and recovery of
process solutions. Many of these evaporators also recover water
for rinsing. Evaporation has also been used to recover phosphate
metal cleaning solutions.
Advantages and Limitations
Advantages of the evaporation process are that it permits
recovery of a wide variety of process chemicals, and it is often
applicable to concentration or removal of compounds which cannot
be accomplished by any other means. The major disadvantage is
that the evaporation process consumes relatively large amounts of
energy. However, the recovery of waste heat from many industrial
processes (e.g., diesel generators, incinerators, boilers and
furnaces) should be considered as a source of this heat for a
totally integrated evaporation system. Also, in some cases solar
heating could be inexpensively and effectively applied to
evaporation units. For some applications, pretreatment may be
required to remove solids or bacteria which tend to cause fouling
in the condenser or evaporator. The buildup of scale on the
evaporator surfaces reduces the heat transfer efficiency and may
present a maintenance problem or increase operating cost.
However, it has been demonstrated that fouling of the heat
transfer surfaces can be avoided or minimized for certain
dissolved solids by precipitate deposition. In addition, low
temperature differences in the evaporator will eliminate nucleate
boiling and supersaturation effects. Steam distillable
impurities in the process stream are carried over with the
product water and must be handled by pre or post-treatment.
213
-------
Operational Factors
1. Reliability: Proper maintenance will ensure a high degree
of reliability for the system. Wthout such attention, ra^id
fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may occur,
especially when handling corrosive liquids.
2. Maintainability: Operating parameters can be automatically
controlled. Pretreatment may be required, as well as
periodic cleaning of the system. Regular replacement of
seals, especially in a corrosive environment, may L_
necessary.
Demonstration Status
Evaporation is a fully developed, commercially available
wastewater treatment system. It is used extensively to recover
plating chemicals in the electroplating industry and a pilot
scale unit has been used in connection with phosphating of
aluminum. Aside from quenching systems, evaporation technology
is not used in steel industry applications for wastewater
treatment.
C. In-Plant Controls and Process Modifications
The use of in-plant technology in the steel industry is designed
to reduce or eliminate the waste load requiring end-oC pit-
treatment and thereby improve the efficiency of existing waste
treatment systems or reduce the requirements of a new treatment
system. In-plant technologies demonstrated in the steel industry
includes alternate rinsing procedures, water conservation,
reduction of dragout, automatic controls, good housekeeping
practices, recycle of untreated process waters and process
modifications.
1. In-Process Treatment and Controls
In-process treatment and controls apply to both existing and
new installations and include existing technologies and
operating practices. The data received from the industry
indicates that water conservation practices are widely used
in many subcategories. Within any particular subcategouy it
is not unusual to find process flows varying by orders of
magnitude. In many cases, these variations are directly
related to in-process water conservation and control
measures. Although the proposed effluent limitations do not
regulate flow, they are based on model flow ral_s
demonstrated in the respective subcategories.
While tighter control over operating practices is one type
of in-plant control, others are more involved and require
greater expenditures of capital. One of these is the
installation of counter-current rinsing system.
Counter-current rinsing is a demonstrated in-process contro]
214
-------
for pickling operations and may be implemented at other
processes that use conventional rinsing techniques.
Another in-process control is the recycle of process water.
In several steel industry processes, wastewaters are
recycled "in- plant" even prior to treatment. For example,
in the cold rolling process, oil emulsions can be collected
and returned to the mill in recirculation systems thereby
reducing the volumes of wastewater discharged. This control
method may not necessarily be used in all processes because
of the product quality or recycle system problems that may
be encountered.
Other simple in-process controls that can affect discharge
quality include good housekeeping practices and automatic
equipment. For example, if tight control over the process
is maintained and spills are controlled, excessive "dumps"
of waste solutions can be averted. Also, automatic controls
can be installed that control applied water rates to insure
that water is applied only when a mill is actually
operating. For mills which do not operate every turn or
every day of the year, the water which is conserved with
this practice can be considerable.
2. Process Substitutions
There are several instances in the steel industry where
process substitutions can effectively control wastewater
discharges. One is a cold rolling operations where mills
can be designed to operate either in a once-through or
recycle mode. If those mills with once-through systems
operated in a recycle mode, oil usage can be reduced and
savings could be achieved since a smaller treatment system
would be required.
Another area where in-process substitutions can achieve
significant reductions in wastewater flows and loads is by
selecting or converting from a wet or semi-wet air cleaning
operation to a dry system.
As a final matter, substitution of process solutions can be
used to reduce levels of pollutants that are considered
harmful. For example, certain rolling solutions have been
found to contain high levels of toxic organic pollutants.
Data gathered for this study indicate that not all rolling
solutions contain high levels of these compounds.
Therefore, instead of installing costly treatment for the
organic consitutuents, a substitution of rolling solutions
to another acceptable oil will correct the problem of high
levels of toxics at little or no cost.
215
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC ORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS
ACHIEVABLE BY TREATMENT
Achievable Concentration(yg/l)
No. Priority Pollutant
003 Acrylpnitrile
004 Benzene
009 Hexachlorobenzene
Oil 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
021 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
022 Parachlorometacresol
023 Chloroform
024 2-Chlorophenol
034 2,4-Dimethylphenol
035 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
036 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
038 Ethylbenzene
039 Fluoranthene
054 Isophorone
055 Naphthalene
057 2-Nitrophenol
060 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
064 Pentachlorophenol
065 Phenol
066-071 Phthalates, Total
072 Benzo(a)anthracene
073 Benzo(a)pyrene
076 Chrysene
077 Acenaphthylene
078 Anthracene
080 Fluorene
084 Pyrene
085 . Tetrachlorethylene
086 Toluene
130 Xylene
Carbon Adsorption
200
50
1
100
25
50
20
50
25
50
50
50
10
50
25
25
25
50
50
100
10
1
5
10
1
10
10
50
50
10
Biological Oxidatii
100
50
*
*
50
*
200
50
5
50
100
25
5
100
5
100
25
*
25
200
5
5
10
10
1
5
10
100
50
100
.(1)
* No siginificant removal over influent level.
(1) Two-stage activated sludge system.
216
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VII
DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES
Introduction
mis section reviews the methodology used to develop cost estimates
for the alternative treatment systems for each subcategory. The
impacts due to these costs and to other factors such as energy and
solid waste disposal, are reviewed elsewhere.
Basis of_ Cost Estimates
Costs developed for the various levels of treatment (i.e., BPT, BAT,
BCT, NSPS and Pretreatment) are presented in the individual reports
for each subcategory. Model cost includes investment, capital
depreciation, interest, operating and maintenance, and energy. The
costs for BPT and BAT are summarized and presented in Sections VIII
--id IX of this report. Costs fjr PSES are included in those for BPT
~nd BAT while only model costs are presented for NSPS and PSNS. The
Ac,_.icy did not include estimates of capacity additions in this report.
However, estimates of capacity additions, retirements, and reworks are
included in Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines -
Tn* .grated Iron and Steel Industry, and the likely economic impact of
NSPS and PSNS are included in that study.
ror each subcategory the model costs were developed as follows:
1. National annual production and capacity data were collected and
tabulated along with the number of plants in each subcategory.
From this, an "average" plant size was established.
2. Where more than one mill existed at one plant site, the
capacities of these mills were summed to develop a site size.
This manner of sizing model plants more accurately represented
the actual treatment practices at a steel plant. Wastewaters
from all cold mills at a given site will usually be treated in
one central treatment system. By using site sizes, where
appropriate, central treatment within subcategories was more
accurately reflected in the cost estimates.
3. If different product types or steel types were found to have
different average sizes, separate cost models were developed to
more accurately define the costs for these groupings.
4. Applied flow rates were established based upon data obtained from
questionnaires and accumulated during field sampling visits. The
model flows are expressed in 1/kkg or gal/ton of product.
5. A treatment process model and flow diagram was developed for each
subcategory based upon appropriate subcategory treatment systems
217
-------
and flow rates incorporating the application of good water
pollution control practice.
6. Finally, a detailed cost estimate was made on the basis of tl._
alternative treatment system.
Total annual costs were developed by adding the operating costs
(including all chemicals, maintenance, labor, and energy) and tl._
capital recovery costs. Capital recovery costs consist of the
depreciation and interest charges based upon a ten year straight line
depreciation and a 7% interest rate, respectively. All costs \,_re
developed in July, 1978 dollars.
The capital recovery factor (CRF) is normally used in industry to l._lp
allocate the initial investment and the interest of the total
operating cost of a facility. The CRF is calculated as follows and is
multiplied by the initial investment to obtain the capital recovery
cost:
CRF =
Where,
a = (1 + i)n
i = interest rate
n = number of years
The annual depreciation is found by dividing the initial investment by
the depreciation period {n = 10 years). That is, p/10 = annual
depreciation. Then the annual cost of capital has been assumed to I
the total annual capital recovery (ACR) minus the annual depreciation.
That is, ACR - p/10 = annual cost of capital.
Construction costs are highly variable and in order to deteLmii._
consistent costs, the following, parameters were established as the
basis of estimates. In addition, the cost estimates reflect only
average costs.
1. The treatment facilities are contained within a "battery limit"
site location and are erected on a "green field" site. Site
clearance costs have been estimated based on average site
conditions with no allowances for equipment relocation.
2. Equipment costs are based upon specific effluent water rates. A
change in water flow rates will affect costs.
3. The treatment facilities are located in reasonable proximity to
the "source" process area. Piping and other utility costs for
interconnecting utility runs between the treatment facilities'
battery limits and process equipment areas are based on moderate
linear distances for these cost estimates.
4. Land acquisition costs are not specifically included in the cost
estimates. However, these costs are specifically included -3
218
-------
part of the economic analysis that accompanies this proposed
regulation.
5. Limited instrumentation has been included for pH and ORP control,
but automatic samplers, temperature indicators, flow meters,
recorders, etc., have not been included in the cost estimates.
6. Control buildings are prefabricated buildings; not brick or block
type.
In general, the cost estimates reflect an on-site "battery limit"
treatment plant with electrical substation and equipment for powering
the facilities, all necessary pumps, treatment plant interconnecting
feed pipe lines, chemical treatment facilities, foundations,
structural steel, and a control house. Access roadways within battery
limits are included in estimates based upon 3.65 cm (1.5 inch) thick
bituminous wearing course and 10 cm (4 inch) thick sub-base with
sealer, binder, and gravel surfacing. A nine gauge chain link fence
with three strand barb wire and one truck gate were included for
f_.icing. The cost estimates also include a 15% contingency, 10%
contractor's overhead and profit, and engineering fees of 15%.
Application of. Co-mingling Factors
The Agency has concluded that central treatment systems are the least
costly way to treat wastewaters with similar pollutant
characteristics. However, treatment costs have previously been
c loped strictly from the model plant approach with little
consideration of the cost savings achieved with the central treatment
systems.
ror this study, estimates were made of the savings achieved by joint
treatment of wastes within subcategories so that cost projections for
th_ industry will be more accurate. For example, in the hot forming
subcategory, an inventory was completed which detailed where joint
treatment systems exist and what types of hot forming wastes are
combined. The cost reductions achieved with these joint systems were
calculated on a percentage basis. First a cost estimate was developed
assuming all plants employed separate treatment. Next, a cost
_3timate was completed based upon actual treatment practices. For
example, if wastewaters from a primary mill and a section mill were
combined for treatment, the combined treatment system was costed.
This type of costing was done plant by plant and subdivision by
subdivision. The costs for the subdivision calculated on the basis of
central treatment systems were then divided by the costs for the
subdivision developed on the basis of separate treatment to calculate
tt._ co-mingling factor for that subdivision. These factors account
for cost reductions achieved with the central treatment systems and
were used to more accurately develop the BPT, BCT, and BAT cost
estimates for the hot forming subcategory.
However, central treatment across subcategories (i.e. pickling and
cold rolling, or hot forming and steelmaking), were not considered
although multi-subcategory central treatment systems are common in the
industry.
219
-------
BPT Cost Estimates
Two BPT cost estimates were made for this study. The first deals with
the capital costs for the BPT systems already installed and the second
accounts for the capital costs for the BPT treatment components still
required. Only total annual costs are reported since annual
expenditures already made will continue to operate the installed
treatment systems.
Because DCP responses were received from all major steel operations
and almost all minor steel facilities, the data base on install_d
treatment components (as of January 1, 1978) is fairly complete.
Using this data base, a plant-by-plant inventory was completed which
tabulated the treatment components presently installed and those
components which are required to bring the systems up to the Bkr
treatment level. Hence, an estimate of capital cost requirements was
made for each plant and subcategory by scaling individual plants to
the developed treatment model and factoring costs based on production
by the "six-tenth factor". By this method, the Agency estimated the
expenditures already made by the steel industry. These data v._re
summarized earlier in Section II, and are presented for _ach
subcategory in Table VIII-1.
The Agency then estimated the expenditures needed to bring the
facilities from current treatment levels to a level from which they
can then install BAT technology; this level is referred to as the "BAT
Feed Level". These costs were considered as "BPT Required" costs for
purposes of the economic impact of the industry. The "BAT Feed Level"
is identical to the BPT level, treatment wise. However, for some
subcategories, the BAT feed level has model flow rates different from
model BPT discharge flows. As pointed out earlier, the new data baL_
has shown that some of the flow rates used as the basis of the 1974
and 1976 BPT limitations are not representative of actual operations.
Even though the Agency has decided not to revise the BPT limitations,
the most accurate flow rates were used for costing purposes. In this
way, cost estimates made for the industry are more accurate and thus
estimated economic impacts that may result from achievement of tl._
effluent limitations will be more realistic.
BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS Cost Estimates
The capital and annual cost estimates for these treatment levels v._i_
derived by multiplying the number of plants in a subcategory by tl._
approximate model costs for that level. For BAT and BCT levels, tl._
total number of plants (including those discharging to POTWs) \._i_
multiplied by the model costs. These costs are summarized in Table
IX-2. For NSPS and PSNS, total industry costs have not been presented
since predictions of future expansion in the industry were not mac_ as
part of this study. As noted above, the PSES costs are included in
the BPT and BAT cost totals. Model costs for these treatment lev-Is
are presented in the respective subcategory reports.
220
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION VIII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE
THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Introduction
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) is
generally based upon the average of the best existing performance by
mills of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within the industrial
subcategory. This average is not based upon a broad range of mills
within the subcategory, but is based upon performance levels achieved
by mills known to be equipped with the best treatment facilities.
xperience has demonstrated that in most instances these facilities
were effective in the control of only some of the pollutants present.
Th_ Agency also considered the following factors:
1. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
2. The processes employed.
3. Nonwater quality environmental impacts (including sludge
generation and energy requirements).
4. The engineering aspects of the applications of various types of
control techniques.
5. Process changes.
6. The total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.
"?T emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing
process but can also include control technologies within the process
itself when they are considered to be normal practice within an
industry.
The Agency also considered the degree of economic and engineering
reliability in order to determine whether a technology is "currently
available." As a result of demonstrations, projects, pilot plants and
general use, there must exist a high degree of confidence in the
..igineering and economic practicability of the technology at the time
of commencement of construction or installation of the control
facilities.
221
-------
Identification of BPT
General Discussion
Many types of treatment components and facilities are used within the
steel industry. While wide differences in components were noted
between the different subcategories, there were also variations in
treatment practices within any one subcategory.
End-of-pipe treatment is used in most steel industry subcategories,
that is, the entire wastewater flow is treated in a treatment system
separate from the process. In these systems, no consideration was
given to internal recycle systems or in-line process changes.
However, in some subcategories the most significant pollutant load
reductions are achieved with recycle systems (blast furnaces and hot
forming operations) or in-line modifications (fume scrubber recycl-
systems at pickle lines). Treatment systems proposed for "PT
acknowledged these variations in treatment methods and considered only
those mills that have the best treatment systems. In this way,
inadequate treatment methods were not included in the development of
the proposed BPT limitations.
In most subcategories physical-chemical treatment is used to achieve
pollutant reductions. Common methods include neutralization and
chemical precipitation, and sedimentation and/or filtration, mis
last step (sedimentation/filtration) showed the widest variation
within the industry with numerous types of devices in use. Son.- of
these include scale pits, flocculation and plate type clarifi_rs,
thickeners, settling lagoons or basins, gravity and pressure filters,
and mixed-media and sand filters. Because of the wide variations, the
appropriate technology was selected individually by subcategory taking
into consideration such factors as usage within the subcategory;
removal efficiencies; and, cost and land requirements. "oth
physical-chemical and biological treatment are used for cokemaking
wastes.
Summary of_ BPT Modifications
As discussed in Section II, the proposed effluent limitations for Blr
are identical to the previously promulgated limitations except whet_
they could not be supported. Based upon a review of all currently
available data, the Agency believes many of the BPT limitations could
be revised and proposed at more stringent levels. However, more
stringent BPT limitations are not being proposed at this time.
In the following subcategories, BPT limitations have been relaxed from
those originally promulgated: cokemaking, sintering, and open hearth
(wet). In addition new subdivisions to certain subcategories ha\_
been added to account for variations in flow, wastewater quality or
operating mode that were not recognized at the time the previous
regulations were developed. These changes are summarized below.
1. Creation of a subdivision for batch sulfuric acid pickling
operations where neutralization of wastewaters is practiced.
222
-------
2. Development of separate limitations for cold working pipe and
tube operations.
3. Creation of a subdivision for semi-wet open hearth operations.
4. Creation of a segment for galvanizing operations that coat wire
products and fasteners.
5. Creation of a hot coating subdivision to cover those operations
that carry out other than galvanizing or terne coating.
Proposed BPT Effluent Limitations
Table 1-1 summarizes the 1974 and 1976 BPT limitations, along with the
changes that are proposed. Where no changes are noted, proposed
limitations are the same as the original limitations. The guidelines
at_ based on mass limitations in kilograms per 1000 kilograms
(lbs/1000 Ibs). As noted earlier, the mass limitations do not require
the attainment of any particular discharge flow or effluent
concentration. There are virtually an infinite number of combinations
of flow and concentration that can be used to achieve the appropriate
limitations. This is illustrated in Figure VIII-1 which shows the
proposed BPT limitation for suspended solids for the blast furnace
subcategory. Also shown on this figure are the relative positions of
the sampled plants, some of which are in compliance and some of which
did not achieve the limitations. As shown by this diagram, those
plants that do not presently achieve the discharge limitation could do
so by reducing either discharge flow or effluent concentration, or a
combination of the two.
Costs to Achieve the Proposed BPT Limitations
Based upon the cost estimates presented herein, the industry-wide
investment costs to achieve full compliance with the proposed BPT
limitations is approximately $2.3 billion (in July 1, 1978 dollars).
As of January 1, 1978, about $0.75 billion of this amount remained to
L_ spent by the industry as it existed at the time that data were
collected. A total annual costs associated with the BPT investment is
about $0.30 billion. A breakdown of these BPT costs by subcategory is
presented in Table VIII-1. As pointed out in Section II, EPA believes
th_ pollution reduction benefits from compliance with the proposed BPT
limitations systems justify the associated costs.
223
-------
TABLE VIII-1
BPT COST ESTIMATIONS
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Costs (Millions of 7/1/78 Dollars]
Subcategory
A. Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
B. Sintering
C. Ironmaking
D. Steelmaking
1. BOF
2. Open Hearth
3. Electric Arc Furnace
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
2. Hydrochloric Acid
3. Combination Acid
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
2. Pipe and Tube
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing
2. Terne
3. Other Coatings
TOTALS
In-Plaee
178.00
0.78
46.34
351.88
89.41
16.68
21.71
9.91
60.71
541.70
3.18
0.63
48.32
63.47
26.96
22.04
9.20
6.56
23.87
1.16
3.10
Capital
Required
125.20
0
27.94
122.25
17.92
3.02
3.07
20.38
41.90
135.26
3.41
0.26
89.33
60.92
20.56
30.33
6.60
7.06
31.55
2.58
1.68
Total
Annual
104.90
0.06
37.26
95.28
24.61
4.66
8.75
7.65
23.90
-103.70
1.63
0.32
48.01
7.06
12.89
9.70
2.90
4.15
11.20
0.72
0.89
1,525.60
751.22
303.04
NOTE: Costs can be converted to January 1, 1980 dollars by multiplying by 1.17.
(1) Basis: Facilities'in place or committed as of 1/1/78.
224
-------
500-
450-
c 400-
o
§ 350'
o
.2? 300-
3 250 H
u.
9 200
I «»o H
100 -
50-
FIGURE Vlll-l
POTENTIAL FOR ACHIEVING
AN EFFLUENT LIMITATION
EXAMPLE
SUBCATEGORY: IRONMAKING
POLLUTANT: TSS AT THE BPT LEVEL
(PLANT
(PLANT N)
(PLANT 021)
9
(PLANT 026)
(PLANT M)
10 20 30 40 50 60 TO 80 90 100 110 120 130 170
TSS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
1 SOLID LINE REPRESENTS TSS LIMIT OF 0.026 kg/kkg (Ibs/IOOO Ibs)
NOTE: PLANTS ABOVE THE SOLID LINE DO NOT MEET TSS LIMITATIONS.
HOWEVER, THEY COULD ATTAIN THE APPROPRIATE LOAD BY EITHER
REDUCING THEIR FLOW OR EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION AS SHOWN
BY THE DASHED ARROWS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THE TWO.
225
-------
GENERAL
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
The Affluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984 are to
specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best available technology economically achievable.
Best available technology is not based upon an average of the best
performance within an industrial category, but is determined by
identifying the best control and treatment technology employed by a
specific point source within the industrial subcategory. Also, where
a t-Jhnology is readily transferable from one industry to another,
such technology may be identified as BAT technology.
Consideration was also given to:
1. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
2. The processes employed.
3. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
4. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques.
5. Process changes.
6. The cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
application of BAT technology.
"3St available technology assesses the availability in all cases of
in-process changes or controls which can be applied to reduce waste
loads, as well as additional treatment techniques .which can be applied
at the end of a production process. Those processes and control
techniques which at the pilot plant, semi-works, or other level, have
c^.nonstrated both sufficient technological performance and economic
viability may be considered in assessing best available technology.
r ,st available technology may be the highest degree of control
technology that has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be
capable of being designed for plant scale operation up to and
including "no discharge" of pollutants. Although economic factors are
considered in the development, the level of control is intended to be
the top-of-the-line current technology, subject to limitations imposed
by _conomic and engineering feasibility. However, this level may be
227
-------
characterized by some technical risk with respect to performance and
with respect to certainty of costs.
Treatment Systems Considered for BAT
To reduce the levels of nonconventional, nontoxic, and toxic
pollutants present in the discharge from the industry, fourtt_n
treatment systems were considered either alone or in combination for
BAT. A list of these alternatives and the subcategories in which they
are being considered are summarized in Table X-l. Detailed
explanations of these alternatives are presented in the individual
subcategory reports.
Identification of the Best Available Technology
Based upon the information contained in Sections II through VIII of
this report and upon data contained in the respective subcategory
reports, various treatment systems are being considered.for the BAT
level of treatment. A short description of the BPT/BAT feed treatment
systems and the model BAT treatment systems, if any are considered, is
presented in Table 1-6. The effluent limitations associated with the
model BAT systems are summarized in Table 1-3. The costs associated
with the model BAT systems are summarized in Table IX-2 by
subcategory. As with the proposed BPT effluent limitations, the
Agency has concluded the effluent reduction benefits associated with
the proposed BAT effluent limitations justify the costs and nonwater
quality environmental impacts, including energy consumption, water
consumption, air pollution, and solid waste generation.
228
-------
TABLE IX-1
ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEMS CONSIDERED
FOR BAT
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
IO
Advanced
Treatment Coke- Blast
System Making Sintering Furnace
Acid Recovery/
Regeneration
Activated Sludge
System X
Alkaline
Chi or i nation X X
Cascade Rinse
System
Evaporation
Evaporation as
Quench X
Evaporation on
Slag X
Filtration
(Pressure or
Gravity) XXX
Granular Carbon
Columns XXX
Lime Precipitation X X
Powdered Carbon
Addition X
Recycle System XXX
Sulfide
Precipitation X X
Basic
Oxygen Open Electric Vacuum
Furnace Hearth Arc Degassing
XX X X
X X X X
XXX
XXX X
Cont. Hot Scale H2S04 HCL Comb Cold Alkaline Hot
Casting Forming Removal Pickling Pickling Pickling Forming Cleaning Coating
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
-------
TABLE IX-2
(1)
BAT COST ESTIMATIONS
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
Costs (Millions of 7/1/78 Dollars)
Subcategory
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Cokemaking
1. By-Produet
2. Beehive
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
1. EOF
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet: Suppressed combustion
c. Wet: Open combustion
2. Open Hearth
a. Semi-wet
b. Wet
3. Electric Arc Funace
a . Semi-wet
b. Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. . Hydride
Capital
Alternative
Selected In Place
BAT 1
BPT
BAT 3
(2)
BPT
BAT 2
BAT 2
BPT
BAT 2
BPT
BAT 2
BAT 1
BAT 1
BAT 1
BAT 1
BAT 1
11.90
0
2.00
4.28
0
0.32
0.42
0
0
0
0.14
0.06
0
100.80
0.14
0
Required
45.40
0
11.30
20.58
0
2.22
7.68
0
2.36
0
2.01
1.02
4.35
434. 70
2.52
0.56
Total
Annual
9.76
0
2.60
4.92
0
0.49
1.59
0
1.14
0
0.40
0.20
0.78
110.80
0.48
0.10
230
-------
TABLE IX-2
BAT COST ESTIMATIONS
IRON & STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
Costs (Millions of 7/1/78 Dollars)
Subcategory
I. Pickling
1. Sulfuric Acid
a. Acid Recovery
b. Neutralisation
2. Hydrochloric Acid
a. Acid regeneration
b. Neutralization - Batch
c. Neutralization - Continuous
3. Combination Acid
a. Batch
b. Continuous
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculation
b. Combination
c. Direct application
2. Pipe and Tube
R. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coatings
1. Galvanizing
2. Terne
3. Other Coatings
TOTALS
Alternative
Selected
BPT
BAT-1
BAT 1
BAT 1
BAT 1
BAT 1
BAT 1
Capital
BAT-1
BAT-1
BAT-1
BPT
BPT
BAT 1
BAT 1
BAT 1
(3)
(3)
In Place Required
3.81
0.12
0
123.99
0
9.05
3.06
0.42
8.99
3.50
2.66
6.07
5.39
12.48
5.94
0.69
0.57
593.52
Total
Annual
0
2.89
0.99
0.14
2.79
1.00
0.76
1.10
1.04
2.40
2.88
0.23
0.18
149.66
(1) All BAT costs are over and above BPT cost requirements.
(2) Costs are based on 60Z of the plants at BAT 1, and 402 of the plants at the BAT 4 level.
(3) BAT-2 effluent limitations will apply. See cold rolling document for explanation.
NOTE: Costs can be converted to January 1, 1980 dollars by multiplying by 1.17.
Basis: Facilities in place or committed as of 1/1/78.
231
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION X
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BCT)
Introduction
The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(4)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in Section
308(b)(4) - BOD, TSS, fecal coliform and pH - and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional." On July
28, 1978, EPA proposed that COD, oil and grease, and phosphorus be
added to the conventional pollutant list (43 Fed. Reg. 32857). Only
oil and grease was added.
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. BCT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a new
"cost-reasonableness" test, which involves a comparison of the cost
~nd level of reduction of conventional pollutants from the discharge
of POTWs to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a
class or category of industrial sources. As part of its review of BAT
for certain "secondary" industries, EPA proposed methodology for this
cost test. (See 43 Fed. Reg. 37570, August 23, 1978).
For the steel industry, proposed BCT effluent limitations are based
upon performance of treatment technologies that remove conventional
pollutants. These technologies are compatible with BAT treatment
moc_ls for each subcategory. Hence, in no instance are proposed BCT
and "YT limitations incompatible from a technical or engineering
viewpoint. In the event the BCT cost test fails, the propose BCT
limitations are based upon the proposed BPT limitations. In no case
are proposed BCT limitations less stringent than proposed BPT
limitations.
BCT Cost Test
The criteria for the BCT Cost Test are contained in Section
304(b)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act, which requires a consideration of
the "cost reasonableness" of effluent limitations for conventional
pollutants. The BCT Cost Test comparison is done between the cost and
l_/el of reduction of the conventional pollutants at a publicly owned
treatment works and the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants
in the appropriate iron and steel subcategory.
For the steel industry, the BCT Cost Test was completed using the
methodology outlined in the August 29, 1979 Federal Register.
"isically, the test considers the incremental annual cost from BPT to
"YT and the conventional pollutant load removal from BPT to BAT.
233
-------
The results of the BCT Cost Test for the BCT Alternatives at_
presented in Table X-l.
The costs on a dollar per pound basis as determined above were
compared with $1.34/lb {July 1978 dollars) determined for POTWs (See
Federal Register, August 29,1979, pp. 50732-50763. Seven of the
twelve steel industry subcategories had BCT costs equal to or less
than $1.34/lb. In these subcategories, BCT limitations are being
proposed which are based on the selected BCT Alternative noted in the
last column of Table X-l. As noted above, BCT limitations are L_ing
proposed at the BPT level for other subcategories. The "CT
limitations being proposed are listed in Table 1-5. For additional
details on model BCT treatment systems, reference is made to tl._
respective subcategory reports.
Since the BCT alternatives are compatible with the proposed BAT
systems discussed in Section IX, the costs for these systems are
included in the cost analysis for BAT. The BCT costs for the
respective subcategories are listed in Table IX-3.
234
-------
TABLE X-l
RESULTS OF THE BCT COST TEST
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
(1)
(COST TEST OBJECTIVE: $1.34/lb of BCT POLLUTANT REMOVED OR LESS ')
Subcategory
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cokemaking
1. By-Product
2. Beehive
Sintering
Ironmaking
Steelmaking
1. BOF: w/sc
: w/oc
2. OH - Wet
3. EF - Wet
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming
1 . Primary
2. Section
3. Flat
a. HS&S
b. Carbon Plate
c. Spec. Plate
4. Pipe & Tube
$/lb of
BCT-1
0.81
-
0.60
C.35
0.53
1.16
0.71
1.95
1.85
0.48
0.65
0.54
0.46
0.63
0.94
0.89
Conventional
BCT-2
0.81
-
1.30
0.63
1.54
2.18
1.61
3.72
-
-
0.65
0.54
0.46
0.63
0.94
0.89
(2)
Pollutants Removed
BCT Alt.
BCT-3 Selected
0.46 BCT-1
BPT
BCT-2
1 . 08 BCT-3
BCT-1
BCT-1
BCT-1
BPT
BPT
BCT-1
BCT-1
BCT-1
BCT-1
BCT-1
BCT-1
BCT-1
235
-------
TABLE X-l
RESULTS OF THE BCT COST TEST
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 2
$/lb of Conventional Pollutants Removed
(2)
Subcategory
H. Scale Removal
1. Kolene
2. Hydride
I. Acid Pickling
1. Sulfuric
a. Batch Neut.
b. Cont. Neut.
2. Hydrochloric
a. Cont. Regen.
b. Batch Neut.
c. Cont. Neut.
3. Combination
a. Batch
b. Continuous
J. Cold Forming
1. Cold Rolling
a. Recirculated
b. Combination
c. Direct Appl.
2. Pipe & Tube
K. Alkaline Cleaning
a. Bat ch
b. Continuous
BCT-1
12.03
1.32
1.74
2.07
0.61
3.60
0.72
2.43
1.54
12.82
0.91
0.46
18.30
4.20
BCT-2
2.66
2.45
0.76
5.28
0.88
4.00
2.10
12.82
0.91
0.46
BCT Alt.
Selected
BPT
BCT-1
BPT
BPT
BCT-2
BPT
BCT-2
BPT
BPT
BPT
BCT-1
BCT-1
BPT
BPT
BPT
236
-------
TABLE X-l
RESULTS OF THE BCT COST TEST
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
PAGE 3
Subcategory
L. Hot Coating
1. Galvanizing
a.
b.
c.
d.
s/s w/s
s/s wo/s
Wire w/s
Wire wo/s
$/lb of Conventional Pollutants Removed
(2)
BCT-1
0.58
0.99
0.53
0.57
BCT-2
0.75
1.27
0.87
1.10
BCT Alt.
Selected
BCT-2
BCT-2
BCT-2
BCT-2
Terne
a. w/scrubbers
b. wo/scrubbers
Other Metals
a. s / s w/ s
b. s/s wo/s
c. Wire w/s
d. Wire wo/s
0.87
1.36
0.75
1.20
1.54
1.21
1.15
1.82
1.02
1.66
2.88
3.31
BCT-2
BPT
BCT-2
BCT-1
BPT
BCT-1
(1) Adjusting the $1.15/lb figure (A3 Fed. Reg. 37570, August 23, 1978)
7/1/78 dollars.
(2) TSS plus oil and grease.
to
237
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by new sources, i.e.,
any source, the construction of which is started after publication of
K_v Source Performance Standard (NSPS) regulations, are to specify the
c-jjree of effluent reduction achievable through the application of the
best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating
u._thods, or other alternatives, including, where applicable, a
standard requiring no discharge of pollutants.
For new source plants, a "no-aqueous discharge of pollutants" limit
was sought for each subcategory. There were numerous facilities in
some subcategories that demonstrate zero discharge. However, for many
of these subcategories a zero discharge may not be attainable for all
new sources. In these situations treatment systems at lowest
achievable flow rates have been considered.
Because new plants can be designed with water conservation and
innovative technology in mind, costs can be minimized by treating the
lowest possible wastewater flows. No considerations had to be given
to the "add-on" approach that was characteristic of the BPT and BAT
sysl_.ns and therefore the NSPS Alternatives consider the most
_fficient treatment components and systems. NSPS systems are similar
to the BAT systems; however, in some subcategories, alternate
treatment components are included which are less costly.
Several alternative treatment systems were considered, but for various
reasons, all could not be used as the basis for NSPS Alternatives.
One of these systems was cascade water usage across operations. New
steelmaking installations have a greater opportunity to cascade
proc_3s waters from one steelmaking or finishing operation to another
starting with the operation with the most stringent water quality
requirements and progressing to the operation with the lowest quality
requirements. In this way, both the intake and discharge flow
requirements are reduced. Because new mills can be designed with this
approach in mind, areas where cascade water usage is possible can be
located in close proximity to reduce pumping costs. Also, systems
with compatible wastewaters can be centrally located to share
tr_atment systems or other disposal practices. Unfortunately, such
reuse systems could not be considered for NSPS. When developing the
limitations and standards for the steel industry, it was necessary to
consider each steelmaking/finishing operation as standing alone thus
allowing for "worst case" cost estimates. Hence, cost savings
associated with a greenfield plant are not acknowledged in the
estimates. Neither are savings associated with using existing
239
-------
treatment facilities at large plants where only one new source is
added.
Identification of_ NSPS
The alternative treatment systems considered for NSPS are similar to
the alternatives considered for BAT with minor exceptions. However,
as noted above, in many subcategories lower discharge flows at-
considered for NSPS. Since the criteria for NSPS is to consider only
the very best systems, the lowest demonstrated flow could be used to
develop NSPS standards. Table XI-1 lists the treatment systems used
as models for NSPS. The standards derived from the use of the
technologies are listed in the individual subcategory reports.
NSPS Costs
As part of this study, the Agency did not estimate the number of new
source plants to be built in the future. However, the Agency did
consider the potential economic impacts of NSPS in Economic Analysis
of_ Proposed Effluent Guidelines - Integrated Iron and Steel Industry.
Model costs for the NSPS systems are detailed in the individual
subcategory reports.
240
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANTS DISCHARGING
TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
The industry discharges untreated or partially treated wastewaters to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) from operations in each
subcategory. Table XII-1 lists all plants which reported in the DCPs
discharges to a POTW. In the individual subcategory reports, two
classes of discharges to POTWs were addressed: existing sources and
r._v sources. Also, the national pretreatment standards developed for
indirect discharges fall into two separate groups: prohibited
discharges, covering all POTW users, and categorical standards
applying to specific industrial subcategories.
As was done for BAT, BCT and NSPS, various alternative treatment
syst_.ns were considered for Pretreatment standards. Up to four
alternatives have been considered for each subcategory. To develop
tK_ Pretreatment Alternatives, four main factors were considered:
1. Wastewaters should be sufficiently treated to eliminate shock
loads.
2. Toxic pollutants should be reduced or eliminated so that the
biological activity in the POTW system is not impaired.
3. Toxic and nonconventional pollutants should be reduced or
eliminated so they will not pass through POTWs that are not
designed to remove these pollutants.
4. Toxic pollutants should be reduced or eliminated in the
industrial discharge, so that they will not accumulate in POTW
sludges, which could restrict the sludge from being used or from
being properly disposed.
National Pretreatment Standards
"PA has developed national standards that apply to all POTW
discharges. For detailed information on the Agency's approach to
Pretreatment Standards refer to 43 FR 27736-27773, "General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution,
Monday, June 16, 1978." In particular, Part 403, Section 403.5 et.
seq. describes national standards, prohibited discharges and
categorical standards, POTW pretreatment programs, and a national
pt_treatment strategy.
Prohibited Discharges - Existing and New Sources
Prohibited discharges to POTWs from any source include:
241
-------
1. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in POTWs.
2. Pollutants which cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW
unless the POTW is specifically designed to handle corrosive
discharges.
3. Solid and viscous pollutants which obstruct flow in sewers or
otherwise interfere with POTW operations.
4. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants, in such
volumes or strengths as to cause interference in POTW operations.
5. Heat in amounts which inhibit biological activity in the POTW.
In no case can the temperature at the influent to the POTW ex( 5
40°C (104°F) unless the POTW is specifically designed to handle
such heated discharges.
Potential Impacts of_ Steel Industry Wastes on POTW Systems
As noted previously, many of the wastewaters generated in the steel
industry contain toxic metals and organics in significant amounts.
The proposed pretreatment Standards for the steel industry limit the
discharge of these toxic pollutants because high concentrations of
toxic metals and organics can affect the POTW in the following ways:
1. Inhibition of or interference with the POTW treatment process
2. Pass-through during POTW treatment
3. Contamination of POTW sludges
Various studies15 have demonstrated that toxic pollutants found in
steel industry wastewaters can and do inhibit POTW biological
treatment processes at levels which exist in steel industry
wastewaters. The concentration of toxic pollutants in steel industry
effluent is an important factor since many POTWs treat relatively high
industrial flows in relation to sanitary wastes. As part of this
study, it was not feasible for the Agency to evaluate each POTV
receiving other industrial wastes as well as steel industry wastes to
determine a safe dilution ratio for steel industry wastes on p
subcategory or industry-wide basis. Hence, the Agency's approach i:
to propose pretreatment standards for each subcategory to a level sue!
that interference with POTW operations, pass through of toxic
pollutants, and contamination of POTW sludges is kept to a mini-mUm
In most instances, the proposed pretreatment standards are based upor
the proposed BAT and NSPS limitations and standards, conventional
pollutants excluded. Some of the toxic pollutants are listed belo'
together with their inhibitory concentrations in activated sludg
systems.
lsEPA-430/9-76-017a, Construction Grants Program Information; Feder?
Guidelines, State and Local Pretreatment Programs.
242
-------
Pollutant Inhibitory Concentration (mq/1)
Arsenic 0.1
Chromium, hexavalent 1-10
Copper 1.0
Cyanide 0.1-5
Lead 0.1
Zinc 0.08-10
me treatment components used for the pretreatment systems are
c_3igned to reduce the concentrations of these, and other pollutants,
that may inhibit the treatment efficiency of POTW systems.
Ott.-r studies16 involving the electroplating industry indicated that
ILWIH 50 to 90 percent of the toxic metals in the influent to a POTW
tt_atment system will pass through the treatment system. With high
industrial loads, it is likely that POTWs could discharge
environmentally detrimental levels of toxic metals.
Toxic metals which do not pass through a POTW are not destroyed by the
biological treatment; and, as a result, these metals concentrate in
the POTW sludges. Generally, land application is the least expensive
and yet most advantageous method of POTW sludge disposal. A primary
advantage derived from the land application of POTW sludges is the
addition of essential soil nutrients from the sludges, thus serving as
a fertilizer. Excessive amounts of toxic metals in the sludges can,
however, inhibit plant growth, thus making these sludges unacceptable
for use as a soil nutrient. Also, these toxic metals can enter either
the plant and animal food chain or ground waters, and eventually enter
water supplies. Both of these situations are environmentally
unacceptable. For the above reasons, the control of the toxic
pollutants in the steel industry discharges to POTWs is necessary.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
Plants in all twelve subcategories discharge wastewaters to POTW
syst_.ns. As noted above, to control the discharge of potentially
haimful pollutants and flow, Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES) have been developed based primarily on the selected BAT
t chnologies. The limitations and costs are essentially the same as
v._:_ reviewed in Section IX of this report. Additional details on
ti. .treatment Standards for Existing Sources are presented in the
respective subcategory reports.
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
The pretreatment standards being proposed for new source plants
discharging to POTWs are identical to the NSPS requirements for direct
16Refer to Federal Register; Friday, September 7, 1979; Part IV,
Environmental Protection Agency; Effluent Guidelines and Standards;
Electroplating Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources - Pages 52597-52601.
243
-------
dischargers. For the appropriate NSPS standards and costs for these
NSPS systems, the respective subcategory reports should be consulted.
244
-------
TABLE XII-1
POTW DISCHARGERS
PLANT
00208
OO20C
0024*
OO480
0060
1O600
ooaoc
OO6OO
T060I
ooeou
OOMM
'06OK
ooeos
OO«8
TOMS
008SC
OHM
on2F
-128 ,
01968
oi36C
oirac
otr«o
0180
0212
'248*
-4ae
OZ96*
0296N
0284
02(4*
O2S4C
02*40
_ 02808
02S4*
032O
03UO
0384*
0396*
OS WC
03*60
04328
04S2C
"412 J
0432 L
O440*
0«44
O4«St
0*608
046OC
--tor
O4«OO
04COH
O4648
04<4C
OS28
09488
0980
09608
098OC
096OE
ossor
O96OO
0964H
0636
O»4O
O84O*
08408
O848
0896*
0672B
O884H
0684K
O884Z
08M*
OT4OA
0780
07T8C
07780
OT92*
OT«C
08IO
08983
08608
08800
086OH
0884C
O946*
0948C
TOT»t
(8* SIM)
^
X
X
X
11
X
X,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
X
X
X
X
X
19
0
M
X
1
1
X
X
2
?
X
X
2
/*
0
0
f J
0
y
X
X
X
X
X
9
7 S
X
X
X
X
X
5
/ *
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
/ f
X
X
X
3
/ -f
X
X
X
X
4
/4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L X
X
X
X
27
M
X
X
X,
X
X
10
7o<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1 1
?&
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
1
1
X
X
21
7*
X
1
r*
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X,
X
X
X
X
X
X,
X
19
?4
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
x;
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
7 &>
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
93
/ fffa
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
15
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The field sampling and analysis for this project and the initial
drafts of this report were prepared under Contracts No. 68-01-4730 and
68-01-5827 by the Cyrus Wm. Rice Division of NUS Corporation. The
final report has been revised substantially by and at the direction of
""7A personnel.
me preparation and writing of the initial drafts of this document was
accomplished through the efforts of Mr. Thomas J. Centi, Project
Manager, Mr. J. Steven Paquette, Deputy Project Manager, Mr. Joseph
A. Boros, Mr. Patrick C. Falvey, Mr. Edward D. Maruhnich, Mr. Wayne
M. Neeley, Mr. William D. Wall, Mr. David E. Soltis, Mr. Michael C.
Runatz, Ms. Debra M. Wroblewski, Ms. Joan 0. Knapp, and Mr. Joseph J.
iar~ntino.
rr._ Cyrus W. Rice Field and sampling programs were conducted under the
Ir-iership of Mr. Richard C. Rice, Mr. Robert J. Ondof and Mr. Matthew
J. Walsh. Laboratory and analytical servies were conducted under the
guidance of Miss C. Ellen Gonter, Mrs. Linda A. Deans and Mr. Gary A.
^urns. The drawings contained within and general engineering services
v.__-e provided by the RICE drafting room under the supervision of Mr.
Albert M. Finke. Computer services and data analysis were conducted
under the supervision of Mr. Henry K. Hess.
The project was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr.
Ernst P. Hall, P.E. Chief, Metals and Machinery Branch, OWWM, Mr.
Edward L. Dulaney, P.E., Senior Project Officer; Mr. Gary A. Amendola,
P.E., Senior Iron and Steel Specialist, Mr. Terry N. Oda, National
St__l Industry Expert, Messers. Sidney C. Jackson, Dwight Hlustick,
Michael Hart, John Williams, Dr. Robert W. Hardy, and Dennis Ruddy,
Assistant Project Officers, and Messers J. Daniel Berry and Barry
Malter, Office of General Counsel. The contributions of Mr.
Walter J. Hunt, former Branch Chief, are also acknowledged.
me cooperation of the American Iron and Steel Institute, and more
sj.-~ifically, the individual steel companies whose plants were sampled
and who submitted detailed information in response to questionnaires,
is gratefully appreciated. The operations and plants visited were the
property of the following companies: Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corporation, Armco Inc., Ford Motor Company, Lone Star Steel
Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Inland Steel Company, Donner
Hanna Coke Corporation, Interlake, Inc., Wisconsin Steel Division of
-nvirodyne Company, Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation, National Steel
Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, Kaiser Steel
Corporation, Shenango, Inc., Koppers Company, Eastmet Corporation,
Northwestern Steel and Wire Company, CF&I Steel Corporation, Allegheny
Tudlum Steel Corporation, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation,
F._public Steel Corporation, Lukens Steel Company, Laclede Steel
247
-------
Company, Plymouth Tube Co., The Stanley Steel Division, Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Co., McLouth Steel Corp., Carpenter Technology, Universal
Cyclops, Joslyn Steel, Crucible Inc., Babcock & Wilcox Company,
Washington Steel, and Jessop Steel.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to the secretarial
staff of the RICE Division, of NUS (Ms. Rane Grzebien, Ms. Donna Gut_r
and Ms. Lee Lewis) and to the word processing staff of the Effli .it
Guidelines Division (Ms. Kaye Storey, Ms. Pearl Smith, Ms. Carol Swann
and Ms. Nancy Zrubek) for their efforts in the typing of drafts,
necessary revisions, and preparation of this effluent guidelines
document.
248
-------
VOLUME I
SECTION XIV
REFERENCES
1. Adams, C.E., Jr., "Treatment of a High Strength Phenolic and
Ammonia Wastestream By Single and Multi-Stage Activated Sludge
Processes", Proceedings of the 29th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, pp. 617-630 (1974).
2. Adams, C.E., Stein, R.M., Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., "Treatment of
Two Coke Plant Wastewaters to Meet Guideline Criteria",
Proceedings of_ the 29th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, pp. 864-880 (1974).
3. American Iron and Steel Institute, "Annual Statistical Report,
1976". Washington, D.C.
4. American Iron and Steel Institute, Directory of_ Iron and Steel
Works of the United States and Canada, American Iron and Steel
Institute, New York (1976).
5. Anthony, M.T., "Future of the Steel Industry In The West", Iron
and Steel Engineer, pp. 54-55 (September, 1974).
6. "Armco's Innovative Electric Furnace Practice", Journal of_
Metals, pp. 43-44 (November, 1974).
7. Atkins, P.F., Jr., Scherger, D.A., Barnes, R.A. and Evans, F.L.
Ill, "Ammonia Removal By Physical Chemical Treatment", Water
Pollution Control Federation, Journal, 45^ (11), pp. 2372-2388
(November, 1973).
8. Balden, A.R. and Scholl, E.L., "The Treatment of Industrial
Wastewaters for Reuse, Closing the Cycle", Proceedings of_ the
28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 874-880
(1973).
9. Beckman, W.J., Avendt, R.J., Mulligan, T.J. and Kehrberger, G.J.,
"Combined Carbon Oxidation Nitrification," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 44, October 10, 1972, p. 1916.
10. Bennett, K.W., "Mini-Midi Mills Show Larger Amount of Clout",
Iron Age, 218 (15), pp. MP-9-MP-38 (October 11, 1976).
11. Bernardin, F.E., "Cyanide Detoxification Using Adsorption and
Catalytic Oxidation on Granular Activated Carbon," Journal of_ the
Water Pollution Control Federation, 45, 2, February, 1973, p.
221 .
249
-------
12. Black, H.H., McDermott, G.N., Henderson, C., Moore W.A. and
Pohren, H.R., "Industrial Wastes Guide", Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University (May 15-17, 1956).
13. Borland, C.C. and Cruse, C.L., "Direct Reduction - How Is Quality
Measured?", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society rtf
A.I.M.E., Toronto, 34, pp. 206-215 (1975).
14. Brinn, D.G. and Doris, R.L., "Basic Oxygen Steelmaking: A
Bibliography of Published Literature", British Steel Corpor~tion
Research Report, Section 7, pp. 25-28.
15. Brough, John R. and Voges, Thomas F., "Basic Oxygen Process Wal.r
Treatment", Proceedings, Industrial Waste Conference, pm-^ne
University, 24th, pp. 762-769 (1969).
16. Burns and Roe, Draft Development Document, Electric Power
Industry, November 1974.
17. Burns & McDonald, Evaluation of Wet Versus Dry Cooling Syst_.u5,
January, 1974.
18. Calgon Corporation Application Bulletin, "Calgon Cyanic-
Destruction System", (1971).
19. Carson, James, E., Atmospheric Impacts of Evaporative Cooling
Systems, ANL/ES-53.
20. Cartwright, W.F., "Research Might Help to Solve Coking Industry
Problems, Gas World, 164, p. 497 (November 12, 1966).
21. Catchpole, J.R., "The Treatment and Disposal of Effluents in the
Gas and Coke Industry", Air and Water Pollution in the Iron and
Steel Industry, Iron and Steel Institute Special Report No.
1961, pp. 219-225 (1958).
22. Chen, Kenneth Y., "Kinetics of Oxidation of Aqueous Sulfic_ by
02", Environmental Science and Technology, 6_, p. 529 (Jui._,
1972).
23. Cheremisnoff, P.N., "Biological Wastewater Treatment", Pollution
Engineering, 8_ (9), pp. 32-38 (September, 1976).
24. Cheremisinoff, P.N., Perna, A.J. and Sevaszek, E.R., "Controlling
Organic Pollutants In Industrial Wastewaters", Industrial Wastes,
2J_ (5), pp. 26-35 (September-October, 1975).
25. "Clean System Quenches Coke", Iron Age, 211(14), p. 25 (April
5, 1973).
26. "Controlling Quenching Emissions", Iron and Steel Engineer, *"*
(12), p. 21 (December, 1976).
27. Cook, W.R. and Rankin, L.V., "Polymers Solve Waste Wat_r
Problems", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 43-46 (May, 1974).
250
-------
28. Cooper, R.L., "Methods of Approach to Coke Oven Effluent
Problems", Air and Water. Pollution iin the Iron and Steel
Industry, Iron and Steel Institute Special Report No. 61, pp.
198-202 (1958).
29. Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R., "The Biological Treatment of
Coke Oven Effluents", The Coke Oven Manager's Yearbook, pp.
146-177 (1967).
30. Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R., "Biological Treatment of
Phenolic Wastes", Management of_ Water in the Iron and Steel
Institute Special Report No. 128, pp. 97-102 (1970).
31. Cousins, W.G. and Mindler, A.B., "Tertiary Treatment of Weak
Ammonia Liquor", JWPCF, 44, 4 607-618 (April, 1972).
32. Cruver, J.E. and Nusbaum, I., "Application of Reverse Osmosis to
Wastewater Treatment," Journal WPCF, Volume 45, No. 2, February,
1974.
33. Davis, R.F., Jr. and Cekela, V.W., Jr., "Pipeline Charging
Preheated Coal to Coke Ovens", Ironmaking Proceedings, The
Metallurgical Society of A.I.M. E., Toronto, 34, pp. 339-349
(1975).
34. Decaigny, Roger A., "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Removes Cyanides,
Ammonia, Iron, and Phenol", Proceedings, 25th Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University, pp. 512-517 (1970).
35. DeFalco, A.J., "Biological Treatment of Coke Plant Waste", Iron
and Steel Engineer, pp. 39-41 (June, 1975).
36. DeJohn, P.B., Adams, A.D., "Treatment of Oil Refinery Wastewaters
with Granular and Powdered Activated Carbon", Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference.
37. Directory of Iron and Steel Plants^ Steel Publications, Inc.,
1976, 1977, 1978.
38. Directory of_ the Iron and Steel Works of_ the World, Metal
Bulletins Books, Ltd., London, 5th edition.
39. Donovan, E.J., Jr., Treatment of Wastewater for Steel Cold
Finishing Mills, Water and Wastes Engineering, November, 1970.
40. DuMond, T.C., "Mag-Coke Creates Big Stir in Desulfurization",
Iron Age, 211 (24), pp. 75-77 (June 14, 1973).
41. Dunlap, R.W. and McMichael, F.C., "Reducing Coke Plant Effluent",
Environmental Science and Technology, 10 (7), pp. 654-657 (July,
1976).
42. Duvel, W.A. and Helfgott, T., "Removal of Wastewater Organics by
Reverse Osmosis," Journal WPCF, Volume 47, No. ]_, January, 1975.
251
-------
43. Edgar, W.D. and Muller, J.M., "The Status of Coke Oven Pollution
Control", AIME, Cleveland, Ohio (April, 1973).
44. Effect of Geographical Variation on Performance of Recirculating
Cooling Ponds, EPA-660/2-74-085.
45. Eisenhauer, Hugh R., "The Ozonation of Phenolic Wastes", Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, p. 1887 (NovemL_r,
1968).
46. Elliott, J.F., "Direct Reduction of Iron Ores - Processes -rid
Products", Ironmakinq Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society <»*
A.I.M.E., Toronto, 34, pp. 216-227 (1975).
47. Environmental Protection Agency, "Analytical Methods for the
Verification Phase of the BAT Review", Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials (June, 1977).
48. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biological Removal of Carbon
and Nitrogen Compounds from Coke Plant Wastes", Office rtf
Research and Monitoring, Washington, D.C. (April, 1973).
49. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Development Document for
Effluent Limitations and Guidelines and Standards of Performanc_,
Alloy and Stainless Steel Industry, Datagraphics, Inc. (Janu^y,
1974).
50. Environmental Protection Agency, "Industry Profile Study on BJ~st
Furnace and Basic Steel Products ," C.W. Rice Division -NUS
Corporation for EPA, Washington, D.C. (December, 1971).
51. Environmental Protection Agency, "Pollution Control of Blast
Furnace Gas Scrubbers Through Recirculation", Office of Research
and Monitoring/ Washington, D.C. (Project No. 12010EDY).
52. Environmental Protection Agency, "Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority
Pollutants", Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati., Ohio (March, 1977 revised April, 1977).
53. Environmental Protection Agency, "Steel Making Segment of the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category", Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C. (June/ 1974).
54. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Control
Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries", EPA,
Washington, D.C. (September 1, 1972).
55. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Pollution Control
Practices in the Carbon and Alloy Steel Industries", Progi._ss
Reports for the Months of September and October, 1972 (Project
No. R800625).
56. Environmental Steel, The Council of Economic Priorities.
252
-------
57. Fair, G.M., Geyer, I.C., Okum, D.P., Water and Wastewater
Engineering, Volume 1_, Water Spray and Wastewater Removal.
58. Flynn, B.P., "A Model for the Powdered Activated Carbon -
Activated Sludge Treatment System; Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference.
58. Foltz, V.W., Thompson, R.J., "Armco Develops Cold Mill Waste Oil
Treatment Process", Water and Wastes Engineering, March 1970.
60. Ford, D.L., "Putting Activated Carbon in Perspective in 1983
Guidelines," National Conference oil Treatment and Disposal of_
Industrial Waste Waters and Residues, April 26-28, 1977.
61. Ford, D.L., Elton, Richard L., "Removal of Oil and Grease From
Industrial Wastewaters", Chemical Engineering, Oct. 17, 1977.
62. Fraust, C.L., "Modifying A Conventional Chemical Waste Treatment
Plant to Handle Fluoride and Ammonia Wastes", Plating and Surface
Finishing, p. 1048-1052 (November, 1975.)
63. Gelb, B.A., "The Cost of Complying with Federal Water Pollution
Law", Industrial Water Engineering, 1^2 (6), pp. 6-9 (December,
1975 - January, 1976).
64. George, H.D. and Boardman, E.B., "IMS - Grangcold Pelletizing
System For Steel Mill Waste Material", Iron and Steel Engineer,
pp. 60-64 (November, 1973).
65. Goldstein, M., "2. Economics of Treating Cyanide Wastes",
Pollution Engineering, pp. 36-38 (March, 1976).
66. Gordon, C.K., "Continuous Coking Process", Iron and Steel
Engineer, pp. 125-130 (September, 1973).
67. Gordon, C.K. and Droughton, T.A., "Continuous Coking Process",
AISE, Chicago, Illinois (April, 1973).
68. Gould, J.P. and Weber, W.J., Jr., "Oxidation of Phenols by
Ozone", Water Pollution Control Federation, Journal, 4_8 (1 ), pp.
47-60 (January, 1976).
69. Grieve, C.G., Stenstron, M.K., "Powdered Carbon Improves
Activated Sludge Treatment, Hydrocarbon Processing, October,
1977.
70. Grosick, H.A., "Ammonia Disposal - Coke Plants", Blast Furnace
and Steel Plant, pp. 217-221 (April, 1971).
71. Hager, D.G., "Waste Treatment Advances: Waste Water Treatment
Via Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering Progress, 7_2 (10),
pp. 57-60 (October, 1976).
72. Hall, D.A. and Nellis, G.R., "Phenolic Effluents Treatment,"
Chemical Trade Journal (Brit.), 156, p. 786 (1965).
253
-------
73. Hansen, L.G., Oleson, K.A., "Comparison of Evaporative Losses in
Various Cooling Water Systems," American Power Conference, April
21-23, 1970.
74. Hoffman, D.C., "Oxidation of Cyanides Adsorbed on Granular
Activated Carbon", Plating, 60, pp. 157-161 (February, 1973).
75. Button, W.C. and LaRocca, S.A., "Biological Treatment of
Concentrated Ammonia Wastewaters," Water Pollution Control
Federation, Journal, 47 (5), p. 989-997 (May, 1975).
76. lammartino, N.R., "Formed Coke: A 1980's Boom for the World's
Steelmakers?", Chemical Engineering, 83 (27), pp. 30-36
(December 20, 1976).
77. "Annual Review of Developments In The Iron and Steel Industry
During 1977," Iron and Steel Engineer, p. Dl (February, 1978).
78. Jola, M., "Destruction of Cyanides by the Cyan-Cat Process,"
Plating and Surface Finishing, pp. 42-44 (September, 1976).
79. Kemmetmueller, R., "Dry Coke Quenching - Proved, Profitable,
Pollution - Free", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 71-78 (Octot r,
1973).
80. Kiang, Y., "Liquid Waste Disposal System", Chemical Engineer ing
Progress, 7^2 (1 ), pp. 71-77 (January, 1976).
81. Kibbel, W.H., "Peroxide Treatment For Industrial Waste Problems",
Industrial Water Engineering, pp. 6-11 (August/September, 1976).
82. Kolflat, T.D., Aschoff, A.F., Baschiere, R.S., "Cooling Towers
Versus Cooling Ponds - A State of the Art Review", presented at
ANS meeting, San Francisco, California, November 4, 1977.
83. Knopp, P.V., Gifchel, W'.B., Zimpro, Inc., "Wastewater Treatment
with Powdered Activated Carbon Regenerated with Wet Air
Oxidation.", Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
84. Kostenbader, Paul D., and Flecksteiner, John W., "Biological
Oxidation of Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor", Water Pollution
Control Federation, Journal, 41, pp. 199-207 (February, 1969).
85. Kremen, S.S., "Reverse Osmosis Makes High Quality Water Now",
Environmental Science and Technology, 9_ (4), pp. 314- 318 (April,
1975).
86. Kreye, W.C., King, P.H. and Randall, C.W., "Biological Treatment
of High Thiosulfate Industrial Wastewater,"Proceedings pf the
28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 537-545
(1973).
87. Kreye, W.C., King, P.H. and Randall, C.W., "Kinetic Parameters
and Operation Problems in the Biological Oxidation of High
Thiosulfate Industrial Wastewaters", Proceedings of_ the 29th
254
-------
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 410-419
(1974) .
88. Labine, R.A., "Unusual Refinery Unit Produces Phenol- Free
Wastewater", Chemical Engineering, 66, 17, 114 (1959).
89. Lanouette, K. H., "Heavy Metals Removal," Chemical Engineering,
October 17, 1977.
90. Lawson, C.T., Hovious, J.C., "Realistic Performance Criteria for
Activated Carbon Treatment of Wastewater from the Manufacturer of
Organic Chemicals and Plastics", Union Carbide Corp., Feb. 14,
1977.
91. Laufhuette, D., "Hydrogen Sulfide/Ammonia Removal From Coke Oven
Gas", Ironmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of_
A.I.M.E., Atlantic City, 33, pp. 142-155 (1974).
92. Linsky, B., Littlepage, J., Johannes, A., Nekooi, R. and
Lincoln, P., "Dry Coke Quenching, Air Pollution and Energy: a
Status Report", Journal of_ the Air Pollution Control Association,
25. (9), pp. 918-924 (September, 1975).
93. Lisanti, A.F., "Ultrafiltration Oil Reclamation Process," Iron
and Steel Engineer, (March, 1977).
94. Ludberg, James E., and Nicks, Donald G., "Phenols and Thiocyanate
Removed from Coke Plant Effluents", Water and Sewage Works, 116,
pp. 10-13 (November, 1969).
95. Maloy, J., "Developments in Cokemaking Plant", Proceedings of_
Coke ir\ Ironmaking Conference, Iron and Steel Institute, London,
pp. 89-97 (December, 1969).
96. Marting, D.G. and Balch, G.E., "Charging Preheated Coal to Coke
Ovens", Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, p. 326 (May, 1970).
97. Maruyama, T. et al., "Metal Removed by Physical and Chemical
Treatment Process," Journal WPCF, Volume 47, No. 5, (May, 1975).
98. McBride, T.J. and Taylor, D.M., "Joint Municipal-Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Based on Pilot Plant Studies," Proceedings
of the 28th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp.
832-840 (1973).
99. McKee, J.E. and Wolfe, H.W., "Water Quality Criteria", Second
Edition, State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento,
California, Publication No. 3-A.
100. McManus, G.J., "Mini Mill Approaches Continuous Steelmaking",
Iron Age, 211 (16), pp. 62-63 (April 19, 1973).
101. McManus, G.J., "One-Step Steelmaking Takes Another Step Toward
Reality", Iron Age, p. 41 (May 10, 1973).
255
-------
102. McManus, G.J., "U.S. Examines Soviet Dry Coke Quenching", Iron
Age, pp. 47-48 (May 31, 1973).
103. McMichael, Francis C., Maruhnich, Edward D., and Samples, William
R., "Recycle Water Quality From a Blast Furnace", Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, 43, pp. 595-603 (1971).
104. McMorris, C.E., "Inland's Experience in Reducing Cyanides and
Phenols in the Plant Water Outfall", Blast Furnace and Steel
Plant, pp. 43-47 (January, 1968).
105. McMorris, C.E., "Inland's Preheat - Pipeline Charged Coke Ov_n
Battery", Ironmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society <»*
A.I.M.E., Toronto, pp. 330-338 (1975).
106. Minor, P.S., "Organic Chemical Industry's Waste Waters"
Environmental Science and Technology, 8_ (7), pp. 620-625 (July,
1974).
107. "More Pollution Control", Iron Age, 217 (22), p. 11 (May 31,
1976).
108. Muller, J.M. and Coventry, F.L., "Disposal of Coke Plant Waste in
the Sanitary Water System," Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, pp.
400-406 (May, 1968).
109. Nasco, A.C. and Schroeder, J.W., "A New Method of Treating Co)._
Plant Waste Waters", Ironmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical
Society of A.I.M.E., Atlantic City, 33_, pp. 121-141 (1974).
110. Nemec, F.A., "How Much Environmental Protection -What Should r,
The Federal Role?", Iron and Steel Engineer, 53_ (10), pp. 35-37
(October, 1976).
111. Nilles, P.E. and Dauby, P.H., "Control of the OBM/Q-BOP Process",
Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 42-47 (March, 1976).
112. Patterson, J.W., et al, "Heavy Metal Treatment via Carbonate
Precipitation," 30th Ind. Wastes Conf., Purdue Univ., pg. 132
(May, 1975).
113. Patton, R.S., "Hooded Coke Quenching System For Air Quality
Control", Ironmaking Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of
A.I.M.E., Atlantic City, 33, pp. 209-219 (1974).
114. Pearce, A.S. and Punt, S.E., "Biological Treatment of Liquid
Toxic Wastes-Part 1", Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, 1*,
pp. 32-39 (January, 1975).
115. Pearce, A.S. and Punt, S.E., "Biological Treatment of Liquid
Toxic Wastes-Conclusion," Effluent and Water Treatment Jourr^
j_5, pp. 87-95 (February, 1975).
116. Pearce, J., "Q-BOP Facility Planning and Economics," Iron and
Steel Engineer, pp. 27-37 (March, 1976).
256
-------
117. Pearce, J., "Q-BOP Steelmaking Developments," Iron and Steel
Engineer, pp. 29-38 (February, 1975).
118. Pengidore, D.A., "Application of Deep Bed Filtration to Improve
Slab Caster Recirculated Spray Water", Iron and Steel Engineer,
52, (7), pp. 42-45 (July, 1975).
119. Perry, J.H., Chemical Engineering Handbook, 4th edition.
120. "Pollution Control at Inland, A Long, Hard, and Costly Climb", 33^
Magazine, 12 (6), pp. 80-81 (June, 1974).
121. Potter, N.M. and Hunt, J.W., "The Biological Treatment of Coke
Oven Effluents", Air and Water Pollution i_n the Iron and Steel
Industry, Special Report No. 6J_, pp. 207-218 (1958).
122. Price, J.G., Berg, T.A. and Stratman, J., "Coke Oven Pushing
Emissions Control and Continuous Wet Coke Quenching," Ironmaking
Proceedings, The Metallurgical Society of A.I.M.E., Atlantic
City, 33. pp. 220-232 (1974).
123. "Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption," U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer, (October, 1973).
124. Raef, S.F., Characklis, W.G., Kessick, M.A. and Ward, O.H., "Fate
of Cyanide and Related Compounds in Industrial Waste Treatment",
Proceedings of the 29th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, pp. 832-840 (1974).
125. Research on Dry Type Cooling Towers for Thermal Electric
Generation - Part I, Environmental Protection Agency,
16130EE511/70.
126. Rizzo, J.L., "Granular Carbon for Wastewater Treatment," Water
and Sewage Works. Volume 118, pp. 238-240, (April, 1971).
127. Rosfjord, R.E., Trattner, R.E. and Cheremisinoff, P.N., "Phenols
- A Water Pollution Control Assessment,"Water and Sewage Works,
123 (3), pp. 96-99 (March, 1976).
128. Rouse, J.V., "Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Effluents,"
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, V 102, No.
EE5, (October, 1976).
129. Savage, E.S., "Deep-Bed Filtration of Steel Mill Effluents."
Date of publication unknown.
130. Scott, Murray C., Sulfex (TM) - "A New Process Technology for the
Removal of Heavy Metals from Waste Streams - Presented a_t the
1977 Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, (May, 1977).
131. Scott, M.C., "Sulfide Process Removes Metals, Produces Disposable
Sludge,"Industrial Wastes - Pgs. 34-39, (July- August, 1979).
257
-------
132. Smith, John M., Masse, A.N., Feige, W.A. and Kamphake, L.J.,
"Nitrogen Removal From Municipal Waste Water by Columnar
Denitrification", Environmental Science and Technology, 6_, p.
260 (March 3, 1972).
133. "Coke in the Iron and Steel Industry New Methods in Conventional
Processes" Steel Times, 193, pp. 551-556 (October 21, 1966).
134. §ugeno, T;, Shimokawa, K. and Tsuruoka, K., "Nuclear Steelmaking
in Japan", Iron and Steel Engineer, 5_3 (11), pp. 40- 47
(November, 1976).
135; Symons, C.R., "Treatment of Cold Mill Wastewater by Ultra-High
Rate Filtration," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, (November, 1971).
136. Technical and Economic Evaluation of Cooling Systems Slowdown
Control Technologies, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, EPA-660/2-73-026.
137. Traubert, R.M., "Weirton Steel Div. - Brown's Island Coke Plant",
Iron and Steel Engineer, 54_ (1 ), pp. 61-64 (January, 1977).
138. U.S. Department of the Interior, "The Cost of Clean Water",
Volume III - Industrial Wastes, Profile No. 1_.
139. United States Steel, The Making, Shaping, and Treating of_ Steel,
Harold E. McGannon ed., Harlicek and Hill, Pittsburgh, 9th
Edition, (1971).
140. Voelker, F.C., Jr., "A Contemporary Survey of Coke-Oven Air
Emissions Abatement", Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 57-64
(February, 1975).
141. Voice, E.W. and Ridigion, J.M., "Changes In Ironmaking Technology
In Relation To the Availability of Coking Coals", Ironmaking and
Steelmaking (Quarterly), pp. 2-7 (1974).
142. Wahl, J.R., Hayes, T.C., et al, "Ultrafiltration For Today's Oily
Wastewaters: A Survey of Current Ultrafiltration Systems."
Presented at the 34th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
(May, 1979).
143. Wagener, D., "Characteristics of High - Capacity Coke Ovens",
Iron and Steel Engineer, pp. 35-41 (October, 1974).
144. Wallace, De Yarman, "Blast Furnace Gas Washer Water Recycle
System," Iron and Steel Engineer Yearbook, pp. 231-235 (1970).
145. "Waste Water Treatment Facility at U.S. Steel's Fairfield Works",
Iron and Steel Engineer, p. 65 (June, 1976).
146. "Weirton Steel Gets It All Together at New Coke Plant on Brown's
Island," 33 Magazine, 11 (1), pp. 27-30 (January, 1973).
258
-------
147. Woodson, R.D., "Cooling Towers," Scientific American, 224(5),
70-78, (May, 1971).
148. Woodson, R.D., "Cooling Alternatives for Power Plants," paper
presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (November
30, 1972).
149. "World-Wide Oxygen Steelmaking Capacity - 1974", Iron and Steel
Engineer, p. 90 (April, 1975).
150. "Worldwide Oxygen Steelmaking Capacity - 1975", Iron and Steel
Engineer, p. 89 (April, 1976).
151. "World Steel Statistics - 1975", Iron and Steel Engineer pp.
57-58 (August, 1976).
152. Zabban, Walter and Jewett, H.W., "The Treatment of Fluoride
Wastes," Engineering Bulletin of_ Purdue University, Proceedings
of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, 1967, p. 706.
153. Zahka, Pinto, S.D., Abcor, Inc. Ultrafiltration of Cleaner Baths
Using Abcor Tubular Membranes.
259
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX A
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
Statistical Methodology
mis section provides an overview of the statistical methodology
-.nployed to determine effluent guidelines limitations for the steel
industry. The methodology consists essentially of determining long
t_^m average pollutant discharges expected from a well designed and
operated treatment system, and multiplying these long term averages by
variability factors designed to allow for random fluctuations in
treatment system performance. The resulting products yield daily
maximum and monthly average concentrations for each pollutant. The
daily maximum and monthly average concentrations were then multipled
by an appropriate conversion factor and the respective treatment
system effluent flow to determine mass limitations. A general
description of the methods employed to derive long term averages,
variability factors, and the resulting concentrations follows.
Determination of Long Term Average
For each plant, an average pollutant concentration was calculated from
the daily observations. The median of the plant averages for a
pollutant was then used as the long term average for the industry.
The long term average was determined for each pollutant to be
regulated, and used to obtain corresponding limitations for that
pollutant.
Th_ long term average (LTA) is defined as the expected discharge
concentration of a pollutant in mg/1 from a steel plant having a well
designed, maintained, and operated treatment system. It is not a
limitation, but rather as a design value which the treatment system
should be designed to attain over the long term.
Determination of_ Variability Factors
plants that are achieving good pollutant removals experience
fluctuations in the pollutant concentrations discharged. These
fluctuations may reflect temporary imbalances in the treat- ment
system caused by fluctuations in flow, raw waste load of a particular
pollutant, chemical feed, mixing flows within tanks, or a variety of
other factors.
Allowance for the day-to-day variability in the concentration of a
pollutant discharged from a well designed and operated treat- ment
system is incorporated into the standards by the use of a "variability
factor." Under certain assumptions, discussed below, application of a
261
-------
variability factor allows the calculation of an upper bound for th_
concentration of a particular pollutant. On the average a specifi-d
percent of the randomly observed daily values from treatment systems
discharging this pollutant at a known mean concentration would L_
expected to fall below this bound. A 99 percentile for the daily
maximum value is a commonly used and accepted level in the steel and
other industrial categories. Also, this percentile has been chosen to
provide a balance between appropriate considerations of day-to-day
variation in a properly operating plant and the necessity to insut_
that a plant is operating properly.
The derivation of the variability factor for plants with more than 10
but less than 100 observations is based on the assumption that the
daily pollutant concentrations follow a lognormal distribution. This
assumption is supported by plots of the empirical distribution
function of observed concentrations for various pollutants (Figures
A-l to A-4). The plots of these data on lognormal probability paper
approximated straight lines as would be expected of data that is
lognormally distributed. It is also assumed that monitoring at a
given plant was conducted responsibly and in such a way that resulting
measurements can be considered independent and amenable to standard
statistical procedures. A final assumption is that ~ treatment
facilities and monitoring techniques had remained substantially
constant throughout the monitoring period.
The daily maximum variability factor is estimated by the equation
(derived in Appendix XII-A1 of the Development Document for
Electroplating Pretreatment Standards, EPA 440/1-79/003, August,
1979),
In (VF) = Z(Sigma) - .5(Sigma)2 (i)
where
VF is the variability factor
Z is 2.336, which is the 99 percentile for the standard normal
distribution, and
Sigma is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of the
concentrations.
For plants with 100 or more observations for a pollutant, there are
enough data to use nonparametric statistics to calculate the daily
maximum variability factor. For these cases, the variability factor
was calculated by dividing the empirical 99 percentile by tl.~
pollutant average. The empirical 99 percentile is that observation
whose percentile is nearest 0.99.
The estimated single-day variability factor for each pollutant
discharged from a well designed and operated plant was calculated in
the following manner:
1. For each plant with 10 or more but less than 100 observations,
Sigma was calculated according to the standard statistical
262
-------
formulal7and was then substituted into Equation (1) to find the
VF.
2. For those plants with over 100 observations, the VF was estimated
directly by dividing the 99th percentile of the observed sample
values by their average.
3. The median of the plant variability factors was then calculated
for each pollutant.
rr._ variability factor for the average of a random sample of 30 daily
observations about the mean value of a pollutant discharged from a
well designed and operated treatment system was obtained by use of the
C_.itral Limit Theorem. This theorem states that the average of a
sifficiently large sample of independent and identically distributed
observations from any of a large class of population distributions
will be approximately normally distributed. This approximation
lint/roves as the size of the sample, n, increases. It is generally
accepted that a sample size of 25 or 30 is sufficient for the normal
distribution to adequately approximate the distribution of the sample
average. For many populations, sample sizes as small as 10 or 15 are
sufficient.
rr._ monthly variability factor, VF*, allows the calculation of an
upper bound for the concentration of a particular pollutant. Under
the same assumptions stated above, it would be expected that 95
percent of the randomly observed monthly average values from a
treatment system discharging the pollutant at a known mean
concentration will fall below this bound. Thus, a well operated plant
would be expected, on the average, to incur approximately one
violation of the monthly average limitation during a 20 month period.
me 95 percentile was chosen in a manner analogous to that explained
previously in the discussion of the daily variability factor.
Th._ monthly average variability factor was estimated by the following
equation (based on the Central Limit Theorem and previous
assumptions),
(VF*) = 1.0 + Z (S*/A) (2)
wl._re
VF* is the monthly average variability factor;
1 7
x_i is the In of observation i
x~ is the average of observations
n is the number of observations
263
-------
Z is 1.64, which is the 95th percentile of the standard noLn.al
distribution;
S* is the estimated standard deviation of the monthly averag_,
obtained by dividing the estimated standard deviation of tl._
daily pollutant concentrations by the square root of 30;
and,
A is the average pollutant concentration.
Determination of Limitations
Daily maximum and monthly average concentrations (L and L*,
respectively) were calculated for each pollutant from the long t_rm
average (LTA), the daily variability factor (VF), and the monthly
average variability factor (VF*) for that polluant by the following
equations:
L = VF x LTA (3)
L* = VF* x LTA (4)
The above concentrations were multiplied by the effluent flow
(gal/ton) developed for each treatment subcategory and an appropriate
conversion factor to obtain mass limitations in units of kg/1,000 kg
of product.
The daily maximum limitation calculated for each pollutant is a valu_
which is not to be exceeded on any one day by a plant discharging that
pollutant. The monthly average maximum limitation is a value which is
not to be exceeded by the average of 30 consecutive single-day
observations for the regulated pollutant.
Analysis o_f_ Data From Filtration and Clarification Treatment Systems
The observations used to derive daily maximum and monthly average con-
centrations include both long term and short term data obtained from
the D-DCPs and sampling visits, respectively. Engineering judgr.._nt18
was used to delete some data from the long term data sets analyi._J.
Generally those data deleted indicate possible upsets, lack of pro^.r
operation of treatment facilities, or bypasses. These values
typically could be considered effluent violations under the NPI-S
permit system. The number of observations deleted for each pollutant
is identified in Tables A-8 to A-33. A discussion of the analysis for
filtration and for clarification treatment systems follows.
Filtration Treatment System
18The Agency's justification for using engineering judgment to deI_L.
values from monitoring data sets was upheld in U.S. Steel Corp- v,
Train, 556 F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1977).
264
-------
Table A-l presents averages and variability factors for the
concentration of total suspended solids .for those plants19 with long
term data and filtration treatment systems. Detailed descriptive
statistics for all relevant pollutants sampled by these plants are
located in Tables A-8 to A-l7. The median or long term average is
multiplied by the apporpriate median variability factor to obtain the
daily maximum and monthly average concentrations for TSS as presented
in Table A-l. Table A-2 presents, in a similar manner, averages,
variability factors and daily maximum and monthly average con-
centations for oil and grease.
Tong term and short term data were combined in Table A-3 to determine
the median or long term average concentation for each toxic metal.
Variability factors were calculated for those plants having long term
metals data and are presented in Table A-4. The median daily maximum
variability factors for the metals range from 2.0 to 4.5 and the
30-day variability factor is 1.2. These values are similar to those
obtained for TSS and oil and grease. Therefore, variability factors
of 4.0 to 1.2 were used to obtain the daily maximum and monthly
average concentrations, respectively. The results are presented in
Table A-4. The daily maximum and monthly average concentrations were
rounded up to 0.3 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively, for all metals. These
values will be used to calculate mass limitations for the metals.
Clari f icat ion/Sedimentation Treatment System
Tables A-5 and A-6 present both long term data and the calculations
used to derive the daily maximum and monthly average concentrations
for TSS and oil and grease, respectively. These results are for
plants with clarifcation/sedimentation wastewater treatment systems.
Detailed descriptive statistics of these plants are given in Tables
A-l8 to A-33. For Plants 0112, 0684F, and 0684H, long term data was
provided for several parallel treatment systems in one central
treatment facility. In these situations the data from the clarifier
providing the best treatment were used.
For metals removed by clarification treatment systems, screening and
verification data were used to calculate the long term averages.
These are presented in Table A-7. Variability factors of 3.0 and 1.2
were used to calculate the daily maximum and monthly average
concentrations (shown in Table A-7), respectively, for all the metals.
The above variability factors were based on:
1. the variability factors for TSS and oil and grease in Tables A-5
and A-6; and,
19Plant 920N was not included in this long term data analysis. Visits
to this plant by EPA personnel have demonstrated that the treatment
system was not properly operated.
265
-------
2. the variability factors20 derived from toxic metals discharg_d
from clarification treatment systems in the electroplating
category.
The daily maximum and monthly average concentrations were rounded to
0.3 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively for chromium, copper, lead and zinc and
0.45 and 0.2 mg/1 for nickel.
20Daily maximum variability factors presented in the "Develot>u._.it
Document for Electro- plating Pretreatment Standards"; are: Cu - 3.2,
Cr - 3.9, Ni - 2.9, Zn - 3.0, Pb - 2.9.
266
-------
TABLE A-l
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
12C-334
12I-5A
0112C-617
" "84H-EF
12C-011
uA12B-5A
12C-122
84A-3E
0684F-4I
Number
of
Sample
Points
415
59
399
40
580
87
289
496
305
78
Average (mg/1)
2.3
3.6
4.8
6.0
8.9
10.6
12.4
13.3
17.4
22.2
Variability Factors
Average
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
Max imum*
6.8
8.9
5.4
5.3
3.5
2.3
3.8
4.0
2.5
3.7
Median Values 9.8 1.3
ithly Average Concentration Basis = (9.8 mg/1) (1.3) = 12.7 mg/1
Maximum Concentration Basis = (9.8 mg/1) (3.9) = 38.2 mg/1
3.9
For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor
Average
267
-------
TABLE A-2
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
OIL AND GREASE
Plant
0112B-5A
0112C-334
0112C-617
0112C-122
0684H-EF
0112C-011
0384A-4L
0684F-4I
Number
of
Sample
Points
87
727
647
684
27
690
290
79
Average (mg/1)
1.1
1.3
1.3
2.0
3.4
6.7
7.4
9.6
Variability Factors
Average
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.1
Maximum"
2.9
5.3
4.5
5.3
3.8
5.1
3.6
2.3
Median Values
Monthly Average Concentration Basis
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis
2.7 1.3
(2.7 mg/1) (1.3) = 3.5 mg/1
(2.7 mg/1) (4.2) = 11.3 mg/1
4.2
* For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor
Average
268
-------
TABLE A-3
DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
llant
Chromium
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
0684H
0584E
0496
0612
)IAN
Number of
Sample Points
61
11
3
3
3
3
Average
(mg/1)
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
Copper
0584F
0684F-4I
0684H
0612
0496
0112I-5A
0868B
3
11
3
3
3
60
3
)IAN
0.015
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.03
Lead
0684F-4I
0684H
0496
01121
0612
0868B
11
3
3
3
3
3
MEDIAN
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.18
0.32
0.06
269
-------
TABLE A-3
DATA ANALYSIS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
Number of Averag_
Sample Points (mg/1)
0684H 3 0.02
0612 3 0.025
0496 3 0.04
0112I-5A 27 0.07
0684F-4I 11 0.09
MEDIAN 0.04
E. Zinc
0684H 3 0.02
0584E 3 0.02
0496 3 0.02
0112I-5A 58 0.10
0612 3 0.12
0684F 45 0.39
0868B 3 1.6
MEDIAN 0.10
270
-------
TABLE A-4
DERIVATION OF VARIABILITY FACTORS AND PROPOSED LIMITS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
erivation of Variability Factors
Parameter
L Chromium
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
iDIAN
No. of
Sample Points
61
11
Variability Factors
Average
1.2
1.2
1.2
Maximum
2.9
3.6
3.3
Copper
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
SOLAN
60
11
1.2
1.1
1.2
5.1
2.7
3.9
Lead
0684F-4I
11
1.1
2.0
D, Nickel
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
HAN
27
11
1.2
1.2
1.2
3.3
5.6
4.5
Zinc
0112I-5A
0684F-4I
58
45
MEDIAN
1.2
1.2
1.2
3.0
4.2
3.6
Use for all regulated metals
Average Variability Factor = 1.3
Maximum Variability Factor = 4.0
271
-------
TABLE A-4
DERIVATION OF VARIABILITY FACTORS AND PROPOSED LIMITS
FILTRATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
Derivation of Concentration Values
A. Chromium
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.03)(1.3) =0.04
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.03X4.0) = 0.12
B. Copper
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.03)(1.3) = 0.04
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.03)(4.0) = 0.12
C. Lead
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.06)(1.3) = 0.08
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.06)(4.0) = 0.24
D Nickel
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.04)(1.3) =0.05
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.04)(4.0) = 0.16
E. Zinc
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.10)(1.3) = 0.13
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.10)(4.0) = 0.40
NOTE: For the purposes of developing effluent limitations
and standards, the following values were used for all metals:
Average =0.10 mg/1
Maximum = 0.30 mg/1
All concentration values are in mg/1.
272
-------
Plant
|860B
0112-5B
"M2H-5A
'20-5A
uJ84A-5F
TABLE A-5
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Number
of
Sample
Points
102
291
49
151
97
74
380
98
195
101
383
101
175
528
Average
(mg/1)
8.9
9.9
11.7
15.8
16.1
19.0
24.5
24.6
25.0
25.4
26.7
32.1
35.7
45.5
24.6
Variability
Average
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
Factors
Maximum*
2.3
4.0
3.2
2.3
2.8
5.4
2.4
2.3
3.1
1.8
2.5
3.2
2.5
3.6
2.7
34F-5B
34B-5F
0920G-5A
34 A-5 F
84 A-5 E
0856N-5B
"M2A-5A
34F-5E
Median Values
nthly Average Concentration Basis = (24.6 mg/1) (1.2) = 29.5 mg/1
ily Maximum Concentration Basis = (24.6 mg/1) (2.7) = 66.4 mg/1
^ For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor
Average
273
-------
Plant
0320-5A
0584A-5F
0856N-5B
0584B-5F
MEDIAN VALUES
TABLE A-6
CLARIFICATION/OIL SKIMMING SYSTEMS
OIL AND GREASE
Number of
Sample Points
35
98
103
58
Average
(mg/1)
0.1
5.9
7.0
8.4
Variability Factors
6.5
Average
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
Maximum*
4.0
6.7
2.0
2.9
3.5
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (6.5 mg/l)(1.2) = 7.8 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (6.5 mg/l)(3.5) = 22.8 mg/1
* For plants with more than 100 observations:
99th Percentile
Daily Variability Factor
Average
274
-------
TABLE A-7
DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
Number of Average
Plant Subcategory Sample Points (mg/1)
A. Chromium
0948C Pickling 3 0.02
NN-2 Galvanizing 3 0.03
0476A Pickling 3 0.03
0528 Pickling 3 0.03
0396A Pickling 3 0.08
0920E Galvanizing 3 0.27
0424-01 Pickling 3 1.32
MEDIAN 0.03
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.03 mg/1)(1.2) = 0.04 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.03 mg/l)(3.0) = 0.09 mg/1
B. Copper
0948C Pickling 3 0.02
0476A Pickling 3 0.03
0528 Pickling 3 0.03
0920E Galvanizing 3 0.04
0424-01 Pickling 3 0.08
0396A Pickling 3 0.17
MEDIAN 0.04
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.04 mg/l)(1.2) = 0.05 mg/1
[)aily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.04 mg/l)(3.0) = 0.12 mg/1
:. Lead
0948C Pickling 3 0.05
0476A Pickling 3 0.10
0528 Pickling 3 0.10
0396A Pickling 3 0.57
0920E Galvanizing 3 0.60
)IAN 0.10
lonthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.10 mg/l)(1.2) = 0.12 mg/1
»aily " cimum Concentration Basis = (0.10 mg/l)(3.0) = 0.30 mg/1
275
-------
TABLE A-7
DATA ANALYSIS
CLARIFICATION/SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
REGULATED METALLIC POLLUTANTS
PAGE 2
Number of Average
Subcategory Sample Points mg/1
0948C Pickling 3 0.03
0476A Pickling 3 0.03
0528 Pickling 3 0.03
0396A Pickling 3 0.27
0424-01 Pickling 3 2.50
0920E Galvanizing 3 2.90
MEDIAN 0.15
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.15 mg/l)(1.2) = 0.18 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.15 mg/l)(3.0) = 0.45 mg/1
E. Zinc
0528 Pickling 3 0.02
0424-01 Pickling 3 0.03!
0476A Pickling 3 0.05
0948C Pickling 3 0.07
0396A Pickling 3 0.24
0920E Galvanizing 3 6.7
MEDIAN 0.06
Monthly Average Concentration Basis = (0.06 mg/l)(1.2) = 0.07 mg/1
Daily Maximum Concentration Basis = (0.06 mg/1)(3.0) =0.18 mg/1
NOTE: For the purposes of developing effluent limitations and standards,
the following values were used:
For chromium, copper lead and zinc - Average =0.10 mg/1
Maximum =0.30 mg/1
For nickel - Average =0.20 mg/1
Maximum =0.45 mg/1
276
-------
TABLE A-}
LONG-TERM DATA A! A ,YS IS
to
Plant : 0112B-5A
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Filtration
Daily Maximum Analysis
Monthly
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
Oil &
Srn :
VF :
VF°:
* .
Grease
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S, VF .* s
87 1.6 24.4 10.6 3.9 2.3 Q.7
87 0.2 3.8 I.I 0.6 2.9 o.l
1.1
1.1
Monthly standard deviation = S,/(30)*
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
Vrtr nlar
it-n u-i'fh mnrn ^^l.^n inn nhnni-vnfi nnn VV = ^?^n Percent^^e
Average
-------
TABLE A-9
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112C-011
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
No. of
Obs
580(2)
690(1)
Daily Maximum
Min Max
0.1 44.0
0.1 47.1
Analysis
Ave S.
8.9 7.0
6.7 6.5
Monthly
Average Analysis^
d -TO m
3.5 1.3 1.3
5.1 1.2 1.3
(1) 5 observations deleted
(2) 11 observations deleted
~ni
VF
,m
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
S./(30)
Q
.5
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF, =
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TAJ .1 A- .(
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112C-122
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Daily Maximum Analysis
Monthly
Average Analysis
No. of
Obs
496<2'
684° >
Min
0.1
0.1
Max
63.4
20.3
Ave
13.3
2.0
*d
12.4
2.2
VF,.*
d
4.0
5.3
S
m
2.3
0.4
VF
m
1.3
1.3
NJ
-J
ID
(I) 1 observation deleted
(2) 7 observations deleted
S : Monthly standard deviation
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF~Y: Daily variability factor
Sd/(30)
'5
For plants with more
100 observations:
99th Percentile
Average
-------
Plant : 0112C-334
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
oo
o
TABLE A-11
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
VF:
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S,
415 0.1 23.5 2.3 3.0
727 0.1 12.2 1.3 1.4
ition = S./(30)'5
d
.on
tc tor
:or
. 99th Percentile
d Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
VFj* S VF
... Jj _JQ JJJ
6.8 0.5 1.4
5.3 0.3 1.4
-------
Plant : 0112C-617
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
TABLE A- 2
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S.,
'""" """ """tl
399 0.1 33.8 4.8 5.5
647 0.1 7.9 1.3 1.3
Monthly
Average Analysis
VF* S VF
=-d m m
5.4 1.0 1.3
4.5 0.3 1.4
to
oo
S
sm
VF
VF
.m
Monthly standard deviation = Sd/(30)'
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-13
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112I-5A
Subcategory: Pickling/A]
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Aluminum
Phenol
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 3 observations deleted
VF"
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than
ine Cleaning
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S^ VF,,*
~a a
59(2) 0.1 30.0 3.6 6.4 8.9
60(1) 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.2 2.6
61 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.01 2.9
60(1) 0.01 0.2 0.05 0.04 5.1
58(3) 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.06 3.0
27 0.02 0.2 0.07 0.04 3.3
27 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.03 1.3
15 0.0005 0.01 0.006 0.003 4.2
ition = Sd/(30)'5
.on
ic tor
:or
han n nh«*a,-inn«._ ur = 9! : i Percent! .e
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
m m
1.2 1.5
0.04 1.2
0.002 1.2
0.007 1.2
0.01 1.2
0.007 1.2
0.006 1.0
0.0005 1.1
-------
TA J,S A- .4
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant ;
Subcategory;
Treatment :
0384A-3E
Continuous Casting
Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Daily Maximum Analysis
Monthly
Average Analysis
No. of
Obs
305(1)
Min
1.0
Max
45.0
Ave S ,
17.4 9.3
Yld*
2.5
S
-TO
1.7
VF
m
1.2
*
w (1) 3 observations deleted
S : Monthly standard deviation = S,/(30)
S : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF,: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF, =
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-15
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0384A-4L
Subcategory: Continuous Casting
Treatment : Filtration
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Daily Maximum Analysis
Monthly
Average Analysis
No. of
Obs
289(2)
290(1)
Min
1.0
0.1
Max
55.0
30.0
Ave
12.4
7.4
Sj
a
9.6
6.9
VFJ*
a
3.8
3.6
S
m
1.8
1.3
VF
-m
1.2
1.3
to
CD
(1) 3 observations deleted
(2) 4 observations deleted
S
vif
S,/(30)
'
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations:
VF
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TAJ.S A- .6
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684H-EF
Subcategory: Pipe & Tube
Treatment : Deep Bed Filter
Daily Maximum Analysis
VF
"
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF, =
99th Percentile
Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
Oil &
NJ
00
Ol
U) 1
S :
Sd :
VF :
Grease
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave Sj VF.,* S
. ,, d . _(j . m
40(1) 1.0 21.0 6.0 5.5 5.3 1.0
27 1.0 20.0 3.4 4.0 3.8 0.7
VF
m
1.3
1.4
observation deleted
Monthly standard deviation = S,/(30)'
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
-------
NJ
00
CT>
Plant : 0684F-4I
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Lagoon & Fil
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide (Total)
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
TABLE A-17
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
at ion
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs
78
79(D
6(2)
6
45(3)
11
11
11
Min
4.0
4.0
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
Max
60.0
27.0
0.5
0.05
1.0
0.09
0.05
0.2
Ave
22.2
9.6
0.3
0.02
0.39
0.03
0.02
0.09
s.
u
13.7
4.3
0.2
0.01
0.23
0.02
0.01
0.07
VF*
u
3.7
2.3
4.2
3.6
4.2
3.6
2.7
5.6
Monthly
Average Analysis
S
m
2.5
0.8
0.04
0.002
0.2
0.004
0.002
0.01
VF
m
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
-------
TABLE A-17
LONG-TERM DATA A;A,YS:S
PAGE 2
NJ
00
Plant : 0684F-4I
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Lagoon & Filtration
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S, VF ,*
a d
Phenol 6 0.01 0.4 0.1 0.1 9.0
Cadmium 11 0.001 0.009 0.004 0.002 3.4
Iron 9 1.6 10.3 5.4 3.3 3.9
( 0\
Zinc (Diss.) 74V ' 0.02 3.4 0.5 0.7 7.2
Lead 11 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 2.0
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 24 observations deleted**
S Monthly standard deviation = S,/(30)
S, Daily standard deviation
VF Monthly variability factor
VF, Daily variability factor
ft Fnr nl intc with rnm-o thin 100 nhror-u-3 1 i nnc- UP - e.^.9e.?Jl._ ?-..
d Average
** These observations were deleted since the hot forming wastewater treatment system was
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
-m m
0.02 1.3
0.0004 1.2
0.6 1.2
0.6 1.2
0.002 1.1
contaminated with the filtrate from sludges removed from a cold rolling, pickling and
galvanizing central treatment system. This filtrate contains high zinc concentrations
and resulted in NPDES permit violations for the hot forming discharge.
-------
TABLE A-18
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112-5B
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Polymer/Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs
291(D
Min
1.0
Max
92.4
Ave S,
9.9 9.2
4.0
Monthly
Average Analysis
S
m
1.7
VF
m
1.3
CO
co
.5
(1) 7 observations deleted
S : Monthly standard deviation = S,/(30)
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF,: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations:
VF
99th Percentile
Average
-------
Plant : 0112A-5A
Subcategory: Sintering
Treatment : Thickener
Pollutant
TSS
Ammonia
Cyanide (Total)
Pheno1
to
oo
(1) 2 observations deleted
(2) 5 observations deleted
"Ai.S A- 9
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
S
sm
°A
V?
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S0 VF,,*
a a
( 2)
175^ ' 10.0 104.0 35.7 19.7 2.5
180 18.0 60.0 34.9 6.9 1.6
180 0.005 0.4 0.1 0.08 3.6
178(1) 0.006 0.4 0.05 0.06 6.2
tion = S,/(30)'5
a
on
ctor
or
ban 100 obocrvationa - VF - 99th Percentile
a Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
m m
3.6 1.2
1.3 1.1
0.1 2.6
0.01 1.3
-------
TABLE A-20
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0112H-5A
Subcategory: Combination
Treatment : Clarifier/Lagoon
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
Zinc
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
m
VF'
'
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more
id Pickling
on
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S.
49 2.8 25.6 11.7 5.9
( 1)
47V ' 0.01 1.4 0.1 0.2
49(1) 0.01 1.3 0.2 0.2
ition = S,/(30)'5
a
.on
ic tor
:or
QQfVi Pf>TT#»n fi 1 *>
Vi-iTi inn nVir m-iT-if--!
-------
Plant : 0320-5A
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Lagoons
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
to
vo
(1) 2 observations deleted
TABLE A-21
,0!G-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
sm
VF.
VF
.m
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S
151(1) 0.1 39.0 15.8 7.4
35 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.06
146 0.1 14.0 3.3 2.2
tion - Sd/(30)'5
on
ctor
or
,nn ,_ ^- . 99th Percentile
Monthly
Average Analysis
VF,,* S VF
a m m
2.3 1.4 1.2
4.0 0.01 1.2
2.7 0.4 1.2
Average
-------
TABLE A-22
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
KJ
ID
NJ
Plant : 0384A-5E
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Thickener
Daily Maximum Analysis
Monthly
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
No. of
Obs
383(1)
Min
3.0
Max
74.0
Ave S VFd*
26.7 13.8 2.5
S
-m
2.5
VF
m
1.2
(1) 4 observations deleted
S :
Sm
VF J
VFj:
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
S./(30)
a
.5
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-23
XWG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0384A-5F
Subcategory: Steelmaking, Basic Oxygen Furnace
Treatment : Thickener/Clarifier
Daily Maximum Analysis
Monthly
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
Iron
S :
sm
VF :
VF-:
*
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S,, VF,* S
u ~d ~m
97 3.0 47.0 16.1 8.3 2.8 1.5
22 2.4 21.0 9.5 4.9 2.8 0.9
VF
m
1.1
1.1
Monthly standard deviation = S /(30)*
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
, ,_ Tm 99th Percent ile
Average
-------
TABLE A-24
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0584A-5F
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Settling Basin
Daily Maximum Analysis
to
VO
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF,
99th Percentile
Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S VF * S
TSS 101(1) 4.0 55.0 25.4 9.1 1.8 1.7
Oil & Grease 98 0.1 20.6 5.9 4.3 6.7 0.8
(1) 1 observation deleted
S : Monthly standard deviation = S,/(30)
IQ ^ . . Q
VF
m
1.1
1.2
-------
TABLE A-25
LONG-TERM DATA A'A.YSIS
Plant : 0584B-5F
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Lagoons
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S^
TSS 98(1) 10.0 50.0 24.6 8.6
Oil & Grease 58 2.0 29.0 8.4 4.2
(1) 3 observations deleted
Sm : Monthly standard deviation = Sd/(30)'
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF^: Daily variability factor
Monthly
Average Analysis
VF,.* S VF
^ -m m
2.3 1.6 1.1
2.9 0.8 1.2
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF =
_ 99th Percentile
Average
-------
TABLE A-26
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684F-5B
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S_, VF_,*
, . . ,- ^ G
TSS 380(1) 6.0 64.0 24.5 11.2 2.4
(1) 1 observation deleted
Sm : Monthly standard deviation = Sd/(30)
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
-m m
2.0 1.1
VF,: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF =
99th Percentile
Average
-------
TAJ.S A-27
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0684F-5E
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide (Total)
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Pheno1
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs
528(4)
5
61(2)
62(1)
5
5
5
5
60(3>
Min
4.0
2.0
6.9
0.03
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
Max
206.0
4.0
67.4
1.9
0.4
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.3
Ave
45.5
2.8
29.5
0.5
0.2
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.06
s.
^Xl
34.4
1.1
12.8
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
VF*
d
3.6
2.3
2.5
8.3
3.6
3.2
2.5
2.1
3.2
Monthly
Average Analysis
S
~m
0.7
0.2
2.3
0.09
0.02
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.007
VF
m
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
-------
TABLE A-27
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
PAGE 2
Plant : 0684F-5E
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Pollutant Obs Min Max Ave S, VF,*
d a
Cadmium 5 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.0009 1.3
Iron 6 6.2 23.9 14.1 7.4 3.3
Lead 5 0.05 0.1 0.08 0.02 2.0
NJ
UJ
CD
(1) 2 observations deleted
(2) 3 observations deleted
(3) 5 observations deleted
(4) 11 observations deleted
Sm : Monthly standard deviation = Sd/(30)'
S : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VFT: Daily variability factor
d Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
m m
0.0002 1.0
1.4 1.2
0.004 1.1
-------
Plant : 0684H-5C
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Ammonia
Cyanide (Total)
Pheno1
10 Iron (Diss.)
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 3 observations deleted
(4) 4 observations delted
T4HPA-.
LONG-TERM DATA A'A.YSiS
sd'
VF :
VF*:
d
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S^
74(2) 1.6 64.0 19.0 15.4
73(3) 0.1 36.0 13.4 8.0
75(1) 0.02 6.98 0.8 1.5
(A)
72VH' 0.008 4.68 1.6 1.2
76 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1
tion = S,/(30)'5
d
on
ctor
or
d Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
VF,.* S VF
a m m
5.4 2.8 1.2
5.1 1.5 1.2
9.8 0.3 1.6
8.0 0.2 1.2
2.8 0.02 1.3
-------
TABLE A-29
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0856N-5B
Subcategory: Hot Forming
Treatment : Settling Basin
Daily Maximum Analysis
S./(30)
d
.5
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 3 observations deleted
S : Monthly standard deviation
S : Daily standard deviation
VT : Monthly variability factor
VFT: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100 observations: VF, =
99th Percentile
Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Chromium
w Zinc
0
0
No. of
Obs Min
i /\ i \ ^ / f\ f\
101 9.0
103^ 1.8
43(1) 0.005
44 0.04
Max
114.0
20.3
0.2
0.5
Ave
32.1
7.0
0.06
0.1
Sj
21.6
2.7
0.05
0.1
Yld*
3.2
2.0
7.4
3.4
S
-m
3.9
0.5
0.009
0.02
VF
m
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
-------
"ABLi: A-30
m )A"A ANALYSIS
Plant : 0860B
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phtno1
Zinc
S : Monthly standard deviation
S, : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF: Daily variability factor
* : For plants with more than 100
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S, VF,*
d d
102 1.0 26.0 8.9 4.3 2.3
102 4.7 98.1 53.1 15.4 1.7
102 0.01 6.2 1.9 1.6 3.3
102 0.001 0.6 0.04 0.08 6.8
18 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 4.0
tion = Sd/(30)*5
on
ctor
or
,«« L - 99th Percentile
d Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
-m m
0.8 1.1
2.8 1.1
0.3 1.3
0.01 1.4
0.04 1.2
-------
TABLE A-31
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0920G-5A
Subcategory: Cold Rolling
Treatment : Clarifier
Pollutant
TSS
Daily Maximum Analysis
Monthly
Average Analysis
No. of
Obs
195
Min
2.0
Max
81.0
Ave
25.0
^d
13.3
VF,*
3.1
S
-m
2.4
VF
m
1.2
U)
o
sm
o,
VF :
VF*:
d
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
S /(30)
"
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF
99th Percentile
Average
-------
.ONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0012A-5F
Subcategory: By-product Cokemaking
Treatment : One-stage B
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Pheno1
(1) 1 observation deleted
(2) 2 observations deleted
(3) 4 observations deleted
(4) 7 observations deleted
S : Monthly standard deviation
S. : Daily standard deviation
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF*:
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100
emak ing
ogical
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S,,
a
292(4) 4.0 220.0 81.6 40.7
54 4.0 36.0 18.6 8.2
298(2) 14.0 224.0 61.7 41.6
173(1) 0.5 6.8 2.6 1.4
281(3) 0.008 16.2 0.5 1.7
tion = SJ/(30)'5
d
on
ctor
or
,_-_ ,«n ,_ ^- 99th Percentile
d Average
Monthly
Average Analysis
VF,.* S VF
=-d m m
2.5 7.4 1.2
3.0 1.5 1.1
3.4 7.6 1.2
2.5 0.3 1.2
6.4 0.3 2.0
-------
TABLE A-33
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0868A
Subcategory: By-Product Coke
Treatment : 2-stage biological
Pollutant
TSS
Ammonia-(N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phenol
w Naphthalene, ppb
Benzo(a)pyrene, ppb
Benzene, ppb
No. of
Obs
295
710
710
710
21
20
21
S : Monthly standard deviation =
S , : Daily standard deviation
Min
16.0
0.1
0.5
0.009
10.0
10.0
10.0
Sd/(30)'5
Daily Maximum Analysis
Max Ave S., VFj*
" ~- "~~Q ' ' 'Cl
868 162 142 4.5
124.0 9.3 20.5 8.9
6.6 2.1 0.8 2.1
0.14 0.02 0.014 4.3
10.0 10.0 0.0 1.0
52.0 13.4 10.7 2.6
10.0 10.0 0.0 1.0
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
25.9 1.3
3.7 1.7
0.1 1.1
0.003 1.2
0.0 1.0
2.0 1.2
0.0 1.0
VF : Monthly variability factor
VF. : Daily variability
u
factor
rt-V»rt ^VvOVk 1 f\t
% ^vW 0 £* **» «» f« i yvf* a ^
99th Percentile
rut p .La.Li.u0 WA. i_ii iiiui. c u 11 a it A v/w vfL/o^A.vauxw&i.o« A ATO aa&
NOTE: A concentration values are in mg/1 unless otherwise notei .
-------
X)NG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0860B (Pile
Subcategory: Ironmaking
Treatment : Alkaline Ct
U)
o
Pollutant
TSS
-Cyanide (Total)
Ammonia-(N)
Phenol
Fluoride
VF
VF1
,m
Monthly standard deviation
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100
»lant)
rination
Daily Maximum Analysis
No. of
Obs Min Max Ave S , VF ,*
d d
41 1.0 19.0 3.5 3.6 4.8
42 0.01 0.1 0.03 0.03 5.2
42 0.1 2.9 0.7 0.9 8.0
41 0.001 0.04 0.003 0.006 9.8
42 7.6 20.0 12.3 2.8 1.6
ition = Sd/(30)*5
.on
ictor
:or
h*« inn nfc«n,«,a! vi? = 99th Percentile
Monthly
Average Analysis
S VF
m m
0.7 1.3
0.006 1.5
0.2 1.5
0.001 1.4
0.5 1.1
Average
-------
TABLE A-35
LONG-TERM DATA ANALYSIS
Plant : 0612
Subcategory: Steel
Treatment : Lime
Pollutant
TSS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
i lee trie Furnace
:t ion/Filtration
No. of
Obs
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Min
4.0
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.1
Daily Maximum Analysis
Max
14.0
0.5
2.9
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.7
Ave
8.8
0.07
0.9
0.08
0.08
0.2
0.3
*d
3.3
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.03
0.2
0.1
Y!/
1.9
5.5
3.2
5.4
2.0
3.1
2.2
Monthly
Average Analysis
S
m
0.6
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.005
0.04
0.02
VF
m
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.1
S
sm
VF
VF"
Monthly standard deviation = S,/(30)
Daily standard deviation
Monthly variability factor
Daily variability factor
For plants with more than 100 observations: VF, = 99th Percentile
Average
-------
z
o
Z
LU
U
Z
o
o
V)
/
>
/
_/
/
S
?
/
y,
/
/
f
y
/
./
/*
/
/
>
X
/
/
/
10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 85 90
95
99
PERCENT OF OBSERVATIONS ^ CONCENTRATION SHOWN
(416 OBSERVATIONS)
307
-------
FIGURE A-2
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT OII2C-334
FILTRATION
to
o
mg/l)
* 01 en -gootoo
2 3
$
-------
FIGURE A-3
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT 0684H-5C
CLARIFIER
80
60
50
40
3O
20
10
9
8
7
6
10 15 20
30 40 50 60 70
80 85 90
95
99
PERCENT OF OBSERVATIONS < CONCENTRATION SHOWN
(73 OBSERVATIONS)
309
-------
FIGURE A-4
LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
PLANT 0684H-5C
CLARIFIER
70
60
50
40
30
_£
Z
O
z
LJ
O
z
O
O
z
O
5
20
10
9
8
7
6
10 15 20
30 40 50 60 70
80 85 90
95
PERCENT OF OBSERVATIONS < CONCENTRATION SHOWN
(75 OBSERVATIONS)
310
-------
APPENDIX B
UGH AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PtT
COMPANY OR PLANT NAHE
CITY STATE ZIP
0004 ACCC
BRIDGEPORT
A PAGE FENCE OIVISIOM
MONESSEN
B AMERICAN CHAIN DIVISION
YORK PA
CT C6602
15062
17403
PA
C CABLE CUKTROLS DIVJSIGI*
AURIAN. Kl 4S221
0008 ACCOM METALS COMPANY, INC.
JACKSONVILLE H 22202
A AOCGM NET&IS CCHFAfiY, UC.
N1CHCLASVRLE KY 403S«
B CONTAINER HIRE PRODUCT! CC1PAN>
JACKSONVILLE FL 22202
FORME*
REF/PIT
GROL'P
SUBCATEGORIES
0012
ALABAMA BY-PRCDUC1S COfPOBATtCK
BIRMKtCHAH Al 35202
A 7ACRANT COKE PLANT
TARRAHT
AL 35217
B CUMSHOHQCKEN COKI PLANT
CDNSHOHQCKEN PA
COI6I
0 A
0 A
0016 ALAN UCOO STEEL COMPANY
CONSHUHUCKEN PA
A SEE COUP
19420
OE G
B ALAN WOOD STfEL COMPANY
IVY ROCK PA 19426
C ALAN KOOO COATED METALS
CDRNHELL: HEIGHTS ' PA 1*020
0020
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORP.
PITTSBURGH PA 15222
A ALLEGHENY LUOLUH STEEL CQPtORMlQtt
PITTSBURGH ' CA 15222
B BfcACKENRIDGE PLAIU ^
Or.ACKENRIOGE PA 15014
C KiST LEECHfURG
LEECHBURG PA 15656
D BAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
DUNKIRK NY 14048
t BAP PRODUCTS DIVISION
fATERVUET NY 12189
f AJAX FORGING AND CASTING COHPAKY
FfRNDALE MI 48220
(. SfECIAL HFTALS CCRPORA1ION
NEW HARTFORO NY 13413
H KALLINGFURP STEEL
VALLINCFQR9
B G,l .K,«,0,0,S,W,X
C R.S.H
CT C6492
311
-------
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
-2-
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT MAKE FTRHER GROUP
CITY STATE IIP RrF/PLT
I ARNOLD ENGINEERING. COMPANY
KARENGO II 60152
J CACHET COMPANY
PITTSBURGH
PA 15222
K ALJAX STEEL CORPORATION
BUFFALO NY 14207
L NEH CASTLE PLANT
N&M CASTLE
IK 47362
SUBCATEGORIES
1
5.K
0024 ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION
MORRIMGWN HJ C796Q
A ASKLANO COKE PLANT
AiHLANO KY 41101
B DETROIT COKE PLANT
DETROIT
C SEF 0402
HI 48231
0028 ALLIED TU&E AND COM)UIT CCKPGRAT ION
HARVEY u *C42t
0032 AMERICAN CAST IRCN PIPE CCMP8NT
BIRMINGHAM AL 35202
A AC1PCO STEEL PROCUCTS DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM AL 35201
E
0 I
0036
AMERICAN COMPRESSED STEEL COSPCRATION
CINCINNATI OH 45202
0040 AMERICAN HOIST ARO DERRICK CC.
5T . PAUL MR S5101
A BAY CITY STEEL CASTINGS DIVISICN
BAY CITY HI 48706
0044
AMERtlN, I»C.
MONTEREY PARK
CA S1754
A AHERON STEEL AND WIRE DIVISION
ETIKAMOA CA S173S
ItL
0048
AHPCO-PITTSBURGH CCRPCRATICN
HJL»UAKEE WJ 53201
A UYCKCM STEEL DIVISION
PITTSBURGH PA 15219
B WYCKCFF STEEL DW3ION
AMBRIOGE PA 15003
c VYCKOFF STFEL DIVISION
PLYMOUTH MI 4ei?o
0 WYCKOFF STEEL DIVISION
CHICAGO II 6C69Q
E UYCKOFF STEEL DIVISION
NEMARK NJ 07102
F VYCKHFF STEEL DIVISION
PUTNAM CT 0^260
312
-------
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
-3-
HEF/PLT. COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCRKER CROUP
CITY STATE lit RfF/PLT
oos2 AHSIEO INDUSTRIE:. INC.
CHICAGO II (0690
A MAC XUYTE COMPANY
KENOSHA
UI 53140
SU8CATEGOSIES
0056 AKCELL NAIL ANG CHAPLE7 CCMPAin
CLEVELAND OH 44105
0060 ARMCO STEEL CORPCRAT1GN
MIDOLETOWN
A HAMILTON PLANT
HAMILTON
B ASHLAND WORKS
AJHlAND
C AHBRIOGE WORKS
AH BRIDGE
0 BUTLER WORKS
BUTLER
E ZANESVtLLE PLANT
ZANESVILLfc
F HOUSTON WORKS
HOUSTON
OH 45043
Ch 4*011
KY 4I1Q1
PA 15003
PA 16001
QK 43701
TX 77015
G KANSAS CITY WORKS
KANSAS CITY HC 64125
H SAND SPRING NORK3
5ANC SPRING OK 74063
I BALTIMORE WORKS
BALTIMORE
HO 21203
J NATIONAL SUPPLY COMPANY
TURRANCE CA «so«
K MARION WORKS
URICN
L rilTCO CIVIJION
ATLANTA
DM 43302
GA 303U
N LEGGET AND PLATT DIVISION
CARTHAGE MO 64636
n ADVANCED MATERIALS 01VISICR
HOUSTON 11 77044
U TUBE ASSOCIATES
HOUSTON
P UlLCWOOD PLANT
U1LOUJOO
9 UNION WIRE ROPE
TX 77028
Fl 32785
AE A.C.D.G.H.K.L.M.O.P.R.
i.T.U.W
« A.O
A C,D,F,M,0,R.S,T
C N.P.Q
8 J,K,L,H,0,Q,R,S,M,X,Z
C S.tt
A A,C.O.I.J.K,M,N,0,P
B J,M,N,3,T
B I.L.N
B I.M,N,S,W,X
B I.K
B
C
C
C
I.l.N
R
0
P.W.I
C P.U
MIODLETCKN FABRICATING
MIOCLETOWN CH 45042
S UlirON WIRE ROPE
KANSAS CITY
MO 64126
C P.T
C O.T
0064 BARNES GROUP, INC.
BRISTOL C7 06010
A VALLACf BARNES STEEL DIVISION
ER1STUL CT 06010
313
-------
-4-
APPENDIX B
IRCN AND STEEL PLANT INVENTO»Y
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLAINT NAME KP.PER GROUP
CITY STATE HP RSF/PLT
SUBCATEGORIES
0068 ATLANTIC STEEL CCMPAHY
ATLANTA GA 30301
A ATLANTA BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
ATLANTA CA 30301
3 CARTERSVILLE FACILITY
CAR1ERSVILIE CA 30120
BE I,M,N,a,R,T,W,Z
B I.L.N
007Z
ATLANTIC WIRE COMPANY
BP.ANFORD CT 06405
0016 AUBURN STEEL COMPANY. INC.
AUPURN NY 13021
BE I.L
0080 AUTOMATION INDUSTRIES, INC.
IDS ANCEIES CA 90002
A HARRIS TUBE DIVISION
LOS ANGELES CA 90002
B SO. WEST STEEL RLLNG. MILLS, IK.
LUS ANGELES CA 90002
E
C P
D 1
0084 AZCW1 CORPORATION
KNOXVILLE
TN 37921
A KKCXVILLE IRON DIVISION
KNHXV1LLE TN 37921
B l.L
0088 BABCBCK AND U1LCGX
NEW YORK NY 10017
A TUPULAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
B TUPULAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
ALLIANCE OH 44601
C TUBULAR PRODUCTS OIV1SICN
MILWAUKEE HI 33201
D TUBULAR PRODUCTS DIVISION
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
B I.K,M,N,P,C,R,M,X
C 0
c P.S.Z
C H.N.O.V
0092 EARQN DRAWN STFEL CORPORATION
TOLEDO OH 43607
0096
PARRY STEEL CORPORATION
DETROIT MI 48238
0104 BEKAERT STEEL HIRE CORPORATION
NEK YLRK NY 10017
A BEKAERT STEEL HIRE CORPORATION
RUHE CA 30161
B BEKAFR7 STEEL WIRE CORPORATION
RENO Nl 89501
C BIKAERT STEEL WIRE CORPORA110N
tCWORTH CA 30101
314
-------
-5-
APPENDIX B
1R3N ANO STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PlT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCRNER GROUP JU8C ATEGORIES
CITY STATE ZIP RtF/PLT
0108 DtPGER INDUSTRIES, INC.
HAJPETH NH 11378
A PERGER INDUSTRIES, INC.
RETUCHEN NJ C8640
0112 BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
BETHLEHEM
A 5PARROWS POINT
SPARROWS POINT
S -LACKAKAKNA PLANT
BUFFALO
C JOHNSTOWN PLANT
JUHNSTOUN
D 8UPNS HARBOR
CHESTERTON
E STEELTOW PLANT
STEELTCN
F LCS ANGELES PLANT
LCS ANGELES
G SEATTLE PLANT
SEATTLE
( LEBANON PLANT
LEBANON
PA 18016
HO 212X1
NY I42I9
PA 15907
IH 463 04
PA 17113
CA 900SI
U* 9*124
H WILLIAHSPORT PLANT
WULIAMSPORT PA 17701
PA 17042
J SAN FRANCISCO PLANT
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080
AE A.CiO.F.ltK.H.N.Q
A A.CtO.G.H.H.NtO.PtOtSf
T.U.Z
A A,C.O,G,H,K,M,N,0,0,R,
S.T
A A,C.O,E.H,H,N,0,0,W,Z
A A.CtOiGtLtHtOtOtRtS.Z
B I.K.N.P
B i,ri,N,o,T,z
B I.H.N.Q.T
C RtT.H
C N.Q.T.Z
C N
K KaRGAKTOVN PLANT
HCRGANTUWN
PA 19543
0116 BLSCJ60RO CORPORATION
BLROSBOtiO HA 19508
Of I
0120 BtSHOP TUBE COMPANY
PA 19355
0124 SL4IR STRIP ST5EL COMPANY
NEW CASTLE PA 16103
0129 BLISS AMD LAUGKLIN INDUSTRIES, INC.
3AK BAG OK 11 60521
A 9LISS AKD LtUGHLIN STEEL COHPAAY OIV.
II 60426
B BLISS ANO LAUGHLIN STEEL COMPANY 0 IV .
DETROIT HI 48089
C SLIiS ANO LAUGHLIN STE!L COMPAAY D IV .
OX 44256
0 BLISS AND LAUGHLIN STEEL CCHPAfiY 0 IV .
LOS AMGELES CA 9Q040
E BLISS AND LAUGHLIN STEEL CUHPAHY 0 IV .
SEATTLE VA 98108
f BLISS AND LAUGHLIN STEEL COKPANY 0 IV .
HOUSTUN TX 77011
315
-------
-6-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP
FCRMER GROUP
RtF/PLT
SUBCATEGOMES
0132 PORDER STEEL HILLS. INC.
VINTON TX 79912
BE I ,1
0136 BGPG-XAR/jER CORPORATION
CHICAGO IL 60604
A 8V. STEEL. INC
CHICAGO HEIGHTS 11 60411
B CALUMET STEEL COMPANY
CHICAGO HEIGHTS IL 60411
C F*ANKLIN STEEL CCMPANY
FRANKLIN PA 16323
0 SEE 0430C
B l.L.N
C N
E INC-ERSOLL PRODUCTS DIVISICN
CHfCAGO IL 60643
0140 BORTZ CCAL COMPANY
UNIONIOK.N ' PA I540I
A BCRTZ CHAL COMPANY
SMITHFrFLD PA 15478
0144 BUCKEYE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY
CCLUMBUS OH 43215
OE I
0148 BL'CYRUS-ERIE COMPANY
SOUTH MILWAUKEE Ut 53172
A CL435PORT
GLASSPCRT
PA 1S04S
DE 1
B H.I
0152 BUKOY CnRPORATIQN
DETROIT MI 48226
A BUNDY CORPCRATIOK
WINCHESTER KK 40391
B BUNOY
CULCWAVE HI 49036
C BUNOY CORPORATION
MT. CLEMJNS HI 4B043
D BUNOY CORPORATION
WARREN MI 48089
c BUNDY CORPORATION
MOMETUWN PA 16252
F BUNDY CORPORATION
CYNTHIANA KY 41031
G BUNOY CORPORATION
HALVERN PA 19355
0156 CABOT C3RPORATIQK
BOSTON
B S1ELLITE DIVISION
K.L'KOMQ
HA 02IIO
A MACHINERY DIVISICN
PAHPA TX 79065
It, 46901
B C.I
3.16
-------
-7-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
RE:F/PLT
COMPANY OR PLANT NAME
CITY STATE ZIP
QUO CALIFORNIA STEEL A NO TUBE
CITY QF INDUSTRY CA 91744
0164 CAL-ffETAL CORPORATION
tilVINOALE CA 91706
FCRME*
REF/PLT
CROUP
SUBCATEGORIES
0168 CAMERON IRON WORKS* INC.
HOUSTON TX 77001
BE l.K
0172 G.O. CARLSON. INC.
THORNCALE PA 19372
0176 CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CCRPCRATIIN
READING PA 19601
A CASPgNTER STEEL CIVtSION
5MOGEPURT CT 06601
B CARPENTER STEEL CIVIS1CN
READING PA 19601
c UNION PLANT TUBE DIVISIGN
UK ION NJ G7083
0 JANES8URG PLANT TUBE
CRAN8URY NJ 08512
BE l,M,N,0,0,R,S,W,X,Z
0 I
C P.H
C P,«
0180 CASCADE STEEL ROLLING HILLS. INC.
KCH1NNVILLE OR 97128
BE I.L
0184 CAVERT HIRE COMPANY, IRC.
UHIONTawN PA 19401
01(8 CECO CORPORATION
CHICACC
IL 60650
A LE*ONT MANUFACTURING CCNPINY
LEKCNT U 60439
B K'HTON MAMUFACTURiHt CCXPARY
RILTON PA 17847
C SOUTHERN ELECTRIC STEEL CCMPAN1
BIRHINGHAH AL 35202
B I.H
ft I.N.N
B I.L .N
0192 CENTRAL STEEL TUBE COMPANY
CLINTON IA S2732
0196 CF C I STEEL CORPORATION
PUEBLO CC 81002
A PUEBLO PLANT
PUFBLO
CC 81004
A A.C.O.F.I.L.M.N.P.Q.T
0200 CHAMPION STEEL COMPANY
OF.WcLL O 44076
0204 CHAPAii.RAL STEEL COHPAHY
»10LCTHIAN TX 76065
BE I,L
0208 CHRISTIE COAL ANC COKE COMPANY
NORTON It 24273
317
-------
-8-
APPENDIX B
IRON ANO STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PIT COMPANY OR PLAKT NAME FCRME' CROUP SUBCATEGCRIES
CITY STATE ZIP RtF/PIT
0212 CITIZENS GAS ANO CCKE UTILITY DE
IN 46202
0216 CULUM61A STEEL CASTING CO., INC. DE I
PUFUAN3 C» 97203
0220 COLUMBIA TOOL STEEL COHPAKY
CHICAGO HEIGHTS II 6C411
0224 COLUMBIAN STEEL TANK COMPANY
KANSAS CITY MC 64101
0226 COMMERCIAL METALS. INC. BE I.L
DALLAS TX 75247 C764
A AkKftNSAS STEEL RCLLING PILLS, INC.
MAtNOLIA AD 71753 07644
0228 CONSOLIDATED METALS CORPORATION
NENTON NJ 07860
0232 CONSTELLATION STEEL MILL ECUIPfENT CORP.
CINCINNATI OH 45216
0236 CONTINENTAL COPPER ANO STEEL INDUSTRIES E
CRAWFORD NJ C7016
A BkAEPURN ALLOY STEEL DIVISION 0 I
LOWER BURRELL PA 15066
0240 CUPPERMELD CORPORATION E
PITTSBURGH ft 15219
A COPPERVELD STEEL COMPANY B I,K.L,H,N,Q
WARREN OH 44482
B OHIO STEEL TUBE COMPANY C P.Q.Z
SHEL3Y OH 44875
C RtCAL TUBE COHPAHY C P.O.Z
CHICAGO IL 60638
D BtMETALLICS DIVISION
CLASSPQRT PA 15045
E FLEXCO HIRE DIVISION
OSNEGO NY 13126
0244 COREY STEEL COMPANY
CICERU IL 60650
0246 CGLT INDUSTRIES E
NEW YORK NY 10022
A ALLOY DIVISION C A,O.F,K,N.Q
MIDLAND PA 15059
B STAINLESS STEEL DIVISION C UK.L.S.U.X
MIDLAND PA 15059
318
-------
-9-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCRHER GROUP SUBCATEGCRIES
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLT
C SPECIALTY METALS DmSICN C H.N,S,W,Z
GcDDES NY 13209
D TRENT TUBE DIVISION
EAST TROY UI 53120
t TkENT TUBE DIVISION
FULLERTON CA 92634
F TRENT TUBE DIVISION
CAFROLLTON CA 30111
G TRENT TUBE DIVISION
BREMEN CA 30110
0252 CUMBERLAND STEEL COMPANY
CUMBERLAND MO 21502
0256 CYCLOPS CORPORATION E
PITTSBURGH PA 15228
A DETROIT STRIP DIVISION C O.S
DETROIT HI 4621?
B DETROIT STRIP DIVISION C 0,5
NEW HAVEN CT 06507
C EMPIRE DETROIT STEEL DIVISION B F.I
MANSFIELD OH 44901
0 EMPIRE DETROIT STEEL DIVISION
DOVER ON 44622
E EMPIRE DETROIT STEEL DIVISION A A.D.H
PURTJMOUTH OH 45662
F SAVHILL TUBULAR CIVISITN C P.O.M
WHEATLANO PA 16161
G SAKHILL TUBULAR DIVISION C PtO.T
5HAROH PA 16146
H SAVHILL TUBULAR CIVISICN
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406
I TEX-TUBE DIVISION
HOUSTON TX 17001
J UfHVERSAL CYCLOPJ SPECIALTY STIEL CIV.
PITTSBURGH PA 15223
K
L
M
N
0
flRfOGEVILLE PLANT
BKIDGEVILLE
PITTSBURGH PLANT
PITTSBURGH
PA
PA
15017
15201
6 I
C 0
tN tN t X t i
.5.M.X
ALTQUIPPA FORGE DEPARTMENT
ALIOUIPPA PA 15001
TITUSVILLE PLANT
TITUSVILLE
COSHOCTQM PLANT
COSHCCTON
PA
OH
16354
43612
B I
C S
,N,s,w,x,r
.u.x.z
OJ60 DAMASCUS STESL CASTING COMPANY OE I
NFH BRIGHTON PA 15066
319
-------
.-10-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT IHVEHTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NACE FCRMEP GROUP SUBCATEGORIES
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLT
0264 OS.VIS WICKER CCRFORATICN
LC3 ANCcLES CA 9L-040
A OAV15 WALKER CORPORATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY CA 5174*
B DAVIS WALKER CORPORATICN
RIVERSIDE CA 92501
C O&VIS WALKER CORPORATICN
X£NT KA 98031
0272 OUNNER-HANNA COKE CORPCRATTON OE A
BUFFALO NY 14220
0276 DONOVMN STEEL TUBE COMPANY
TOLEDO OH 43611
0260 EASTERN CAS AND FUEL AJSOCIATICN E
PHILADELPHIA PA 19137
A EASTERN ASSOCIATION CO£L CORPCPATIPN
PITTSBURGH PA 15219
5 PHlLAOELPHtA COKE DIVISION 0 A
PHILADELPHIA PA 19137
0284 EASTHeT CORPORATION £
COCKEYSVILLE HO 21030
A EASTERN STAINLESS STEEL CCMPAfO B L.O.S.W.X
BALTIMORE HO 21224
0288 EDCEKATER CORPORATION E
OAKHONT PA 15139
A EDGEKATER STEEL COMPANY 0 I
OAKMONT p« 15139
C JANNEY CYLINDER COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA PA ma6
029? FDNAROS COMPANY, E.H.
SAN FRANCISCO CJ 94080
0296 ELECTRALLOY CORPCRATIOR
\iV YORK, MY 10019
A ELECTRALLOY CORPORATION
OIL CITY PA 16301
0300 ELLIOT BROTHERS STEEL CCHPANY
NEW CASTLE PA 16103
0304 EMPIRE COKE COMPANY
HOLT AL 35401
0308 EMPIRE STEEL CASTINGS l*C .
PtTAOING PA 19603
A EMPIRE STEEL CASTINGS INC.
TEMPLE P« 19560
0312 FITZSIKMONS STEEL COMPANY
YOUH6STUVN OH 44501
320
-------
-11-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FORMER GRUUP
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLT
SUBCATEGCRIES
0316 FLCRIOA STEEL CORPFRATICN
TAMPA FL 33623
A INOIANTOHN STEEL HILL DIVISION
INDIANTSJKN FL 33456
B CHARLOTTE STEEL PILL DIVISION
CHARLOTTE NC 28213
C JACKONSVILLE STEEL HILL OIV1SICN
JACKSONVILLE Fl 32234
BE I.L.N
B I.L.N
B I.L.N
C N
0320 FORD MOTOR COHPAHY
DEARBUKtl HI 48121
AC A.D.F.I.H.N.O.R.S
0324 FORT HOWARD STEEL ANO WIRE
GREEN BAY Ul 54305
0328 FOS8RINK MACHINE CfltlPAKY
CUNNSLLSVILLE PA 15425
0332 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
GMEENMCH CT C6830
A INDIANA STEEL ANC MIRE CtVISICk
MUNCIt IN 47302
0336 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
DETROIT HI 48202
A GENERAL MOTORS
VAl'KEtAN
IL 6 COS 5
0340 GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.
ST. LOUIS NC 63105
A NATIONAL ROLL DIVISION
AUCNHOR£ PA 15618
0344 GILBERT ANO BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO.
GEORGETOWN CT 06829
A GILBERT ANO BENNETT MANUFACTURING CO.
BLUE ISLAND IL tC4Ci
B COATINGS ENGINEERING CCRPCRATICN
SUOBUBY NA 01776
0348 GREAT LAKES CARBCN CORPORATION
KEN YORK NY 10017
A MISSOURI COKE ANC CHEMICAL 01*.
ST. LOUIS MO 63111
0352 GP.EER STEEL COMPANY
DOVER
OH 44622
A CHEER STEtl COMPANY
FF.RNDALE MI 48220
321
-------
-12-
APPENDIX B
fcON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT
COMPANY Oft PLANT NIKE
CITY STATE ZIP
FCRMER
REF/PLT
GROUP
SUBCATEGORIES
0356 KARSCO CORPORATION.
CAHP HILL PA 17011
A H6RRISBURG STEEL COMPANY
KARIUSBURG PA 17105
B QUAKER. ALLOY CASTING COMPANY
NYERSTOaN PA 17061
D I
0360 HAWAIIAN KESTERN STEEL IIKITEC
EMA HI 96706
OE I
0364 HIPPENSTALL COMPANY
PITTSBURGH PA 15201
A BICVALE-HEPPENSTALL
PHILADELPHIA PA 19140
0368 HOOVER BALL AND BEARING COMPANY
SOLON OH 44139
A CUYAHOGA STEEL AND HIRE OUIJICN
SOLON OH 44139
0372 HYDE PARK FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY
HYDE PARK PA 15641
0376 IGOE BROTHERS INC.
NJ 07114
0380 INPIANA GAS AND CHEMICAL CORPQRATICN
TfSRE HAUTE IN 47808
0384 INLAND STEEL COMPANY
CHICAGO II 60603
A INCH ANA HARBOR KCRKS
EAST CHICAGO IN 46312
A,CtD,G,H,l,L,H,N,0,0.
R.S.T.Z
030 INTERCOASTAL STEEL CORPORATION
CHESAPEAKE VA 23324
A G1LMEK.T3N PLANT
CHFSAPCAKE
VA 23323
0392 INTERCONTINENTAL STEEL CORPORATION
CHICAGO II 60628
0396 INTERLAKE, INC.
OAK BROOK
II 60521
A IRON AND STEEL DIVISION
SOUTH CHICAGO IL 6C617
C TIILEDO PLANT
TOLEDO
OH 43605
0 RIVER DALE STATION
RIVEROALE u 60627
E NEWPORT mOER PLANT
!)t»PO*T KY 41072
f GARY STEEL SUPPLY COMPANY
BLUE ISLAND U 60406
G BEVERLY PLANT
BtVERLY
A.C.D
A,0
F,.M,N,0,Rt
I.M.P.O.S
OH 45715
322
-------
-15-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
«EF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCRMER GROUP 5U8CATEGCR 1ES
CITY STATE ZIP RtF/PLT
0452 KENNANETAL INC.
LATR08E PA 15650
0456 KENTUCKY ELECTRICAL STEEL COHPJNY C
ASHLAND KY 4U01
A KENTUCKY ELECTRICAL STEEL CO. B 1,1
ASHLAND KY 41101
0460 KEYSTONE CONSOLICATEO INOVSTRKS. INC. E
PEORTA IL 61602
A KEYSTONE STEEL AND MIRE B l.L.M.N.O.T
PtORIA IL 61641
B KEYSTONE STEEL AND XIRE C N
CHICAGO HEIGHTS IL 60411
C SANTA CLARA PLANT C 0,7
IANTA CLARA CA 95052
0 KID-STATES STEEL AND WIRE C Q.T.Z
CXAKFORDSVILLE IN 47933
I JACKSONVILLE PLAM C 8,1
JACKSONVILLE FL 22201
F MIQSTATES STEEL AND WIRE C O.T
SHERMAN TX 75091
C GREENVILLE PLANT C 0,1,Z
GREENVILLE NS 38701
H CHICAGO STEEL ANC MIRE C Q.T.Z
CH'lCAtO IL 60617
0464 KQPPERS COMPANY, INC. E
PITTSBURGH PA 15215
A ORGANIC MATERIALS DIVISION
PITTSBURGH PA 1*219
B ST. PAUL 0 A
ST. PAUL HH 55104
C ERIE 0 A
ERIE PA 16512
0 OR.CAN1C MATERIALS DIVISION
XEARNY NJ C7032
£ UOCCVAR3 COKE 0 A
BESSEMER AL 25020
0468 KORF INDUSTRIES, IRC. E
CHARLOTTE AC 1I2BQ
A NIOREX CORPORATICN
CHARLOTTE NC 26280
3 GECRCETOXit STEEL CCRPOFATICN B I.L.N
GEPRGETGMN iC 99440
C GcORGETaUU FERRECUCTlOft CCRPORATtON
GEORGETOWN SC 29440
0 ANDREWS MIRE CCRPCRAT1CN
ANDREWS SC 295IC
E AUOREWS MIRE OF TENNESSEE
GALLAT1N TN 37066
F GtrSGfTOWN TEXAS STEEL CORPORATION 6 I,L
BEAUMONT TX 17104
325
-------
-16-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCRME* CROUP SUBCATEGORIES
CITY STATE IIP RCF/PLT
0472 11CHAEL KRAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
NEV YORK NY 10019
A HCKCHU TUBE CCHPANY
KCKCKO III 46901
B VENANGO METALLURGICAL PROOUCTS
OIL CITY PA 16301
0476 LACLEDE STEEL COPPANY
A
B
C
0
E
f
C
ST. LOUIS
ALTON PLANT
ALTON
RAOISON PLANT
MADISON
BEAUMONT PLANT
BEAUnONT
DALLAS PLANT
DALLAS
MEMPHIS PLANT
MEMPHIS
KCV ORLEANS PLANT
NEK ORLEANS
TAMPA PLANT
TfcNPA
HC
1L
It
T»
It
TR
LA
Fl
(3102
62002
(206C
17706
15206
36107
70126
33611
B l,L,M,N,0,P.OtT,W,Z
0480 LASALLS STEEL COMPANY
CHICAGO IL 60680
A HAMMOND PLANT
HAMMOND
It 46327
B KEYSTONE DRAWN STEEL COMPANY
SPRING CITY PA 19475
C FLUID POWER DIVISION
CHICAGO IL 60680
o FLUID POKFR DIVISION
GRIFFITH in 44319
0488 LQFLANO STEEL HILL. INC.
OKLAHOMA CITY CK 73108
0492 LONE STAR STEEL COMPANY
DALLAS TX 75235
A LONE STAR STEEL COMPANY
LONE STAR n 75668
B LCNE STAR STEEL COMPANY
FORT COLLINS CO 80521
A A,C,0,H,M,0,P,0,T,Z
0«96 LUKENS STEEL COMPANY
COATESVILLE PA 19320
BE t.K.L.W
0500 MADISON KIRE COMPANY
BUFFALO NY 14220
0504 MACNA CORPORATION
FLOWOOO HS 39208
326
-------
-17-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STtEl PLANT INVENTORY
REFVPLT COMPANY OR PUST NAME F-CRMER GRCUP SU8CATEGOR1ES
CITY STATE ZIP RFF/PLT
A MISSISSIPPI STEEL DIVISION B t.L
FLfWOOD MS 39208
0508 MARATHON MANUFACTURING COMPANY E
HOUSTON TX 77002
A MARATHOM LETOURNEAU COMPANY 0. I
LGNGVIEM IH 75601
B MARATHON STEEL COMPANY
PHOENIX AZ asoos
C ROLLING MILL DIVISION 0 I
TEHPE AZ 85282
0512 MARKIN TUBING INC.
WYOMING NV 14591
0516 MARYLAND SPECIALTY HIRE, INC.
COCKEYSVILLE MO 21030
0520 NCCONUAY AND TORLEY CORPORATION Of I
PITTSBURGH PA 15201
0524 MCINNES STEEL COMPANY
CORRY PA 16407
0528 NCLOUTH STEEL CORPORATION Cf S.X.Z
DETROIT Ml 48209
A TRENTON PLANT . A 0if,J,L,M,0,0
TRENTON HI 48183
B GIBRALTAR PLANT C R.S
GIBRALTAR Ml 48173
053? MEAD CORPORATION
DAYTON Off 45402
B CHATTANOOGA DIVISION
CHATTANOOGA TR 37401
0536 MERCER ALLOYS CORPORATION
GREENVILLE PA 16125
0538 MERCIER CORPORATION
BIRMINGHAM HI 48001
A ERIE COKE AND CHEMICAL COMPANY
FAIRPORT HARBUR OH 44077
0540 MERIOIAN INDUSTRIES. INC.
SnUTHFIElO MI 4*075
A FORKED TUBES. INC.
SfURGIS MI 49091
B FORMED TUBES. INC.
HALEYVILLt Al 35565
c FORMED TUBES, INC.
ALBION III 46701
327
-------
-18-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY CR PLAXT NAME FCRKER ORDUP
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLT
0544 MtSTA MACHINE COMPANY E
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
A MESTA MACHINE COMPANY B H,I
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
b MESTA MACHINE COMPANY
NEW CASTLE. PA 16101
0548 SEE 0678
A JLE 0678A
6 5EE 0678B
C StE 0678C
D SEE 06730
E StE 0678H
0552 MID-AMERICA STEEL CORPORATION
CLEVELAND Cti 44127
0556 MID-WEST HIRE COMPANY
CLEVELAND OH 44104
0560 MINNEAPOLIS ELEC. STEEL CASTINGS CC. OE
MINNEAPOLIS MH 55421
0564 MISSOURI ROLLING MILL CORPORATION
ST. LOUIS MO 63143
0568 MOLTRUP STEEL PRODUCTS CCH'ANY
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
0572 MSL INDUSTRIES, INC.
PIQUA OH 45356
A MIAMI INDUSTRIES, DIVISION
PIOUA Ch 45356
0576 NATIONAL FCRGE COMPANY BE t,K
IRVINE PA 1632S
A ERIE otvrsioN B I.K
EkIE PA 16512
0580 NATIONAL STANDARD COMPANY CE 0,R,H,Y,Z
MILES HI 49120
A VQVEN PRQD'JCTS DIVISION C R.T,Z
CURBIN KH 40701
B MT. JOY PLANT C R,Z
«T. JOY PA 17552
C ATHENIA STEEL DIVISION C 0,R,S
CLIFTON NJ 07015
328
-------
-19-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT
COMPANY OR PIART KACE
CITY STATE ZIP
0 CDLUMBIANA PLANT
CULUM9IANA
E AKRON PLANT
AKRON
f LOS ANGELES PLANT
LOS ANCELES
AL 35051
OH 44310
CA 90001
G WORCESTER WIRE DIVISION
WORCESTER HA 01603
REF/PLT
CROUP
C
c
c
c
SUBCATEGORIES
R,Z
R.Z
R
T.K.Z
0584 NATIONAL STEEL
PITTSBURGH
PA 15219
A GREAT LAKES STEEL DIVISION
DETROIT HI 43229
B CHEAT LAKES STEEL DIVISION
DETROIT HI 43229
C GRANITE CITY STEEL DIVISION
GRANITE CITY II 62040
D THE HANNA FURNACE CORPORATION
BUFFALC NY 14240
E MIDWEST STEEL DIVISION
PORTAGE IK 4*368
F VF.IRTUN STEEL
WEIRTGN HI 26062
G STEUBENVILLE PLANT
STEU8ENVILLE OH 43952
H NATIONAL PIPE ANC TUBE
LIBERTY T» 11575
B F,l,H,R,S
A A.C.D.O
A A,C,D,G,M,0, C,R,S,7
0 D
C Q.S.T.Z
A A,C,0,C,KfL,M,N,0,R,J,
T,Z
0586 NAYLOR PIPE COMPANY
CHICAGO IL 60619
0592 NEW ENGLAND HIGH CARBON. HIRE CCRPQRATION
HILLBURY HA 01521
0596 NtV JERSEY STEEL AND STRUCTURAL CORP.
SAYREVILLE NJ 06812
BE I,L
0600 NtKKAN-CRUSBY STEEL, INC.
PAHTUCKET Rt 02861
0604 NEWPORT NEWS SHIP BLOC. AND OR100CK CO,
NLMPORT (JEWS VA 23601
0608 NORTH STAR STEEL COMPANY
St. PAUL HN 55165
A HILTON PLANT
VILTCN
1A 5Z718
B I.L
0(12 NORTHWESTERN STEEL AND MIRE CO.
STERLING IL 61081
BE I,M,N,0,R,T
0616 NU. WEST STEEL RLLNG. MILLS, UC.
SEATTLE HA 98101
A HINT PLANT
KENT
HA 98031
E
D t
329
-------
-20-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT KAHE FCRHER CROUP SUBCATEGOR1ES
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLI
0620
A
b
C
KUCQR CORPORATIOH
CHARLOTTE KC 38211
NWCBR STEEL
DARLINGTON SC 29532
NUCOR STEEL
NORFOLK NC 68701
NUCOR STEEL
JfWETT TX 75846
E
& I.L
B I.L
B I.L
0624 GILHCRE STEEL CORPCRAT1CN
PORTLAND OR 97208
A OREGON STEEL HILLS DIVISION
PORTLAND OR 97209
B RIVERGATE PLANT
PORTLAND OR 97203
0628 OWEN ELECTRIC STEEL OF SOUH CIROL IN« E
COLUNBtt SC 29202
A CWEN ELEC. STEEL OF SO. CAROL UA 0 I
CAYCE SC 29013
0632 PACIFIC STATES STEEL CCRPCRAT ICN
UNICN CITY CA 94547
0636 PACIFIC TUBE COMPANY CE P.O.V.Z
LOS ANGELES CA 90040
06^0 PENN-OtXIE STEEL CCHPAfiY BE I,N,N,0,T
IN 46901
A PENN-DIXIE, STEEL COHPAKV
JOLIET 1L 60434
B ENTERPRISE MIRE COMPANY
BLUE ISLAND IL (C4C6
C HAUSNAN CORPORATION
KDKQMO IR 46901
D HAUSNAN CORPORATION
DENVER CO (0203
E CENTEKVULE DIVISION D I
CENTERVIUE IA S2S44
0644 PfTTIBONE CORPORATION
CHICAGO IL (0651
0648 PHILADELPHIA STEEL AND MIRE COCPANY
PHILADELPHIA P< 19154
0652 PHOENIX STEEL CORPORATION B{ I.L
CLAYHONT DE 19703
A PHOENIX STEEL CORPORATION C N ,N ,P
PHOENIXV1LLE P* I946Q
330
-------
-21-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAHE FORMER GROUP
CITY STATE II? RtF/PLT
SUBCATEGORIES
0656 PICHANDS MATHER AND COMPANY
CLEVELAND OX
A MILWAUKEE SQLVAY CCKE COMPANY
MILWAUKEE MI 53204
E
0 A
0660 PIPER INCUSTRIES INC.
MEMPHIS Tfi 38113
A PIPER INDUSTRIES IRC.
ST. LUUIS HO 63155
B PIPER tNOUSTRIFS INC.
GREENVILLE Hi 36701
0664 PITTSBURGH TUBE COMPANY
MUNACA PA 1S061
A PITTSBURGH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
IL 61739
0666 PORTEC. IMC.
A
B
C
0672
A
B
0674
A
&
C
0
E
F
&
H
OAK BROOK IL
TROY PLANT
TROY Nt
FORCINGS DIVISION
CANTON OH
MEMPHIS PLANT
MEMPHIS TN
CUNNORS STEEL COPPAMY
BIRMINGHAM AL
CONNERS STEEL DIVISION
BIRK1HCHAN AL
VEST VIRGINIA HORKS
HUNTINGTON HV
PLYMOUTH TUBE COMPANY
W INFIELD U
ELLWOOO IVINS PLANT
HORSHAM P*
PLYMOUTH TUBE DIVISION
VISFIELO IL
WJNAMAC PLANT
KIN AM AC IK
STREATOR PLANT
STREATCR IL
PLYMOUTH TUBE DIVISION
DUNKIRK NY
PLYMOUTH TUBE DIVISION
HLRSHAM PA
SIRNTNGHAM PLANT
PINSON AL
VEST MONROE PLANT
VEST MONROE LA
60521
12180
4*701
30128
I
35212
8 I.l.N
35212
B I.l.M.N
25706
C
60190 0884
19044 0884*
60190 0884B
c P. a
46996 CC84C
C 0
61364 . C8840
C P,W
14048 CB84E
C H
19044 CB84F
C 0
35126 C884G
C P
71291 C884H
331
-------
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAHE FCRMES CROUP
CITY STATE ZIP RtF/PLT
0676
CNECCO INC.
PENNSA'JKEN
NJ 08110
A PKECtSION STEEL CIVISlCIt
PENNSAUKEN NJ oano
B SOUTHERN PRECISION STEEL COMPANY
GULFPORT MS 39501
C COMPRESSED STEEL SHAFTING COMPANY, INC.
READVILLE HA 02136
SUBCATEGCRIES
-22-
0678 OL'ANEX CORPQRATICN
HOUSTbN TX 17056 0548
A GULF STATES TUBE CORPORATION CIV.
ROSENBERG TX 77471 05*8 A
B THE STANDARD TUBE COMPANY
DETROIT MI 49239 054 86
C THE STANDARD TUBE CONPAKY
SHELBY 01
C548C
D MAC STEEL COMPANY, DIVISICM
JACKSON MI 48201 05480
E US BROACH AND MACHINE COMPANY
DETROIT HI 48234 0548 F
I.L
0«BO RAWCCI STEEL INC.
BUFFALO
NY 14240
a
A
8
C
0
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
RFPUBLIC STEEL
CLEVELAND
YOUNGSTQXN MANUFACTUR
YOUNGSTQUN
YCUNGSTOUN
YOUNGSTOHN
VARREN
WARREN
MILES
NILES
MASSILLQN
KASSILLON
CANTON 'SOUTH
CANTON
CLEVELAND DISTRICT
CLEVELAND
BUFFALO
BUFFALO
CHICAGO DISTRICT
CHICAGO
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
GAOSDEH
THCMAS XORKS
81RHINCHAM
OH
IMG
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
Of
OK
NY
IL
AL
AL
44101
44545
44501
44181
44446
44646
44706
44127
14220
60617
35901
35202
STFEL AND TUBE DIVISION
CLEVELAND
CM
44108
E
C
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
0
C
z
A
A
Q
A
I
A
D
A
A
A
P
A,M,N,a,S,H,X
I,K.L.H.N,9
A,0,F,H,H,N,0.*.S
D,F,H,N,Q
A,0,H,I,K,R,N,P.Q
A.C.O.F.M.O.R.S.T
A
P.3.H
332
-------
-23-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLAKT NAHE FCRMER CROUP SUBCATEGORIES
CITY STATE HP RFF/PLT
L STEEL tKO TUBE DIVISION C P
ELYRIA OH 44035
M STEEL AND TUBE DIVISION C P
FIRttDALE HI 48220
N STEEL AMD TUBE DIVISION C P,Q
BRPOKLYN NY 11231
0 STEEL AND TUBE DIVISION C P
C3UNCE, TN 38326
P UNION OR.AKN DIVISION C Q.W
K4SSILLUN QH 44646
Q UNION DRAWN OIVISICN CO
BEAVfR FALLS PA 15010
R UNION CRAMN DIVISION
GARY IN Afi'tQl
: UNION CRAUN DIVISION
EAST HARTFORD CT 06108
T UNION DRAWN DIVISION
LOS ANGELES CA 9COS2
U A. FINKL AND SONS COMPANY . B I iK
CHICAGO IL 60614
V CANTON C O.Q.W.X
C&NTnN OH
H GcORCIA TUBING C P
CEDAR SPRINGS GA 11133
X INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION C Z
CANTON QH 44705
Y DRAINAGE PRODUCTS DIVISION C O.T.Z
CANTON OH 44105
I MILES OUOR PLANT C Z
NUES OH 44446
0688 REVERE COPPER AMD BRASS, IRC.
NE.U YORK NY 10016
A Rime HAHUFACTURIIkG COMPANY DIVISION
RUHE NY 13440
0692 RHI COMPANY
NUES OH 44446
A RMI COMPANY
ASHTAOULA OH <4004
0696 RCBLtN INDUSTRIES, INC - E
BUFFALO NY I&202
A *OBLIN STEEL CDMFABY B I,K,L
DUNKIRK NY 14046
B RGBLTN STEEL COMPANY
NORTH TQNAViANDA NY 14120
0700 ROME STRIP STEEL CCMPAKY CE S
RIIME NY 13440
0104 ROSS-MEcHAN FOUNCRIES
CHATTANOOGA TN 37401
333
-------
-24-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT CUMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCR1ED CROUP SUBCATtGORltS
ClU STATE ZIP RfF/PLT
0708 CDS5 STEEL WORKS, INC.
AM HE LA 70422
0712 5ANOVIK STEEL INC.
FAIR LAWN NJ 07410
A SCRANTON WORKS
CLARKS SUMMIT PA 18501
B BENTGN HARBOR WORKS
BENTON HARBOR HI 49022
0716 SENECA STEEL SERVICE.
BUFFALO NY 14211
0720- SENECA HIRE AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
FOSTORU OH 44830
0724 JHASON STEEL CCRPORATICN E
SHARON PA 16144
A STEEL DIVISION B 0,6,1,K.R.S.T.M.X
SHARH.t PA 1*146
B UNION STEEL CORPORATION
UNION NJ C70S3
C DEARPORH OIVISIOK
DETROIT HI 41228
0 BRAINARO STRAPPING OIVISICN
XARREN OH 44482
E DAMASCUS TUBE DIVISION
GREENVILLE PA 14125
F FAIRMONT COKE WORKS 0 A
FAIRMONT MV 26554
G CARPENTERTONN COAL AND COKE CCCPANY
TEMPLET. 9» itzss
H MACQM6JR INC.
CANTON OH 44711
0728 SHARON TUBE COKPANY CE P.O.T.Z
SHARON PA I614t
0732 SHFNANGQ INC. E
P1T1SBUR.GH PA 15222
A NEVILLE ISLAND PLANT A A.O
PITTSBURGH PA 15225
B BUFFALO PLANT
BUFFALO NY 14240
C SHARPSVILLE PLANT
SHARPSVILLE PA 16I5C
0736 SIMONOS STL DV OF WALLACE MURRAY DE I
NEW YORK Nt 10011
0740 SUULE STEEL COMPANY E
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94124
A STFEL HILL OPERATIONS B I ,L
CARSCN CA 9C745
334
-------
-25-
APPENDIX B
IRON AflO STEtL PLANT INVENTORY
RET/PLT COMPANY Oft PLANT NAPE FCRME* GROUP JUXATEGORIE5
CITY STATE IIF REF/PLT
0744 SLUTHERM FABRICATING COMPANY
SHEFFIELD AL 35*60
A DIXIE TUBE AND STEEL. IK.
fOTHAN AL 36301
0746 SOUTHWESTERN PIPE, IRC.
HOUSTON TX 77001
A SOUTHWESTERN PIPE. INC.
BOSSIER CITY LA 71010
0752 STAMCARO FORCINGS CORPORATION
EAST CHICAGO IN 46312
0756 STANDARD STEEL SPECIALTY CCHPAM
BEAVER FALLS P« 15010
A SL-PFRIOR DRAWN STEEL COMPANY
HUNACA P» 15061
0760 THE STANLEY STEEL DIVISION CE OrS.Z
NEW BRITAIN CT C60SO
A THE STANLEY STEEL DIVISION
NEK BRITAIN CT 04053
0764 SEE 0226
A SEE 0226A
0768 STUPP BROTHERS BRIDGE AND IAON COMPANY
ST. LGU1S HO 63125
A STUPP CORPORATION
BATON ROU6E L4 70821
B MCNCEL RCAD PLANT
BATON ROUGE LA 70821
C THOMAS ROAD PLANT
BATON ROUGE LA 70B21
0772 SUPERIOR TUBE CORPANV
HORRISTOWN PA 19404
0776 TELEDYNE VASCO E
LATR08E PA 15650
A TELEBY«IE ALLVAC
fONROE NC 28X10
B TELEDYNE COLUMBIA - SUHNERILL
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
c SCOITOALE PLANT c n,z
SCOTTOALE PA 15683
D CARNEGIE PLANT C O.Z
CARNEGIE PA 15106
E TELEDYRE OHIO STEEL COPPABV B I.K
UNA OH 45802
33!
-------
-26-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL-PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY on. PLANT NAME FIRMER GROUP SUBCATEGORIES
CITY STATE ZIP RTF/PIT
F TELEDYNE PITTSBURGH TOOL STEEL
MONACA ft 15061
C RCO AND WIRE DEPARTMENT
LATROBE PA 15650
H COLONIAL PLANT
MCNACA
ft 15061
1 TELEDYNE SURFACE ENGINEERING
PITTSBURGH PA 15206
J TCLEOYNE VASCO - CK COMPANY
SOUTH BOSTON V« 24592
I.N.W.X.Z
N.O.W.X
0780
TENNESSEE FORGING STEEl
P.OANOKE V« 24015
BE I.L
A NEWPORT DIVISION
NE.HPOHT
AR 72112
B JONES AND MCKNIGHT CORPORATION
CHICAGO II 6C623
C KANKAKEE ELECTRICAL STEEL WORKS
KANKAKEE U 60901
0784 TfXAS STEEL COHPANY
FT. WORTH TX i«nc
DE I
0788
THCMAS STEEL STRIP CORPORATION
OH
0792 THOMPSON STEEL CCHPANY, IKC.
PRAINTRES HA 02184
A THOMPSON STEEL CCMPAMY, INC.
WORCESTER HA 01603
B THOMPSON STEEL CCMPANY, IKC.
CHICAGO II 60131
C THOMPSON STEEL CCHPANY. INC.
SPARROWS POINT HO 21219
C N.T.M
C fl.S.T
C O.S
0796 THE TIHKEN COMPANY
C&NTUN OH 44706
A GAHBR1NUS PLANT
CANIOM
B HOOS7E* PLANT
KCOSTER
ON 44706
OH
C LATROBE STEEL CQFPANY
LATRUBE PA I565Q
B I.K.l.H.N.P.C.U.Z
C P.8
B I.K
0800 TIPPTNS MACHINERY COMPANY, INC.
ETNA P« 15223
A TIFPINS MACHINERY COMPANY, INC.
LAKRfHCEVILL? PA 152.01
0604 TITANIUM METALS CORP. CF AMERICA
TORONTO OH 43964
A STANDARD STEEL DIVISION
BURNHAM PA 17009
B LATROBE FORGE ANC SPRING
LATROBt . PA 15650
I.K
336
-------
-27-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAME FCRKEP GROUP SUBCATECCRIES
CITY STATE ZIP RFF/PIT
oeoe TOLEDO PICKLING AND STEEL SERVICE
TOLEDO Of. 43607
0810 TCWANANDA COKE CCMPANY
HARRIET NY 00240
0812 TONAWANCA IRQH DIVISION
NORTH TONANANOA NT 14120
0816 TClVNSENO COMPANY
BEAVER FALLS PA 15010
A TQVNSENO PLANT
NEW BRIGHTON PA 15066
OS20 TREOFGiR. COMPANY
RICHMOND VA 23211
OB24 TUBE METHODS. INC.
BRIDGEPORT PA 1940S
0628 TULL, J.H. INDUSTRIES, INC.
ATLANTA GA 30301
A TtMFCU DIVISION
NORCRQSS GA 30091
0832 ULBRICH STAINLESS STEELS OF SPCC. KETALS
H&LLlNGFOkO CN 06492
0836 UNARCQ-LcAVITT TUBE DIVISION
CHICAGO II 60643
0840 '.'?J10N JLECTRIC STEEL CCRPC«AT|CN t
PITTSBURGH P« l?10t
A OfJICN ELECTRIC S1EIL CERPCRATHN
CARNEGIE PA 15106
B HARMON CREEK 8 ItK
BURCETTSTOUN PA 15021
C HARMPN CREEK
VALPARAISO IN 46383
OC44 UNION SPECIALTY STEEL CASTING CORP.
VERONA P« 15147
0846 SEE 0426
0852 immo STATES STEEL CORPORATOR
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
A UNITED STATES STfEL CCRPORATICA
niv YORK NY 10022
0856 U!«mo STATES STEEL - EASTfRH t
PITTSBUR.GH PA 152J9
A CLAI8TON WORKS A AtDt
CLAtRTmi PI 15025
B EDGAR THOMSON WORKS A D,F
BRAOOOCK PI 15104
-------
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PUNT INVENTORY
-28-
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLAIST NAHE FCRKER GROUP
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PIT
SUBCATfGORIES
C CHRISTY PARK
C P
0
E
f
G
N
1
J
K
L
H
n
q
p
0
k
S
T
U
0860
A
B
C
0
f
MCKEESPURT
1RVIM WORKS
DR.AVOSBURG
VANOERGR1FT
VANOER GRIFT
FAIRLESS WORKS
FAIRLESS HILLS
^AIRLESS WORKS
TRENTON
HOMESTEAD WORKS
HOWE STEAD
HOMESTEAD WORKS
HOMESTEAD
HOMESTEAD WORKS
KHWESTEAD
HOMESTEAD WORKS
HOMESTEAD
JOHNSTOWN PLANT
JOHNST04N
CANTON PLANT
CANTON
LORAIN PLANT
LORAIN
CENTRAL FURNACES
CLEVELAND
CUYAHOGA PLANT
CUYAHOCA HEIGHTS
NATIOtUL PLANT
HCKEESPORT
OUQUESNE PLANT
OUOUESNE
NEW HAVEN WORKS
NEW HAVEN
YUUNGSTOWN WORKS
YUVNGSTOWN
KACDONALD WORKS
HACOONALD
PI
PA
PA
P*
NJ
P*
P«
PA
PA
PA
OH
OH
PLANT
OH
OH
PA
PA
Cl
OH
OH
15132
C O.QtS.T.U.Z
1503A
C 0,0,S,W,X,Z
1569C
A A,C,0,M,JtK,L,H,N,0,Pf
1^030 Q,RtStTtZ
00606
B H.K.H.N.O.W
15120
D D
15120
D C
15120
C N
IS120
15902
44706
A A,C.O,F,M.N,P,Q,T,I
44055
0 D
44115
C N,0,0,R,S,T
44125
A C.O.M.N.P.O.Z
15132
A 0,6,1 ,K,H,N.O
15110
C O.R.T
06507
A C.O.H.M.Q
44501
C N.0.0
4.4437
UKITED STATES STIEL - CENTRAL f
PITTSBURGH PA 15230
DULUTH PLANT
3ULUTH
GARY WORKS
GARY
GARY TUBE WORKS
GARY
ELLKOOD PLANT
ELLWOOO CITY
JOLIET PLANT
JOLIET
M
IN
IM
PA
IL
D A
55804
A A.C.D,G,H,L,H,N
46401
46401
16117
C N.O.R.TrW
tfl'- 32
138
-------
APPENDIX B
IRON AID STEfL PLANT INVENTORY
-29-
REF/PLT CCftPAKY OR PLANT N*HE FCRHE* GROUP 3UBCATEGQRIES
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLT
c WAUKEGAII PLANT
AUKEGAN
H SOUTH
CHICAGO
IL tCOBS
II 60617
C 0,T
A C.t>tG,J.K,LtHtN,0
0864 UNITED STATES STEEL - US1ERN
PITTSBURGH PA 19230
A GENEVA WORKS
PRHVO
B PlTTSBURC WORKS
PITTSBURC
c TORRANCE WORKS
TCRRAttCE
UT 14601
CA 9«5*6
CA 90501
A A,C.OiH,N,N,0,P
C N,QfR.5,T,Z
B H.L.MtN
0868 UNITED STATES STEEL - SOUTHERN
PITTSBURGH PA 19230
A FAI9FIELO WORKS
FAtRFIELO
B TEXAS VQRKS
BfcYTObN
AL 39064
TX 11520
C AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION
OKANCE T> 17630
A A.C.OiF.N.NtOtO.R.S.T,
i
B JtK.LtO.P
0872 VALLEY MOULD ANO IRON
HUeSARO OH
A CHICAGO PLANT
CHICAGO
B CLEVELAND PLANT
CLEVELAND
11 60617
Oh 4*105
0876 VALHCNT INDUSTRIES, TNC .
VALLEY MB 6806*
0880 VAN PORN HEAT TREATING COKPANY
CLEVELAND C* 44101
A HEAT TREATING DIVISION
HCKEfS ROCKS PA 15136
088* SEE 067*
A I£F 067*4
B SEE 067*8
C SEE C674C
0 SEE 067*0
i SEE Ot>7*E
F St! 067*F
b SEE 067*0
H Stf 067<>H
339
-------
-30-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OK PLANT KANE FCRMER CROUP SUBCATEGORIES
CITY STATE llf RF.F/PIT
OP88 VULCAN INC.
LATRObE PA 1565C
A VULCAN MOULD AND IKON COMPANY
LATRC1BE PA 15650
0 VULCAN MOULD AND IRON COMPANY
LANSING II 60436
C VULCAN HOULO AND IRON CCMPANY
TRENTON HI 48183
0892 WALKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
RACINE WI 53402
A ABERDEEN PLANT
0
C
D
E
F
G
ABERDEEN
ARCED PLANT
AF.CEN
GREENVILLE PLANT
GREENVILLE
HAP.RtSONBURG PLANT
HARMSOHBURG
JACK 5 ON PLANT
JACKSON
NEWARK PLANT
NEWARK
5FWARD PLANT
SEWARD
US 39730
NC 26704
T» 75401
VA 22801
HI 49201
OH 43055
MB 58434
0894 WALKER STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY
FERNOALE MI
0896 WASHEUHN WfRf COKP4NY BE I,K
CAST PROVIDENCE HI C29I6
A UASHBURN WIRE COMPANY
NEW YORK NY 10035
0900 WASHINGTON STEEL CORPORATION E
WASHINGTON PA 15301
A FITCH WORKS D I
HOUSTON PA 15342
B CALSTRIP STEEL CCMPAMY
LOS ANGELES CA 90022
0904 MELDED TUBES, INC.
Of. WEIL OH 44076
0908 WE.LCED TUBE COMPANY OF AMERICA cc f
PHILADELPHIA PA 19148
A fLDED TUE.E COMPANY OF AMERICA C P
CHICAGO It 6C633
0912 WESTERN COLO DRAWN STEEL DIVISION
ELYRTA OH 44035
A WESTERN COLD DRAWN STEEL CIVISION
GARY IN 46401
340
-------
-31-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLAIT NAME
CITY STATE :iP
FCRHER GROUP
RtF/PLT
SUBCATEGORltS
0916 WHEATLAUD TUBE COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA PA 19106
A WHEATLAflO STEEL PRODUCTS
VHEATLAND PA 16161
C P,Q.T.I
1
A
B
C
D
E
f
G
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH
PITTSBURGH
STEUBENVILLE NORTH
STEUBENVILLE
MtWESSEN. PLANT
MUNESSEN
ALLENPORT
ALLENPURT
etNWt'uD
BENKHaO
MARTINS FERRY
MARTINS FEPRT
STFUBEFIVILLE EAST
FOLLAHJOee
YUFKVILLE PLANT
YURKVILLE
STEEL
PA
PLANT
UN
PA
PA
HV
CH
U«
ON
CORP.
15Z30
43952
IS062
IS412
26031
43939
26037
43911
E
A
A
C
C
C
A
C
D.H.R.S
A.C.D.F.H.N
O.P.RiS
P.QtT
T
A.C.U
R.S.Z
H StE 0430
I SEE 0
-------
-32-
APPENDIX B
IRON AND STEEL PLANT INVENTORY
REF/PLT COMPANY OR PLANT NAKE FCRNER CROUP
CITY STATE ZIP REF/PLT
SUSCATEGORIES
0940 VITTEHAK STEEL HILLS
FUNTANA CA 92335
BE
0944 WMGHT STEEL AKO WIRE COMPANY
WORCESTER BA 01603
0946
VIC CCRPOR.ATION
CHICAGO
U 60617
A WISCONSIN STEEL hORKS
CHICAGO U 6061?
CAOO
C400A
A A,C,0,F,K,L.H,N,a
09*8 YQUNCSTQWN SHEET AND TUBE CC.
YQUKGSTCWN
A CAHP8ELL WORKS
STRUTHERS
B BklER HILL WORKS
YOUNGSTC1UN
OH 44501
OH 44471
OH 44510
C U'fHANA HARBOR WORKS
EAST CHICAGO III 46312
D VAN HUFFEL TUBE CORPORATION
VARREN OH 44481
E VAN HUFFEL TUBE CORPORATION
OA.RONER HA 01440
F CAMPBELL MORKS-STRUTHERS DIVISION
STRUTHERS OH 44471
A.C.D.H.H.O.P.O.R.S.T
O.H.H.N.P.O
A,C,0,F,H.M,0,P,0,S,T
C N.tf.Z
342
-------
-33-
APPENDIX B
KEY TO SUBCATEGORY CODES
A. By-Product
B. Beehive
C. Sintering
D. Blast Furnace (Iron)
E. Blast Furnace (Ferromanganese)
F. Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wet)
G. Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet)
H. Open Hearth Furnace
I. Electric Arc Furnace (Semi-Wet)
J. Electric Arc Furnace (Wet)
K. Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
M. Hot Forming - Primary
N. Hot Forming - Section
0. Hot Forming - Flat
P. Pipe and Tube
Q. SuIfuric Acid Pickling
R. Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
S. Cold Rolling
JL. Hot Coating - Galvanizing
U. Hot Coating - Terne
V. Miscellaneous Runoffs
W. Combination Acid Pickling
X. Scale Removal - Kolene and Hydride
Y. Wire Pickling and Coating
Z. Alkaline Cleaning
343
-------
VOLUME I
APPENDIX C
345
-------
BPT
MISCELLANEOUS
WASTES
BENZOL
WASTES
WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
FINAL
COOLER
CRYSTALLIZER
(ONCE THROUGH)
1 FREE
1 STILL
1 / Mai \
" IrAViLrf)
J
FIXED
STILL
'
,/
Limo
iddilion
/
/
w\
\ /
SETTLING BASIN
BYPRODUCT COKEMAKING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
Dilution Woter
to Optimiie Bioiudation
BAT- I
SCRUBBERS
ON
PUSHING
X
Slowdown Replaces
Up To SOGPT of
Dilution Woler
Clorifier Effluenl
la Coke Quenching
Ope/aliont(Where
il Recycles to
Eilinclioo. Omll
Carbon Addillon..
SETTLING BASIN
Eicess Slowdown
lo Quench Slalion
-------
SDBCATEGOBY SOMMARY DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: By-Eroduct Cok.emak.ing
Model Size-TPD : 3600
Oper. Days/Tear: 365
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waita Flov*
(MOD)
Model Plant:
59 Active Plants:
Investment (Model) $ z 10"3
Annual Coat (Model) $ x 1Q~*
$/Ton of Productu;
0.603
36.9
13.9 MED from direct discharge after treatment
10.1 MOD indirect via POTW
12.9 HGD to quenching operations
BAT
Peed
5718
1782
1.36
BAT Alternatives
871
161.5
0.123
923
407.0
0.310
653
118.7
0.090
Wastevater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH, (Units)
Concentrations, ng/1
Raw
Waste Loads
168
7-10
(2)
(4)
Aamonia 600
Oil & Grease 75
Phenolic Compounds(4AAP) 300
Sulfide 150
Thiocyanate 480
Total Suspended Solids 50
3 Acrylonitrile 1.2
4 Benzene* 35
21 2,4,6-Trichloropbenol 0.1
22 Parachloronetacresol 0.6
23 Chloroform* 0.2
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol 5
35 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.2
36 2,6-Oinitrotoluene 0.1
38 Ethylbenzene* 3
39 Fluoranthene* 0.8
54 Isophorone 0.5
55 Naphthalene* 30
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.12
64 Pentachlorophenol 0.12
65 Phenol* 275
66 through 71
Phthalates, Total* 5
72 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.3
73 Benzo(a)pyrene* 0.1
76 Chrysene* 0.4
77 Acenaphthylene* 3.5
80 Fluorene* 0.6
84 Pyrene* 0.6
86 Toluene* 25
114 Antimony* 0.2
115 Arsenic* 2.0
121 Cyanides* 50
125 Selenium* 0.2
126 Silver 0.1
128 Zinc* 0.2
131 Xylene* 12
100
10
0.5
1.0
2.0
80
0.1
0.5
0.02
0.05
0.2
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.4
1
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.4
5.0
0.1
0.08
0.1
0.2
153
6-9
15
5
0.025
0.4
1.0
20
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.25
2.5
.10
.06
.10
(4)
0.
0.
0.
0.02
153
6-9
15
5
0.025
0.3
0.5
20
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.25
2.0
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.01
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed Costs.
(2) Flow is measured downstream of free stills, and includes 6 GPT of steam condensate
from that source. True raw waste flow is 162 GPT.
(3) Flow includes up to 50 GPT of dilution water to optimize conditions for bio-
oxidation and 7 GPT of line slurry and steam condensate.
(4) Flow reduction achieved by recycling barometric condenser wastewater, with 41 blowdown
(3 GPT) to treatment. Also, up to 50 GPT of dilution water is replaced with blowdowns
from air pollution control scrubbers on preheating, charging or pushing operations.
Any excess blowdown flow (from pushing only) is disposed of via quenching.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
348
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY^
rlow (MGD)
aspended Solids
il & Grease
Ammonia, as N
Eyanides, Total
phenolic Compounds
Sulfide
-1iiocyanate
jxic Metals
J.OXLC Organics*
Raw Waste
Load
36.9
s 2,807
4,211
33,690
2,807
nds 16,845
8,423
26,951
152
6,654
BAT Feed
49.0
5,915
756
7,514
421
40
149
1,009
58.2
309
BAT-1/BCT
34.1
1,037
271
861
171
3.6
91.4
647
23.8
37.2
BAT-2
34.1
1,037
259
766
99.5
1.7
15.6
383
22.8
23.2
BAT-3
Plodel Plant (3600 TPD)
"ipital
inual
Subcategory (59 Plants)
apital
Annual
(2)
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT Feed BAT-1
5.72 0.87
1.78 0.16
337.48 51.33
105.02 9.44
BAT-2
0.92
0.41
54.28
24.19
BAT-3
0.65
0.12
38.35
7.08
: Not including phenolic compounds and cyanides, which are listed separately above.
(1) Loads based upon 61 active by-product coke plants:
59 using biological treatment systems
2 using physical-chemical treatment systems
I) Option costs are shown for the 59 biological treatment systems only. The two
physical/chemical treatment systems differ significantly from the model plant.
349
-------
BPT
MODEL PL ANT-4000 TPD
SINTERING
WASTEWATER 1
U)
Ul
^ RECYCLE10
| pH*
POLYMER (CuNthOL
1 1 1
*l >
1
MAPI HIM
r 1 L 1 tn
SOLIDS
BAT-I
^ nH CONTROI ^
w/ACID
BAT- 2
1.1 ML. bULr lUt
I I W/ACID
' 1 1
PI A ni P IPR
^ I
PAT ~3 n|i rnMTROI *
. i IMF w/ACID
LIME j SULMOE
" ALKALINE , i r,,Trn- * * 7"
CHLORINATION """
(I) RECYCLE IS 93% AT BPT.
RECYCLE IS INCREASED TO 93% AT BAT.
*-pH CONTROL WITH ACID IS BPT STEP WHICH IS TRANSFERRED FOR INCORPORATION
WITH BAT TREATMENT. THE COST OF THIS STEP IS NOT INCLUDED WITH THE
BAT COSTS.
i m c.
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
pH CONTROL
w/ACID
SULFIDE
75 gal/ton
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS; 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Sintering
Model Size-TPD : 4000
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x_10
Annual Cost $ x lrt~
$/Ton of Product
-3
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH
Concentrations (mg/1)^
Cyanide, Total
Phenols(4 AAP)
Fluoride
Chlorine (Residual)
Oil and Grease
Suspended Solids
39 Fluoranthene
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
65 Phenol*
72 Benzo-a-anthracene
73 Benzo-a-pyrene
76 Chrysene
84 Pyrene*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
126 Silver*
128 Zinc*
Raw
Waste
Level
1460
6-12
0.20
0.20
6
245
6100
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.70
0.10
0.60
0.50
0.20
1.00
(2)
Raw Waste Flows (MGD)
Model Plant: 5.84
21 Plants: 122.6
BAT
Feed
3843
1774.5
1.22
100
6-9
0.50
2.0
30
-
10
50
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.35
0.10
0.35
0.35
0.20
0.35
BAT 1
243
44.6
0.031
75
6-9
0.50
2.0
30
-
5
15
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
BAT 2
565
108.2
0.074
EFFLUENT
75
6-9
0.50
2.0
10
-
5
15
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
BAT 3
631
123.7
0.085
QUALITY
75
6-9
0.25
0.10
10
0.5
5
15
0.10
0.025
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
BAT 4
2535
939.8
0.644
75
6-9
0.25
0.05
10
0.5
5
15
0.01
0.025
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT feed costs.
(2) Levels reflect the discharge from a once-through wastewater system.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
352
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
Flow (MGD)
S
wj.lS
Toxic Metals ,. .
tic Organic s
uoride
Cyanide (T)
enols
Raw Waste BAT
Load Feed
122.6 8.4
1,138,650 639.3
45,730 127.9
616.0 24.29
9.33 1.79
1,120 383.6
37.33 6.39
37.33 25.57
BAT-1
6.3
143.8
47.94
6.71
1.34
287.7
4.79
19.18
BAT-2
6.3
143.8
47.94
6.71
1.34
95.89
4.79
19.18
BAT-3.
6.3
143.8
47.94
6.71
1.34
95.89
2.40
0.96
OPTION COSTS
Model Plant (4000 TPD)
.768, jnt
Annua 1
ibcategory (21 Plants)
Investment
nnual
(MILLIONS OF
BAT
Feed
3.84
1.77
80.70
37.26
DOLLARS)
BAT-1
0.18
0.033
3.76
0.69
BAT-2
0.52
0.099
10.90
2.07
BAT-3
0.56
0.11
11.66
2.28
BAT-4
6.3
143.8
47.94
6.71
0.48
95.89
2.40
0.48
BAT-4
2.46
0.92
51.64
19.41
.) Does not include phenols and the individual phenolic compounds.
353
-------
BPT Model Plant - 6 000 TPO
IRONMAKING
Recycle"1
1 Polymer
How . 1
Wtatewoler f v ^| ' ^ COOLING
[ THICKENER TOWERS f
^r^"^ 125 gol/lon '
1
|
^ VACUUM
FILTER
Ul
Solids
1
(1) RECYCLE 18 W% AT BPT.
RECYCLE 18 INCREASED TO 98% AT BAT.
BAT-!
EVAPORATION No Wotlewler
ON SLAG Oi«rwrg«
a 70 gal/Ion
BAT-2
-*» FILTERS » To Oitchargi
BAT- 3
OSullidi
BAT-4
i I- 1 ** Control
I Llmt -* WAeld
CHLORINATION ri ARIFIFB 1
4 1
BAT-5
w/Acid
, r,LTrft3 -fc OECHLORINATION 1 ^ ACTIVATED
' CHLORINATION " rl Ajrflfa \ r"-TC"»S » OtCHLWONATION | » CARBON H
!*,
To
1 DlKhargt
^ '
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS; 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcaeegory: Ironmaking
Model Size-TPD : 6000
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Costs
Investment CosC $ x^lO
Annual Cose 3 x 107
S/Ton of ProduccUJ
Waatevater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH
Concentrations, pg/1
Ammoaia (as M)
Cyanide, Tocal
Phenols (4AAP)
Fluoride
Chlorine (Residual)
Suspended Solids
9 Hexachlorobenzene
31 2,4-Qichlorophenol
34 2,4-OimethyIphenol
39 Fluoranchene*
65 Phenol*
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
76 Chrysene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
125 Selenium*
126 Silver*
128 Zinc*
Raw
Waste .
Level12'
3200
6-10
10
10
2.5
10
-
1900
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.65
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.50
0.20
5.0
0.25
0.06
0.01
20
BAT
Feed
9542
1764.4
0.306
Model Plane:
54 Planes:
BAT 1 BAT 2
213 326
40.4 59.7
0.018 0.027
19
1036
BAT 3
394 .
75.2
0.034
.2
.8
BAT 4
820
165.0
0.075
BAT 5
3001
1096.5
0.501
Effluent Quality
125
6-9
103
15
4
20
-
50
0.01
0.05
0.25
0.08
3.20
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.10
0.50
0.15
0.06
0.01
5.0
0 70
6-9
50
2.5
3
20
-
15
0.01
0.05
0.25
0.08
3.20
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.10
0.30
0.15
0.06
0.01
4.5
70
6-9
50
2.5
3
20
-
15
0.01
0.05
0.25
0.03
3.20 -
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.25
70
6-9
1.0 .
1.0
O.I
10
0.5
15
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.30
70
6-9
1.0." ' .
r.o
0.05
10
0.5
15
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.30
(1) BAT coses are incremental over BAT feed coacs.
(2) Levels represent a once-through uasteuacer syscem.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
356
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Flow (MGD)
SS
Toxic Metals ... -.
V 1 )
"oxic Organics
>nia (as N)
. luoride
Cyanide, Total
.lenols
Raw Waste
Load
1,037
2,998,300
41,280
363
15,780
15,780
15,780
3,945
BAT
Feed
40.5
3082
385.9
14.18
6349
1233
924.6
246.6
BAT-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BAT-2
22.7
517.8
190.2
7.94
1726
690.4
86.30
103.6
BAT-3
22.7
517.8
31.41
7.94
1726
690.4
86.30
103.6
BAT-4
22.7
517.8
38.32
7.94
34.52
345.2
34.52
3.45
BAT-5
22.7
517.8
38.32
4.14
34.52
345.2
34.52
1.73
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF
Model Plant
6000 Tons/Day)
Investment
Annual
Subcategory
'54 Plants)
investment
A.nnua 1
BAT
Feed
9.54
1.76
515.27
95.28
BAT-1
0.21
0.040
11.50
2.18
DOLLARS)
BAT-2
0.33
0.060
17.60
3.22
BAT-3
0.39
0.075
21.28
4.06
BAT-4
0.82
0.16
44.28
8.91
BAT-5
3.00
1.10
162.05
59.21
1) Does not include phenols or any of the individual phenolic compounds.
357
-------
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE (SEMI-WET)
BPT
MODEL PLANT-5300 TPD
RECYCLE 100%
RAW
WASTEWATERS
Ul
r
COAGULANT
AID
CLARIFIER
OR
THICKENER
SOLIDS
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Basic Oxygen Furnace
: Semi-Wet
: Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 5300
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
123 Mercury
128 Zinc*
0.04
1.50
0.003
1.00
Raw Waste Flows (MGD)
Model Plant: 1.91
10 Semi-Wet Plants: 19.08
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x.10
Annual Cost $ x 10"
$/Ton of Product
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
-3
Raw
Waste Level
360
10-12
375
10
BPT
1462
297.5
0.154
BPT
Level
0
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
360
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE (SEMI-WET) SUBCATEGORY
Raw Waste
Load BPT
Flow (MGD) 19.08 0
Suspended Solids 10,890
Fluoride 290.4
Toxic Metals 73.85
Toxic Organics (1)
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (5300 tons/day) BPT
Inves tment 1.46
Annual 0.30
Subcategory (10 plants)
Investment 14.62
Annual 2.98
(1) No toxic organic pollutants were found at significant levels (e.g., >0.010 mg/1)
361
-------
BASIC OYXGEN FURNACE (WET) - SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
BPT
I pH CONTROL
(I)
MODEL PLANT-7
WASTEWATERS
j
*
)
H CONTROL WITH I
RANSFERRED FOR 1
40OTPD
95^ RECYCLE '
<
. 1 i "D *.
CLARIFIER /
OR 50 GAL/TON '
^THICKENER^
j
VACUUM
FILTER
SOLIDS
\CIO IS A BPT STEP WHICH IS
NCORPORATION WITH BAT TREATMENT.
BAT - I
| pll CONTROL in
1 WITH ACIIT
BAT - 2
rLIME i pH CONTROL.,.
I WITH ACIDU)
1
^X. .XV-INCLINED
\x^ PLATE
I SEPARATOR
BAT -3
rSULFIDE i pH CONTROL...
j WITH ACID1"
(I)
THE COST OF THIS STEP IS NOT INCLUDED WITH THE
BAT COSTS.
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet)
Suppressed Combustion
Carbon & Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 7400
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
el Costs
Investment Cost $ x.10
lual Cost $ x '""
Con of Product
-3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Plant: 7.4
6 Suppressed Combustion Plants: 44.4
BAT
Feed
3170
431.1
0.160
BAT Alternatives
108
20.9
0.008
423
81.3
0.030
171
35.2
0.013
itewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
icentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
J Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
) Copper*
I Lead*
124 Nickel*
"") Silver*
} Zinc*
Raw
Waste Loads
1000
8-11
1500
15
0.10
0.50
0.25
15.00
0.50
0.025
5.00
Effluent Quality
50
6-9
50
15
0.10
0.10
0.15
3.50
0.25
0.025
1.00
50
6-9
15
15
0.10
0.10
0.15
2.00
0.25
0.025
0.90
50
6-9
15
10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.10
0.025
0.30
50
6-9
15
15
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.025
0.25
I) BAT costs are incremental over BAT feed costs.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
363
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE (WET) SUBCATEGORY; SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Fluoride
Raw Waste
Load
44.4
101,370
1,445
(1)
1,014
BAT Feed
2.22
168.9
17.32
(1)
50.68
BAT No. 1
2.22
50.68
11.91
(1)
50.68
BAT No. 2
2.22
50.68
3.46
(1)
33.79
BAT No.
2.22
50.68
2.79
(1)
50.68
Model Plant (7400 Tons/Day)
Investment
Annual
Subcategory (6 Plants)
Investment
Annua1
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT Feed BAT No. 1
3.17
0.43
19.02
2.59
0.11
0.021
0.65
0.13
BAT No. 2
0.42
0.081
2.54
0.49
BAT No.
0.17
0.035
1.03
0.21
(1) No toxic organic pollutants were found at significant levels (i.e., >0.010 mg/1).
364
-------
! AS C OXYGE* FURNACE WET)-QPEN COMBUS'O^
BAT FEED
pH CONTROL1
(I)
MODEL PLANT -9
WASTEWATERS
H CONTROL WITH /
rRANSFERRED FOR 1
IOOTPD BAT-I
95%. RECYCLE 1 bA 1 1
* 1
1
1 A1D * /
CLARIFIER
OR
VACUUM
FILTER
SOLIDS
ICID IS A BPT STEP WHICH IS
NCORPORATION WITH BAT TREATMENT.
H>5 GAL/TON , pH CONTROL. .
1 WITH ACID1"
BAT - 2
rLIME 1 pH CONTROL..
J WITH ACID<'>
1
^x. .XV-INCLINED
\/^ PLATE
J SEPARATOR
BAT -3
rSULFIDE i pH CONTROLi,,
WITH ACID*"
THE COST OF THIS STEP IS NOT INCLUDED WITH THE
BAT COSTS.
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet)
Open Combustion
Carbon & Specialty
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~
$/Ton of ProductU'
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
23 Chloroform*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
123 Mercury*
124 Nickel*
125 Selenium*
126 Silver*
127 Thallium*
128 Zinc*
-3
Raw
Waste Level
1100
8-11
4200
15
0.05
0.05
0.50
5.00
0.50
1.00
0.01
0.50
0.025
0.20
0.10
5.00
s (Wet) Model Size-TPl
Oper. Days/Ye*
Turns /Day
Raw Waste Flows
Model Plant:
14 Open
BAT
Feed
5217
1360.5
0.410
65
6-9
50
15
0.05
0.05
0.30
1.00
0.25
0.50
0.01
0.30
0.025
0.15
0.10
1.00
) : 9100
ir: 365
: 3
(MGD)
10.01
Combustion Plants: 140.1
BAT
1
252
48.9
0.015
Effluent
65
6-9
15
15
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.80
0.15
0.30
0.005
0.30
0.025
0.15
0.10
0.90
Alternatives
2
578
113.8
0.034
Quality
65
6-9
15
10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.10
0.25
0.005
0.10
0.025
0.15
0.10
0.30
3
336
68.
0..-1
65
6-9
15
15
0.05
o.r
o.:
O.lv,
0.10
o.:
0.(
0.10
O.f
0.
O.lu
o.?c
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT feed costs.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
366
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE (WET) SUBCATEGORY: OPEN COMBUSTION
Raw Waste
Load
140.1
895,860
2748
10.67
3200
BAT Feed
8.3
630.2
46.45
0.63
189.1
BAT No. 1
8.3
189.1
38.82
0.63
189.1
BAT No. 2
8.3
189.1
18.02
0.63
126.0
Flow (MGD)
Toxic Metals
" ;ic Organics
loride
NOTE: Incidental organics removal expected at BAT.
BAT No. 3
8.3
189.1
13.61
0.63
189.1
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT Feed BAT No. 1
lei Plant (9100 Tons/Day)
Investment
ual
Subcategory (14 Plants)
Arestment
Annual
5.22
1.36
73.04
19.05
0.25
0.049
3.53
0.68
BAT No. 2
0.58
0.11
8.09
1.59
BAT No. 3
0.34
0.069
4.70
0.96
367
-------
BPT
Model Plant-6 600 TPO
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE (SEMI-WET)
Row Woslewater-
-pH Control
with Lime
U)
cn
CLARIF1ER
or
THICKENER
VACUUM
FILTER
T
SOLIDS
Recycle 100%
Coagulant
Aid
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Open Hearth Furnace
Semi-Wet
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 6600
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
121 Cyanides, Total*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.6
Raw Waste Flows
Model Plant: 7.26
1 Semi-Wet Plant: 7.26
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x.lO
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Product
-3
BPT
3499
848.6
0.352
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
Raw
Waste Level
1100
2-3
500
260
BPT
Level
0
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
370
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE (SEMI-WET) SUBCATEGORY
Raw Waste
Load BPT
Flow (MGD) 7.26 0
TSS 5525
Fluoride 2873
Toxic Metals 8.95
Cyanide (T) 0.44
Toxic Organics (1)
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (6600 tons/day) BPT
Investment 3.50
Annual 0.85
Subcategory (1 plant)
Investment 3.50
Annual 0.85
(1) No toxic organic pollutants were found at significant levels (i.e., >0.010 mg/1)
371
-------
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE (WET)
BPT
Model Plan! -6,700 TPO
., , Recycle 94% «^ 1
pH Control
with Lime
1 Aid
^TH.CKENER^1109^'0"^
1 i
VACUUM
., FILTER
J l
1
SOLIDS
1
BAT- 1
BAT- 2
i Lime
1
III!
I//////////J
^X. ./INCLINED
\^ PLATE
SEPARATOR
t» '
BAT -3
rSulfide
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Open Hearth Furnace
: Wet
: Carbon & Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 6700
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows (MGD)
Model Plant: 12.7
3 Wet Plants: 38.2
ttodel Costs
Investment Cost $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~
Ton of Product
BAT
Feed
5515
.1270.6
0.520
BAT Alternatives
287
56.1
0.023
787
380.8
0.156
383
79.3
0.032
Jstewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
Raw
Waste Loads
1900
3-7
1100
110
50
100
Effluent Quality
110
6-9
110
6-9
110
6-9
110
6-9
15
100
15
20
15
100
Copper
122 Lead
Zinc*
2.0
0.6
200
0.25
0.50
5.00
0.15
0.25
4.50
0.10
0.15
0.30
0.10
0.15
0.25
BAT costs are incremental over BAT feed costs.
Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyed.
373
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
OPEN HEARTH (WET) SUBCATEGORY
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Fluoride
Raw Waste
Load
38.19
63,940
11,780
(1)
6,394
BAT Feed
2.21
168.3
19.35
(1)
336.5
BAT No. 1
2.21
50.48
16.49
CD
336.5
BAT No. 2
2.21
50.48
1.85
(D
67.31
BAT NOJ
I
2.21
50.48
1.68
(1)
336.5
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (6700 Tons/Day)
Investment
Annual
Subcategory (3 Plants)
Investment
Annua1
BAT Feed BAT No. 1
5.52
1.27
16.54
3.81
0.29
0.056
0.86
0.17
BAT No. 2
0.79
0.38
2.36
1.14
BAT No«3
0.38
0.079
1.15
0.24
(1) No toxic organic pollutants were found at significant levels (e.g. >0.010 mg/1).
374
-------
ELEC'^C FURNACE (SEMI-Wi"
BPT
Model Plant -3 100 TPD
Recycle 100%
Raw Wostewoter-
-j
o;
CLARIFIER
or
THICKENER
VACUUM
FILTER
T
SOLIDS
Coagulant
Aid
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Electric Arc Furnace
: Semi-Wet
: Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 3100
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows (MGD)
Model Plants: 0.46
3 Semi-Wet Plants: 1.40
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x_10
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Product
-3
BPT
970
211.1
0.187
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
Raw
Waste Level
150
6-9
2200
30
BPT
Level
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
128 Zinc*
2
30
125
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
376
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (SEMI-WET) SUBCATEGORY
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Fluoride
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Raw Waste
Load
1.40
4671
63.70
333.4
(1)
BPT
0
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (3100 tons/day)
Investment
Annual
Subcategory (3 plants)
Investment
Annual
BPT
0.97
0.21
2.91
0.63
(1) No toxic organic pollutants were found at significant levels (i.e, >0.010 mg/l).
377
-------
ELECTRIC FURNACE (WET)
BPT
Model Plonl-1,800 TPD
Raw
Walsewaler
Recycle 98%
CO
-J
oo
BAT- I
SO gal/Ion
INCLINED
PLATE
SEPARATOR
gal/ton
50 gol/lon
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Electric Arc Furnace
Wet
Carbon & Specialty
Model Size-TPD :
Oper. Days/Year:
Turns/Day :
1800
Raw Waste Flows:
(MGD)
Model Plant: 3.78
9 Electric Arc Furnace Plants: 34.0
odel Costs
Investment Cost $ x-10
nnual Cost $ x 'rt~
/Ton of Product
-3
BAT
Feed
2689
925.2
1.41
BAT Alternatives
102
18.7
0.028
239
44.9
0.068
126
23.9
0.036
"Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
oncentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
-r Benzene*
39 Fluoranthene
3 4-Nitrophenol
'4 Pentachlorophenol
84 Pyrene
14 Antimony*
15 Arsenic*
i!8 Cadmium*
'19 Chromium*
20 Copper*
_22 Lead*
124 Nickel*
26 Silver*
28 Zinc*
Raw
Waste Loads
2100
6-9
3400
50
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.70
2.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
30.0
0.05
0.06
125
Effluent Quality
50
6-9
50
6-9
50
6-9
50
6-9
50
50
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.10
0.10
2.0
0.50
0.25
2.5
0.05
0.06
30
15
50
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.10
0.10
1.9
0.40
0.15
1.50
0.05
0.06
25
15 .
20
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.30
0.05
0.06
0.35
15
50
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.020
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.06
0.25
\1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT feed costs.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
379
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (WET) SUBCATEGORY
Raw Waste
Load
34.02
176,050
8,741
4.40
2,589
BAT Feed
0.81
61.64
43.84
0.10
61.64
BAT No. 1
0.81
18.49
36.07
0.10
61.64
BAT No. 2
0.81
18.49
1.62
0.10
24.66
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Fluoride
NOTE: Incidental organics removal expected at BAT.
BAT No. 3
0.81
18.49
1.25
0.10
61.64
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT Feed BAT No. 1
Model Plant (1800 Tons/Day)
Investment
Annua1
Subcategory (9 Plants)
Investment
Annual
2.69
0.93
24.20
8.33
0.10
0.019
0.92
0.17
BAT No. 2
0.24
0.045
2.15
0.40
BAT No. 3
0.13
0.024
1.13
0.22
380
-------
VACJUM DEGASS vJG
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT
MODEL PLANT-1200 TONS/DAY
RAW
WASTEWATERS
U)
03
98% RECYCLE
COOLING
TOWER
25 GAL/TON-
BAT- I
FILTER
QAT-2
n
OkD
25 GAL/TON
FILTER
-BJ-25 GAL/TON
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Vacuum Degassing
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD :
Oper. Days/Year:
Turns/Day :
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x.10
Annual Cost $ x 107
$/Ton of ProductU;
-3
Raw Wastewater Flows:
M6D
Model Plant: 1.68
34 Vacuum Degassing Plants: 57.1
BAT Feed
1116
225.1
0.51
BAT Alternatives
32
5.9
0.013
66
12.7
0.01
I
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
Raw
Waste
Loads
1400
6-9
80
1.0
0.20
5.0
0.03
5.0
50
0.35
0.10
0.35
0.03
0.35
Effluent Quality
25
6-9
25
6-9
25
6-9
15
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.03
0.10
15
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.03
0.10
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT feed costs.
382
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS
(TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
VACUUM DEGASSING
Raw Waste BAT BAT BAT
Load Feed No.l No.2
*\ov (MGD) 57.1 1.02 1.02 1.02
^S 6955 77.62 23.29 23.29
Metals 976 1.83 0.67 0.67
ganics (1) (1) (1) (1)
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT BAT BAT
Feed No.l No.2
Model Plant (1200 tons/day)
ivesr --Hit 1.12 0.032 0.066
Annual 0.23 0.0059 0.013
*s
ibcategory (34 Plants)
Tnvesr ^.nt 37.94 1.09 2.24
mual 7.65 0.20 0.43
(.I) No organic pollutants were found at significant levels (e.g. >10 ppb),
383
-------
U)
05
U1
BPT
RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
3,400 gal/ton-
SOLIDS.
Oil
CONTINUOUS CASTING
TREATMENT MODEL SIN VIA
-!*
FLAT BED
FILTERS
125 gol/ton-
(I) RECYCLE IS 96.3% AT BPT.
RECYCLE IS INCREASED TO 93.3 % AT BAT.
BAT-I
L25 gnl
/ton
BAT -2
r
SULFIOE
/ / / /
25 gal/ton
25 gal/ton
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY TABLE
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Continuous Casting
Carbon/Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 1400
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Plant
50 Plants
4.76
238.0
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x
Annual Cost $ x 107
$/Ton of Product^'
,-3
BAT Feed
2304
478.1
0.94
BAT Alternatives
87
15.6
0.031
109
20.0
0.039
Wastewater Pollutants
Flow (gal/ton)
pH, Units
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
3400
6-9
60
25
50
15
Effluent Quality
25
6-9
25
6-9
25
6-9
15
5
15
5
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
0.65
0.11
0.090
0.080
0.70
0.65
0.11
0.090
0.080
0.70
0.10
0.10
0.090
0.080
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.090
0.080
0.10
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed Costs.
386
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS
(TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENTS COSTS
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Oils
Toxic Metals
Raw Waste
Load
238
21,735
9,056
590.5
BAT
Feed
1.8
133.1
40.0
4.3
BAT
No.l
1.8
40.0
13.3
1.3
BAT
No. 2
1.8
40.0
13.3
1.3
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (1400 tons/day)
Investment
Annual
BAT
Feed
2.30
0.48
BAT
No.l
0.087
0.016
BAT
No. 2
0.11
0.020
Subcategory (50 plants)
Investment
Annual
115.20
23.90
4.35
0.78
5.45
1.00
387
-------
HOT FORMING SUBCA ' I
BAT MODEL-ALTERf A IV [
MODEL I
RECYCLE
BH PSP V
i _ j
(I) 1
BAT
FEED
LEVEL
C*J
ROUGHING
I
FILTERS
OIL
VACUUM
FILTER
MODEL 2
I
ROUGHING
CLARIFIER
OIL
MODEL 3
RECYCLE «*--)
. L _,
ffl psp L
L_ ,. J
I
OIL
VACUUM
FILTER
-------
HOT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
DAT MODEL-ALTERNATIVE 2
10
o
MODEL 1 BA
i-t
LEV
RECYCLE *9 1 «3 \l) ~~\
1 ]
r ~! .ROUGHING"1 ' ,
^^i n r I? L , ft^l i 1 .. MhJ IT 1 1 T p n o 1
H PoP -- -"*« cLARIFIER f W, rlLTCnj
II
i 1
OIL VACUUM
FILTER
MODEL 2
W PSP jH ^LJCLARIF.ERJ^ « FILTERS J-
r ~r
OIL VACUUM
FILTER
MODEL 3
RECYCLED" ~] *> (I) -j
r- -L-, ^- '
| | fcLARIFIER^ !
f* PSP ' - ^l OR '
L_ J l_ LAGOON _J
T
ED
COOLING fcl?,////!. », FIU
* TOWER «* Y///A * FIU
////|
or/* vr*i IT ^a n n irinir
COOLING . M////1 c. FIL1
* TOWER *" f/// * nU
' ' /''I
HtLTV,Lt*S i -SULllDE
COOLING »^
TOWER "" |>^. ^ '."
'ERS P^ TO
DISCHARGE
rERS 1> TO
DISCHARGE
FERS «* TO
DISCHARGE
OIL
(I) ALTERNATE RECYCLE POSITION FOR HOT WORKINC PIPE AND TUBE OPERATIONS
I ' COMPONENTS
»A COMPONENTS
-------
Subcategory:
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Model Type
Hot Forming
Primary
Carbon Without Scarfers
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
(1) (2)
4400
260 260
3 3
Type
~2
Model Applied
Flow (MGD)
10.1
15.4
-"-tal Flow (28 Plants)
No. of
Plants
0
1
27.
28
425.9 MGD
B>del Costs
vesf-int Cost $ x,10
3
nual Cost $ x 10
f /Ton of Production
itewater Parameters
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
119 Chromium
1 Copper
I Lead
124 Nickel
3 Zinc
-3
Raw
Waste
Levels
2300
6-9
2190
84
2.9
2.9
1.5
1.4
3.2
Model 3
BAT
Feed
1971
-1329
-0.76
BAT
Feed
2300 (1150)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
(1)
(10)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
,.) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
TE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
BAT 1
2666 2531
544.4 510.6
0.48 0.29
BAT 1
90
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
BAT 2
2941 2572
596.6 520.8
0.52 0.30
BAT 2
90
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
391
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Hot Forming
Primary
Carbon With Scarfers
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
Model Type
(1) (2)
2200 4400
260 260
3 3
(3)
6700
260
3
Model Model Applied
Type Flow (MGD)
1 7.5
2 15.0
3 22.8
No. of
Plants
1
2
28
31
Total Flow (31 Plants)
675.9 MGD
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x 10"
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Production
Model :
BAT
Feed
2852
-2515
-1.44
BAT 1
1380 3386
277.6 713.2
0.49 0.62
3365
682.7
0.39
1655
329.8
0.58
BAT 2
3720 3412
777.6 695
0.68 O.tu
Raw
Waste
Wastewater Parameters Levels
Flow (GPT) 3400
pH, Units 6-9
Suspended Solids 2970
Oil & Grease 56
119 Chromium 3.9
120 Copper 3.9
122 Lead 2.1
124 Nickel 1.8
128 Zinc 4.4
BAT
Feed
1700( ^ (1700)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
(2)
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
(10)
0.1
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
BAT 1
140
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
BAT 2
140
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
(1) The flow for Model 2 is 3400 GPT. All other values apply to Models 1 and 2,
(2) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
NOTE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
392
-------
Subcategory:
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Hot Forming
Primary
Specialty Without Scarfers
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
Model Type
(1)
260
3
(2)
3000
260
3
(3)
1350
260
3
Type
2
Model Applied
Flow (MGD)
6.9
3.1
"-tal Flow (15 Plants)
No. of
Plants
0
1
14
15
50.3 MGD
jdel Costs
vestment Cost $ x 10
aual Cost $ x 10
v/Ton of Production
-3
Model :
BAT
Feed
998
-92.0
-0.26
3tewater Parameters
119
3
I
124
3
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Raw
Waste
Levels
2300
6-9
2190
84
2.9
2.9
1.5
4.9
1.6
BAT
Feed
( i 1
2300 (llSOr
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
5 (10)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
BAT 1
1231
2155 910
435.9 176.9
0.56 0.50
BAT 1
90
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
BAT 2
2
2366
475.7
0.61
BAT 2
90
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3
937
182.4
0.52
) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
TE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
393
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Hot Forming
Primary
Specialty With Scarfers
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
Model Type
(1)
260
3
(2)
260
3
Model
Type
1
2
3
Model Applied
Flow (MGD)
4.6
No. of
Plants
0
0
3
3
Total Flow (3 Plants)
13.8 MGD
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x,10
Annual Cost $ x 10~
$/Ton of Production
-3
Model 3
BAT
Feed
1193
-328.5
-0.94
1
-
-
BAT 1
2
_^
-
-
3 1
1150
228.8
0.65 -
BAT 2
2
-
-
3
1179
234.9
O.t
Raw
Waste
Wastewater Parameters Levels
119
120
122
124
128
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
3400
6-9
2970
56
3.9
3.9
2.1
6.6
2.2
BAT
Feed
1700
6-9
30
10
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
BAT 1
140
6-9
15
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1
BAT 2
140
6-9
15
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1
NOTE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
394
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Hot Forming
Section
Carbon
Model Type
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
(1)
970
260
3
(2)
3340
260
3
(3)
2900
260
3
Type
Model Applied
Flow (MGD)
5.0
17.0
14.8
"-tal Flow (66 Plants)
No. of
Plants
2
12
52
66
983.6 MGD
ant Cost $ x_10
lual Cost $ x 10
9 /Ion of Production
Raw
Waste
;tewater Parameters Levels
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
1 ' 9 Chromium
) Copper
2 Lead
124 Nickel
3 Zinc
5100
6-9
990
38
1.3
1.3
0.7
0.6
1.5
Model 3
BAT
Feed
2138
-208.6
-0.28
BAT
Feed
2550(1) (2550)(2)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
5 (10)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
BAT 1
1 2 31
1018 3823 2531 1182
204.5 791.1 510.6 235.3
0.81 0.91 0.68 0.93
BAT 1
200
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
BAT 2
2 3
4205 2572
864.2 520.7
1.0 0.69
BAT 2
200
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
v.i) The flow for Model 2 is 5100 GPT. All other values apply to Models 1 and 2.
O) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
TE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
395
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Hot Forming
Section
Specialty
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
Model Type
Model Model Applied
Type Flow (MGD)
1 5.1
2 5.8
3 4.5
Total Flow (19 Plants)
No. of
Plants
1
3
15
19
90.0 MGD
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x.10
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Production
-3
Model 3
BAT
Feed
1139
-78.9
-0.22
BAT 1
1018 1701 1146
204.5 343.5 228.0
0.49 0.73 0.63
1182
235.3
0.57
BAT 2
1938 1173
387.5 233. 1
0.83 O.
Raw
Waste
Wastewater Parameters Levels
Flow (GPT) 3200
pH, Units 6-9
Suspended Solids 1580
Oil & Grease 60
119 Chromium 2.1
120 Copper 2.1
122 Lead 1.1
124 Nickel 3.5
128 Zinc 1.2
BAT
Feed
1600( ^ (1600)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
5 (10)
(2)
0.1
0,
0,
0.
0.1
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
BAT 1
130
6-9
15
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
BAT 2
130
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
(1) The flow for Model 2 is 3200 GPT. All other values apply to Models 1 and 2,
(2) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
NOTE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
396
-------
Subcategory:
Hot Forming
Flat
Hot Strip & Sheet
Carbon-Specialty
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
Model Type
(1) (2)
13,200 5900
260 260
3 3
Model Model Applied
Flow (MGD)
84.5
37.8
37.1
1 Flow (42 Plants)
Model Costs
No. of
Plants
2
5
11
42
1656.5 MGD
Model 3
BAT
Feed
jtment Cost $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
$ /rn-»n of Production
-3
6088
454.7
0.30
BAT 1
BAT 2
1
7495 5754
1683 1268.4
0.49 0.83
5259 8488 6372
1120.1 1890.5 1389.2
0.74 0.55 0.91
5316
1137.3
0.75
Raw
Waste
W .ewater Parameters Levels
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
1 Chromium
1~_ Copper
122 Lead
1 Nickel
1 Zinc
BAT
Feed
6400
6-9
790
30
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.1
0.9
14480 v ' (4480)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
5 (10)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
(2)
BAT 1
260
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
BAT 2
260
6-9
15
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1
(^ The flow for Model 2 is 6400 GPT. All other values apply to Models 1 and 2.
( Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
NOTE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
397
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Hot Forming
: Flat
: Plate
: Carbon
Model Model Applied
Type Flow (MGD)
1
2 23.5
3 9.5
Total Flow (12 Plants)
Model Costs
_3
Investment Cost $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Production
Raw
Waste
Model Size
Operation
Turns/Day
No. of
Plants
0
2
10
IT
142.0 MGD
Model 3
BAT
Feed 1
2005
134.3
0.18
BAT
Wastewater Parameters Levels Feed
Flow (GPT) 3400
pH, Units 6-9
Suspended Solids 1480
Oil & Grease 56
119 Chromium 1.9
120 Copper 1.9
122 Lead 1.0
124 Nickel 0.9
128 Zinc 2.2
3400 () (2380)( 2>
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
5 (10)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
(1)
(TPD)
(Days/Yr) 260
3
BAT 1
2 3
4481 2310
966.3 464.9
0.54 0.64
BAT 1
140 ,
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Model Type
(2) (3)
6900 2800
260 260
3 3
BAT 2
1 2 3
4945 23m
1055.6 472T9
0.59 ft ^
BAT 2
140
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
(1) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
NOTE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
398
-------
abcategory:
Hot Forming
Flat
Plate
Specialty
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
Model Type
(1)
260
3
(2)
3600
260
3
Model
prype
1
2
3
Model Applied
Flow (MGD)
5.4
0.33
otal Flow (4 Plants)
No. of
Plants
0
1
3_
4
6.4 MGD
jjlodel Costs
Investment Cost $
Annual Cost $ x 10
'Ton of Production
-3
,-3
Model 3
BAT
Feed
367.4
49.3
0.86
BAT 1
1659 318
336.1 60.4
0.36 1.06
BAT 2
1
_
-
-
2
1883
377.9
0.40
3
339
64.3
1.12
wastewater Parameters
9
120
1/8
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Raw
Waste
Levels
1500
6-9
3360
130
4.4
4.4
2.3
7.4
2.5
BAT
Feed
1500 (1050)(1)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
5 (10)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
BAT 1
60
6-9
15
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
BAT 2
60
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.
0,
0.1
0.1
0.1
) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
NOTE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
399
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Hot Forming
Pipe & Tube
Carbon
Model Type
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
(1)
822
260
3
(2)
547
260
3
Model Model Applied
Type Flow (MGD)
1 4.5
2 3.0
3 5.7
Total Flow (24 Plants)
No. of
Plants
1
3
20
24
127.4 MGD
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x_10
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Production
-3
Model 3
BAT
Feed
1589
-131.0
-0.49
BAT 1
1
740
155.
0.
2
1167
0
73
233
1
.9
.64
3
1327
263
0
.1
.98
1
903
185
0
BAT
2
2
1311
.6
.87
260
1
.6
.83
3
1359
269
1
.
.00
Raw
Waste
Wastewater Parameters Levels
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
BAT
Feed
5520
6-9
210
35
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.6
1.3
2760Vi' (2760)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
5 (10)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
(2)
BAT 1
220
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
BAT 2
220
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
(1) The flow for Model 2 is 5520 GPT. All other values apply to Models 1 and 2.
(2) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
NOTE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
400
-------
ibcategory:
Hot Forming
Pipe & Tube
Specialty
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Model Size (TPD)
Operation (Days/Yr)
Turns/Day
Model Type
(1)
Model
Model Applied
Flow (MGD)
6.6
1.9
>tal Flow (6 Plants)
No. of
Plants
0
1
5_
6
16.1 MGD
nodel Costs
vestment Cost $ x.10
-3
.nual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton
of Production
»stewater Parameters
9
)
122
" ~'»
«
Flow (GPT)
pH, Units
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Raw
Waste
Levels
5520
6-9
910
35
1.2
1.2
0.6
2.0
0.7
Model 3
BAT
Feed
871.4
19.4
0.22
BAT
Feed
5520 (2760)
6-9 (6-9)
15 (30)
(1)
(10)
0.1
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(1) Model 3 BAT feed values appear in parenthesis.
TE: All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
BAT 1
2060 650
419.0 125.3
1.35 1.43
BAT 1
220
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
BAT 2
2271 675
458.8 130.2
1.48 1.48
BAT 2
220
6-9
15
5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
401
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT FORMING SUBCATEGORY
Raw Waste BAT
Load Feed BAT-1 BAT-
Flow (MGD) 4,188 2,670 167.5 167- s
TSS and Oil and Grease 6,289,895 101,822 3632.1 3632
Toxic Metals 34,820 1,670 90.8 90.8
Toxic Organics (1) (1) (1) (1
OPTION COST
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Subcategory Costs
Investment
Annual
BAT
Feed
676.96
-103.70
BAT-1
535.50
110.80
BAT-fe
554.30
lit >
(1) No toxic organic pollutants were found at average concentrations greater than 10 ppb,
402
-------
KO. i> I SCALE REMOVA
REATMENT OPTIONS
BPT
POLYMER
MODEL PLANT- 13O ton/day
o
u>
500 gal/ton
Solids to
Disposal
I
320 gal/ton
| BAT- 1
320 gal/Ion
BAT-2
r SULFIDE
REACTION TANK
BAT- 3
320 gal/ton
100% RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
CENTRIFUGE
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Scale Removal
: Kolene
: Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 130
Oper. Days/Year: 250
Turns/Day : 2
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Plant: 0.042
19 Plant Sites: 0.79
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x 10"
Annual Cost $ x '"
$/Ton of Product
BAT
Feed
506.0
96.2
2.96
BAT Alternatives
140.0
25.1
0.77
182.0
32.7
1.01
203!
461..
14.21
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
PH
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Hexavalent Chromium
320
8-12
1200
400
25
0.05
320
6-9
15
0.05
BAT Effluent Levels
320
6-9
15
0.05
23 Chloroform
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
124 Nickel*
125 Selenium*
127 Thallium*
128 Zinc*
0.03
0.10
0.025
0.01
450
2.00
2.00
0.06
0.20
0.10
0.03
0.10
0.025
0.01
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.06
0.20
0.10
0.03
0.10
0.025
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.03
0.10
0.025
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.10
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
404
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
KOLENE SCALE REMOVAL
Flow (MGD)
5S
Hex Chromium
Dxic Metals
DXIC Organics
Raw Waste
Load
0.80
1003.58
334.53
380.11
0.025
BAT
Feed
0.80
20.91
0.04
1.67
0.02
12.54
0.04
0.59
0.02
12.54
0.04
0.59
0.02
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
odel Plant (130 TPD)
Capital
mual
Subcategory (19 Plants)
apital
Annual
BAT
Feed
0.43
0.083
8.17
1.58
BAT-1
0.14
0.03
2.66
0.57
BAT-2
0.18
0.033
3.42
0.63
BAT-3
2.036
0.46
38.68
8.74
405
-------
BPT
HYDRIDE SCALE REMOVAL TREATMENT OPTIONS
POLYMERJ
O
-J
[CHLORINE | |ACIO|
P 9
11 11.11
j
oLo c>o
ODEU PLANT- 200 ton/day
I2OO gal/ton v
»-i | V fe->
^^Y^^
i
i
VACUUM
FILTER
1-
1
Disposal
BAT-I
BAT- 2
" titittt \
I/////////I
REACTION TANK
BAT- 3
I
I*
V ^-CENTRIFUGE
100 gal/ton
Process
-------
Subcategory:
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Scale Removal
Hydride
Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 200
Oper. Daya/Year: 270
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x.10
Annual Cost $ x 1
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDRIDE SCALE REMOVAL
Raw Waste
Load
0.12
67.55
1.75
0.14
BAT
Feed
0.12
3.38
0.44
0.03
BAT-1
0.12
2.03
0.14
0.03
BA
0.
2.
0.
0.
BAT-3
Flow (MGD) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0
TSS
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT
Feed BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3
Model Plant (200 TPD)
Capital 0.29 0.094 0.012 0.93
Annual 0.053 0.017 0.0023 0.17
Subcategory (6 Plants)
Capital 1.74 0.56 0.74 5.61
Annual 0.32 0.10 0.14 1.02
409
-------
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BATCH AND CONTINUOUS NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS
BPT
FUME HOOD
SCRUBBER
SLOWDOWN
SPENT PICKLE
LIQUOR
EQUALIZATION
TANK
PICKLE
WATER
FUME HOOD
SPENT PICKLE
LIQUOR
EQUALIZATION
TANK
CASCADE
BAT-I
||
V ,
- m -\ \ /
\ SETTLING /
C>O \ TANK /
EQUALIZATION t ' '
k TANK |
AIR
r ,
/-J^-v I \ SETTLING /
-, -P"*-? 1 \ TANK /
EQUALIZATION t ' '
_ TANK I
AIR
i
. , ,. . f. TO DISCHARGE
1
-». TO DISCHARGE
BAT-2
i SULFIDE
1
₯ j -* TO
* y/'//'/?/'// " riLTCn * DISCHARGE
Y/MW/
REACTION TANK
BAT -S
TO PROCESS
L-^CENTRIFUGE
-------
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BATCH AND CONTINUOUS ACID RECOVERY SYSTEMS
Spent
Pickle
Liquor
/Cool to
/ IO°C(5O°F)
FERROUS SULFATE
|I Sr-i/ HEPTAHYDRATE CRYSTALS
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: SuIfuric Acid Pickling
: Batch Type
: Carbon & Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 500
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MOD)
Model Plane:
0.53
No. of Planet: 95
Neutralization in Place: 59
Acid Recovery in Place: 4
No Treatment (Acid Recovery Required):
Total Flow for Subcategory: 50.4 MOD
32
Model Coats ($ x Id'3)
BAT Feed
BAT Alternatives
.(1)
Neutralisation System:
Investment Cost
Annual Cost
S/Ton of Productv
Acid Recovery System:
Investment Cost
Annual Cost
S/Ton of Product
7870.0
174.9
1.35
2781.0
489.6
3.77
Wastewater Parameter
Flow, gal/ton
pH, units
Raw Waste
Level
Cone.
20
<1
Rinse
380
1-6
FHS
710
1.4-1.9
Concentrations (ng/1)
Suspended Solids 870 420
Dissolved Iron 56,000 5400
Oil & Crease 150 65
115 Arsenic 0.20 0.40
118 Cadmium* 0.80 0.80
119 Chromium* 240 5.1
120 Copper* 3.7 1.2
122 Lead 0.80 0.30
124 Nickel* 25 2.0
128 Zinc* 75 21
70
130
4.5
195
2800
26
0.40
0.80
18.5
1.3
0.50
3.3
24
63.0
19.5
0.15
164.0
38.0
0.29
1413.0
271.9
2.09
No additional treatment
is necessary. BPT achieved
zero discharge.
BAT Feed
Level
360
6-9
30
1.0
10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
(2)
BAT Effluent Level
1 2 3
(2)
70
6-9
30
1.0
10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
70
6-9
15
1.0
5
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
(2) Levels for neutralization systems only. Acid recovery systems achieve zero discharge
at these levels.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
413.
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Sulfuric Acid Pickling
Continuous Type
Carbon & Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 1980
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Haste Flows (MOD)
Model Plant: 0.73
No. of Plants: 32
Neutralization in Place: 19
Acid Recovery in Place: 2
No Treatment (Acid Recovery Required):
Total Flow for Subcategory: 23.4 MGD
11
Model Costs ($ x IP*3)
Neutralization System:
Investment Cost
Annual Cost ...
5/Ton of Product
Acid Recovery System:
Investment Cost
Annual Cost
$/Ton of Product
Wastewater Parameter
BAT Feed
1421.0
397.7
0.77
5549.0
977.0
1.90
Raw Waste
Level
Cone.
Flow, gal/ton 20
pH, units <1
Concentrations (me/1)
Rinse
220
2-6
FHS
130
1.4-1.7
Total
370
BAT Alternatives
293.0
91.1
0.18
470.0
124.3
0.24
2329.0
577.0
1.12
No additional treatment
is necessary. BPT achieved
zero discharge.
BAT Feed
Level
250
6-9
(2)
BAT Effluent Level
1 2 3
(2)
55
6-9
55
6-9
115
118
119
120
122
124
128.
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Iron
Oil & Grease
Arsenic*
Cadmium*
Chromium*
Copper*
Lead*
Nickel*
Zinc*
2600
45,000
18
0.20
0.50
30
3.0
1.6
21
3.0
120
6100
12
0.07
0.10
0.70
0.90
0.35
4.6
0.65
70
130
4.5
236
6100
10
0.10
0.10
3.1
1.1
0.45
6.0
0.85
30
1.0
10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
30
1.0
10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
15
1.0
5
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
(2) Levels for neutralization systems only. Acid recovery systems achieve zero
discharge at these levels.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
414
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
SULFURIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATECORY
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Oil and Grease
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organic*
Dissolved Iron
73.8
16,643
1,673
2,936
307,894
BAT
Feed
32.9
1071
357
28.5
35.7
BAT-1
6.8
221
73.8
5.9
7.4
BAT-2
6.8
110.7
36.9
5.1
7.4
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant
Continuous Operations (1980 TPD)
Neutralization System - Capital
- Annual
Acid Recovery System - Capital
- Annual
Batch Operations (500 TPD)
Neutralization System - Capital
- Annual
Acid Recovery System - Capital
- Annual
BAT Feed
1.42
0.40
5.55
0.98
0.79
0.17
2.78
0.49
BAT-1
0.29
0.09
0.06
0.02
BAT-2
0.47
0.12
0.16
0.04
BAT-3
2.33
0.58
1.41
0.27
Sulturic Acid Pickling Subcategory
Continuous - Neutralization - Capital 26.98
19 Plants - Annual 7.60
Continuous - Acid Recovery - Capital 72.15
13 Plants - Annual 12.74
Batch - Neutralization - Capital . 46.61
59 Plants - Annual 10.03
Batch - Acid Recovery - Capital 100.08
36 Plants - Annual 17.64
Total for Subcategory - Capital 245.82
127 Plants - Annual 48.01
5.51
1.71
3.54
1.18
9.05
2.89
8.93
2.28
9.44
2.36
18.37
4.64
44.27
11.02
83.19
15.93
127.46
26.95
415
-------
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BATCH AND CONTINUOUS NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS
BPT
TO DISCHARGE
REACTION TANK
BAT-3
TO
DISCHARGE
100% RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
CENTRIFUGE
-------
BPT
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
ACID REGENERATION SYSTEMS
00
ACID TO
REUSE
_BM
^
.ACID TO
REUSE
FUME HOOD
SCRUBBER
SLOWDOWN
PICKLE
RINSE
WATERS
SPENT PICKLE
LIQUOR
EQUALIZATION
TANK
1
ACID
REGENERATION
UNIT(S)
JLl
FUME HOOD
SCRUBBER
RECYCLE
CASCADE
RINSE
SYSTEM
SPENT PICKLE
LIQUOR
EQUALIZATION
TANK
1
ACID
REGENERATION
UNITIS)
1
t
ABSO
VENT S(
1 1 ,
1 UMt 1 POLYMER
I ' nr i '
\ ' I THICKENER I
cJo V S
EQUALIZATION 1 \/
TANK [ I
nBER"" VACUUM f
IRUBBER
(ONCE-THROUGH)
ABSO
(Once
, ,
1 UMtl POLYMER 1
.)
\ ' 1 I
T" [THICKENER! BAT-Z
EQUALIZATION | ^S (« aULFIOC
VACUUM t \/////
FILTER ' ' / ' ' <
REACTION TANK
BAT-3
RUBBER TO PROCESS
rhrough) 1
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
: Batch Type
: Carbon 6 Specialty
Model Size-TPD : IStf
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 2
Raw Waste Flows
Model Plant:
No. of Plants: 7 Total
Total Flow for Batch HC1 Pickling: 0.93 MCD
Model Costs (S .x 10~3)
Investment Cost
Annual Cost ,.,
5/Ton of Product^'
BAT Feed
1223
250.8
5.07
(MCD)
0.13
BAT Alternatives
1 2
63.0
19.5
0.39
164.0 1413.0
38.0 271.9
0.77 5.50
Wastewater Parameters
Raw Waste
Level
Cone Rinse FHS Total
Flow, gal/ton 10 540 150 700 560
pH, Units
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcacegory: Hydrochloric Acid Pickling
: Continuous Type
: Carbon & Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 2760
Oper. Days/Year: 312
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MOD)
Model Plant:
No. of Plants: 40 '
Neutralization in Place: 31
. Acid Regeneration in Place: 4
No Treatment (Acid Regeneration Required): 5
Total Flow for Subcategory: 57.1 MGD
1.35
BAT Alternatives
Model Costs ($ x 10 )
Neutralization System:
Investment Cost
Annual Cost ...
S/Ton of Productu'
Acid Regeneration Systi
Investment Cost
Annual Cost , ,
S/Ton of Product1
em:
Wastewater Parameter
Flow; neut.
gal /ton
Flow; Acid
Regeneration,
gal/ton
pH, units
Cone.
10
10
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID PICKLING SUBCATEGORY
Raw Waste
Load
58.0
14,613
3,224
224,067
7,916
3.0
BAT
Feed
38.8
1510
503
50.3
50.3
0.5
BAT-1
6.5
256
85.1
8.5
8.5
0.08
BAT-2
6.5
128
32.4
8.5
7.6
0.08
BAT-3'
0
_
-
-
-
-
Flow, MGD
TSS
Oil and Grease
Dissolved Iron
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant BAT Feed BAT-1 BAT 2 BAT 3
a. Continuous Operations (2760 TPD)
Neutralization Systems: Capital . 2.60 0.29 0.47 2.33
Annual 0.81 0.09 0.12 0.58
Acid Regeneration Sya terns: Capital 6.85 0.34 0.56 2.88
Annual -2.20 0.11 0.15 0.75
b. Batch Operations (190 TPD)
Neutralization System: Capital 1.22 0.06 0.16 1.41
Only Annual 0.25 0.02 0.04 0.27
Hydrochloric Acid Pickling Subcategory
a.
b
c.
d.
Continuous Neutralization:
31 Plants
Capital
Annual
Continuous Acid Regeneration: Capital
9 Plants Annual
Batch Neutralization:
7 Plants
Total for Subcategory:
47 Plants
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
80.60
25.11
61.46
-19.80
8.54
1.75
150.79
7.06
8.99
2.79
3.06
0.99
0.42
0.14
12.47
3.92
14.57
3.72
5.04
1.35
1.12
0.28
20.73
5.35
72.23
17.98
25.92
6.75
9.87
1.89
108.02
26.62
421
-------
fl£I
COMBINATION AGIO PICKLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BATCH AND CONTINUOUS NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS
FUME HOOD
SCRUBBER
SLOWDOWN
ISPENT PICKLE
LIQUOR
EQUALIZATION
I TANK
PICKLE
WATER
FUME HOOD
SLOWDOWN
SPENT PICKLE
LIQUOR
EQUALIZATION
TANK
CASCADE
RINSE
BAT-I
| LIME),
[OIL | 1 POLYMER 1
n 1
1 ^ CLARIPIER
4_^
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcacegory: Combination Acid Pickling
: Batch Type
: Carbon-Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 200
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 2
Raw Waste Flows
(MOD)
Model Plant: ' 0.34
SO Batch Type Plants: 16.75
BAT BAT Alternatives
Model Costs
Investment Cost
5 x 10
Annual Cost
$ x 10'J ,
$/Ton of Product"'
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil 4 Grease
Fluoride
Dissolved Iron
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Raw
Cone.
15
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Combination Acid Pickling
: Continuous Type
: Carbon-Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 500
Opei. Days/Year: 320
Turns/Day : 3
Rav Waste Flows
(MOD)
Model Plant: 1.27
19 Continuous Type Plants: 24.08
BAT BAT Alternatives
Model Costs
Investment Cost
5 x 10~J
Annual Cost
* X 10 (1)
5/Ton of Product^1'
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH
Concentrations (mu/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Crease
Fluoride
Dissolved Iron
4 Benzene*
115 Arsenic
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Raw
Cone.
15
1.5
200
3.5
10,000
23,000
_
-
3300
100
1.2
3300
4.1
Haste Level
Rinse
1800
2.5-8
180
3.3
69
155
0.05
0.01
25
0.27
-
15
0.40
FHS
720
1.5-
2.0
25
0.30
50
2.4
**
-
8.3
0.07
-
1800
0.30
Total
2535
1.5-8
135
2.4
122
250
0.05
0.01
40
0.80
1.2
540
0.40
Feed
1301
311.4
1.95
BAT
Feed
Level
1865
6-9
30
2.0
15
1.0
0.05
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
1
2
142.0 374.0
44.1 87.4
0.28 0.55
BAT
1
335
6-9
30
2.0
15
1.0
0.05
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
Effluent
2
335
6-9
15
2.0
15
1.0
0.025
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
3
2653.0
613.3
3.83
Levels
3
0
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
* : Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
**: Value is less than 0.010 mg/1
425
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
COMBINATION ACID PICKLING
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Oil i Grease
Fluoride
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Dissolved Iron
Raw Waste
Load
40.9
4955
106
29,345
21,066
1.6
13,028
BAT
Feed
23.2
886
59.1
444
18.5
1.2
29.5
BAT-1
4.3
161
10.8
80.8
3.4
0.2
5.3
BAT-2
4.3
80.7
10.8
80.8
2.9
0.1
5.3
BAT-3
0
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT
Feed
BAT-1
BAT-2
BAT-3
Model Plant
a. Continuous Operations (500 TPD)
Capital
Annual
b. Batch Operations (200 TPD)
Capital
Annual
1.30
0.31
0.68
0.14
0.14
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.37
0.09
0.19
0.04
2.65
0.61
1.56
0.30
Combination Acid Pickling Subcategory
a. Continuous (19 Plants)
Capital
Annual
24.70
5.89
2.66
0.76
7.03
1.71
50.35
11.59
b. Batch (50 Plants)
Capital 34.00
Annual 7.00
c. Total for Subcategory (69 plants)
Capital 58.70
Annual 12.89
3.50
1.00
6.16
1.76
9.50
2.00
16.53
3.71
78.00
15.00.
128.35
26.59
426
-------
COLD ROLLING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT
LIME
POLY
n
ok}
AIR
^CARBON TO
REGENERATION
IOO% RECYCl
TO PROCESS
CENTRIFUGE
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling Subdivision
Recirculation
Carbon-Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 1700
Oper. Days/Year: 346
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Costs
-3
Investment Cost $ x.10
Annual Cost $ x 107
$/Ton of Product11'
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Dissolved Iron
6 Carbon Tetrachloride
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
23 Chloroform*
24 2-Chlorophenol
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
38 Ethylbenzene
55 Naphthalene
57 2-Nitrophenol
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
65 Phenol*
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
85 Tetrachloroethylene*
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
114 Antimony*
115 Arsenic*
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
130 Xylene
Raw
Waste
Level
25
6-9
BAT
Feed
509.0
97.1
BAT
Feed
Level
25
6-9
1,000
20,000
100
0.02
0.10
0.10
6.00
4.20
0.07
0.09
12.00
0.20
0.02
3.00
0.03
0.30
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.30
0.10
2.00
4.20
2.70
2.20
2.00
1.50
25
10
1.0
0.02
0.10
0.10
6.00
4.20
0.05
0.05
12.00
0.20
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.30
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
1.50
Model Plant: 0.043
46 Recirculation Plant Sites: 1.96
BAT Alternatives
1
132.0
24.0
0.041
1
25
6-9
15
5
1.0
0.02
0.10
0.10
6.00
4.20
0.05
0.05
12.00
0.025
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1.50
2
1025.0
1856.0
3.14
BAT Effluent
2
25
6-9
15
5
1.0
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.025
0.05
0.025
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
3
1389.0
281.2
0.48
Level
3
0
"
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
;
-
-
. -
-
-
-
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
* : Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
428
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling Subdivision
Combination
Carbon-Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 4400
Oper. Days/Year: 348
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waate Flows
(MGD)
Model Plant: 1.10
10 Combination Plant Sites: 11.00
Model Costa
-3
Investment Cost $ x.10
Annual Cost $ x 107
$/Ton of ProductU;
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Dissolved Iron
6 Carbon Tetrachloride
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
23 Chloroform
24 2-Chlorophenol
34 2-4-Dimethylphenol
38 Ethylbenzene
55 Naphthalene
57 2-Nitrophenol
60 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
65 Phenol
78 Anthracene
80 Fluorene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
87 Trichloroethylene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
130 Xylene
Raw
Waste
Level
250
6-9
BAT
Feed
Level
250
6-9
600
1000
10
0.02
0.10
0.15
3.00
2.00
0.03
0.02
6.00
0.10
0.10
0.2Q
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.08
1.00
2.00
1.50
0.90
0.90
0.35
25
10
1.0
0.02
0.10
0.10
3.00
2.00
0.03
0.02
6.00
0.10
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.35
1
539.0
104.1
0.068
1
250
6-9
15
5
1.0
0.02
0.10
0.10
3.00
2.00
0.03
0.02
6.00
0.025
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.35
2
3457.0
1379.8
0.90
BAT Effluent
2
250
6-9
15
5
1.0
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.025
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
3
10450.0
2727.8
1.78
Level
3
0
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
429
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Cold Forming
Cold Rolling Subdivision
Direct Application
Carbon-Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 2900
Oper. Days/Year: 348
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~
$/Ton of ProductU;
-3
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS
Flow, gal/ton
pH
CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Dissolved Iron
4 Benzene
6 Carbon Tetrachloride
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane*
78 Anthracene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
115 Arsenic*
117 Beryllium
119 Chromium*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Raw
Waste
Level
400
6-9
BAT
Feed
1322.0
383.0
BAT
Feed
Level
400
6-9
100
1025
25
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.16
0.40
0.30
0.15
25
10
1.0
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
Model Plant:
23 DA Plant
1
540.0
104.2
0.10
1
400
6-9
15
5
1.0
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1.16
Sites: 26.68
BAT Alternatives
2 3
3551.0 10450. d
1419.1 2775,"
1.41 2,
BAT Effluent Level
2 3
400 0
6-9
15
5
1.0
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
(1) BAT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
430
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD ROLLING SUBDIVISION - RECIRCULATION
Raw Waste BAT
Load Feed BAT-1 BAT-2
Flow (MGD) 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96
TSS 2,844.27 71.11 42.66 42.66 0
Oil & Grease 56,885.47 28.44 14.22 14.22 0
Toxic Metals 38.48 2.36 2.08 2.08 0
Toxic Organics 78.79 70.05 68.86 1.51 0
OPTIONS COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT
Feed BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3
Model Plant (1700 TPD)
Capital 0.51 0.13 1.025 1.39
Annual 0.097 0.024 1.85 0.28
Subdivision (46 Plants)
Capital 23.41 6.07 47.15 63.89
Annual 4.46 1.10 85.38 12.94
431
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD ROLLING SUBDIVISION - COMBINATION
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Oil & Grease
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Raw Waste
Load
11.00
9,577.66
15,962.76
103.76
195.86
BAT
Feed
11.00
399.07
159.62
12.03
192.03
BAT-1 ZA
11.00 1
239.44 23
79.81 7
11.17 1
189.32
11.00
79.81
11.17
8.30
BAT-:
0
0
0
0
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (4400 TPD)
Capital
Annual
Subdivision (10 Plants)
Capital
Annual
BAT
Feed
1.29
0.36
12.89
3.61
BAT-1
0.54
0.10
5.39
1.04
BAT-2
3.46
1.38
34.57
13.79
BAT-3
1
10.
2.'
104.1
27.28
432
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD ROLLING SUBDIVISION - DIRECT APPLICATION
Flow (MGD)
Oil & Grease
"ixic Metals
xic Organics
Raw Waste
Load
26.68
3,871.69
39,684.87
44.14
5.03
BAT
Feed
26.68
967.92
387.17
24.39
5.03
BAT-1
26.68
580.75
193.58
20.52
5.03
BAT-2
26.68
580.75
193.58
20.52
5.03
BAT-3
0
0
0
0
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (2900 TPD)
Capital
mual
Subdivision (23 Plants)
Capital
Annual
BAT
Feed
1.32
0.38
30.41
8.81
BAT-1
0.54
0.10
12.48
2.40
BAT-2
3.55
1.42
81.67
32.64
BAT-3
10.45
2.78
240.35
63.83
433
-------
COLD FORMING
PIPE AND TUBE (WATER)
TREATMENT MODEL SUMMARY
BPT
100% RECYCLE
Oil
11
29CO gal/ton
SCALE PIT
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY TABLE
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Cold Forming
: Cold Working Pipe & Tube
: Using Water
Model Size-TPD : 500
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Plant:
20 Plants :
1.48
29.60
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~
$/Ton of Product
-3
BAT Feed
498
90.2
0.694
BAT
0
0
0
Wastewater Pollutants
Flow (gal/ton)
pH, Units
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Raw
Waste
Level
2960
6-9
25
65
Effluent Quality
436
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
_COLD FORMING: PIPE AND TUBE (WATER)
Raw Waste
Load BPT
Flow (MGD) 29.60 Zero
Discharge
TSS 802.3
Oil and Grease 2,086
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (500 tons/day) BPT
Investment 0.50
Annual 0.09
Subcategory (20 plants)
Investment 9.96
Annual 1.80
437
-------
COLD FORMING-
PIPE AND TUBE (SOLUBLE OIL)
TREATMENT MODEL SUMMARY
BPT
Oil
4770 gnl/ton
SCALE PIT
CJ
oo
O.5 cjnl/ton
CONTRACTOR
REMOVAL
AS REQUIRED
-------
Subcategory:
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY TABLE
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Cold Forming
Cold Working Pipe & Tube
Using Soluble Oil Solutions
Model Size-TPD : 270
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : '3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Plant:
14 Plants :
1.29
18.03
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Product
7
BAT Feed
424
78.4
1.117
BAT
0
0
0
Wastewater Pollutants
Flow (gal/ton)
pH, Units
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Raw
Waste
Level
4770
6-9
1000
100,000
Effluent Quality
439
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
COLD FORMING: PIPE AND TUBE (OIL SOLUTIONS)
Raw Waste
Load BPT
Flow (MGD) 18.03 Zero
Discharge
TSS 19,549
Oil and Grease 1,955,000
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Model Plant (270 tons/day) BPT
Investment 0.42
Annual 0.08
Subcategory (14 plants)
Investment 5.94
Annual 1.10
440
-------
BPT
I
A.
-------
Subcategory:
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Alkaline Cleaning
Carbon & Specialty
Batch
Model Size-TPD : 150
Oper. Days/Year: 250
Turns/Day: : 2
Raw Waste Flows (MGD)
Model Plant:
29 Plants:
0.0075
0.22
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x.10
Annual Cost $ x 10
$/Ton of Product
-3
BPT
211
38.2
1.02
Wastewater Pollutants
Flow, gal/ton
pH, Units
Concentrations (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Dissolved Iron
36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
39 Fluoranthene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
Raw
Waste
Level
50
9-12
500
20
0.50
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.20
BPT
Effluent
Level
50
6-9
25
10
0.50
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.20
442
-------
Subcategory:
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY DATA
BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Alkaline Cleaning
Carbon & Specialty
Continuous
Model Size-TPD :
Oper. Days/Year:
Turns/Day :
Raw Waste Flows (MGD)
Model Plant:
36 Plants:
0.075
2.70
Model Costs
Investment Cost $ x_10~
Annual Cost $ x 10~
$/Ton of Product
Wastewater Pollutants
Flow, gal/ton
pH, Units
Concentration (mg/1)
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Dissolved Iron
36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
39 Fluoranthene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
121 Cyanide
122 Lead
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
500
20
0.50
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.20
BPT
456
84.4
0.23
BPT
Effluent
Level
50
6-9
25
10
0.50
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.20
443
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
ALKALINE CLEANING SUBCATEGORY
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Oil & Grease
Dissolved Iron
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Raw Waste
Load
2.92
1520.75
60.83
1.52
0.76
0.17
BPT Load
2.92
76.04
30.41
1.52
0.76
0.17
OPTION COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BATCH
Model Plant (150 TPD)
Capital
Annual
Subcategory (29 Plants)
Capital -
Annual
BPT
0.21
0.038
6.09
1.10
CONTINUOUS
Model Plant (1500 TPD)
Capital
Annual
Subcategory (36 Plants)
Capital
Annual
0.46
0.084
16.56
3.02
444
-------
BPT
HOT COATING-GALVANIZING OPERATIONS
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
GALVANIZING OPERATIONS PLANTS
ONCE-THROUGH)
With Without
PRODUCT TYPE Scrubber Scrubbers
Strip SliccTB
Misc.. Prod.
EQUALIZATION
TANK
Wire Products
8 Foslencrs
LIMEI |[POLYMEF;|
n
BAT-.2
SUl.riDE
EQUALIZATION
TANK
REACTION TANK
BAT-3
EVAPORATION
lOOA RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
CENTRIFUGE
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Hot Coating-Galvanizing
: Continuous and Batch
: Strip,Sheet, & Misc. Products
Model Size-TPD : 800
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Costs ($ x 10 3 )
Plants with fume scrubbers
Investment Cost
Annua1 Cos t
$/ton of coated product
Plants without fume scrubbers
Investment Costs
Annual Cost
$/ton of coated product
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Hexavalent Chromium
Dissolved Iron
23 Chloroform*
39 Fluoranthene
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium, Total*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
(1)
Model Plant - no fume scrubbers:
Model Plant - with fume scrubbers:
0.48
0.96
Number of plants: 34 total, 14 with fume scrubbers
Total flow for strip, sheet, & misc. prod, galvanizing:
Total flow assuming scrubbers required: 32.6 MGD
BAT Feed
BAT 1
BCT
23.0 MGD
BAT 2
BAT 3
Raw
w/fs
1200
2-10
50
40
1.0
50
0.03
0.02
0.1
5
1.0
5
0.6
80
Waste
no fs
600
2-9
75
60
2.0
75
0.04
0.03
0.2
10
2
8
1.0
150
1235.0
258.3
1.24
892.0
182.3
0.876
BAT Feed
w/fs no fs
1200 600
6-9 6-9
50
15
0.02
1.0
0.02
0.01
0.1
3
0.5
1.0
0.5
5
265.0
71.9
0.346
188.0
58.2
0.280
BAT 1
w/fs no fs
200 150
6-9 6-9
30
5
0.02
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
400.0
96.4
0.463
305.0
79.4
0.382
BCT
w/fs no fs
200 150
6-9 6-9
15
5
0.02
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
428.0 2749.0
102.2 607.7
0.491 2.92
333.0 2501.0
85.0 539.7
0.409 2.59
BAT 2 BAT 3
w/fs no fs w/fs no fs
200 150 0 0
6-9 6-9
15 - -
5 -
0.02
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
0. - -
0. - -
0. - -
0. - -
0. - -
0. - -
(1) BAT and BCT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
-------
SOBCATECORY SUMMARY! BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcatagory: Hot Coating-Galvanizing Model Size-TFD : 100
: Continuous and Batch Oper. Days/Year: 260
: Wire,Wire Product* & Fasteners Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flovs
(MSP)
Model Costs (? x
10-3 )
;s with fume scrubbers
Investment Cost
Annual Cost
3/ton of coated product
Plants without fume scrubbers
Investment Costs
Annual Cost (1j
5/ton of coated product
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
rentrations, ng/1
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Hexavalent Chromium
Dissolved Iron
11 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
23 Chloroform*
87 Trichloroethylene
115 Arsenic*
119 Chromium, Total*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
Model Plant - no fume scrubbers:
Model Plant - with fume scrubbers:
0.24
0.39
Number of plants: 29 total, 12 with fume scrubbers
Total flow for wire, win prod. & fasteners galvanizing:
Total flow assuming scrubbers required: 11.31 MCD
BAT Feed
BAT I
BCT
8.76 MCD
BAT 2
BAT 3
Raw
w/fs
3900
»_Q
J ^
100
25
0.5
40
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.1
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.2
20
Waste
ho fs
2400
150
40
1.0
75
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.2
2.5
0.8
2.0
0.5
35
812.0
161.8
6.22
621.0
121.4
4.67
BAT Feed
w/fs no f s
3900 2400
50
15
0.02
1.0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.1
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.2
5.0
108.0
26.3
1.01
54.0
16.7
0.642
BAT 1
w/fs no fs
750 600
30
5
0.02
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
212.0
45.1
1.73
151.0
34.2
1.32
BCT
w/fs no fa
750 600
15
5
0.02
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
237.0 2164.0
30.0 435.9
1.92 16.77
174.0 2000.0
38.7 398.5
1.49 15.33
BAT 2 BAT 3
w/fs no fs w/fs no fs
750 600 0 0
A0 Av4
o if o y
15 - -
5
0.02
0.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
. 0.1
0.1
0.1 ...
0.1
0.1
0.1
(1) BAT and BCT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
*: Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
447
-------
£>.
^
VO
HOT COATING - TERNE COATING
TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
BPT a BCT FOR PLANTS WITHOUT SCRUBBERS
LIME
TERNE COATING OPERATIONS PLANTS
With Without
Scrubbers Scrubbers
BCT FOR PLANTS WITH SCRUBBERS
PRODUCT TYPE
Strip 8 Sheet
IOO % RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
CENTRIFUGE
-------
SUBCATEGQRY SUMMARY; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Hot Coating-Terne
Continuous Only
Strip,Sheet Only
Model Size-TPD : 365
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 3
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
odel Costs ($ x 10~3 )
lants with fume scrubbers
Investment Cost
Annual Cost
$/ton of coated product
lants without fume scrubbers
Investment Costs
Annual Cost
S/ton of coated product
astewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
oncentratipns, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Uexavalent Chromium
Dissolved Iron
Tin
3 Chloroform*
5 Tetrachloroethylene*
15 Arsenic*
18 Cadmium*
19 Chromium, Total*
20 Copper*
22 Lead*
24 Nickel*
28 Zinc*
(1)
Model Plant - no fume scrubbers:
Model Plant - with fume scrubbers:
0.219
0.438
Number of plants: 5 total, 3 with fume scrubbers
Total flow for terne coating: 1.75 MGD
Total flow assuming scrubbers required: 2.19 MGD
BAT Feed
BAT 1
BCT
BAT 2
Raw
w/fs
1200
3-9
50
25
0.02
50
5
0.05
0.01
0.1
0.1
3.0
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.0
Waste
no fs
600
3-9
75
40
0.04
75
10
0.08
0.02
0.1
0.1
5.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
838.0
163.0
1.72
612.0
117.7
1.24
BAT Feed
w/fs no fs
1200 600
6-9 6-9
50
15
0.02
1.0
5
0.02
<0.01
0.1
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
187.0
48.7
0.513
117.0
36.3
0.383
BAT 1
w/fs no fs
200 150
6-9 6-9
30
5
0.02
0.2
3.0
0.02
<0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
291.0
67.5
w/fs
200
6-9
15
5
0.02
0.2
0.1
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.711
0
0
0
BCT
no fs
600
6-9
50
15
0.02
1.0
5
0.02
<0.01
0.1
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
316.0 2232.0
72.4 455.6
0.763 4.80
226.0 2017.0
56.2 406.5
0.592 4.28
BAT 2 BAT 3
w/fs no fs w/fs no
200 150 0 0
6-9 6-9
15 - -
5 - -
0.02
0.20
0.10
<0.01
<0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1} BAT and BCT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
Total pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
450
-------
-0" COATING-OTHER METALLIC COATINGS
B 'T a BCT FOR WIRE p ?op. a FAS :NERS TREATMENT MODELS SUMMARY
WITH SCRUBBERS
(Once -Through)
BAT - I 8 BCT FOR LINES WITHOUT SCRUBBERS
BCT FOR STRIP. SHEET 8 MISC. PROD. WITH SCRUBBERS
REACTION TANK
EVAPORATION
RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
CENTRIFUGE
-------
SUBCATEGORY SUMMARY: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Hot Coacing-Other Metallic Coating
: Continuous and Batch
: Strip,Sheet, & Misc. Products
Model Size-TPD : 500
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 2
Raw Waste Flows
(MGD)
Model Plant - no fume scrubbers: 0.3
Model Plant - with fume scrubbers: 0.6
Number of plants: 3 total, none currently with scrubbers
Total flow for strip, sheet, & misc. prod, with other metallic coating:
Total flow assuming scrubbers required: 1.8 MGD
:odel Costs ($ x 10~3 )
lants with fume scrubbers
Investment Cost
Annual Cost /...
$/ton of coated product
lants without fume scrubbers
Investment Costs
Annual Cost
$/ton of coated product
astewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
oncentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Hexavalent Chromium
Dissolved Iron
Tin
Aluminum
15 Arsenic*
18 Cadmium*
19 Chromium, Total*
20 Copper*
22 Lead*
24 Nickel*
28 Zinc*
(1)
BAT Feed
BAT 1
BCT
0.9 MGD
BAT 2
BAT 3
Raw
w/fs
1200
5-9
250
50 .
0.02
20
5
25
0.1
2.0
0.2
0.5
1.5
0.5
5.0
Waste
no fs
600
4-10
400
60
0.02
30
8
30
0.1
4.0
0.2
1.0
2.5
0.5
8.0
1240.0
242.0
1.86
890.0
171.0
1.32
BAT Feed
w/fs no fs
1200 600
6-9 6-9
50
15
0.02
1.0
3
5
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
3.0
219.0
57.7
0.444
141.0
43.8
0.337
BAT 1
w/fs no fs
200 150
6-9 6-9
30
5
0.02
0.2
1.5
2.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
354.
82.
0.
141.
43.
0.
0
0
631
0
8
337
BCT
w/fs
200
6-9
15
5
0.02
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
no fs
150
6-9
30
5
0.02
0.2
1.5
2.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
380.0 2664.0
87.1 551.4
0.670 4.24
283.0 2419.0
69.8 493.0
0.537 3.79
BAT 2 BAT 3
w/fs no fa w/fs no
200 150 0 0
6-9 6-9
15
5 - -
0.02
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1) BAT and BCT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analyzed.
452
-------
SPBCATECORY SUMMARY: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subc«tegory: Hot Coating-Other Metallic Coating
: Continuous and Batch
: Wire,Wire Products & Fasteners
Model Size-TPD : 15
Oper. Days/Year: 260
Turns/Day : 2
Ran Waste Flews
(MOD)
Model Plant - no fume scrubbers: 0.0360
Model Plant - with fume scrubbers: O.OS8S
Dumber of plants: 6 total, including 1 with fume scrubbers
Total flow for wire, wire products, and fasteners with other metallic coating!
Total flow illuming scrubbers required: 0.331 MOD
Model Costs ($ » IP*3 )
Plants with fune scrubbers
Investment Cost
Annual Cost
$/ton of coated product
Plants without fume scrubbers
Investment Costs
Annual Cost , .
5/con of coated product
Waatewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Oil & Crease
Hexavalent Chromiu
Dissolved Iron
Tin
Aluminum
US Arsenic*
118 Cadmium*
119 Chromium, Total*
120 Copper*
122 Lead*
124 Nickel*
128 Zinc*
BAT Feed
BAT 1
BCT
0.2385 MOD
BAT 2
BAT 3
Raw
w/ts
3900
5-9
100
25
0.02
12
3
12
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.3
3.0
Waste
no fa
2400
5-9
ISO
40
0.03
25
5
25
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.5
1.5
0.5
5.0
413.0
76.0 '
19.49
341.0
62.5
16.03
BAT Feed
w/fs no fa
3900 2400
6-9 6-9
50
15
0.02
1.0
3
5
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
3.0
51.0
11.4
2.92
17.0
5.3
1.36
BAT 1
w/fs no fa
750 600
6-9 6-9
30
5
0.02
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
17.
5.
1.
w/fs
3900
6-9
50
15
0.02
1.0
3
5
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
3.
0
0
0
0
3
36
BCT
no fs
600
6-9
30
5
0.02
0.5
1.5
2.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
131.0
25.9
6.64
93.0
19.1
4.90
BAT 2
w/fs no fs
750 600
6-9 6-9
15
5
0.02
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1475.0
271.6
69.64
1342.0
246.3
63.15
BAT 3
w/fs oo fs
6 0
-
-
-
-
-
_ _
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1) BAT and BCT costs are incremental over BAT Feed costs.
* Toxic pollutant found in all raw waste samples analysed.
453
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS (TONS/YEAR) AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING SUBCATEGORY
it.
A. Galvanizing Operations;
Flow, MGD
TSS
Oil and Grease
Hexavalent Chromium
Dissolved Iron
Total Chromium
Zinc
Other Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Model Plant
Strip/Sheet/Misc. Prod. - Capital
(800 TPD)
Wire Products & Fasteners- Capital
(100 TPD)
Galvanizing Subcategory
Strip/Sheet/Misc. Products
14 Plants w/scrubbers - Capital
Annua1
20 Plants no scrubbers - Capital
Annua1
Wire Products & Fasteners
12 Plants w/scrubbers - Capital
Annual
17 Plants no scrubbers - Capital
Annual
Total Galvanizing Costs - Capital
63 Plants, 26 w/scrubbers - Annual
Raw Waste
Load
31.80
2680.14
1511.16
42.35
2043.93
193.07
2983.28
238.31
2.16
BAT
Feed
31.80
1723.88
517.16
0.70
34.48
84.42
172.39
68.61
1.13
BAT-1
6.56
213.37
35.56
0.14
1.42
0.71
0.71
3.55
<0.16
BCT
6.56
106.69
35.56
0.14
1.42
0.71
0.71
2.84
<0.16
BAT-2
6.56
106.69
35.56
0.14
1.42
0.71
0.71
2.84
<0.07
BAT-3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
OPTION COSTS
ital
lual
iital
iual
(MILLIONS OF
BAT Feed
w/s no s
1.24 0.89
0.26 0.18
0.81 0.62
0.16 0.12
DOLLARS)
BAT-1
w/s no s
0.27 0.19
0.07 0.06
0.11 0.05
0.03 0.02
BCT
w/s no s
0.40 0.31
0.10 0.08
0.21 0.15
0.05 0.03
BAT-2
w/s no s
0.43 0.33
0.09 0.61
0.24 0.17
0.05 0.04
BAT-3
w/a no a
2.75 2.50
0.54
2.16 2.00
0.44 0.40
17.36
3.64
17.80
3.60
3.78
0.98
3.80
1.20
5.60
1.40
6.20
1.60
6.02
1.40
6.60
1.80
38.50
8.54
50.00
10.80
9.72
1.92
10.54
2.04
55.42
11.20
1.32
0.36
0,85
0.34
9.75
2.88
2.52
0.60
2.55
0.51
16.87
4.11
2.88
0.60
2.89
0.68
18.39
4.48
25.92
5.28
34.00
6.80
148.42
31.42
-------
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LOADINGS AND TREATMENT COSTS
HOT COATING SUBCATEGORIES
PAGE 2
Oi
B. Terne Coating Operations:
Flow, MGD
TSS
Oil & Grease
Lead
Tin
Dissolved Iron
Other Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
Raw Waste
Load
1.75
106.85
54.62
1.19
11.87
106.85
12.68
0.13
BAT
Feed
1.75
94.97
28.49
0.95
9.50
1.90
6.45
<0.06
BAT-1
0.33
10.68
1.78
0.04
1.07
0.07
0.25
<0.01
OPTION COSTS
With Scrubbers - Capital
Annual
Without Scrubbers - Capital
Annual
Terne Coating Subcategory
3 Plants with Scrubbers - Capital
Annual
2 Plants w/o Scrubbers - Capital
Annua 1
Total Costs - Capital
5 Plants, 3 w/Scrubbera - Annual
(MILLIONS OF
BAT
Feed
0.84
0.16
0.61
0.12
2.52
0.48
1.22
0.24
3.74
0.72
DOLLARS)
BAT-1
0.19
0.05
0.12
0.04
0.57
0.15
0.24
0.08
0.81
0.23
BCT
0.66
27.30
8.31
0.26
2.73
0.52
1.76
<0.02
BCT
0.29
0.07
0
0
0.87
0.21
0
0
0.87
0.21
BAT-2
0.33
5.34
1.78
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.21
<0.01
BAT-2
0.32
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.96
0.21
0.46
0.12
1.42
0.33
BAT-3
BAT-3
2.23
0.46
2.02
0.41
6.69
1.38
4.04
0.82
10.73
2.20
-------
Ul
O\
C. Other Metallic Coatings;
Flow, MGD
TSS
Oil & Grease
Dissolved Iron
Tin
Aluminum
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics, .
Raw Waste
Load
1.14
425.93
67.99
.34.91
8.97
34.91
18.21
<0.01
Model Plant
Strips/Sheet/Misc. Prod. - Capital
Annua1
Wire Products & Fasteners - Capital
Annua1
Other Metallic Coatings Subcategory;
Strip/Sheet/Misc. Prod. ;
0 Plants currently have scrubbers
3 Plants w/o scrubbers - Capital
"'" '.Annual
Wire Products & Fasteners
1 Plant with scrubbers - Capital
Annua1
5 Plants w/o scrubbers - Capital
Annual
Total Other Metal Coatings:
9 Plants, 1 with scrubbers - Capital
Annual
Overall Total - All Hot Coatings:
77 Plants, 30 with scrubbers - Capita
- Annual
BAT
Feed
1.14
61.72
18.52
1.23
3.70
6.17
6.13
BAT-1 BCT
0.28 0.33
9.15 11.95
1.53 2.42
0.08 0.14
0.46 0.63
0.76 1.05
0.24 0.56
BAT-2
0.28
4.57
1.52
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.21
BAT-3
0
-
OPTIONS COSTS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
BAT Feed
w/s no a
1.24 0.89
0.24 0.17
0.41 0.34
0.08 0.06
2.67
0.51
0.41
0.08
1.70
0.30
4.78
0.89
63.94
12.81
BAT-1 BCT
w/s no a w/s no a
0.22 0.14 0.35 0.14
0.06 0.04 0.08 0.04
0.05 0.02 0 0.02
0.01 0.01 0 0.01
0.42 0.42
0.12 0.12
O.OS 0
0.01 0
0.10 0.10
O.OS 0.05
0.57 0.52
0.18 0.17
1 . 3 18.26
3.29 4.49
BAT-2
w/s no a
0.38 0.28
0.09 0.07
0.13 0.09
0.03 0.02
0.84
0.21
0.13
0.03
0.45
0.10
1.42
0.34
21.23
5.15
BAT-3
w/s no a
2.66 2.42
0.55 0.49
1.48 1.34
0.27 0.25
7.26
1.47
1.48
0.27
6.70
1.25
15.44
2.99
174.59
36.6
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
First-Class Mail
Postage and Fee? I _ J\
EPA I
Permit No. G-35
Washington DC 20460
------- |