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
%
-------
          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 I—n
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  I—n
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 distribul—d
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  concentrai—d
     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  syst—u
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

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)

r—entrations, 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
A—0 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

-------