&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water and Waste Management
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 440/1-80/070a
April 1980
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Foundries
(Metal Molding and Casting)
Point Source Category
-------
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR THE
METAL MOLDING AND CASTING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Steven Schatzow
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Planning and Standards
Robert B. Schaffer
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E.
Chief, Metals & Machinery Branch
John G. Williams
Project Officer, Metal Molding and Casting
April 1980
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
METAL MOLDING AND CASTING
Section Title Page
I- Conclusions 1
II- Recommendations 3
III.. Introduction 5
Authority 5
Background 5
Approach to Limitations and Standards 7
Anticipated Industry Growth 15
General Description of Processes 15
IV.. Industry Categorization 47
Introduction 47
Selected Subcategories 47
Subcategorization Basis 50
Production Normalizing Parameter 58
V. Water Use and Waste Characterization 61
Introduction 61
Plant Data Collection 62
Profile of Plant Data 75
Specific Subcategory Water Use and Waste 77
Characteristics
VI. Pollutant Parameters 383
Introduction 383
Environmental Impact of Toxic Pollutants 383
VII. Control and Treatment Technology 457
Introduction 457
Individual Treatment Technologies 457
Dissolved Inorganics Removal 457
Solids Removal 474
Recovery Techniques 493
Oil Removal 502
Cyanide Destruction 513
Phenol Destruction 519
iii
-------
Section Title Page
VIII. Cost of Wastewater Control and Treatment 555
Sampled Plant Costs 555
Control and Treatment Technology 555
Components 555
Basis of Cost Estimates 555
BPT and BAT Model Costs 55 ^
IX. Effluent Reduction Attainable Through the
Application of the Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available 727
Introduction 727
Factors Considered 728
Approach to BPT Development 728
Identification of BPT 734
X- Effluent Reduction Attainable Through the
Application of the Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable 757
Introduction 797
Identification of BAT 798
XI.. New Source Performance Standards 835
Introduction 835
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources 837
Introduction 837
Pretreatment Options 837
Rationale Used to Develop Pretreatment 838
Technologies
Factors Considered
XIII. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
851
Introduction 851
Identification of New Source Pretreatment 351
Standards
Rationale Used to Develop New Source 351
Pretreatment Standards
XIV,- Acknowledgements 853
XV. References 855
XVI. Glossary 857
IV
-------
NUMBER
TABLES
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER
III-2
1II-3
III-4
III-5
V-1
V-2
V-3 thru
V-7
V-8 thru
V-10
V-11 thru
V-15
V-16
V-1 7 and
V-18
V-19
V-20
V-21
V-22
TABLES PAGE
Distribution of Plants ........................... 31
Percentage of Plants With a Process Wastewater. . . 32
Foundry Location by Re gion . ...................... 33
Foundry Shipments in the U,. S,. .... ................ 34
Mold Cooling,. ...... ,....,. ......................... 46
Penton Foundry Census Information. ......-..-..<... 113
Distribution of Additional 1000 Plant Surveys.... 114
General Summary Tables - Aluminum
Foundries. .... ............. ....... ...... ........... . 115
General Summary Tables - Copper
Foundries.. ................ ................... ..... 119
General Summary Tables - Ferrous
Foundries,. ............... ............. ........... 122
General Summary Table - Magnesium Foundries ...... 148
General Summary Tables - Zinc
Foundries .......... ,. ....... ,. ..................... 149
List of Toxic Pollutants ......................... 152
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutants
Analyzed. .... ...... ........... ..... . ............. 159
Inorganic Toxic Pollutants Selected for
Verification Analysis. . , .......................... 160
Plant Assessment of the Known or Believed Presence
of Toxic Pollutants in Foundry Raw Process
Wastewater. ......... ......... , ....................... 161
-------
NUMBER
TABLES
PAGE
V-23
V-24
V-25
V-26
V-27
V-28
V-29
30 thru
V-34
V-35 thru
V-37
V-38 thru
V-42
V-43 thru
V-44
V-45 and
V-46
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
VII-4
VII-5
Engineering Assessment of Toxic Pollutants Likely
to be Present in Foundry Process Wastewater
Types and Amounts of Binders Used in Foundries...-
Annual Weight of Metal Poured in Plants With a
Process Wastewater. -,.,.<..-,-<.. - . - .........,..........
Total Process Wastewater Flow,.,.,.,..-.,.,...-.-
Discharge Mode Profile
Frequency Distribution of Toxic Pollutants
Detected in 44 Foundry Raw Process Wastewater
Streams,-,..,.........,..,.,.,...- .,.,-,,..,.,.„,. .................... .
Organic and Inorganic Toxic Pollutants in
Sampled Wastewaters.
Raw and Treated Waste Loads, Aluminum
Foundries.
Raw and Treated Waste Loads - Copper
Foundries ,
Raw and Treated Waste Loads, Ferrous
Foundries..
Raw and Treated waste Loads - Magnesium
Foundries :...
Raw and Treated Waste Loads - Zinc
Foundries..
pH Control Effects on Metals Removal
Effectiveness of NaOH for Metals Removal—
Effectiveness of Lime and NaOH for Metals
Removal,.,.,,.......,.,....... „,.........,.,.,...............
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Performance..
Hydroxide Precipitation - Additional Parameters..
165
166
167
168
169
170
175
314
326
346
376
379
460
461
462
463
464
VI
-------
NUMBER TABLES
VII-6 Precipitation - Sedimentation - Filtration
Performance, Plant A............... *
VII-7 Precipitation - Sedimentation - Filtration
Performance, Plant B,.......,.,...,.,.,..
VII-8 Selected Solubilities....... ,..„,.
VII-9 Sampling Data From Sulfide Precipitation -
Sedimentation Systems
VII-10 Sulfide Precipitation - Sedimentation Perfor-
mance.. .,..<.......,.„ ,
VII-11 Summary of Treatment Effectiveness. ...*...........
VII-12 Peat Adsorbtion Performance..,.,.., ..............,.......
VII-13 Performance of Sampled Sedimentation Systems..,.,
VII-14 Membrane Filtration System Effluent
VII-15 Ion Exchange Performance. »
VII-16 Skimming Performance... -
VII-17 Ultrafiltration Performance.,,
VII-18 Activated Carbon Performance (mercury) .............
VII-19 Treatability Rating of Toxic Pollutants
Utilizing Carbon Adsorption........................
VII-20 Classes of Organic Compounds Adsorbed on
Carbon.. .....,...... • •....... -.-.. -........................ .......
VH-21 Concentration of Total Cyanide
Viii-1 Procedure for Determining Industry Wide Treat-
ment Costs for Each Process,.................. .........
Viii-2 thru Foundry Survey, Model and Statistical
VIII-11 Data,. .... .......
VIII-12
thru
Treatment Equipment Requirements of Surveyed
PAGE
465
466
467
468
469
472
473
477
480
498
504
509
512
551
552
519
579
580
VI1
-------
NUMBEK
VIII-28
VIII-29
thru
VIII-37
VIII-38
thru
VIII-H2
VIII-43
thru
VIII-74
VIII-75
thru
VIII-76
VIII-77
thru
VIII-81
VIII-82
thru
VIII-98
VIII-99
thru
VIII-103
VIII-104
thru
VIII-108
VIII-109
thru
VIII-111
VIII-112
thru
VIII-116
VIII-117
and
VIII-118
TABLES
Respondents
BPT and BAT Model Cost Data - Aluminum
Foundries.........................
BPT and BAT Model Cost Data - Copper and Copper
Alloy Foundries-
BPT and BAT Model Cost Data - Ferrous
Foundries.
BPT and BAT Model Cost Data - Magnesium
Foundries.
BPT and BAT Model Cost Data - Zinc
Foundries , ,
Projected Industry Wide Costs of Treatment
Technology Implementation,..,.,,..
Treatment Costs of Plants Visited
Control and Treatment Technologies for
Aluminum Foundries
Control and Treatment Technologies for
Copper Foundries,.....,...,....,..,..
Control and Treatment Technologies for Ferrous
Foundries, ... ,
Control and Treatment Technologies for
Magnesium Foundries.............................
PAGE
590
607
616
621
653
655
660
689
702
705
719
Vlll
-------
NUMBER
TABLES
PAGE
VIII-119
thru Control and Treatment Technologies for Zinc
VIII-120 Foundries..,.,,,,,,,.,,...,,.,,,. _., ,,.,.
IX-1 thru
IX-5 BPT Effluent Levels - Aluminum Foundries
IX-6 thru
IX-8 BPT Effluent Levels - Copper Foundries
IX-9 thru
IX-13 BPT Effluent Levels - Ferrous Foundries
IX-1U thru
IX-15 BPT Effluent Levels - Magnesium Foundries
IX-16 and
IX-17 BPT Effluent Levels - Zinc Foundries.............
X-1 thru BAT Alternatives - Effluent Levels -
X-8 Aluminum Foundries.
X-9 BAT - Effluent Levels - Copper Foundries
X-10 thru BAT Alternatives - Effluent Levels -
X-12 Zinc Foundries, ,. ,.
XVII-1 Metric Unit Conversion Table.
721
763
773
779
789
793
812
828
830
861
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER
III-1
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-8
III-9
111-10
111-11
V-1 thru
V-6
V-7 thru
V-10
V-11 thru
V-38
V-39
,
V-40
VII-1
VII-2
FIGURES
Cast Metals Production at 5- Year Intervals......
Copper Foundry Process Flow Diagram
Ferrous Foundry Process Flow Diagram. ........
Magnesium Foundry Process Flow Diagram
Zinc Die Casting Process Flow Diagram..
Iron Foundry Cupola Process Flow Diagram. .......
Iron Foundry Cupola Wet Top Process Flow
Diagram,. ......
Wastewater Treatment System Water Flow Diagrams
Wastewater Treatment System Water Flow Diagrams -
Copper Foundries
Wastewater Treatment System Water Flow Diagams -
Ferrous Foundries ,....
Wastewater Treatment System Water Flow Diagram -
Magnesium Foundry.
Wastewater Treatment System Water Flow Diagrams -
Zinc Foundries,. „...,...,.<.„....., ,....,
Comparative solubilities of Metal Hydroxides and
Sulfides as a Function of pR. ......... .
Effluent Zinc Concentrations Versus Minimum
Ef f luen t pH ..... .. ,.
PAGE
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
010
313
324
332
375
377
524
525
-------
NUMBER FIGURES PAGE
VII-3 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Cadmium,.,. ,.,. «. , ,... ....„..,,...,.,. „ -.. 526
VII-4 Hydroxide Precipitation * Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Chromium..,,.,,. ,.,„,.<.,... 527
VII-5 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Ef fectiveness, Copper,.. - , ..<.,.,.,.......,.....,.-.. <• 528
VII-6 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Iron,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,,..,.,...,--«.,.,., 529
VII-7 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Ef fee tiveness, Lead,.,.. , ,,.,.<...,...,.,.,.,.....,.,.,....., 530
VII-8 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Manganese,.,,,.,., „,.,.,.,.,.,.,,. 531
VII-9 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Nickel.............-.,.......-. 532
VII-10 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Ef fee tiveness, Phosphorus,,. ,.... 533
VII-11 Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation
Effectiveness, Zinc................ ^ ............... 534
VII-12 Lead Precipitate Solubility <.,..,..,.,.,.,., 535
VII-13 Representative Types of Sedimentation 536
VII-14 Granular Bed Filtration Example 537
VII-15 Pressure Filtration,.,. 538
VII-16 Vacuum Filtration.......,.,..,.,........,.,.., 539
VIl-17 Centrifugation....„„,.......,.......,. 540
VII-18 Gravity Thickening.,.........,...,.........,..,.,.,,, 541
VII-19 Sludge Drying Bed. ,. 542
VII-20 Types of Evaporation Equipment ,. . 543
_21 Ion Exchange with Regeneration 544
xi
-------
NUMBER
VII-22
VII-23
VII-24
VII-25
VII-26
VII-27
VII-28
VII-29
IX-1 thru
IX-5
IX-6 thru
IX-8
IX-9 thru
IX-13
IX-14 and
IX-15
IX-16 and
IX-17
X-1 thru
X-8
X-9
X-10 thru
X-12
FIGURES
Simplified Reverse Osmosis Schematic...
Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configuration
Dissolved Air Flotation....
Simplified Ultra filtration Flow "Schematic.....
Activated Carbon Adsorbtion Column
Treatment of Cyanide Wastes by Alkaline
Chlor ination.
Typical Ozone Plant for Waste Treatment,.........
Ozonation
BPT Models, Aluminum Foundries...—
BPT Models, Copper and Copper Alloy Foundries.
BPT Models, Ferrous Foundries.
BPT Models, Magnesium Foundries .....
BPT Models, Zinc Foundries. ............. ...
BAT Models, Aluminum Foundries,.
BAT Model, Copper and Copper Alloy Foundry....
BAT Models, Zinc Foundries.
gAGE
545
546
547
548
549
550
553
554
762
772
778
788
792
811
827
829
XI1
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
This is a draft development document and is being circulated for review of
its technical merit. This draft document is subject to corrections and
revisions as appropriate prior to its issuance as a final development
document at the time of proposed rulemaking.
Treatment options for Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT) for the control of toxic pollutants have been developed and are
presented herein together with effluent levels associated with each option.
However, no regulatory numbers have been attached to the options. Before
proposal of effluent limitations and standards, the Agency will choose
among and between these options and will set regulatory numbers based on
the final treatment technologies selected.
The metal molding and casting (foundry) point source category consists of
approximately 3600 plants. Analysis of the available data does not support
the development of a single set of effluent limitations and standards
applicable to plants engaged in metal molding and casting. It is
concluded, however, that subcategorization based on metal type cast with
limitations and standards for each subcategory is appropriate.
The most effective basis of subcategorizing the category is by the type of
metal cast. Alloys of these metal types are also considered as applicable
to the subcategory. These subcategories are:
Aluminum Casting
Copper Casting
Iron and Steel Casting
Magnesium Casting
Zinc Casting
Lead Casting
The process wastewater at plants falling within the scope of these
subcategories contains toxic pollutants, conventional pollutants and other
pollutants. Many plants are presently demonstrating the feasibility of
recycling 100 percent of the process wastewater generated by manufacturing
processes associated with these subcategories.
In addition, many plants have presently installed the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT) and the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) as outlined in this document.
The effluent levels achieved by the application of BPT and BAT are based on
the actual performance of plants in the data or on the performance achieved
by the application of this technology in other industries. New source
performance standards (NSPS) are based on the actual performance of plants
-------
in the data or on the performance achieved by the application of this
technology in other industries. Pretreatment standards for discharges to
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) are based on both BPT and BAT.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section will be completed after the Environmental Protection Agency
has made a final selection of treatment options and effluent levels
preparatory to proposing a regulation.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
LEGAL AUTHORITY
This report is a technical background document prepared to support effluent
limitations and standards under authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307,
308, and 501 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, (the
Clean Water Act or the Act). These effluent limitations and standards are
in partial fulfillment of the Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. Train. 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9,
1979. This document also fulfills the requirements of sections 304(b) and
304(c) of the Act. These sections require the Administrator, after
consultation, with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other
interested persons to issue information on the processes, procedures, or
operating methods which result in the eli-mination or reduction of the
discharge of pollutants through the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT), the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT), and through the implementation of standards
of performance under section 306 of this Act (new source performance
standards, NSPS).
BACKGROUND - The Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 established a
comprehensive program to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. By July 1, 1977, existing
industrial dischargers were required to achieve effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A); and by July 1, 1984, 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 sources which introduce
pollutants into 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 any owner or operator of any source which introduces pollutants
into 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,
Section 306 of the Act required promulgation of regulations for NSPS,
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.
The EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by the dates
contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was sued by several environmental
groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executed
a Settlement Agreement, which was approved by the Court. This Agreement
required EPA to develop a program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating
for 21 major industries BAT effluent limitations, pretreatment standards,
and new source performance standards for 65 priority pollutants and classes
of pollutants. See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC
2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean Water Act of
1977. Although this law makes several important changes in the federal
water pollution control program, its most significant feature is its
incorporation into the Act of several of the basic elements of the
Settlement Agreement program for priority pollutant control. Sections
301(b)(2)(A) and 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, Congress
added Section 304(e) to the Act, authorizing 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 revised the control program for non-toxic pollutants. Instead of
BAT for conventional pollutants identified under Section 304(a)(4)
(including biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform and
pH), the new Section 301(b)(2)(E) requires achievement by July 1, 1984, of
effluent limitations requiring the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT). The factors considered in assessing
BCT for an industry include the costs of attaining a reduction in effluents
-------
and the effluent reduction benefits derived compared to the costs and
effluent reduction benefits from the discharge of publicly owned treatment
works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)). For non-toxic, nonconventional pollutants,
Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT effluent
limitations within three years after their establishment or July 1, 1984,
whichever is later, but not later than July 1, 1987.
APPROACH TO LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
The effluent limitations and standards of performance for the Metal Molding
and Casting Point Source Category were developed using data and information
furnished by the plants in the category. For the purpose of this document,
the Metal Molding and Casting Point Source Category is comprised of plants
in which metal is poured or forced into a mold to form a cast intermediate
of final product except, for ingots, pigs, or other cast shapes related to
primary metal smelting. During the presentation of information within this
document the word "foundry" will be used to identify plants engaged in
casting activities as explained above. The use of this word will also
encompass plants engaged in die casting activities.
Initially, all existing information on metal molding and casting was
collected from previous EPA studies of foundries, the literature, trade
journals, inquiries to EPA regional and state environmental authorities,
raw material and equipment manufacturers and suppliers. This information
provided direction to the effort of collecting additional data where
needed.
For the purposes of study the category was initially organized into 9 study
subcategories; aluminium casting, copper casting, iron and steel casting,
lead casting, magnesium casting, nickel casting, tin casting, titanium
casting and the casting of zinc.
To supplement existing data, information requests (under authority of
Section 308 of the Act) were transmitted by EPA to a statistically selected
sample of all known companies engaged in metal molding and casting.
Responses to these data requests using a form known as the data collection
portfolio (dcp) were profiled to provide a complete description of the
category.
In addition to utilizing existing data (including data from 19 plants
sampled in 1974) and plant supplied data (via dcp), a sampling program was
carried out at 23 additional plants. Five aluminum casting plants; five
copper casting plants; ten iron and steel casting plants; one magnesium
casting plant; and four zinc casting plants were sampled. At two plants,
both aluminum and zinc casting analtyical data was obtained. Each of these
two plants is counted twice in the above distribution; once for aluminum
casting and once for casting zinc.
-------
At the completion of sampling and chemical analysis, all of the data
obtained were analyzed to determine, process wastewater characteristics and
mass discharge rates in terms of a production normalizing parameter for
each plant sampled. In addition to evaluating pollutant generation and
discharges, the full range of control and treatment technologies existing
within the foundry category was then identified. This was done considering
the pollutants to be treated and the chemical, physical and biological
characteristics of these pollutants. Special attention was paid to in-
process technology such as the recycle of process wastewater, the
segregation of characteristically different process wastewaters and the
curtailment of water use.
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology constituted "best practicable control
technology currently available" (BPT), "best available technology
economically achievable" (BAT), "best demonstrated control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives" (BDT), "best
conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT), and pretreatment
requirements for discharges to POTW's. In evaluating these technologies
various factors were considered. These included treatment technologies
from other industries, any pretreatment requirements, the total cost of
application of the technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits to be achieved, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the
processes employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques, process changes, and non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy requirements).
Existing Information
Previous studies - Previous federal government contracted studies of the
foundry category were examined. These studies were prepared by Cyrus Wm.
Rice Division of NUS Corporation under Contract No. 68-01-1507 and A. T.
Kearney and Company, Inc. for the National Technical Information Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce, PB-207 148. Information was gathered from
these studies on types of metals cast, plant size, geographic distribution,
manufacturing processes, waste treatment technology, and raw and treated
process wastewater characteristics at specific plants.
Literature Study - Published literature in the form of handbooks, engineer-
ing and technical texts, reports, trade journals, technical papers,
periodicals, and promotional materials was examined; the most informative
sources are listed in Section X V. The "Metal Casting Industry Directory"
published by Foundry Management & Technology Magazine, a Penton
Publication, provided information on the number, size, distribution and
other factors pertaining to plant characteristics.
Regional and State Data - EPA regional offices and state environmental
agencies were contacted to obtain permit and monitoring data on specific
plants. The EPA's Water Enforcement Division's "Permits Compliance System"
-------
was used as another mechanism to identify and gather additional information
on foundries.
Raw Material Manufactures and Suppliers - Manufacturers and vendors of
foundry raw materials and process chemicals such as core binders and mold
release agents were contacted for information about the chemical
compositions of their products. Since many of these materials are
considered proprietary by the vendor, generic information was obtained
about these products. From this information, predictions were made as to
the possible introduction of toxic pollutants into foundry process
wastewaters due to the presence of these materials in the foundry work
area.
Equipment Manufacturers and Suppliers - Manufacturers and suppliers of
foundry process and pollution control equipment were contacted to obtain
engineering specifications and technical information on foundry manu-
facturing processes, and air and water pollution control practices.
Profile o_f Plants iji the Metal Molding and Casting Point Source Category
The profile is based upon the technical data furnished to the Agency by
plants engaged in metal molding and casting operations. As a result of the
analysis of the information, the nine original study subcategories have
been decreased in number to the six subcategories addressed in the plant
profile. The casting of nickel, tin and titanium has been eliminated from
further consideration. The manufacturing processes associated with the
casting of these metals and their alloys do not result in a process
wastewater. Analysis of lead casting is still underway. Plant data is
summarized on Tables V-3 thru V-18 appearing in the back of Section V.
The profile is organized into the following eight parts, and discussion of
each part follows.
1. Wet and dry plant frequency distribution and analysis;
2. Process wastewater flow profile;
3. Production profile;
4. Process wastewater discharge mode profile;
5. Frequency distribution profile of toxic pollutants;
6. Production equipment age vs. treatment equipment age;
7. Analysis of the land available for treatment equipment installation;
and
8. Description of the foundry category.
-------
Wet and Dry Frequency Distribution and Analysis
Analysis of the available data indicates that an estimated 3636 plants are
engaged in the manufacture of castings applicable to this category. Eleven
hundred thirty-two plants, or approximately 31 percent, operate
manufacturing processes which result in a process wastewater. These plants
are considered to be wet plants. Of the 1132 plants with a process
wastewater, 300 plants discharge process wastewater to navigable waters,
360 plants introduce process wastewater into Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW), and 472 plants with a process wastewater do not discharge their
process wastewater.
The distribution of these plants by major metal cast and employee group are
indicated on Table III-l (appearing in the back of this section), for those
plants with a process wastewater and for those plants which do not have a
process wastewater. (Note: for the convenience of the reader all tables
and figures have been assembled in the rear of each section. They are
presented sequentially as they are referenced in the text). Those plants
without a process wastewater are considered to be dry plants. TABLE III-l
indicates the following:
Magnesium Casting : 58 percent of the plants casting magnesium have a
process wastewater.
Iron & Steel Casting: 51 percent of the plants casting ferrous metals
have a process wastewater.
Zinc Casting : 21 percent of the plants casting zinc have a
process wastewater.
Aluminum Casting : 17.3 percent of the plants casting aluminum have a
process wastewater.
Copper Casting : 11.3 percent of the plants casting copper have a
process wastewater.
TABLE III-l also indicates that 69 percent of the plants in the category
have no process wastewater while 31 percent of the plants do generate a
process wastewater as a result of metal molding and casting activities. A
review of the number of plants within a metal group which have a process
wastewater in relation to the total number of plants in the foundry point
source category yields the following:
Iron & Steel Casting: 21.9 percent of all plants in the category
generate a process wastewater as a result of the
manufacture of ferrous castings.
10
-------
Aluminum Casting : 4.6 percent of all plants in the category generate
a process wastewater as a result of the
manufacture of aluminum castings.
Copper Casting : 2.2 percent of all plants in the category generate
a process wastewater as a result of the
manufacture of copper and copper alloy castings.
Zinc Casting : 2.1 percent of all plants in the category generate
a process wastewater as a result of the
manufacture of zinc castings.
Magnesium Casting : 0.2 percent of all plants in the category generate
a process wastewater as a result of the
manufacture of magnesium castings.
Based on the information presented in the previous table, larger plants, as
distinguished by number of employees, more frequently produce a process
wastewater than smaller plants. Table III-2 in the back of this section
illustrates this trend. Generally plants of less than 10 employees Łnd
which have a process wastewater are the exception rather than the rule. An
understanding of the effects of air pollution requirements and process
activities of small plants puts this in better perspective. The number of
iron and steel foundries with less than 50 employees has been steadily
decreasing in the last 20 years. It appears that this trend will continue.
Those small foundries still in operation are generally job shops and do not
require large capacity production equipment and the air pollution from
these shops is small in comparison to larger production foundries. For
economic reasons, baghouses (as opposed to scrubbers which result in a
process wastewater) are preferred for emissions control. In addition, most
sand handling activities are by shovel and wheelbarrow and do not produce
the large volume of dusts associated with mechanized sand handling
equipment. Therefore, many of these small foundries have not installed air
pollution control devices. In light of this, few small iron and steel
foundries have a process wastewater. For those smaller ferrous foundries
with a process wastewater, an air pollution control device, a cupola
scrubber, is the primary process wastewater source. The trend indicates
that proportionally more larger plants will be impacted by water pollution
control limitations than smaller plants.
Process Wastewater Flow Profile
An estimated 119 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from the manufacture of castings. 93.2 billion gallons of process
wastewater or 78 percent is recycled. 22.5 billion gallons or 19 percent
of the total process wastewater flow is discharged to navigable waters.
Three percent or 3.4 billion gallons are introduced into POTW's. Of the
93.2 billion gallons of process wastewater recycled each year, 51.4 billion
is recycled at 100 percent.
11
-------
The subcategories ranked in decreasing volume of process wastewater are:
iron and steel casting, copper casting, aluminum casting, zinc casting and
magnesium casting. Process wastewater discharged to navigable waters from
plants engaged in the metal molding and casting of iron and steel accounts
for 77 percent of the total direct discharge volume for the category.
Likewise, 89 percent of the total volume of process wastewater which is
introduced into POTWs results from the casting of ferrous metals. More
specific details of the process wastewater flow profile are presented in
Section V.
Production Profile
For the purposes of this document, the term production is used to express
the amount of metal poured and not the weight of finished castings produced
by or shipped from those plants within the foundry point source category.
An estimated 41 million tons of metal are poured annually in plants with a
process wastewater resulting from the metal molding and casting processes.
Nineteen million tons of metal are poured annually in plants discharging
process wastewater directly to navigable waters. Twelve million tons of
metal is poured annually in plants which introduce process wastewater to
POTWs wastewater. Ten million tons of metal is poured, or 24 percent of
the total annual amount of metal poured, in plants which completely recycle
process wastewater. In determining this 10 million ton estimate, only the
weight of metal poured at plants which recycle 100 percent of the process
wastewater from all metal molding and casting processes was considered.
For example, the weight of metal poured at a plant with one process at 100
percent recycle and one process discharging to a POTW was included in the
12 million ton estimate for the POTW discharge mode.
In addition, for those plants with a process wastewater 65 percent of all
the metal melted is poured in 25 percent of the plants. Eighty-one percent
of the metal poured is ferrous metal and the amount of gray iron poured is
66 percent of the total weight of all ferrous metal poured. More specific
information about the production profile is presented in Section V of this
document.
Process Wastewater Discharge Mode Profile
As previously indicated, process wastewaters originate from various
processes within each subcategory. An estimated total of 1,800 metal
molding and casting processes produce a process wastewater. A frequency
distribution of these wet processes indicates that process wastewater is
discharged to navigable waters from 28.4 percent of these processes, and
that process wastewater is introduced into POTW's from 28.7 percent of
these processes. Process wastewater is completely recycled in 783 (43.5
percent) out of the 1,800 metal molding and casting processes. More
specific discharge mode information is presented in Section V of this
document.
12
-------
Frequency Distribution Profile of Toxic Pollutants
Numerous toxic pollutants were detected in the process wastewaters from
metal molding and casting processes sampled during th 1978 sampling
program. The toxic pollutants detected most frequently in concentrations
at or above 0.100 mg/1 include the phenolic compounds and heavy metals.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
was found in 14 percent of the processes sampled
was found in 11 percent of the processes sampled
was found in 23 percent of the processes sampled
was found
was found
was found
was found
was found
was found
was found
in 23 percent of
in 11 percent of
in 9 percent of
in 36 percent of
in 36 percent of
in 16 percent of
in 59 percent of
the processes
the processes
the processes
the processes
the processes
the processes
the processes
sampled
sampled
sampled
sampled
sampled
sampled
sampled
More specific details of the profile of toxic pollutants are
presented in Section V.
Production Equipment Age Versus Treatment Equipment Age
The age of the foundry has no bearing on the applicability of installing
water pollution control equipment. Some foundries which have operated at
the same address for over 100 years, replaced melting furnaces as recently
as five years ago and sand handling systems as recently as ten years ago.
Process wastewater treatment equipment age varied from thirty years for
some equipment items to less than one year for the more recent system
installations or additions to older treatment systems.
Review of the information appearing on Tables V-3 through V-18 in the back
of Section V indicates that 59 percent of the plants in the iron and steel
subcategory have installed process wastewater treatment equipment five or
more years after the installation of the oldest melting furnace. In
addition, nine percent of the plants have installed process wastewater
treatment equipment as long as 30 years after the installation of the
oldest melting furnace.
Information about the other subcategories indicates that about half the
plants have installed treatment equipment more than five years after the
installation of the melting furnace.
Analysis of Land Available for the Installation of Process Wastewater
Treatment Equipment
Specific information assessing the amount of land available for the
installation of process wastewater treatment equipment was specifically
13
-------
requested in the plant survey- The plant data obtained was examined to
identify plants which may have a shortage of land on which to erect
treatment equipment.
Approximately 10 percent of all the plants responding to this segment of
the data collection portfolio indicated their concern about the limited
availability of land adjacent to the plant on which to erect treatment
equipment. This concern was expressed through their response to the
information sought and through the description of the physical
circumstances which may limit the installation of treatment equipment.
Review of the plant data from the 10 percent of the plants expressing
concern over the limited availability of land indicates that these plants
have already in place some process wastewater equipment similar to the BPT
and BAT treatment equipment identified in this document. These plants
already employ some form of settling technology and recycle. Thirty-three
percent of these plants (those plants with information expressing concern
over land availability) with settling and recycle technology already
installed have reported 100 percent recycle of their process wastewater.
No additional treatment equipment is therefore needed. The remaining
plants generally employ extensive recycle.
Based on the technical findings, the installation of additional treatment
equipment or the increase of existing recycle rates to 100 percent recycle
would not be hindered by the limited availability of land reported by
plants responding to the information request. In addition, though many
plants use settling ponds or lagoons for solids removal, the more space
efficient clarifiers have been included as part of the BPT and BAT
equipment.
Description of the Foundry Category
The unique feature of the foundry industry is the pouring or injecting of
molten metal into a mold, with the cavity of the mold representing within
close tolerances the final dimensions of the product. One of the major
advantages of this process is that intricate metal shapes, which are not
easily obtainable by any other method of fabrication, can be produced.
Another advantage is the rapid translation of a projected design into a
finished article. New articles are easily standardized and duplicated by
the casting method.
The foundry industry ranks sixth among all manufacturing industries based
on "Value added by Manufacture" according to data issued by the United
States Department of Commerce in 1970 (Survey of Manufacturers, SIC 29-30).
Presently, this industry in the United States totals over 3,600 foundries
employing approximately 400,000 workers and producing over 19 million
tons/year of cast products. Table 111-3 presents the geographic
distributions of foundries in the country.
14
-------
ANTICIPATED INDUSTRY GROWTH
Annual castings production has ranged between 15 and 20 million tons during
most of the last 20 years. Ferrous castings have accounted for about 90
percent of the total tons produced annually since 1956, with the result
that the proportion of total output attributable to nonferrous castings has
remained close to 10 percent. Table II1-4 presents information on foundry
shipments in the United States.
Contrasting trends, however, are evident among the ferrous and nonferrous
metal types, as can be seen in Figure III-l, which presents production at
5-year intervals over the 1956-76 period. For example, within the ferrous
castings group, the trend of ductile iron production has been sharply
upward, while production for gray iron, malleable iron, and steel in 1976
was lower than 20 years earlier. Similarly, among the nonferrous metals,
aluminum has registered a significant long-term gain, whereas the trends
for the others are relatively mixed.
Figure III-2 shows that the number of smaller iron foundries have dropped
dramatically, while large and medium iron foundries have prospered in
number. In addition, as noted in Figure III-l and as observed from
conversations with plant personnel, there is a trend toward decreasing
percentage of zinc casting shipments compared to total foundry shipments
and to aluminum shipments. It appears that, generally, zinc casting
production would be decreasing in favor of the production of lighter weight
aluminum castings in the foreseeable future. However, zinc casting plants
will remain in operation for some time.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE METAL MOLDING AND CASTING PROCESSES
The product flow of the typical foundry operation is shown in Figure II1-3.
In all types of foundries, raw materials are assembled and stored in
various material bins.
From these bins, a "furnace charge" is selected by using various amounts of
the desired materials. This material is "charged" into a melting furnace
and through a heating process, the metal is made molten.
Simultaneously, molds are being prepared. This process begins by forming a
pattern (usually of wood) to the approximate final shape of the product.
This pattern is usually made in two pieces that will eventually match to
form a single piece, although patterns may be 3 or more pieces. Each part
of the pattern is used to form a cavity in a moist sand media, and the two
portions of the mold (called "cope" and "drag") are matched together to
form a complete cavity in the sand media. An entrance hole (called a
"sprue") is cut to provide the proper paths of molten metal introduction
into the cavity. The mold is then ready to receive the molten metal. In
die casting operations the mold cavity is formed in metallic die blocks
which are locked together to make a complete cavity.
15
-------
The molten metal is now "tapped" from the furnace into the ladle. The
ladle and molds are moved to a pouring area and the metal is poured into
the molds. The molds are then moved to a cooling area where the molten
metal solidifies into the shape of the pattern. When sufficiently cooled,
the sand is removed by a process known as "shake out." By violent shaking,
the sand surrounding the metal is loosened and falls to the floor or
conveyor that returns it to the sand storage area.
The cast metal object (casting) is further processed by removing excess
metal, and cleaned by various methods that complete the removal of the sand
from its surface. In the case of die casting, where no sand is used, the
cast object is removed from the die casting machine after cooling
sufficiently to retain its shape. The casting is either further cooled by
a water bath or is allowed to cool by air on a runout or cooling table.
Depending on the final use of the casting, further processing by heat
treatment, quenching, machining, chemical treatment, electroplating,
painting or coating may take place. After inspection, the casting is then
ready for shipping.
Foundry Metal Description
Many of these metals have unique properties that influence the way they are
melted, processed and affect the process wastewater characteristics. A
brief description of these metals, foundry equipment and processes is
presented to identify sources of process wastewater.
Aluminum
Aluminum is a light silver-white metal 2.7 times denser than water. It is
soft but with good tensil strength. It melts at 660°C (1200°F) and is
easily cast, extruded, and pressed. An aluminum structure weighs half as
much as a steel structure of comparable strength. Until 1886 aluminum was
a rarity. Then the economic Hall process was developed to extract metallic
aluminum from its oxide "alumina." Today aluminum is the second most widely
used metal after iron. Table III-4 indicates that in 1977 over 1 million
tons of aluminum castings were shipped in the United States. Aluminum may
be cast in a variety of ways. A drawing depicting the process and water
flow in a typical aluminum investment operation is presented in Figure III-
4. Figure 111-5 shows the process arrangement and water flow schematic for
a typical aluminum die casting operation.
Copper
Copper is a read, ductile nonferrous metal, second only to aluminum in
importance of nonferrous metals. It melts at 1083°C (1982°F) and has
excellent corrosion resistance. It is the metal that heralded the Bronze
Age (3,000 B.C.) and is occasionally found in a metallic state in nature.
Brass and bronze are the two most important alloys, and are mixtures of
copper, tin, lead and zinc. Other copper alloys include manganese,
16
-------
aluminum, nickel, silicon, and beryllium. Table III-4 gives a recent
history of copper shipment tonnages. Copper and its alloys may also be
cast in a variety of ways depicted in Figure III-6. Figure III-6 also
shows the process and process wastewater flow schematic typical of a copper
casting operation.
Iron and Steel
Iron is the world's most widely used metal. When alloyed with carbon, it
has a wide range of usefull engineering properties. Alloys of iron
include: gray, ductile, malleable, and steel. Tonnages shipped are shown
in Table III-4. Figure III-7 displays typical processes and process
wastewater flow schematic for ferrous foundries.
Gray Iron is the most popular of the cast irons. It is characterized
by the presence of most of the contained carbon.as flakes of free
graphite in the as-cast iron. Gray -iron is classified into ten
classes based on the minimum tensil strength of a cast bar. The
tensil strength is affected by the amount of free graphite present as
well as the size, shape and distribution of the graphite flakes.
Flake size, shape and distribution are strongly influenced by
metallurgical factors in the melting of the iron and its subsequent
treatment while molten, and by solidification rates and cooling in the
mold.
Ductile Iron (also known as nodular iron, spherulitic iron, etc.) is
similar to gray iron composition with respect to carbon, silicon and
iron content, and in the type of melting equipment, handling
temperatures, and general metallurgy. The important difference
between ductile and gray iron is the graphite separates as spheroids
or nodules (instead of flakes as in gray iron) under the influence of
a few hundredths of a percent of magnesium in the composition. The
presence of minute quantities of sulfur, lead, titanium, and aluminum
can interfere with and prevent the noduling effect of magnesium. The
molten iron for conversion to ductile iron must be purer than for gray
iron manufacture. However, a small quantity of cerium added with the
magnesium minimizes the effects of impurities that inhibit nodule
formation and make it possible to produce ductile iron from the same
raw materials used for high grade gray iron manufacture.
The general procedure for manufacturing ductile iron is similar to
that of gray iron, but with more precise control of composition and
pouring temperature. Prior to pouring of metal into the molds (and in
some cases during pouring) the metal is innoculated with the correct
percent of magnesium, usually in a carrier alloy, to promote the
development of spheroids of graphite on cooling.
While the development of ductile iron dates back to the 1920's, it was
only within the last 20 years that it has become an important
17
-------
engineering material. This can be noted from Table III-4 which shows
its increasing use.
Malleable Iron is produced from base metal in a range of composition
of:
Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Sulfur
Phosphorous
Boron
Aluminum
2.00
1.00
0.20
0.02
0.01
0.0005
0.0005
to 3.00 percent
to 1.80
to 0.50
to 0.17
to 0.10
to 0.0050
to 0.0150
Balance Iron
Low tonnage foundries use batch-type furnaces such as electric arc
induction, or reverbatory. Tapping temperature is 1500°C-1600°C
(2,700 - 2,900°F) depending on the fluidity required. In large
tonnage shops needing a continuous supply of molten iron, electric
furnaces or duplexing systems are employed. Cupola furnaces are
common in some malleable shops, especially for the production of pipe
fittings. After the iron casting solidifies, the metal is a brittle
white iron. Malleable iron castings are produced from this white iron
by heat treating processes that convert the as-cast structure to a
"temper carbon" grain structure in a matrix of ferrite. This is an
annealing process requiring proper furnace temperature/time cycles and
a controlled atmosphere.
Steel - The making and pouring of steel for sand castings is similar
to the casting of steel into ingots. One major difference from steel
mill practice is the higher tapping temperature needed to attain the
correct fluidity needed to pour the steel into molds. The melting
furnaces are generally the same as those for steel mills but are
smaller for foundries. Only a thoroughly "killed" steel is used for
foundry products. Molding practices are similar to gray iron foundry
with the precautions required for the higher pouring temperatures
1800°C (3,200°F). Mold coatings or washes are used to give better
finish and are generally made of more refractory like materials to
resist metal penetration.
Magnesium
Magnesium is a silver-white metal weighing 108 Ibs/cu ft. On an equal
weight basis, magnesium is equal or stronger than any other common metal.
It can be melted in the same type of furnaces as are used for aluminum or
zinc. However, due to the nature of molten magnesium, care must be
exercised in selecting refractories and other materials that the molten
metal may contact.
18
-------
Furnaces usually are stationary or tilting crucible types heated by gas,
oil, or coreless electric induction. The crucibles are made of low carbon
steel with nickel and copper contents below 0.10 percent. Magnesium is
usually alloyed with aluminum, zinc, manganese, or rare earth metals for
foundry work.
Most magnesium is cast in sand molds. The practice for sand casting of
magnesium alloys differs from most other metals in the precautionary
measures required to prevent metal-mold reactions. Inhibitors such as
sulfur, boric acid, potassium fluoborate and ammonium flurosi-licate are
mixed with the sand to prevent these reactions. Molding sands for
magnesium alloys must have high permeability to permit free flow of mold
gases to the atmosphere.
Table II1-4 indicates the growth of magnesium foundry products. A general
process schematic is shown in Figure II1-8.
Zinc - Zinc is a bluish-white metal with a hexagonal close-paced crystal
structure. It is less dense than iron and not especially strong. Zinc
melts at 420°C and boils at a temperature of 907°C. The low melting
temperature and very small grain size and adequate strength makes zinc and
zinc alloys*well suited for die casting. Die casting is the process most
often used in shaping zinc alloys. Zinc alloy compositions consist of 0.25
percent copper, 4 percent aluminum, 0.005 to .08 percent magnesium and
traces of lead, cadmium, tin and iron with the remainder zinc. Furnaces
used in melting and alloying zinc are usually the pot type, although
immersion tube and induction furnaces are also used. A furnace should hold
five to seven times the amount used in one hour. Good temperature control
is a necessity for both melting and holding furnaces. Table III-4
indicates the decreasing shipments of zinc castings. A zinc casting
process schematic is presented in Figure II1-9.
Melting Equipment
A description of the various melting equipment is presented to clarify the
many types of melting furnace scrubbers which result in a process
wastewater.
Cupola Furnace
The cupola furnace is a vertical shaft furnace consisting of a cylindrical
steel shell lined with refractories and equipped with a wind box and
tuyeres for the admission of air. A charging opening is provided at an
upper level for the introduction of melting stock and fuel. Near the
bottom are holes and spouts for removal of molten metal and slag.
Air for combustion is forced into the cupola through tuyeres located above
the slag well. The products of combusion, i.e., particles of coke, ash,
metal, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc. and smoke
19
-------
comprise the cupola emissions. Air pollution emission standards require
that these emissions be controlled. Wastewaters are generated in this
process as a result of using water as the medium for scrubbing furnace
gases.
The cupola has been the standard melting furnace for gray iron. Figures
111-10 and 11 illustrate cupola furnace systems.
Electric Arc Furnaces
An electric arc furnace is essentially a refractory hearth in which
material can be melted by heat from electric arcs. The molten metal has a
large surface area in relation to its depth, permitting bulky charge
material to be handled. This large surface area to depth ratio is
effective in slag to metal reactions as the slag and metal are at the same
temperature. Arc furnaces generally are not used for nonferrous metals as
the high point of the arc tends to vaporize the lower melting temperature
metals. Arc furnaces are operated in a batch fashion with tap-to-tap times
of 1-1/2 to 2 hours. Power, in the range of 500-600 kwh/ton, is introduced
through three carbon electrodes. These electrodes are consumed in the
process of passing the electric current through the scrap and metal into
the molten batch. They oxidize at a rate of 5 to 8 kg per metric ton of
steel (10.5 to 17 Ibs/ton).
The waste products from the process are smoke, slag, carbon monoxide and
dioxide gases and oxides of iron emitted as submicron fumes. Dry type air
pollution control equipment such as baghouses are generally used to control
electric arc furnace emissions.
Induction Furnaces
Induction melting furnaces have been used for many years to produce
nonferrous metals. Innovations in the power application area during the
last 20 years have enabled them to compete with cupolas and arc furnaces in
gray iron and steel production. This type of furnace has some very
desirable features. There is little or no contamination of the metal bath,
no electrodes are necessary, composition can be accurately controlled, good
stirring is inherent and while no combustion occurs, the temperature
obtainable is theoretically unlimited.
There are two types of induction furnaces: (a) coreless, which is a simple
crucible surrounded by a water-cooled copper coil carrying alternating
current, and (b) core or channel, in which the molten metal is channeled
through one leg of a transformer core. The induction furnace provides good
furnace atmosphere control, since no fuel is introduced into the crucible.
As long as clean materials such as castings and clean metal scrap are used,
no air pollution control equipment is necessary. If contaminated scrap is
charged or magnesium is added to manufacture ductile iron, air pollution
control devices are required to collect the fumes that are generated.
20
-------
Reverberatory Furnace
A reverberatory furnace operates by radiating heat from the burner flame,
roof, and walls onto the material to be heated. This type of furnace was
developed particularly for melting solids and for refining and heating the
resulting liquids. It is generally one of the least expensive methods of
melting since the flames come into direct contact with the solids and
molten metal. A reverberatory furnace usually consists of a shallow
refractory-lined hearth for holding the charged metal. It is enclosed by
vertical side and end walls, and covered with a low arched roof of
refractories. Combustion of fuel occurs directly above the charge and the
molten bath. The wall and roof receive heat from the flame and combustion
products and radiate heat to the molten bath. Transfer of heat occurs
almost solely by radiation. There are many shapes of reverberatory
furnaces; most common type is the open hearth style used in steel
manufacture. However, the cost of pollution control equipment, as well as
inefficiencies in handling the metal have caused this type of furnace to be
obsolete in steel and gray iron manufacture. Reverberatory furnaces are
widely used in nonferrous production.
The products of combustion from reverberatory furnaces are conducted to a
stack and exhausted to the atmosphere. Contaminants such as smoke, carbon
monoxide and dioxide, sulfur dioxide and metal oxides must be removed from
the exhause stream. These become process wastewater contaminate when
scrubbers are used.
Crucible Furnace
Crucible furnaces are used to melt metals having melting points below
1900°C (2,500°F). They are constructed of a refractory material such as a
clay-graphite mixture or silicon carbide. They are made in various shapes
and sizes. The crucible is set on a pedestal and surrounded by a
refractory shell with a combustion chamber between the crucible and the
shell. The crucible is usually sealed or shielded from the burner gases to
prevent contamination of the molten metal.
There are three general types of crucible furnaces; tilting, pit, and
stationary. All have one or more gas or oil burners mounted near the
bottom of the unit. The crucible is heated by radiation and contact with
the hot gases. The exhaust gases contain only products of hydrocarbon
combustion and generally they are not controlled.
Fume Scrubbing Equipment
The preceding section on the various types of melting units used in the
remelting of metal describe the source of the fumes, particulates, smoke,
and other waste products that are the major contaminants of process
wastewater when scrubbers are used to control the furnace emissions.
21
-------
Generally, venturi scrubbers are used to clean these furnace emissions but
other methods are used.
The methods of cleaning the wastewaters produced will be described in later
sections of this report.
Fabric Media (Baghouse)
The collection of particulate matter is achieved by entrapment of the
particles in the fabric of a filter cloth that is placed across a flowing
gas stream. These dust particules are removed from the cloth by shaking or
back flushing the fabric with air. Filtration does not remove gases from
the furnace discharge gas stream. These gases are: carbon monoxide,
phenol, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen,
ammonia hydrogen, and water vapor. Their quantities depend on type of
fuel, furnace efficiency, and infiltration of air into the gas stream.
Filtration methods have been developed to a high degree of efficiency (97-
99 percent removal of particulate matter). These methods coupled with
recuperation of heat and ignition of the combustible gases have received
considerable attention from industry.
The cloth filter media (baghouse) has a temperature limit of approximately
250°F. These gases can be cooled to this temperature by long runs of duct
work between the furnace and the baghouse. The ductwork acts as a radiator
to cool the gases. These systems are dry and produce no process
wastewaters.
Other installations have a quench tower between the furnace and the
baghouses or electrostatic precipitator. This method cools the hot gases
by evaporating water sprayed into the quench tower. This quench chamber
usually is arranged to provide a sharp reversal in the gas stream direction
and a sudden reduction in flow velocity. These features coupled with a
cooling effect achieved by the evaporation of the water causes the larger
dust particles to be deposited on the chamber floor. The gas then flows to
the filter chamber. The dust that is deposited is removed periodically.
In addition to a gas volume reduction, this water spray absorbs many of the
gases listed above.
Wet Scrubbers
o Washing Coolers. Several general designs of washing coolers are used.
All use some method to secure a long retention time to keep the gases
in contact with the scrubbing liquor. In general, they consist of a
large cylindrical vessel with the gases entering tangentially at the
bottom and exiting through the top center. Several levels of sprays
bring the liquor into contact with the rising gases. The bottom is
usually conical with a large pipe outlet to return the dirty liquor to
a settling area.
22
-------
Another type known as the bulk bed washer or packed tower contains
water sprayed gravel beds. The dusty gas enters in a downward or
tangential direction and has a preliminary dust removal capability due
to inertia. The gases then flow upward through a wetted gravel bed.
At the upper surface of this bed, the gas velocity causes a turbulent
water zone that brings the finest dust particles into contact with the
water. The recirculated water is sprayed in above this gravel bed and
continually washes it and is removed at the bottom. Above the spray
heads is a droplet catcher that removes the droplets from the rising
gas stream. This method requires approximately 10 in. (water) of
pressure drop and is not effective on particles smaller than 1 micron.
Figure I11-10 represents this method, as well as a method of
recovering some of the heat from the gas stream.
Wet Cap. The "wet cap" method is an early attempt to reduce the
particulate emissions by passing the waste gases through a water
stream or water curtain. This method operated with a low pressure
drop could be added to existing cupolas with only minor changes to
equipment and operations. Figure 111-11 represents this method.
Venturi Scrubber. This scrubber consists primarily of a Venturi tube
fitted with spray nozzles at the throat. The dust-laden gases flow
axially into the throat where they are accelerated to 200 ft/sec.
Water is sprayed into this throat by a ring of nozzles. This produces
a dense mist-like water curtain. The water droplets of this curtain
combine with the dust particles. In the subsequent diffuser, the
velocity is reduced and inertia is used to separate the droplet from
the gas stream. Venturi scrubbers require 15-100 ' in. (water) of
pressure drop across the gas stream. They are very effective on
particulate matter in the 1 micron range and readily adsorb many
furnace gases in their water streams and thus add many pollutants to
the process wastewater.
Venturi scrubbers are operated in conjunction with water settling and
recirculating systems as shown in Figures V-13, V-14, and V-15.
Dust Scrubbing Equipment
Foundries that use sand as a molding media have the problem of collecting
and controlling the dusts produced in handling and using this sand. Sand,
as used in foundry molding, is mixed with one or more materials that coat
the sand grains and act as a binder to hold the sand into the form of the
pattern. The binders are a major source of organic pollutants in the
foundry. Fumes and odors are developed in the pouring of hot metal into
molds. The cleaning of the casting to remove traces of sand, gates,
runners, heads, mold flashings and mismatch also produces dust and fumes
that are removed from the work place. Many of these dusts are collected on
fabric media in the "baghouse." In many instances, it is more economical or
23
-------
more efficient to remove these airborne particles by entrapping them in a
spray or mist. These types of "wet collectors" will be examined as they
are currently used in the foundry.
Spray Chambers
The simplest type of wet scrubber is a chamber in which spray nozzles are
placed. The gas stream velocity decreases as it enters the chamber and
particles are wetted by the spray and settle and are collected at the
bottom of the chamber.
Cyclone-Type Scrubbers
Cyclone-type scrubbers feature a tangential inlet to a cylindrical body.
Water is injected through spray nozzles which break the water into many
droplets that contact the particles and increase their inertial action to
cause them to impinge on the vessel sides where they are flushed to the
bottom; the clean gas exits through the top. Baffles in the exit collect
and aid in the removal of the water droplets from the gas stream.
Orifice-Type Scrubbers
Orifice-type scrubbers utilize the velocity of the air stream to provide
liquid contact. The flow of air through a restricted passage partially
filled with water causes the dispersion of the water into many droplets
that intimately contact and wet the airborne dusts and absorb some of the
gases. The amount of water in motion is large and most of the water can be
recirculated without pumps.
Mechanical-Centrifugal Scrubbers
A spray of water at the inlet of a fan becomes a mechanical-centrifugal
collector. The collection efficiency is enhanced by the entrapment of
dusts on the droplet surface, and impingement of the droplets on the
rotating blades. The spray also flushes the blades of the collected dusts.
This spray will substantially increase corrosion and wear on the fan.
Another type of mechanical collector uses a rotating element to generate a
spray of water droplets into a dust laden gas stream. The wetted particles
flush to the collection pan where they can settle while the water is
recirculated.
Venturi Scrubbers
Venturi scrubbers have been described in the section on melting furnace
scrubbers. They are also used in dust collection systems. In some cases
there is a single large Venturi in the dust laden air stream with low
pressure water added at the Venturi throat. The extreme turbulance breaks
the water into a fine spray where it impacts and wets the dust particles.
24
-------
Other applications are similar to orifice-type scrubbers but with Venturi's
shape replacing the orifices. These Venturi's are located at the water
line and water is drawn into the Venturi throat where it is broken into a
fine spray by the turbulent air. The spray droplets wet the dust particles
and are impinged against baffle plates. Here they drain to the reservoir
where the particles settle.
Packed Towers
This device is similar to the bulk bed washer described in the melting
scrubber section. The dust laden gases pass through a wetted bed of
granular or fibrous collection material and liquid is flushed over the
surface of the collection material to keep it wet, clean and prevent re-
entrainment of the particles. Collection efficiency depends on the length
of time the gas stream is in contact with the collecting surfaces. The
collecting material should have a large ratio of area to weight, and be of
a shape that resists close packing. Coke, broken rock, glass spheres,
rashig rings, tellirets, are materials that are often used as tower packing
materials.
A cone-shaped bottom aids in removing settled dust particles from the
liquid. Recirculation of the liquor is usually practiced. Mist
eliminators are located in the exit gas-stream to reduce loss of the
flushing liquor.
Wet Filters
A wet filter consists of a spray chamber with filter pads composed of glass
fibers, knitted wire mesh or other fiberous materials. The dust is
collected on the spray pads by virtue of the dust laden gas stream being
drawn through the pads. Sprays are directed against the pads to keep the
dust washed off. The water drains to a reservoir where it is settled or
clarified and recirculated, or discharged.
Casting Methods
Foundries use several methods of casting the molten metal into its final
shape. None of these methods involve intimate contact between the molten
metal and water as the explosive forces developed by the rapid generation
of steam when water comes into contact with molten metal cannot be
controlled.
Sand Casting
o Green Sand Castings: This is the most widely used molding method. It
utilizes a mold made of compressed moist sand. The term "green"
denotes the presence of moisture in the molding sand and that the mold
is not dried or baked. This method is generally the most expedient,
but is generally not suitable for large or very heavy castings.
25
-------
Dry Sand Casting: Most large and very heavy castings are made in dry
sand molds. The mold surfaces are given a refractory coating and are
dried before the mold is closed for pouring. This hardens the mold
and provides the necessary strength to resist large amounts of metal,
but increases the manufacturing time. Molds which are hardened by the
C022 Process may also be considered in this category. Such molds are
not dried, but are made from an essentially moisture free sand
mixture, which contains sodium silicate (water glass). The mold is
rapidly hardened by the reaction of carbon dioxide gas with the
silicate. The process can also be used for making cores. It is
advantageous in reducing manufacturing time, but is not practical for
some types of work.
Shell Mold Castings: This method is of recent development and
utilizes the unique process of making molds by forming thin shells of
a resin-bonded sand over a hot pattern. It is suitable for small and
some medium-sized castings. Shell molding provides improved accuracy
and surface finish. It allows for greater detail and less drift than
is normally satisfactory in green sand molding. Metal patterns of
special construction are necessary. The process is of particular
advantage when it provides savings in machining and in finishing the
casting. The shell process has also been very effectively applied in
making cores which may be used with any of the molding methods.
Core Mold Casting: Castings of unusual complexity (such as the thin
and deep fins of an air-cooled engine cylinder) may be produced in a
mold made of the type of sand commonly used for cores. This sand has
almost free-flowing properties when it is packed around the pattern,
and it will fill crevices and reproduce detail. After baking, the
mold becomes strong enough to resist the forces of flowing molten
metal. Core sand molds may be used when complexity requires more than
one parting line in a casting. Core sand sections may be used to form
a complex external portion of a casting in either a green or dry sand
mold, just as cores are used to form internal surfaces.
Permanent Mold Castings: Iron castings, within limits as to size,
complexity, and properties, can be produced in large numbers from
mechanically operated permanent iron molds. This mechanized,
high-production process is mainly used for castings of suitable shape,
of less than 25 pounds in weight, and with 3/16" minimum wall
thickness. Cores are formed with conventional sand or shell cores.
Ceramic Mold Casting: Certain highly specialized castings requiring
an unusually fine finish, precise detail, and close tolerances are
produced in molds made of fired ceramics. This is comparable to the
plaster-mold process which is used for nonferrous alloys. Pattern
equipment is generally of a "core-box" type, and may be made of metal
or plaster. In some applications, backdraft or undercuts are allowed
by making part of the pattern of a flexible material. When the mold
26
-------
can be assembled from a number of pieces, castings of several hundred
Ibs. in weight and several feet in a major dimension can be made to
relatively close tolerances.
Centrifugal Casting the force of gravity, but centrifugal force may be
used. True centrifugal casting is a means for producing a cavity in the
casting without the use of a core. The production of pipe by this process
is well known, but the method is also used for making many other
cylindrical castings, from engine cylinder liners to large process rolls.
Investment Casting Operations
Investment casting uses a mold that is produced by surrounding an
expendable pattern with a ceramic slurry that hardens at room temperature.
The pattern is usually wax or plastic and is melted or burned out leaving a
cavity, with very close tolerances, in the refractory material. Investment
casting is also known as the "lost wax" or "precision casting" process.
In sand casting, the pattern is usually wood or metal, and it makes an
impression or cavity in the sand. In investment casting, a metal die is
used to produce the wax patterns. These, in turn, produce the ceramic
mold. Ceramic cores are used when needed, and these are expendable.
The wax is melted out in an autoclave where temperature can be closely
controlled and all moisture in the ceramic backup material is eliminated.
Metal is poured into the molds and they are permitted to cool. The mold is
pushed from its container and the ceramic is broken away. Final cleaning,
a source of process wastewater, is by high pressure water jets in a
hydroblast cabinet. The casting is sent to the finishing department where
heads and gates are removed.
Die Casting
In most die casting operations a major source of wastewater is the die
casting machine hydraulic ore leakage, mold cooling water leakage, casting
quenches, and mold lubercant spray. These waters collect around the
machine base, and are contaminated by dirt, and oil and grease from various
fittings.
*
In some operations (see Figure II1-3) where the casting quench tank is
located beneath the machine, these waters drain into the quench tank.
Other plants segregate the process wastewater streams.
o Die Lubes
In die casting, the application of lubricants to the die cavity is a
necessary and often critical process. Lubricants prevent a casting
from sticking to the die, and also provide a better finish to the
casting. The correct lubricant will permit metal to flow into
27
-------
cavities that will not otherwise fill properly. A secondary function
of a lubricant is the cooling of the die.
Selection of a lubricant is based on the melting temperature of the
metal, operating temperature of the die surface and the alloy being
cast. No one lubricant will be suitable for all die casting
applications. Sometimes two or three different lubricants are needed
to achieve increased productivity.
When molten metal contacts an oil type lubricant some of the lubricant
decomposes and leaves a powder of carbonaceous materials on the die
surface. This can be removed from the die surface with an air jet.
When the correct lubricant is used, enough of it remains on the die
for the production of several more castings.
Moving die parts, such as ejectors and cores, must be treated with a
high temperature lubricant to prevent seizure. Oil suspensions of
graphite are usually used. Many of these compounds are carefully
developed for specific machines and represent a considerable expense.
The placement, recovery and reclaimation of these materials is an
important phase of the die casting operation. Several plants have
segreated their waste streams and enacted die lubercant recovery
processes.
Continuous Casting
Billets, logs or slabs are continuously cast by pouring at a controlled
rate the molten metal into one end of a water cooled mold and withdrawing a
solid piece from the other end of the mold. The solidified metal may or
may not be immersed into quenching water. The cast piece is then cut into
lengths for further processing.
Continuous casting is used in operations where a slab, billet, log or rod
is "worked" to produce a final product. Large tonnages of metals are
produced by this method, and the casting is only an intermediate step
between the molten metal and the final product.
Casting Quenches
In some instances certain metal grain structures that are obtainable only
through sudden thermal changes are desired in a casting. In these cases,
the operator will quench the casting in a water bath. This water bath may
be plain water or may contain an additive to promote some special
condition. The additive is a very minor part of the bath.
Casting quenching is practiced more frequently in nonferrous than in
ferrous foundries. This is due to a desire to cool and solidify the
casting quickly, more than to promote a grain structure change. Nonferrous
28
-------
foundries are predominantly die casters. A quench operation immediately
after ejection of a die cast part, will solidify the metal quickly, reduce
the machine cycle time, and increase production. Many aluminum die casting
plants have replaced the quench with a runout table on which the castings
air cool. Depending upon the configuration of the casting, zinc die cast
material may sag and not retain the desired specifications if air cooled.
Therefore, the trend to eliminate the quench and its associated water
pollution problem has not been as prevalent in the zinc die casting area as
in the aluminum die casting area.
Mold Cooling »
Where permanent molds are used in the casting process, it is often
necessary to force cool the molds with water sprayed or flushed over the
mold. This water becomes a process wastewater, and contains contaminating
materi-als picked up from the molds. The centrifugal casting of pipe is an
example of mold cooling. Only large foundries are engaged in the casting
method as indicated by Table II1-5.
Slag Quench
Most melting operations produce a slag or dross. This generally is a
mixture of non-metallic fluxes introduced with the "charge" to act as a
scavanger to remove the impurities from the molten metal. This slag is
removed from the molten metal and cooled for disposal, or for reclaiming of
metal. In ferrous foundries the amount of slag produced requires disposal
on a large scale. Where the slag is continuously produced, i.e., in a
cupola operation, the slag is quenched in a water stream to rapidly cool
and fragmentize it to an easily handled bulk material. The quench water is
a process wastewater.
In nonferrous foundries the slags generated are handled without producing a
process wastewater.
Sand Washing
In the many plants which use sand as a molding media, the reclaiming and
reuse of the sand is a major operation. Three methods of reclaiming sand
are in general use; dry, wet and thermal.
The dry method has several sub-methods that generally include screening,
lump breaking, and cooling before reuse. These processes usually produce a
dust from the handling of the sand, but no process wastewaters results
unless a wet dust collecter is used.
The wet method has several variations of making a slurry of sand and water,
agitating or stirring this slurry to cause the sand grains to scrub against
each other to remove particles of burnt clay, chemical binders, sugar, wood
29
-------
fiber, etc. that adhere to the sand grains. The slurry is pumped to a
classifier for separation of the fine materials. The sand is then dried.
The thermal method involves heating the sand to 1200-1500°F in air to
remove carbonaceous material. Some clay may also be removed by abrasion of
the sand grains as they travel through the process. The thermal
reclamation process does not produce a process wastewater.
The wash water used in wet reclamation contains considerable contaminants
in the form of fine silicate material, spent clay and other pollutants. To
economize on water use, this water can and has been clarified and returned
to the salrid washing system.
Several examples of water reclamation from wet sand reclamation processes
are found in the data.
Magnesium Grinding Scrubbers
Finely divided particles of magnesium can react violently in air. It is
mandatory that magnesium dusts be wetted to prevent this reaction.
Therefore, all dusts produced in cleaning, sawing, grinding or machining
are collected in a scrubber. The water spray coats the dust laden gas
stream and wets the magnesium particles eliminating the fire hazard.
Scrubbers on grinding or sawing dusts can be several types as described
previously. f Where practicable, the dusts from such metal working
operations can be salvaged and remelted.
30
-------
TABLE III-l
Distribution Of Plants
CO
A1uminum
Copper
Iron and Steel
Magnesium
Zinc
TOTAL
Less than
10 employees
Wet
9
9
1
1
9
Dry
316
217
66
1
74
10-49
empl oyees
Wet
83
14
149
1
35
Dry
401
352
377
3
124
50-249
empl oyees
Wet
55
42
418
5
22
Dry
85
65
269
1
87
Greater than
250 empl oyees
Wet
22
16
229
0
12
Dry
4
0
55
0
7
TOTAL
Wet
169
81
797
7
78
Dry
806
634
767
5
292
29
674
282 1257
542 507
279
66
1132 2504
-------
TABLE III-2
Percentage of Plants with Process Wastewater
CO
ro
Aluminum Casting
Copper and Copper
Alloy Casting
Iron and Steel Casting
Magnesium Casting
Zinc Casting
Les
10
ng
s than
empl oyees
2.77%
3.98%
1.49%
50%
10.84%
10-49
empl oyees
17.15%
3.83%
28.32%
25%
22.0%
50-249
empl oyees
39.28%
39.25%
60.84%
83.33%
20.18%
Greater than
250 employees
84.46%
100%
80.63%
0%
63.16%
-------
Table II1-3
FOUNDRY LOCATION BY REGION
(Number of Foundries)
Major Metal Cast
Region
New Eng'land
Mid-Atlantic
Great Lakes
Plains
South Atlantic
Ł East South Central
Weat South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Total
Gray
Iron
77
188
386
141
101
89
80
27
77
1.166
Ductile
Iron
3
9
20
8
7
13
9
1
n.
81
Steel
23
79
126
31
21
16
38
16
64
414
Malleable
Iron
5
16
29
3
1
1
1
0
_0
56
Aluminum
88
188
471
149
83
42
109
25
231
1,386
Zinc
27
74
141
26
15
7
10
6
=35
341
Copper
Base
85
168
219
54
40
21
46
16
100
749
Magnesium
1
2
7
1
1
0
1
0
_5
18
Other
Metals
28
46
54
7
8
3
6
3
18
173
All
Metals
337
770
1,453
420
277
192
300
94
541
4,384
Source
Penton Publications
-------
Year
'67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
TABLE 111-4
FOUNDRY SHIPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Gra
13,
14,
14,
12,
11,
13,
14,
14,
10,
11,
12,
12,
y Ductile
466
097
679
338
728
494
801
459
621
935
291
524
863
1,
1,
1,
2,
1,
2,
2,
1,
2,
2,
2,
033
254
607
111
835
246
202
824
243
702
868
Malleable
1,131
1,007
1,172
852
884
960
1,031
914
730
846
829
816
Tons
x 10+3
Steel
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
,857
,730
,897
,724
,583
,609
,894
,090
,937
,803
,718
,862
Al
767
794
849
753
787
926
1,013
869
687
921
1,005
995
Cu
483
396
426
375
352
381
389
337
256
274
289
283
Mji
20
21
21
17
22
21
22.
24.
15.
19.
24.
22.
5
3
7
5
9
4
2n
419
426
439
348
368
400
453
346
286
345
329
274
Total
Tons x 10
19.0
19.5
20.8
18.0
17.8
19.6
21.8
21.2
16.3
18.4
19.2
19.6
-6
-------
Figure III-l
20.000 r-
1956 1961
Sni'RCES: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1966
1971
1976
CASTTMETALS PRODUCTION-(THOUSANDS ORTONS) AT 5-YEAR INTERVALS.
195^1976
35
-------
Figure III-2
1800
1600
1400
1200
I 1000
Z
300
600
400
200
SMALL IRON FOUNDRIES
(100 or Last Employees)
MEDIUM IRON FOUNDRIES
(100-500 Employees)
LARGE IRON FOUNDRIES
(500 or Mora Employee])
1960 19«1
SOURCE. A. T. K««mv;
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
IRON FOUNDRY TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES
36
-------
POUR
I
COOLING
I
3HAKEOUT
CASTING
I
HEADS 8 GATES
CUT - OFF
I
CLEANING
INSPECTING
I
FINISHING
T
PRODUCT
TO INVENTORY
MOLD
CORES
H SAND RECLAIMING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
PRODUCT FLOW DIAGRAM
I I I
FIGURE 3E-3
-------
METAL
POURINO
STATION
CO
co
CERAMIC
BACK-UP
MATERIAL
SOLIDS TO
LANDFILL
WATER
DISCHARGE
CASTINGS TO
FINISHING
DEPARTMENT
SOLIDS TO
LANDFILL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
INVESTMENT FOUNDRY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE IH-4
-------
Exhous)
-Wolcr
Pit Costing WoUr
COOLING
TOWER
_.„ ~DIE CASTING
RAM 0 MACHINE
Oil
Disposal
TRIM
MACHINE
Scrap
To Finithing
D«parliMnl
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM DIE CASTING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE Iff- 5
-------
-pa
O
1
iEihautl
FUME * WUU<
Pifl
1 Foundry Scrap
| — "
1
f
. MFI TINO FURNACFS
i
... . JUulllpU Unlli)
\ 7
\ 1 III ,WM. _
\ /^ I 1 ll
— ' ^ \ /T ITII I rnMTiMinii': DIRFCT PI
' ^ * MOLDS CASTING CHILL
MOLDS
i
LRMAr
MOLC
/,-,/ 1 * S.
• ' v ' \— F
1 < 1
SHEET. STRIP, BAR. ROD
a WIRE MILLS
(Non- Foundry)
^ WASTE WATER ^ Woslewoter S«w«rt
TREATMENT
1
Recycle
Solids
Oitpotol
Wol«r '
1
IE«hou«t
4 ;
JENT 1 SAND
>S DUST * M°LDS
COLLECTOR ,
1 •- •• Callings
<•>— Sond
1
/^SANOV
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
COPPER S ALLOYS
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
I- Jrifti inF TTT fi
-------
Wafer
Water
Landfit
HDD BS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
FERROUS FOUNDRY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Discharge or
Recycle
FIGURE Iff 7
-------
-p.
ro
"11
MOLDS
!
Sand Return
ExhOuit
Waslewoler Tr«atment
or Discharg*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
I —[FIGURE
-------
CO
Watttwotv _ . .
•litth
MELTER
| T 0* L«* Sproy
1
I If
c
COOLING
TOWER
1 1 " — — v
' | ' \ Oi« Cooling (NC)
1 , \
% HOLDING |f "!
^ FURNACE |j_ J
4 ...j. . f
'/ss///rf////7/M
_ flV__J
1 '
^H
DIE LUBE TANK Li
IV)
* •--
* QUENCH
WASTEWATER nrCIIARCC OR
TREATMENT RECYCLE
DISPOSAL LANDFILL
|"l i »OIE CASTING
'IH^M^ACH,^
\ \
TRIM
— 1 Catting ^ )' { ) MACHINE
^-/^ 1
(\^ *
SCRAP
TANK
»TO FINISHING
DEHVRTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ZINC DIE CASTING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
_ „_ ripi inir TIT- 0
-------
Purge
Damper
SlocK
Bypass
Doni pec
STORAGE
BINS
COMBUSTION
AIR BLOWER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EXHAUST GASES
BLAST AIR
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
IRON FOUNDRY CUPOLA
PROCESS FlOW DIAGRAM
IFIGURE nr-io
-------
-4 gpm/IOOO cfm
Verlicol
Lift Door
WET TOP
DUST COLLECTOR
Charge
Opening —••
I Blower
Make-Up
Waler
DRAG TANK
WET DUST
REMOVAL
SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
IRON FOUNDRY CUPOLA
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE in 11
-------
TABLE II1-5
MOLD COOLING
Plant Code
4409
8944
1M73
11*580
11865
177^6
1891*7
Emp. Group
50-249
>250
>250
>250
>250
>250
>250
Metal
Gray
Ductile
Ductile
Ductile
Gray
Gray
Ductile
Product
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Casting Process
71% Centrifugal
97% Centrifugal
86% Centrifugal
100% Centrifugal
60% Centrifugal
84% Centrifugal
100% Centrifugal
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The foundry point source category includes a number of distinctively
different kinds of foundries which cast a variety of metals and employ
various metal molding and casting techniques. Foundries which cast
dissimilar metals, employ different manufacturing processes, some of which
require air pollution control devices, have substantially different raw
waste characteristics and employ different process wastewater treatment and
control technologies. The foundry point source category is therefore not
amenable to a single set of effluent limitations and standards applicable
to all foundries.
Instead, the foundry category is amenable to a subcategorization scheme
which provides for the grouping of foundries which cast similar metals,
employing similar manufacturing processes, have similar sources of air
pollution which require control, and as a consequence have similar raw
waste characteristics. Appropriate subcategorization, through
consideration of the factors enumerated in this section, assures that
plants grouped into a subcategory are sufficiently similar in various
characteristics that a reasonable comparison of similar plants and their
treatment performances can be made. The subcategorization scheme developed
allows the application of a uniform set of effluent limitations and
standards of performance for each subcategory and subcategory segment.
SELECTED SUBCATEGORIES
Based on the findings detailed in this section and supported by the
discussions in Sections III, V, and VII, the subcategories and subcategory
segments of the foundry point source category established for developing
effluent limitations and standards of performance are:
1. Aluminum Casting
a. Investment Casting Process
b. Melting Furnace Scrubber Process
c. Casting Quench Process
d. Die Casting Process
e. Die Lube Process
2. Copper Casting
a. Dust Collection Scrubber Process
b. Mold Cooling and Casting Quench Porcess
c. Continuous Casting Process
47
-------
3. Iron and Steel Casting
a. Dust Collection Scrubber Process
b. Melting Furnace Scrubber Process
c. Slag Quenching Process
d. Casting Quench and Mold Cooling Process
e. Sand Washing Process
4. Magnesium Casting
a. Dust Collection Scrubber Process
b. Grinding Scrubber Process
5. Zinc Casting
a. Melting Furnace Scrubber Process
b. Casting Quench Process
SUBCATEGORY DEFINITIONS
Aluminum Casting - the remelting of aluminum or an aluminum alloy to form a
cast intermediate or final product by pouring or forcing the molten metal
into a mold except for ingots, pigs, or other cast shapes related to
primary metal smelting. Manufactuirng processes associated with the
casting of aluminum which result in a process wastewater are:
a. Investment Casting Process - The casting of aluminum or aluminum
alloys by investment casting teachniques involving mold backup,
hydroblast cleaning of castings and the collection of dusts resulting
from the hydroblasting of castings and the handling of the investment
material. This operation is also known as the lost wax process, lost
pattern, hot investment and precision casting.
b. Melting Furnace Scrubber Process - Those air pollution control
operations which clean dusts and fumes resulting from a melting
furnace through the use of water or process wastewater as a cleaning
medium.
c. Casting Quench Process - Those operations in which a casting of
elevated temperature is immersed in a liquid bath for the purpose of
rapidly decreasing the temperature of the casting.
d. Die Casting Process - These operations associated with die
casting in which sources of process wastewater are collected in a
common container. Such sources of wastewater include: die surface
cooling sprays, hydraulic fluid leakage, splash over from casting
quench, and leakage from non contact cooling water associated with the
die casting equipment which becomes contaminated due to common
collection with process wastewaters.
e. Die Lube Process - Those operations associated with die casting
which involve the sparying of a liquid containing mold release agents
48
-------
onto the die surface or die head and the subsequent segregated
collection of the liquid.
Copper Casting - The remelting of copper to form a cast intermediate or
final product by pouring or forcing the molten metal into a mold except for
ingots, pigs or other cast shapes related to primary metal smelting.
Manufacturing processes associated with the casting of copper which result
in a process wastewater are:
a. Dust Collection Scrubber Process - Those air pollution control
operations which clean dusts resulting from sand preparation, sand
molding processes, core making processes, sand handling, and sand
transfer processes, the removal of sand from the casting, and other
sand related dust sources thorugh the use of water or process
wastewater as a cleaning medium.
b. Mold Cooling and Casting Quench Process - Those operations, other
than processes associated with continuous casting, associated with
the application of contact cooling water on metalic molds and those
operations in which a casting is immersed in a liquid bath, for the
purpose of rapidly decreasing the temperature of the casting.
c. Continuous Casting Process - Those operations in which a casting
is produced by the solidification of the liquid metal in a water
cooled metalic mold while passing through the mold at a controlled
rate and into a quench solution. Methods of continuous casting
considered in this report are: wire bar casting, direct chill casting,
and continuous casting wheel processes.
Iron and Steel Casting - The remelting of ferrous metals to form a cast
intermediate or finished product by pouring the molten metal into a mold.
Manufacturing processes associated with the casting of iron and steel which
result in a process wastewater are:
a. Dust Collection Scrubber Process - Those air pollution control
operations which clean dusts resulting from sand preparation, sand
molding processes, core making processes, sand handling and transfer
processes, the removal of sand from the casting (including shot
blasting), and other sand related dust sources, and pouring floor,
pouring ladle, and transfer ladle fumes when collected in an air duct
system common with sand dusts, through the use of water or process
wastewater as a cleaning medium.
b. Melting Furnace Scrubber Process - Those air pollution control
operations which clean dusts and fumes resulting from melting furnace
operations, or which clean pouring floor, pouring ladle or transfer
ladle dusts and fumes when collected in a air duct system common with
the melting or holding furnace fumes, thorugh the use of water or
process wastewater as a cleaning medium.
49
-------
c. Slag Quench Process - Those operations in which furnace slage is
cooled or sluiced through the use of water or process wastewater.
d. Casting Quench and Mold Cooling Process - Those operations
requiring the application of cooling water directly on the casting
mold and those operations in which a casting is immersed in a liquid
bath for the purpose of rapidly decreasing the temperature of the
casting or for imparting desired metallurgical properties.
e. Sand Washing Process - Those operations in which spent sand is
reclaimed for reuse by washing the sand to remove impurities.
Magnesium Casting - The remelting of magnesium to form a cast intermediate
or final product by pouring or forcing the molten metal into a mold except
for ingots, pigs, or other cast shapes related to primary metal smelting.
Manufacturing processes associated with the casting of magnesium which
result in a process wastewater are:
a. Dust Collection Scrubber Process - Those air pollution control
operations which clean dusts resulting from sand preparation, sand
molding processes, core making processes, sand handling and transfer
processes, the removal of sand from the casting, and other sand
related dust sources through the use of water or process wastewater as
a cleaning medium.
b. Grinding Scurbber Process - Those air pollution control and fire
retardant operations which clean and trap magnesium dusts resulting
from the cleaning, abrading, or grinding of the casting following its
removal from the mold medium.
Zinc Casting - The remelting of zinc to form a cast intermediate or final
product by pouring or forcing the molten metal into a mold except for
ingots, pigs, or other cast shapes related to primary metal smelting. The
manufacturing processes associated with the casting of zinc which result in
a process wastewater are:
a. Furnace Scrubber Process - Those air pollution control operations
which clean dusts and fumes resulting from a melting or holding
furnace through the use of water or process wastewater as a cleaning
medium.
b. Casting Quench Process - Those operations in which castings at
elevated temperatures are immersed in a liquid bath for the purpose of
rapidly decreasing the temperature of the casting.
SUBCATEGORIZATION BASIS
With respect to identifying the relevent and discrete subcategories and
subcategory segments for the foundry point source category, the following
50
-------
factors were considered:
1. Type of metal cast
2. Manufacturing process
3. Air pollution sources
4. Water use
5. Process wastewater characteristics
6. Raw materials
7. Process chemicals
8. Wastewater treatability
9. Plant size
10. Plant age
11. geographic location
12. Non-water quality aspects; solid waste generation and
disposal, energy requirements
Type of metal cast and manufacturing process form the framework for the
selected subcategories. Many of the other factors provided additional
support to the subcategorization scheme. These other factors including
process wastewater characteristics helped to delineate the final
subcategories and are reflected in the subcategories and subcategory
segments developed.
Rationale for Subcateqorization - Factors Considered
Type of Metal Cast
The type of metal cast forms the principle basis for subcategorization of
the foundry point source category. Metals differ, among other things, in
physical and chemical properties. While ferrous metals are all alloys of
iron, non-ferrous metals i.e., aluminum, copper, lead, magnesium, zinc,
etc. differ among themselves in physical and chemical aspects and differ
substantially from the alloys of iron in many aspects.
In addition, these inherent differences in the physical and chemical
properties of the various types of metals cast result in a diversity of
manufacturing processes, process chemical use, sources of air pollution,
water use, and process wastewater characteristics. As seen in the
technical findings of this study, the type of metal cast affects the kinds
and quantities of metal toxic pollutants present in foundry process
wastewater. Additionally, the type of metal cast indirectly influences the
type and quantities of organic toxic pollutants present in process
wastewaters. Different casting techniques are used with different metals
and different casting techniques require the use of different process
chemicals. The binders or chemical additives used in sand casting are
substantially different than those process chemicals used as mold release
agents in die casting operations.
51
-------
As might be reasonable anticipated, zinc was detected in much greater
concentrations (350 mg/1) in the process wastewater from zinc casting
processes than that amount of zinc (1.3 mg/1) detected in process waste-
waters from aluminum casting operations. The presence of lead was
quantified in the majority of the process wastewater streams sampled from
ferrous casting processes while lead was not detected in the process
wastewater from zinc casting processes. In addition, the concentration of
lead was determined to be greater (140 mg/1) in the process wastewater from
ferrous foundries than that amount determined (2.0 mg/1) in the process
wastewater from aluminum casting processes.
Copper was characteristically found in greater concentrations (110 mg/1) in
the process wastewater from copper casting processes than the amount of
copper detected in the process wastewater from the casting of any other
metal type under study.
Examination of the data indicates that differences in alloys of the same
base metal were not of sufficient magnitude to subcategorize by alloy.
This is most apparent in the ferrous casting subcategory where differences
in raw waste characteristics, manufacturing processes, process chemcials,
etc., among gray iron, malleable, ductile, and steel foundries were not
substantive to support subcategorization by alloy. In addition, since many
foundries cast a wide range of alloys of a particular base metal, e.g.
aluminum and zinc, the application of effluent limitations and standards to
each alloy would be impracticle.
Subcategorization based on waste characteristics was considered. However,
a review of each of the remaining factors reveals that the type of metal
cast, the manufacturing process and the subsequent process chemical use,
affects the process wastewater characteristics of plants in the foundry
category. Subcategorization by metal type, therefore, groups foundries
reasonably well and inherently considers process wastewater characteristics
and other pertinent factors.
In addition to being apparently technically reasonable, subcategorization
by metal type provides a practicle methodology for the application of
effluent limitations and standards of performance to specific foundries and
plants engaged in metal molding and casting. It is easy to identify which
subcategory limitations and standards apply to which plants since many
plants cast only one metal. In fact, many company names explicitly
identify the type of metal the company casts.
In those instances where a plant casts more than one metal, the manu-
facturing processes, equipment, and pollutant sources are usually
segregated by metal type. A specific melting furnace, for example,
exclusively melts only one metal to avoid cross contamination with another
metal. Manufacturing processes are designed to handle only one metal type
without extensive overhaul or rebuilding. Many of these manufacturing
processes, die casting for example, require the use of speciality process
52
-------
chemicals designed for very specific applications and fpjr use with very
specific metal types.
As would reasonably be expected, there is a close interrelationship between
type of metal cast (and the subcategories derived from them) and the
factors of manufacturing processes, process chemicals, raw material,
process wastewater characteristics, and air pollution source as described
below.
Manufacturing Process
Consideration of the various manufacturing processes helped to refine the
subcategorization scheme. Subcategories based on metal type were further
segmented where necessary to allow for dissimilar manufacturing processes.
This would in turn account for differences in water use and dissimilar
process wastewater characteristics.
Many manufacturing processes are unique to the type of metal cast. The
data indicate that slag quenching is only associated with the melting of
ferrous metals. Other manufacturing operations vary depending upon the
type of metal being processed. A cupula furnance is a unique source of air
pollution with characteristic emissions which are controlled by wet air
pollution control devices and, therefore, a source of process wastewater.
Casting techniques also differ depending upon the metal. Aluminum and zinc
castings are frequently produced by die casting methods while ferrous
metals are not.
Not all manufacturing processes result in a process wastewater. Con-
sideration of manufacturing process helped to distinguish between those
processes which result in a process wastewater and those which do not.
Examination of the data reveals that a manufacturing process may be a
process wastewater source in one of two ways; 1) use of water directly in
the process and 2) through the use of water in an air pollution control
device associated with the manufacturing process. Discussion of
subcategorization supported by consideration of a air pollution control
source is deferred until later.
Manufacturing processes which produce a process wastewater directly are:
for aluminum casting; investment casting process, casting quench process,
die casting process, and die lube processes, for copper casting; mold
cooling and casting quench process, and continuous casting process, for
ferrous casting; slag quenching process, casting quench and mold cooling
process, and sand washing process, for zinc casting; casting quench
process.
Though some manufacturing processes are significantly different depending
upon the type of metal, some manufacturing processes similar in design and
function are associated with the casting of different metals. For example,
aluminum and zinc castings may be formed through a similar die casting
53
-------
process. Where similar manufacturing processes associated with different
metals were encountered process chemical usage and process wastewater
characteristics were examined to determine any additional basis of support
for a subcategorization scheme based on the type of metal cast and
manufacturing process.
Consideration of the type of metal cast and the associated manufacturing
process helped to identify sources of process wastewater and group the data
by manufacturing process for further analysis. In instances where process
wastewater streams are not the result of direct contact with the process
and where different metals are processed on similar manufacturing units
other factors were considered as described below.
Air Pollution Sources
Certain manufacturing processes are characteristically sources of air
pollution. In many instances wet air pollution control devices are
associated with these specific operations.
Those manufacturing processes which produce a process wastewater via air
pollution control are: for aluminum casting; melting furnace scrubber
process, for copper casting; dust collection scrubber process, for ferrous
casting; dust collection scrubber process, melting furnace scrubber
process, for magnesium casting; dust collection scrubber process, and
grinding scrubber process, for zinc casting; furnace scrubber process.
Since wet air pollution control equipment is unique to certain manu-
facturing processes, those operations are differenciated from other
manufacturing operations and from other process wastewater sources as
previously described. Consideration of air pollution sources helped to
further substantiate the manufacturing process segments for each
subcategory.
Process Water Usage
The decision to use water as part of a manufacturing process or as an air
pollution control mechanism depends on many factors. The volume of water
used is primarily dependent upon the manufacturing process, air pollution
control device, the cost and availability of water, and most significantly,
the plant water management practices. The effects of manufacturing process
and air pollution control are implicitly reflected in the subcategories
developed. Plant water management practices vary from plant to plant and
therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, process water usage was not
considered to be an appropriate basis for subcategorization.
Process Wastewater Characteristics
While there are many inherent similarities in raw wastewater charac-
teristics and treatability between subcategories, there are also sig-
54
-------
nificant differences. As a consequence, this factor was very important in
supporting the established subcategories as discussed earlier.
The type and quantity of pollutants differ in the process wastewater from
similar manufacturing process. The die casting of aluminum and zinc is
performed on similar die cast equipment. However, zinc was found at 40
times the concentration in zinc casting quench solutions than that which
was found in aluminum casting quench solutions. More organic toxic
pollutants were detected at concentrations above 0.10 mg/1 in aluminum
casting quench solutions than detected in zinc casting quench solutions.
In addition, to supporting subcategorization by metal type, consideration
of wastewater characteristics helped to differentiate similar manufacturing
operations used to process different metals.
Raw Materials
Raw material composition was found to significantly influence wastewater
characteristics. This effect is predominantly the result of the the type
of metal being cast. The production of a zinc casting for example,
initially begins with the use of a zinc raw material in the charge to the
melting furnace.
Because of this, raw material usage is implicitly reflected in a
subcategorization scheme based on the type of metal cast.
Process Chemicals
Major process chemicals used in the manufacture of castings fall into 2
general classes; those associated with sand casting and those associated
with die casting. This distinction helped to further substantiate the
subcategorization scheme. Process chemicals associated with sand casting
techniques include sand and core binders and related chemical additives.
Several of these process chemicals contain toxic pollutants or chemicals
which when exposed to hot metal temperatures may breakdown to toxic
pollutant materials.
Analysis of plant data indicate the use of a wide variety of these
materials and at least 14 different chemical types of sand additives are
commercially available. Review of the available literature indicates the
possible use of additional sand additives not explicitly identified by the
plant survey data. In addition, 142 manufacturers or suppliers of sand
additives or binders were identified in the available literature. On-site
visits to many plants indicated that more than one type of sand additivie
is often used simultaneously within the plant and that changes in the use
of the various products available occurs periodically.
Process chemicals associated with die casting include die lubricants, die
coatings and quench solution additives. Twenty-eight manufacturers or
suppliers of these process chemicals have been identified. These materials
55
-------
are used to prevent castings from adhering to the die and to provide a
casting with improved surface characteristics. Frequently many different
products are tried until a satisfactory lubricant or coating is found. A
correctly chosen lubricant will allow metal to flow into cavities that
otherwise may not be filled.
As a result of the use of the wide variety of process chemicals and the
frequent change over of these products, process chemicals used was not
found to be useful as a primary basis for subcategorization but was a
supportive factory in the subcategorization scheme developed.
Process Wastewater Treatability
As the process wastewater characteristics differ, treatment systems
designed to treat specific types of pollutants will differ. Some process
wastewaters will be predominantly oily in nature while other process
wastewater streams will be free of oil but will contain toxic metals. The
treatment applications identified at plants during the development of this
report encompass systems ranging from no treatment to relatively extensive
treatment. The wastewater treatment systems range from once-through
systems discharging to POTWs or directly discharging to navigable waters,
to 100 percent recycle systems. Since process wastewater characteristics
differ among waste streams from different manufacturing processes, as
discussed earlier, the different process segments implicitly consider the
various treatment technologies and capabilities involved in handling the
different process wastewaters. Thus, wastewater treatability does not
substantiate the need for further subcategorization.
Plant Size
Plant size can' be evaluated by two methods; number of employees and
production. After collectively evaluating the production and employee
group information it was observed that the pattern which developed did not
generally follow the pattern expected, i.e., more employees results in
greater production. Nor was there an identifiable relationship between
size and process wastewater characteristics.
It was thus determined that employee size and production rate have no
quantifiable relationship with the volume of process wastewaters produced.
No discernible pattern developed when plant water usage rates were compared
with plant production rates and employee size. However, employee size
grouping remained as a consideration only as a means of providing
convenient BPT and BAT model sizes for further economic evaluation.
Plant Age
Some plants which have operated at the same address for over one hundred
years. Some plants have replaced melting furnaces as recently as five
years ago and sand handling systems as recently as ten years ago. Process
56
-------
wastewater treatment equipment age also varied from thirty years for some
equipment items to less than one year for the most recent system
installations or additions to older systems.
Based on the above observations, and presentation of data in Section V, it
was concluded that age was not an appropriate basis for subcategorization.
Geographic Location
Plants engaged in metal molding and casting are located in all of the
industrial regions of the United States. None of the available data
indicated that the location of a plant affected the type of metal cast, the
manufacturing process employed or other process wastewater characteristics.
The only pattern noticed is that the plants are generally located near the
areas which will use their products, whether they are used by other
corporate entities or are sold to the end users. Therefore, geographic
location was not considered as an appropriate factor to establish
subcategories.
Non-Water Quality Aspects: Solid Waste Generation and Disposal, Energy
Requirements
These factors are determined by wastewater characteristics and treatment
requirements. They are implicitly reflected in subcategorization to
achieve uniform effluent performance capabilities. The process
subcategorization scheme chosen establishes groups with similar wastewater
characteristics resulting in common solid waste disposal requirements,
common energy use in waste treatment, and common non-water quality impacts.
Summary
The primary factor affecting the wastewater characteristics of plants in
the foundry point source category is type of metal cast and that an
additionally important factor, is the type of manufacturing process used to
form the desired casting. These two factors form the basis for
subcategorization of the foundry point source category. In addition, other
factors considered, such as process chemical usage, and air pollution
sources helped to support the subcategorization scheme developed.
*
PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETER
Having selected the appropriate base for subcategorization, the next step
is to establish a quantitative parameter on which to base limitations.
Since pollutants are measured in concentration (mg/1), concentration is the
obvious first consideration for limitations. However, while the
concentration of a pollutant is an intensive property of the wastewater, it
is not an intensive property of pollution. A plant which dilutes its
wastewater would have an advantage over water conserving plants in meeting
concentration limitations. Thus, a plant might be penalized for having
57
-------
good water conservation practices by a concentration based limitation. In
order to preclude the possibility of dilution, the concentration of
pollutants in the discharge must be multiplied by the discharge flow rate
to provide a mass discharge level for each pollutant. Since the mass
discharge level is a result of some level of production, this mass
discharge level requires still another parameter to account for differences
in the actual production levels from plant to plant. Such a parameter must
establish an effluent discharge rate relationship that changes in
proportion to the level of production activity. The following discussions
deal with the selection of this production normalizing parameter and the
application of this parameter for effluent limitations.
Selection of Production Normalizing Parameter
The level of production activity in a plant can be expressed quantatively
as the amount of metal poured, the amount of process chemicals consumed,
the weight of castings shipped, or the number of employees. In addition,
in those instances where sand is used as the mold medium, the amount of
sand used can be an indicator of production activity.
The technical findings indicate that the use of two production related
parameters is appropriate. These two parameters are; 1) the weight of
metal poured, and 2) the weight of sand used in molds and cores in
instances where sand is used as the mold medium and where sand is reclaimed
by washing methods. These two production related parameters are more
closely associated with the level of activity relative to pollutant load
than any other potential parameters.
An outline of the rationale used in the selection of these two parameters
as well as the dismissal of the other parameters considered is described
below.
Weight of Metal Poured
The weight of metal poured readily lends itself as a reasonable production
normalizing parameter for many of the subcategories and subcategory
segments.
In those instances where a furnace scrubber is used to control furnace
emmissions, the pollutants become waterborne contaminants during the
furnace emmission cleaning process. The emmissions are the result of the
melting and heating of the raw materials which make up the furnace charge.
On first consideration, it would appear to be appropriate to base the
production normalizing parameter on furnace charge. However, the
composition of the furnace charge varies from plant to plant. This is
particularly prevalent in the iron and steel subcategory. The ratios of
coke, scrap, iron, limestone, etc., varies widely among plants to produce
the same amount of iron or steel. Therefore, it would be impractical to
58
-------
apply a production normalizing parameter on such a variable basis as
furnace charge.
The use of the weight of metal poured provides a consistant and uniform
parameter for applying effluent limitations to a wide variety of plants.
In addition to its application to furnace scrubbers, its use with all the
other manufacturing subcategory segments, except for those segments
associated with sand usage, the weight of metal poured provides a
technically reasonable and uniform basis for applying limitations.
Weight of Sand
In those instances where sand is used as the mold medium, consideration of
the mechanisms by which pollutants are conveyed from the manufacturing
process to the process wastewater leads to the selection of the amount of
or weight of sand as a production normalizing parameter for those
subcategories and subcategory sgements in which sand is used. Sand used is
the production vector which relates production activity to the amount of
pollutants in the process wastewater. Those subcategories are: copper
casting; dust collection scrubber process, ferrous casting; dust collection
and sand washing processes, and magnesium casting; dust collection scrubber
process.
Processes associate with sand usage, such as mold and core making, casting
shakeout and sand handling equipment, give rise to dusts and fumes. The
contaminated air is cleaned by scrubbers. Therefore contaminants in the
air are transfered to the water. The volume of air passing through the
scrubbers remains at a constant rate while the mass of pollutant material
in the air stream changes with levels of production activity, i.e., the
amount of sand in .use. To account for these changes in production
activity, the amount of sand used leads to the selection of weight of sand
as a production normalizing parameter for dust collection scrubber
processes.
In sand washing operations, sand comes into intimate contact with water and
as a result the water is contaminated. The amount of sand washed affects
the process wastewater characteristics and leads to the selection of weight
of sand washed as a production normalizing parameter for the sand washing
subcategory segment.
Surface Area of Casting
Surface area was considered a possible production normalizing parameter for
those manufactuirng processes involving quenching since pollutants enter
the quench water through intimate contact with the casting. However,
surface area of a casting is a randomly changing value dependent upon the
variability of the shape and design of the castings being manufactured.
Therefore, surface area is not a meaningful production normalizing
parameter.
59
-------
Number of Employees
AS previously indicated, the number of employees does not necessarily
reflect the production rate at any plant. For those reasons outlined
earlier number of employees does not constitute an appropriate production
normalizing parameter.
Weight of Final Product
The weight of final product is a readily available production record, but
its application as a production normalizing parameter has a significant
drawback.
The weight of the casting in final product form may vary substantially from
the castings initial weight when it was poured. Casting weight is a
maximum when the casting is first formed, i.e., immediately after the
introduction of the molten-metal into the mold. At this point, the casting
has the gates, sprues, and risers attached and the total weight of all the
castings produced per unit time, closely equates with the total amount of
metal poured during that unit of time, assuming negligible metal loss
through spills, etc.
The major reduction in weight occurs after the metal molding and casting
and supportive process steps (sand preparation, mold and core making, sand
washing, etc.) have occured. This weight reduction is due to the removal
of the gates, sprues, and risers. Weight loss can be as little as 5
percent or as much as 70 percent of the initial total casting weight
depending upon the metal cast, the casting shape and the volume of the
gates, sprues and risers in the mold required to allow adequate flow of the
molten metal into the mold.
Additional weight changes can occur when metal is removed during machining
of the casting or when, for example, weight is added during electroplating
or painting of the casting.
For the reasons stated above weight, final product was not found to be a
suitable production normalizing parameter.
Process Chemicals Consumed
For the reasons stated in the discussion of the factors considered for
subcategorization, the variability of process chemicals consumed diminishes
its usefulness as an appropriate production normalizing parameter.
60
-------
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Process water usage for all subcategories within the foundry point source
category is a major factor in estimating pollutant loads, and in turn, the
cost of the removal of the pollutants. But before a presentation of the
waste treatment costs in Section VIII, a discussion of plant data
collection, water use and waste characteristics in the foundry point source
category is appropriate.
Published literature, data collection portfolio responses and sampling data
were analyzed to characterize water use and process wastewater pollutants
and flows. This data when analyzed provides information on which to base
appropriate effluent limitations and standards.
The process wastewater characterizations are based on analytical data
obtained during the field sampling program. Raw waste samples were taken
downstream of manufacturing processes but prior to any process wastewater
treatment. Metals analysis for both raw and treated waste samples were
measured as total metal concentrations.
The water use rates discussed henceforth, pertain only to metal molding and
casting process wastewaters. Noncontact cooling water flows are not
included. Process wastewater is defined as any water which during
manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contract with, or results
from the production or use of any raw materials, intermediate product,
finished product, by product or waste product. The process wastewater is
contaminated with various pollutants which are characterisitc of the
manufacturing process. Thus, process wastewater from metal molding and
casting processes would include process wastewater resulting from the
remelting of the metal, the preparation of cores and molds, and related
activities such as sand transfer, sand washing, etc., the pouring or
injecting of metal into the molds, the removal of the metal from the mold,
the removal or cleaning of the mold medium from the mold and the removal of
gates, sprues and risers from the casting. For example, casting quench
process wastewaters are considered to be metal casting process wastewaters,
however, process wastewaters resulting from the plating of these castings
are non-foundry process wastewaters. Non-contact cooling water is defined
as that water used for cooling which does not come into direct contact with
any raw material, intermediate product, waste product or finished product.
However, when non contact cooling water is mixed with process wastewater
either by design or through leaks, spills, etc., the total volume of the
water is considered process wastewater.
61
-------
PLANT DATA COLLECTION
During the early stages of review of the foundry point source category
examination of existing information indicated the need for collection of
more extensive plant data. The collection of plant data through the use of
a mail survey involved several activities; the development of a detailed
request for information in the form of a data collection portfolio, the
distribution of the survey, logging of the survey responses, examination
and analysis of the information received, selection of plants for on-site
sampling of raw and treated process wastewaters and the implementation of
sampling programs at selected plant sites.
Development of the Data Collection Portfolio
After review and analysis of the existing data, a draft data collection
portfolio was developed. The portfolio was designed to collect information
about all types of plants engaged in metal molding and casting.
Information about plant size, age, historical production, number of
employees, land availability, water usage, manufacturing processes, raw
material and process chemical usage, air pollution control techniques which
result in a process wastewater, wastewater treatment technologies, the
known or believed presence or absence of toxic pollutants in the plant's
raw and treated process wastewaters, and other pertinent factors was
requested.
During the review of the existing data, 15 trade associations and interest
groups associated with metal molding and casting activities were identi-
fied. Representatives of these 15 groups were invited to meet with EPA, to
review the draft data collection portfolio, and to offer comments.
Comments received from these groups were reviewed and where appropriate,
were incorporated into the final data collection portfolio. In addition to
this input, EPA was in communication with many of the trade associations
throughout the entire program in order to utilize their knowledge of
foundry practices.
Survey Design
The Penton "Metal Casting Industry Directory" which identifies 4,404 plants
engaged in some form of metal molding and casting was used as the primary
basis for the survey. Initially a survey of all 4,404 plants was
considered. However, the Penton information, in addition to identifying
company names and addresses, provided sufficient detail about the type of
metals cast, the number of employees, the capacity of the plant and other
factors to design a statistically based survey which would account for the
variability of plants within the foundry point source category without
surveying the total plant polulation. Therefore, a statistically based
survey was developed.
62
-------
Analysis of existing data indicated that many plants had installed
treatment equipment and in process controls which warranted closer
consideration. In addition, a preliminary trend emerged from examination
of process existing information which indicated that many of the larger
capacity foundries had greater volumes of process wastewater than smaller
capacity foundries and that these larger plants had process wastewater
treatment equipment installed. The existing information also indicated
that captive foundries were more likely to have installed treatment
equipment than foundries engaged in jobbing activities. The probability of
obtaining this much needed technical information from many of these plants
would be considerably enhanced if the survey was designed to obtain
information from specific plants and from specific segments of the plant
population. This consideration was necessary since the Penton information
provides no indication of which plants have implemented in process water
conservation techniques or which plants have installed the best available
control technology. Therefore, after review of the existing information,
71 specific companies with 269 plants were selected to receive the data
collection portfolio.
In addition to the collection of information from the specific plants of
interest, the collection of information from as broad a spectrum of plants
as possible was highly desirable. Therefore, the Penton information was
partitioned into 36 cells, a matrix of 9 metal types by 4 employee groups.
The 9 metal types as identified by the Penton information are: ductile
iron, gray iron, malleable iron, steel, brass and bronze, aluminium,
magnesium, zinc, and a final group designated as "other metals". The
employee groups are: under 10, 10 to 49, 50 to 249, and 250 or more
employees.
A survey based on both metal type and employee group would provide the
opportunity for technical input from many plants which cast different
metals and provide a basis for assessing the potential economic impacts of
effluent limitations and standards on plants of varying employee size.
The Penton information was partitioned into 36 cells as illustrated on
Table V-l. The number in each cell represents the number of plants falling
within the cell. Since a plant may cast more than 1 metal type, the same
plant may occupy more than 1 cell. This 9x4, matrix formed the basic
survey framework from which additional plants would be selected for the
survey.
After consideration of the information available in the Penton file, the
number of plants engaged in metal molding and casting, and review of other
data, information from an additional 1000 plants was considered necessary.
A total of 1269 plants were therefore surveyed; approximately 29 percent of
the total plant population as identified by the Penton foundry census
information.
63
-------
Since 269 specific plants were selected with certainty the sampling frame
had to be adjusted to eliminate these plants from being counted again.
Certain cell populations have therefore, been reduced by subtraction of
those 269 plants selected with certainty.
After deletion of the 269 plants from the survey frame, one final concern
was factored into the survey framework prior to selection of the remaining
plants. To insure that those plants (which appear to be relatively few in
number, i.e., cell population no larger than 70) are not missed when plants
are randomly selected from the Pention file, those plants falling into
cells with populations no larger than 70 were removed from the sampling
frame and also surveyed with certainty. As a result, an additional 394
plants were surveyed with certainty.
Then 606 additional plants were randomly selected via computer from the
Penton file. As a plant was selected, it was deleted from the survey
frame. Cell populations therefore decreased as each plant was selected.
As the selection process continued some cell populations were depleted to
zero. When this occured, the remaining plants in the Penton file
corresponding to cells with zero populations were not selected. Table V-2
displays the distribution by metal type and employee group of the 1,000
plant selected to receive a survey. The total number of entries on Table
V-2 exceeds 1,000 since entries for plants which cast more than one metal
type appear once for each type of metal cast. These plants were counted
for each metal type cast.
Plants randomly selected in this manner had equal probabilities of being
selected for inclusion in the survey. This probability would be later used
to weight the returned survey data. The probability that a plant would be
selected is calculated using the following equation.
P = (1000 - L) / (4404 - K - L)
where L = number of plants occupying cells with populations
no larger than 70
K = number of specific plants surveyed with certainty due
to the need for technical information
Therefore P = (1000 - 394) / (4404 - 269 - 394)
P = 0.162
The weight assigned to each plant surveyed with P = 0.162 was therefore,
1/P or 6.17. For the purpose of clarity in the later discussion of how
plant population estimates based on the survey design were made, plants
surveyed with "p" probability are designeated as "P" plants. Likewise,
plants surveyed with certainty due to the need for technical information
are designeated as "K" plants and plants surveyed with corresponding cell
64
-------
populations no larger than 70 are designated as "L" plants. In addition to
weighing the survey response, corrections to the weighing factor were made
to account for plants which failed to respond_to the survey. Since it was
anticipated that plants with more employees would have a different response
ratio (the number of survey responses vs. the number of surveys mailed)
than plants with fewer employees, the correction for non-response was made
for each employee group and not across all four employee groups.
Distribution of the Plant Survey
Using a mailing list of plants developed according to the plant selection
process described above, each information request was mailed certified
receipt and contained a statement explaining the recipients legal rights to
protection of confidential information and EPA's statutory authority under
Section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, for
requesting the needed data. Data pertinent to the 1976 calendar year was
requested. In addition, a brief explaination of the settlement agreement
background leading to this request was included and a 30 calendar day time
period for responding to the information request was indicated.
Distribution of_ Additional Plant Surveys
In addition to the distribution of plant surveys described above, two other
types of plants were mailed data collection portfolios. These plants were
identified from the preliminary data review as engaged in; (1) the casting
of copper or copper alloys as an initial production step in the forming of
copper or copper alloy products, i.e., rolling, drawing, extruding of
copper or copper alloys and (2) the casting of lead. 100 percent of the
plants identified as falling within these casting areas were mailed data
collection portfolios. Four hundred-four surveys were sent to companies
believed to have plants engaged in copper forming activities. Two
hundred-twenty-six surveys were sent to companies believed to have plants
engaged in the casting of lead.
Processing of Survey Responses
Each response was processed in the following manner. Upon receipt of the
data, the responding plant was recorded as having responded. Each plant
was assigned a randomly generated plant code number. The information
returned was examined for claims of confidentiality. Information claimed-
to be confidential or proprietary was segregated from that information not
claimed to be confidential and was processed according to the statutory
requirements for handling information claimed to be confidential.
Preliminary information about the response was also logged. An assessment
of the response was made to determine the water use at the plants. Plants
in which no water is used in the manufacture of castings were considered
"dry". Plants which only use water as hon contact cooling water were also
labeled as "dry" plants. A plant was considered "dry" when no metal
65
-------
molding and casting process wastewater sources could be identified through
examination of the data returned. Conversely, a plant with identifiable
process wastewater from manufacturing processes considered by the Agency as
part of the foundry point source category was labeled as a "wet" plant.
A number of responses were returned with an indication that the company
either was no longer in business, the casting manufacturing facility no
longer existed, or that the company did cast metal, but it was not engaged
in' commerical activity, i.e. trade school, art studio etc. Examination of
the data indicated that these responses produced no process wastewater.
Therefore, these responses were considered "not a foundry" and logged as
such.
An additional number of information requests were returned with an
indication from the post office that the material could not be delivered at
the address indicated. All returned information requests were considered
"non-deliverable" and a manufacturing plant was considered not to be in
existance at that site.
These four designations, "wet," "dry," "not a foundry" and non-
deliverable," constitute the initial or primary step in the classification
of the data.
Recognizing the posibility that the respondent could have misinterpreted
what information was sought, care was taken in the review of plant data,
particularly the data which indicated the complete recycle of process
wastewater.
In many instances a respondent indicated in the cover letter that the plant
recycled all of its metal molding and casting process wastewater. Other
respondents furnished block diagrams or flow schematics which illustrated
100 percent recycle of process wastewater.
Furthermore, process wastewater recycle rates for specific metal molding
and casting processes was requested. Plants with no discharge of process
wastewater indicated 100 percent recycle of process wastewater. In
addition, the plant discharge flow, treatment plant effluent, and
disposition of discharge (POTW, stream, river, lake) was requested. A
plant operating at 100 percent recycle of process wastewater would not have
a process wastewater discharge. Thus multiple items within the data
collection portfolio were used to confirm that, in fact, 100 percent of the
process wastewater was recycled.
Plant responses were than copied and the copy forwarded to the technical
contractor.
The plant information was examined for completeness, interpretation, and
prepared for computer entry and analysis by the technical contractor. At
the end of the 30 day response period, a follow up letter was sent by EPA
66
-------
to those establishments who had not responded. Phone calls were made to
plants which supplied confusing information. Table V-3 through V-18
summarizes the plant survey data.
The plant survey information also provided the identity of a number of
engineering firms who design and install foundry air and water pollution
control equipment. Contacts were made with some firms for information
regarding the technical aspects of installing, operating and maintaining
such equipment. Firms contacted have designed and installed process
wastewater treatment systems which operate at 100 percent recycle of all
process wastewater. In addition, these firms supplied installation lists
of foundries which have installed pollution control equipment. 36
foundries were subsequently contacted by phone and information pertinent to
the operating and maintanence of this equipment was obtained.
Selection of Plants for Sampling
Information contained within the data collection portfolio served as the
primary basis for selection of plants for engineering and sampling visits.
Specific criteria used to select plants for visits included:
1. The type of metal cast;
2. The manufacturing processes employed;
3. The type of air pollution control devices installed, i.e.,
* scrubbers or "dry" type collectors such as bag houses;
4. The type of process wastewater treatment equipment in place;
5. The in-process control technologies which reduced the volume of
process wastewater; and
6. The degree to which process wastewater has been recycled or
reused.
Sampling Program and Pollutant Analysis
Sampling programs were conducted at 23 plants for analysis of toxic
pollutants and other pollutants. Prior to any plant visit, all available
data, such as plant layouts and diagrams of the plant's production sequence
and waste treatment facility were reviewed. This information was usually
furnished with the data collection portfolio from the responding company.
Generally, two separate visits were made by the EPA project officer and the
contractor to each plant selected as a sampling site. The first visit, an
engineering reconnaissance visit, identified sample point locations,
determined the most appropriate flow measurement techniques, resolved any
questions and enabled the sampling team leader to become sufficiently
familiar with the plant to conduct a technically sound sampling program.
The information collected during the engineering reconnaissance visit,
together with the previously collected information about the plant was
organized into a detailed sampling plan. The plan was then reviewed,
67
-------
approved, and distributed to the sampling team. During the second visit to
the plant, the actual sampling was conducted.
The sampling program at each plant consisted of two activities; the
collection of technical information and the collection of water samples and
flow data. Specific technical information, such as production rates and
raw material usage, pertinent to the time period of sampling, was
collected. In addition, inquiries were made as to the reliability of the
treatment equipment, routine maintenance procedures and equipment
replacement i.e., pumps, pipes etc. Existing or potential problems related
to extensive recycle of process wastewater were also discussed. Preventive
maintenance procedures associated with extensive recycle systems, 100
percent recycle, were also identified.
Additional engineering visits were made at three plants. No sampling was
conducted at these plants. Only technical information was collected. As
previously indicated, samples were collected at 19 plants during a previous
EPA study of the foundry point source category. Therefore, a total of 45
plants have been visited, while sampling data has been collected at 42
plants.
The plant sampling program was conducted according to EPA screening and
verification protocols. During screen sampling one or more raw waste
samples and the corresponding treated process wastewater from each
manufacturing process within each subcategory was analyzed for all 129*
pollutant parameters finalized by EPA as a result of the 1976 Settlement
Agreement. The total list of toxic pollutants is shown on Table V-19 in
the back of this section. Additional pollutants, some known to result from
foundry processes, were also included in the analysis. These pollutants
are identified on Table V-20. Some of these additional pollutants, namely,
total solids, temperature, calcium hardness, alkalinity, and pH were
analyzed so that the Langelier Saturation Index could be determined for
systems using a high degree of recycle of process wastewater. The
determination of the Langelier Saturation Index helped to assess the
impacts of recycle systems on equipment life, maintenance of the equipment
and potential problem areas.
Originally, the chemical analysis data obtained from the screening sampling
program together with other supporting data were to be used to screen out
those pollutants from further consideration that were; 1) not detected in
the foundry process wastewater streams, 2) detected but not quantifiable,
3) considered environmentally insignificant, and 4) detected at
concentrations lower than the treatment level achievable with the specific
treatment methods considered in Section VII. Environmentally insignificant
pollutants include those pollutants found in only one plant, pollutants
which are artifacts of chemicals historically used in the plant but whose
use has been discontinued, i.e., PCB's, and pollutants found at
concentrations below a level of environmental significance.
68
-------
The screening program was designed to screen out specific pollutants from
further analytical and regulatory consideration. Those pollutants
remaining after screening would be analyzed for during the verification
phase of sampling.
However, the laboratory performing the analytical work was unable to
develop appropriate analytical methods designed to verify the organic
pollutants selected for verification analysis. Therefore, all the organic
toxic pollutants were analyzed for during verification. The analysis of
the toxic metal pollutants though, followed the original sampling strategy
and only the toxic metal pollutants warranting further consideration after
screen analysis, were analyzed. The toxic metal pollutants selected for
verification analysis are listed on Table V-21 for each subcategory and
process segment.
Supporting Data
In addition to the assessment of the screening analytical data, the
original strategy for determining toxic pollutants for verification
analysis called for an analysis of; 1) the assessment by the surveyed
plants of the known or believed presence of the toxic pollutants in the
process wastewater streams of the plant, and 2) the foundry raw materials
and process chemicals used in the manufacturing process. Table V-22
present a summary of the plant responses of the known or believed presence
of the toxic pollutants in the plants process wastewater. Table V-23
presents a summary of the toxic pollutants likely to be present in foundry
process wastewaters due to the raw materials and process chemicals used or
due to the manufacturing process employed. Table V-24 presents the annual
amounts of process chemicals consumed in the form of additives or binders
by the surveyed plants.
Published information pertinent to raw materials and process chemicals used
in the casting manufacturing processes indicated the strong likelihood that
many toxic pollutants could be present in these materials. A generic
review of the raw materials used in metal molding and casting processes
follows.
Acrylic Resins - Synthetic resins used as sand binders for coremaking.
These resins are formed by the polymerization of acrylic acid or one of its
derivatives with benzoyl peroxide or a similar catalyst. The most
frequently used starting materials for these resins include acrylic acid,
methacrylic acid or acrylonitrile. Since exposure of these binder
materials to hot metal temperatures could cause breakdown of these binders,
cyanide might be generated.
Air Setting Binders - Sand binders which harden by exposure to air. Sodium
silicate, Portland cement and oxychloride are the primary constituents for
such binders.
69
-------
Magnesia used in the blending of oxychloride can contain small amounts of
impurities such as calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide or calcium silicate
which increases the volume change during the setting process, thus
decreasing mold strength and durability. To eliminate this lime effect, 10
percent of finely divided metallic copper is added to the mixture.
Alkyd Resin Binders - Cold set resins used in the forming of cores. This
type of binder is referred to as a three component system using alkyd-
isocyanate, cobalt naphthenate and diphenyl methane diisocyanate. Cobalt
naphthenate is the drier and diphenyl methane is the catalyst. Exposure of
these binders to hot metal temperatures could cause breakdown of these
binder materials, and the resulting degradation products might include
naphthalenes, phenols, and cyanides, in some separate or combined form.
Alloying Materials and Additives - The following
known to be used in foundry operations.
Aluminum
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon
Cerium
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Columbium
Copper
Hydrogen
Iron
Lead
Silicon
list of materials are
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Core Binders - Bonding and holding materials used in the formation of sand
cores. The three general types consist of those that harden at room
temperature, those that require baking and the natural clays. Binders that
harden at room temperature include sodium silicate, Portland cement and
chemical cements such as oxychloride. Binders that require baking include
the resins, resin oils, pitch, molasses, cereals, sulfite liquor and
proteins. Fireclay and bentonite are the clay binders.
Sand Binders - Binder materials are the same as those used in core making.
The percentage of binder may vary in core and molds depending on sand
strength required, extent of mold distortion from hot metal and the metal
surface finish required.
Borides - A class of boron-containing compounds, primarily calcium boride,
used as a constituent in refractory materials. Metallic impurities that
often accompany the use of these materials include titanium, zirconium,
hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten,
thorium, and uranium.
Catalysts - Materials used to set binder materials used in core and mold
formation. Primary set catalysts used are phosphoric acid and
toluenesulfonic acid. Exposure of residual catalyst materials in the mold
70
-------
to hot metal temperatures could cause chemical breakdown of these materials
with the possible generation of free toluene.
Charcoal - A product of destructive distillation of wood. Used for heat
and as a source of carbon in the foundry industry. Because of the nature
of the destructive distillation process charcoal may contain residuals of
toxic pollutants such as phenol, benzene, toluene, naphthalene, and
nitrosamines.
Chrome Sand - (Chrome-Iron Ore) - A dark material containing dark brown
streaks with submetallic to metallic luster. Usually found as grains
disseminated in perioditite rocks. Used in the preparation of molds.
Chromite Flour - (See Chrome Sand above) - Chrome sand ground to 200 mesh
or finer, can be used as a filler material for mold coatings for steel
castings.
Cleaning Agents and Degreasers - Ethylene
trichloroethylene.
dichloride, polychloroethylene,
Coatings - Corrosion Resistant - Generally alkyd - or epoxy resins. See
Alkyd Resin Binders and Epoxy Resins. Applied to metal molds to prevent
surface corrosion.
Foundry Coke - The residue from the destructive distillation of coal. A
primary ingredient in the making of cast iron in the cupola. Because of
the nature of the destructive distillation process and impurities in the
coal, the coke may contain residuals of toxic pollutants such as phenol,
benzene, toluene, naphthalene and nitrosamines.
Petroleum Coke - Formed by the destructive distillation of petroleum. Like
foundry coke, petroleum coke can also be used for making cast iron in the
cupola.
Pitch Coke - Formed by the destructive distillation
Used as a binder in the sand molding process.
of petroleum pitch.
Coolants - Water, oil and air. Their use is determined by the extent and
rate of cooling desired.
Core Binder Accelerators - Used in conjunction with Furan resins to cause
hardening of the resin-sand mixture at room temperature. The most commonly
used accelerator is phosphoric acid.
Core and Mold Washes - A mixture of various materials, primarily graphite,
used to obtain a better finish on castings, including smoother surfaces,
less scabbing and buckling and less metal penetration. The filler material
for washes should be refractory type composed of silica flour, zircon flour
or chromite flour.
71
-------
Core Oils - Used in oil-sand cores as a parting agent to prevent core
material from sticking to the cast metal. Core oils are generally
classified as mineral oils (refined petroleum oils) and are available as
proprietary mixtures or can be ordered to specification. Typical core oils
have specific gravities of 0.93 to 0.965 and contain a minimum of 70
percent nonvolatiles at 350°F.
Die Coatings - Oil containing lubricants or parting compounds such as
carbon tetrachloride, cyclohexane, methylene chloride, xylene and
hexamethylenetetramine, used to prevent castings from adhering to the die
and to provide a casting with a better finish. A correctly chosen
lubricant will allow metal to flow into cavities that otherwise cannot be
filled.
Epoxy Resins - Two component resins used to provide corrosion resistant
coatings for metallic molds or castings. These materials are synthetic
resins obtained by the condensation or polymerization of phenol, acetone
and epichlorohydrin (chloropropylene oxide). Alkyds, acrylates,
methacrylates and allyls, hydrocarbon polymers such as indene, coumarone
and styrene, silicon resins, and natural and synthetic rubbers all can be
applied as additives or bases. Polyamine and amine based compounds are
normally used as curing agents. Because of the temperatures to which these
materials are exposed, and because of the types of materials that are used
to produce many of the components of these materials, toxic pollutants such
as zinc, nickel, phenol, benzene, toluene, naphthalene, and possibly
nitrosamines could be generated.
Furan Resins - A heterocyclic ring compound formed from diene and cyclic
vinyl ether. Its main use is as a cold set resin in conjunction with acid
accelerators such as phosphoric or toluensulfonic acid for making core sand
mixtures that harden at room temperature. Toluene could be formed during
thermal degradation of the resins during metal pouring.
Furfuryl Alcohol - A syntehtic resin used to formulate core binders. The
amount of furfuryl alcohol used depends on the desired core strength.
One method of formulating furfuryl alcohol is by batch hydrogenation of
furfuryl at elevated temperature and pressure with a copper chromite
catalyst.
Furnace Charge - Scrap - Various toxic pollutant metals may be present in
the raw materials charged in the melting furnace. These pollutants
originate from various sources - iron ore, pigs, steel or case scrap,
automotive scrap, and ferroalloys. These pollutants may be antimony,
arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, titanium, and zinc.
Gilsonite - A material used primarily for sand binders. It is one of the
purest natural bitumens (99.9 percent) and is found in lead mines. Lead
may be present as an impurity in Gilsonite.
72
-------
Gypsum Cement - A group of cements consisting primarily of calcium sulfate
and produced by the complete dehydration of gypsum. It usually contains
additives such as aluminum sulfate or potassium carbonate. It is used in
sand binder formulation.
Impregnating Compounds - Materials of low viscosity and surface tension
used primarily for the sealing of castings. Polyester resins and sodium
silicate are the two types of material used. Phthalic anhydride and
diallyl phthalate are used in the formulation of the polyester resins.
Investment Mold Materials - A broad range of waxes and resins including
vegetable wax, mineral wax, synthetic wax, petroleum wax, insect wax,
rosin, terpene resins, coal tar resins, chlorianted elastomer resins, and
polyethylene resins used in the manufacture and use of investment molds.
The presence of coal tar resins in investment mold materials might indicate
the possible presence of toxic pollutants such as phenol, benzene, toluene,
naphthalene, and nitrosamines as residues in the resins or as possible
products of degradation of these resins when subjected to heat.
Lignin Binders - Additives incorporated into resin-sand mixtures to improve
surface finish and to eliminate thermal cracking during pouring. Lignin is
a major polymeric component of woody tissue composed of repeating phenyl
propane units. It generally amounts to 20-30 percent of the dry weight of
wood. Phenol might be generated during thermal degradation of lignin
binders during metal pouring.
Lubricants - Calcium stearate, zinc stearate and carnauba wax are
lubricating agents added to resin sand mixtures to permit easy release of
molds from patterns.
Mica - A class of silicates with widely varying composition used in the
refractory making process. They are essentially silicates of aluminum but
are sometimes partially replaced by iron, chromium and an alkali such as
potassium, sodium or lithium.
No Bake Binders - Furan resins and alkyd-isocyanate compounds are the two
predominant no bake binders. Furan resins, as previously mentioned, are
cyclic compounds which use phosphoric acid or toluenesulfonic acid as the
setting agents. Alkyd-isocyanate binders have fewer limitations in use
than furan resins but the handling of cobalt naphthenate does present
problems.
Phenolic Resins - Phenol formaldehyde resins - A group of synthetic resins
that are probably the most varied and versatile known. They are made by
reacting almost any phenolic and an aldehyde. In some cases,
hexamethylene-tetramine is added to increase the aldehyde content. The
resins formed are classified as one and two step resins depending on how
they are formed in the reaction kettle. Both types of materials are used
separately or in combination in the blending of commercial molding
73
-------
materials. Due to thermal degradation of phenolic resins that may occur
during metal pouring, phenol and formaldehyde may be generated.
Pitch Binders - Thermosetting binders used in coremaking. Baking of the
sand-binder mixture is required for evaporation-oxidation and
polymerization to take place.
Quenching Oil - Medium to heavy grade mineral oils used in the cooling of
metal. Standard weight or grade of oil would be similar to standard SAE
60.
Riser Compounds - Extra strength binders used to reduce the extent of riser
erosion. Such materials generally contain lignin, furfuryl alcohol and
phosphoric acid.
Rosins, Natural - (Gum rosin, colophony, pine resin, common rosin) - A
resin obtained as a residue after the distillation of turpentine oil from
crude turpentine. Rosin is primarily an isomeric form of the anhydride of
abietic acid. It is one of the more common binders in the foundry
industry.
Sand Flowability Additives - A mixture of sand, dicalcium silicate, water
and wetting agents. This combination is based on a process of Russian
origin which achieves a higher degree of flowability than either the
conventional sand mix or those with organic additives.
Seacoal - Ground bituminous coal used to help control the thermal expansion
of the mold and to control the composition of the mold cavity gas during
pouring.
Urea Formaldehyde Resins - An important class of thermosetting resins
identified as aminoplastics. The parent raw materials (urea and
formaldehyde) are united with heat and control of pH to form intermediates
that are mixed with fillers (cellulose) to produce molding powders for
patterns.
Wetting Compounds - Materials which reduce the surface tension of solutions
thus allowing uniform contact of solution with the material in question.
Sodium alkylbenzene sulfonates comprise the principal type of surface-
active compounds but there are a vast number of other compounds used.
PROFILE OF PLANT DATA
Data collected from the previously described sources was used to develop a
technical profile of the plants within the foundry point source category.
The profile consists of a representative outline of the plants within the
category and provides information as to the frequency distribution of
plants, the types of metals cast, employee groupings, manufacturing
processes, air pollution sources, water use, toxic pollutants, process
74
-------
wastewater discharge designation, and other prevalent factors. The
profiles were briefly introduced in Section III. However, before
presentation of detailed profile data, a discussion of how the profile was
developed follows.
Industry Profile Development
As previously mentioned, as the plant data was received, the plant was
classified as either "wet", "dry", "not a foundry" or "non-deliverable".
Realizing that the plant survey was statistically based, estimates, based
on the design of the survey and the responses received, were made for the
total plant population. These estimates were determined in the following
manner.
Major metal cast and employee group information about those plants
designated as "wet" was retrieved from the Penton information file.
Siminar information was retrieved for plants designated "dry", "not a
foundry", and "non-deliverable". AS a result, 4 matrices were generated.
Each 9x4 matrix (9 metal types by 4 employee groups) consisted of the
frequency distribution of plants by type of major metal cast and employee
size group. Information about metal cast and number of employees furnished
by the plants was compared to the Penton information and where necessary
adjustments in cell populations were made to reflect the plant data. An
additional fifth matrix was developed which presented the frequency
distribution of plants which had not responded after a non response letter
was mailed.
With the information arrayed in this manner, the percentage of plants
responding to the information request in any cell or across all cells could
be determined. Of all the plants for which information was requested, 76
percent of the plants responded. On a subcategory basis, 80.5 percent of
the plants producing ferrous castings responded; 74 percent of the plants
producing copper castings responded; 68 percent of the plants producing
aluminum casting responded; 62.5 percent of the plants producing magnesium
castings responded; 75.6 percent of the plants producing zinc castings
responded; and 76 percent of the plants producing castings of metal other
than the metals listed above responded.
Each of the five matrices was then further broken down into 3 discrete
subparts which identified plants within the matrix by the way in which the
plants were surveyed, i.e., plants previously designated as either K, L, or
P plants.
At this level of detail, the appropriate weights and correction factors for
nonresponse could be applied. Nonresponse correction factors were
determined for each employee group. Estimates were then made of the total
number of plants with a metal molding and casting process wastewater, the
75
-------
total number of plants with no process wastewater, and the total number of
plants not engaged in metal molding and casting.
The next step in the profile development involved the apportionment of data
from plants designated as "wet" to the estimated total number of "wet"
plants. This apportionment based on the plant data was also applied to
plants who responded but did not supply complete information since, as some
plants indicated, their knowledge about their plant production and water
use in the areas of interest to the Agency was limited.
The plant data returned in the data collection portfolios was used to
determine: the number and types of processes, i.e., furnace scrubbers,
casting quenches, etc., resulting in a process wastewater, the frequencey
distribution of discharge modes, i.e., the number of direct dischargers to
naviagle waters, and the number of indirect dischargers to publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), the number of manufacturing processes in which 100
percent of the process wastewater from the process is recycled. Again
these estimates were made for each major metal cast and each employee
group.
This weighted plant data was then apportioned by major metal cast and
employee group over the estimated total number of "wet" plants. In
addition, plant production information and water use data was used to
determine estimates of total plant production and water use by subcategory,
employee group and manufacturing process. These estimates were developed
in the same way as discussed above. This information as outlined above
forms the basis for the industry profile.
Production Profile
Table V-25 is constructed to present for each subcategory: the estimated
weight of metal poured annually, the weight of metal poured in plants which
discharge their process wastewater to navigable waters, the weight of metal
poured in plants which discharge their process wastewater to POTW's, and
the weight of metal poured in plants which recycle 100 percent of their
process wastewater.
Process Wastewater Flow
Estimates by subcategory of the total annual process wastewater flow within
the foundry point source category are presented on Table V-26. The basis
for these estimates are the process wastewater flows, associated with the
metal molding and casting processes, which have been identified by plants
responding to the data collection survey. The "Applied Flow" column
indicates the volume of process wastewater which has become contaminated
with pollutants as a result of its intimate contact with the process,
products, by-products, waste products, etc. The "Recycle Flow" column
indicates the volume of process wastewater which is recycled back to the
process from which it came. The column marked "Flow at 100 percent
76
-------
Recycle" indicates the volume of process wastewater which is completely
recycled back to the manufacturing process.
Table V-27 summarizes by subcategory the number of processes according to
discharge mode, i.e., direct discharge, indirect discharge to POTW's or 100
percent recycle.
Toxic Pollutants
Table V-28 summarizes by subcategory toxic pollutants detected in the
untreated process wastewater from 44 metal molding and casting processes
sampled during the sampling program. This summary table was constructed
from Table V-29. Table V-29 presents the toxic pollutant data generated
from the sampling program. The concentrations indicated on Table V-29 are
averages based on the data obtained from three sampling days.
SPECIFIC SUBCATEGORY WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Aluminum Foundries
An estimated 3.8 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from the casting of aluminum. Fifty-two percent of this water is recycled,
while 39 percent is discharged to navigable waters and nine percent is
discharged to POTWs. A number of manufacturing processes which generate
process wastewater pollutants are involved in the production of aluminum
castings.
Investment Casting Process:
An estimated 121 million gallons of process wastewater results each year
from investment casting processes. This represents 3.1 percent of the
total process wastewater flow at plants within the aluminum casting
subcategory. Eighty-two percent of this 121 million gallon flow is
discharged to navigable waters while 18 percent is discharged to POTWs.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative aluminum
investment casting operation was presented in Figure II1-4. The process
wastewater in this operation results from several processes. On the basis
of plant survey information, and the observations made during the sampling
visit, these various processes together are considered to be particular to
investment casting operations. The processes are mold backup, hydroblast
(of castings), and dust collection (used in conjunction with hydroblasting
and the handling of the investment material and castings).
The major impact on the waste loads results from the use of the investment
material. The type of wax used in mold formation and the hydroblast
process also impact wastewater quality. Test data collected during the
visit to an investment casting operations provided data about the
pollutants from this type of operation. All pollutant analytical
77
-------
information presented henceforth for investment casting operations refers
to the pollutants generated in the combination of investment casting
processes described above. Plant survey responses indicated applied flow
rates ranging from a low of 20,400 1/kkg (4,900 gal/ton) to a high of
53,290 1/kkg (12,800 gal/ton). All three plants listed on Table V-3
discharge 100 percent of their process wastewater.
A review of the three plant respondents employing this process indicated
that the process wastewaters are generated in the same manner and in two of
the plants, the process wastewaters receive treatment via settling (the
other plant's discharge is untreated). The three plants discharge all
process wastewater flow to either a POTW or to navigable waters without
recycle. Table V-3 describes treatment systems used with this process.
The most extensive treatment system was installed in 1977 and this plant
was visited and analytical data obtained. Treatment components at this
plant include polymer addition to promote floe formation with a subsequent
settling stage for solids removal.
Plant 4704, Figure V-l, produces process wastewaters from mold back-up,
hydroblast casting cleaning and dust collection are co-treated. Polymer is
added to aid settling in a Lamella plate separator. The Lamella sludge is
filtered through a paper filter with the filtrate being returned to the
head of the treatment system. The treated effluent is discharged to the
river.
Table V-30 presents the raw waste load, and the treatment effluent waste
load from this plant. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-30 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentration mg/1
Copper 0.45
Zinc 0.49
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
An estimated 1.4 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from melting furnace scrubber operations. This represents 37.4 percent of
the total process wastewater flow at plants within the aluminum casting
subcategory. 65.5 percent of this 1.4 billion gallon flow is recycled
while 34 percent is discharged to navigable waters and .5 percent is
discharged to POTWs.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative aluminum
foundry melting operation and its scrubber system was presented in Figure
III-5.
78
-------
The quality and cleanliness of the material charged in the furnace
influences the emissions from the furnace. Generally, aluminum furnaces
which melt high quality material do not require air pollution control
devices. However, when dirty, oily scrap is used, the furnace emissions
are often controlled through the use of scrubbers. The process wastewater
from these scrubbers may be either recirculated within the scrubber
equipment package (which includes a settling chamber) or may flow to an
external treatment system and then recycled back to the scrubber.
Test data from melting furnace scrubber operations visited during the
sampling program provided information about the pollutants from melting
furnace scrubbers. Plant survey responses indicated a range of applied
flow rates from 2,194 1/kkg (527 gal/ton) to 55,290 1/kkg (13,280 gal/ton).
Recycle rates varied from 37 percent to a high of 97.5 percent.
A review of the five plant respondents using melting furnace gas scrubbing
equipment indicates that the process wastewaters are handled in a variety
of ways although they are generated in the same manner. Table V-6
describes the treatment systems used with this process. All of the
surveyed plants employ some degree of process wastewater recycle, however,
some systems employ an "internal" (within the scrubber equipment package)
recycle while other plants recycle their process wastewaters externally
after passing through various treatment stages. Two of the plants employ
internal recycle systems with the blowdowns of each system being introduced
untreated to a POTW. These two plants are among the three plants with the
highest recycle rates (95 percent and 97.5 percent). The process
wastewater treatment systems used at the three remaining plants provide for
recycle of externally treated process wastewaters with the blowdown being
discharged to a receiving stream. The treatment systems at these* plants
incorporate basically some type of settling operation, with one plant
providing more extensive treatment.
Plant 17089, Figure V-2, produces die casting and casting quench process
wastewater which are skimmed of oil and then co-treated with melting
furnace scrubber process wastewaters. The treatment consists of alum and
polymer additions in a flash mix tank followed by clarification, pressure
filtration, recycle, and discharge. Clarifier underflow is thickened and
dewatered in a centrifuge before drying in a basin. Sixty-seven percent of
the treated process wastewater is reused in the plant and the remainder is
discharged to a navigable water.
Plant 18139, Figure V-3 generates process wastewater from a Venturi
scrubber on the aluminum melting furnaces. The process wastewater is
recirculated through a settling tank. Overflow from the settling tank is
mixed with process wastewaters from the zinc melting furnace and aluminum
and zinc casting quenches. The mixed process wastewater passes through a
settling basin, an oil separator and storage tanks before discharge.
79
-------
Table V-31 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-31 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentration mg/1
Phenols 0.84
Zinc 0.26
Casting Quench Process:
An estimated 100 million gallons of process wastewater results each year
from casting quench operations. This represents 2.62 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the aluminum casting subcategory.
Sixteen percent of this 100 million gallon flow is recycled while 77
percent is discharged to navigable waters and 7 percent is discharged to
POTWs.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative aluminum
foundry casting quench operation is presented in Figure 111-5. The process
wastewaters considered in association with this operation are those
wastewaters which are discharged from the casting quench tanks. Raw waste
loads will depend on the duration of the quenching cycle, the degree of
quench recycle, the quench solution additives used, and the contamination
of the quench solutions with wastes from other sources (hydraulic oil
leaks, etc.). The major impact on the raw waste loads, however, is due to
the nature of the quenching solution and the contamination of the quench
solutions with wastes from other sources. Test data from casting quench
operations visited during the sampling program provided information about
the pollutants from this process. Plant survey responses indicated a range
of applied flow rates from 79 1/kkg (19 gal/ton) to 28,590 1/kkg (6,866
gal/ton). Recycle rates varied from 0 to 100 percent. In some instances
no applied flow could be assigned to a process since the castings were
quenched in a tank with no discharge or only very infrequent dumps. In
these instances, the operations were considered to be 100 percent recycle
since the same quench solution is continuosuly reused.
A review of the eleven plant responses with casting quench operations
indicates that all process wastewaters are generated in the same manner
although they are handled in a variety of ways. The treatment schemes
range from untreated discharges to POTWs to complete recycle systems.
Refer to Table V-3 for descriptions of the treatment schemes used in this
subcategory segment. All plants use some form of settling stage even if
this is only accomplished in the quench tank itself. However, the quantity
of castings quenched, the process wastewater flow through the quench tank,
and the size of the quench tank are factors which may necessitate the need
for a separate settling stage to remove solids.
80
-------
Of the eleven plants with casting quench operations indicated in their
responses, two plants employed 100 percent recycle and two plants employed
a 90 percent recycle rate. The blowdowns of the two 90 percent recycle
plants as well as the discharges of three other plants (with no recycle)
are introduced untreated to POTW's. Of the three direct discharge plants,
one has treatment via a settling lagoon and the other two provide no
treatment. The process wastewaters of one plant are removed by a contract
hauler. Settling is indicated as the only treatment provided for casting
quench process wastewaters.
Plant 10308, Figure V-4, produces zinc die casting quench wastes, aluminum
die casting quench wastes, cutting and machining coolant wastes, and
impregnating wastes which are co-treated in a batch-type system. The zinc
casting quench waste is actually the effluent from a system which recycles
the quench tank contents through a settling and skimming operation and back
to the quench tanks. The zinc casting quench wastes represent
approximatley 25 percent of the total treatment volume. After undergoing a
sulfuric acid and alum emulsion break, neutralization, flocculation and
solids separation, the treated effluent is discharged to a land locked
swamp.
Plant 17089, Figure V-2, produces die casting and casting quench process
wastewaters which are skimmed of oil and then co-treated with melting
scrubber process wastewaters. The treatment consists of alum and polymer
additions in a flash mix tank followed by clarification, pressure
filtration, recycle, and discharge. Clarifier underflow is thickened and
dewatered in a centrifuge before drying in a basin. Sixty-seven percent of
the treated water is reused in the plant and the remainder is discharged.
Plant 18139, Figure V-3, 'has a number of die casting machines and
associated quench tanks which are emptied on a scheduled basis. The
schedule results in the emptying of one 300 gallon quench tank each
operational day. Each quench tank is emptied approximately about once a
month. The quench tank discharge mixes with melting furnace scrubber
discharges, zinc casting quench tank flows, and other non-foundry flows
prior to settling and skimming. The treated process wastewaters are
discharged to a POTW.
Table V-32 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed at these two
plants during the sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial
summary) of the data presented on Table V-32 indicates that the following
toxic pollutants are present in the raw process wastewaters from this
manufacturing process.
81
-------
Pollutant Concentrations (mg/1)
Phenols 0.84
Copper 0.25
Lead 0.44
Zinc 9.1
Die Casting Process:
An estimated 2.17 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from die casting operations. This represents 56.5 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the aluminum casting subcategory.
47.5 percent of this 2.17 gallon flow is recycled while 38.7 percent is
discharged to navigable waters and 13.8 percent is discharged to POTWs.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative aluminum
foundry die casting operation is depicted in Figure III-5. The various
sources of wastewaters in the die casting operations are contact mold
cooling water, die surface cooling sprays, casting machine hydraulic
cooling systems using water, and leakage from various noncontact cooling
systems which are subsequently contaminated with hydraulic oils,
lubricants, etc. Depending upon the degree of maintenance performed on the
various die casting systems, the major source of process wastewaters could
vary from surface cooling sprays in the case of a well maintained operation
to contaminated leakages in the case of systems which receive only cursory
maintenance. Preventive maintenance can affect the volume and contaminants
of die casting process wastewater.
Test data obtained from die casting operations visited during the sampling
program provided information about the die casting operation process
wastewater characteristics. Plant 'survey responses indicated a range of
applied flow rates varying from 370 1/kkg (89 gal/ton) to 60,200 1/kkg
(14,460 gal/ton). Recycle rates varied from 0 to 90 percent.
Of the eight plant responses identified in this subcategory process, the
process wastewaters are generated by the same basic sources but are handled
in a variety of ways. Refer to Table V-6 for process wastewater source and
treatment information. The sources of process wastewaters are contact
cooling water and leakages from various noncontact water supplies which
become process wastewaters as a result of their contact with the process or
with other process wastewaters.
Of the eight plants with die casting operations identified in their
responses, three recycle systems, at 37 percent, 79 percent, and 90
percent, are indicated. Five of these eight plants discharge to POTW's.
One of these plants employs emulsion breaking, skimming, alum feed,
flotation and additional skimming. Of the remaining four POTW dischargers
two plants provide no process wastewater treatment and two plants provide
only settling.
82
-------
The three plants discharging to navigable waters provide more extensive
treatment than the POTW dischargers.
Of the six plants employing some type of process wastewater treatment
system, the following technologies are used:
a. Settling and skimming (6 plants): achieves primary solids removal and
removal of tramp oils. In some instances, recycle follows.
b. Emulsion breaking (3 plants): Using alum or sulfuric acid or both,
the emulsified oils are broken out of the emulsion and are then
removed as scum.
c. pH adjustment, flocculation and clarification (2 plants): lime,
polymer, alum and other chemicals are used to adjust waste pH and
promote floe formation after which the floe is allowed to settle in a
clarifier. This step provides for metals removal, some oil removal,
and enhanced solids removal compared to settling tanks.
Plant 17089, Figure V-2, produces die casting and casting quench wastes
which are skimmed of oil and then co-treated with melting scrubber
wastewaters. The treatment consists of alum and polymer additions in a
flash mix tank followed by clarification, pressure filtration, recycle, and
discharge. Clarifier underflow is thickened and dewatered in a centrifuge
before drying in a basin. Sixty-seven percent of the treated water is
reused in the plant and the remainder is discharged.
Plant 12040, Figure V-5, produces aluminum and zinc die casting process
wastewaters which are co-treated. After collection in a receiving tank
where oil is skimmed, they are batch treated by emulsion breaking,
flocculation and settling before discharge. The released oil is returned
to the receiving tank for skimming and the settled wastes are vacuum
filtered and dried before being land filled. Filtrate water is returned to
the receiving tank.
Plant 20147 was also sampled. Discussion of this plant appears under the
discussion of die lubricants.
Table V-33 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-33 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
PCB's (1242,
1254, 1221) 1.4
Lead 2.0
Zinc 3.7
83
-------
Die Lube Process:
An estimated 14.2 million gallons of process wastewater results each year
from die lube operations. This represents 0.38 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the aluminum casting subcategory.
Fifty percent of this 14.2 million gallon flow is recycled while 14 percent
is discharged to navigable waters and 36 percent is discharged to POTW's.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative die casting
operation employing a die lube system was presented in Figure 111-5.
The die lube operation involves the spraying of a lubricating solution onto
the die surface prior to casting. These solutions are emulsions which
contain certain "casting release" agents which permit the casting to fall
away or be removed readily from the dies. Test data obtained during the
sampling program provides information about the wastewater characteristics
of die lube process wastewater. Plant survey responses indicated a range
of applied flow rates varying from a low of 36 1/kkg (8.79 gal/ton) to a
high of 270 1/kkg (71.4 gal/ton). Recycle rates varied from 0 to 100
percent.
A review of the four plants with die lube operations, identified in their
survey responses, indicate that the process wastewaters are generated in
the same manner, although the process wastewaters are treated in distinctly
different ways. Refer to Table V-7 for descriptions of the various
treatment systems. A 100 percent recycle system is in operation at one
plant and was observed during a sampling visit, while the other three
plants discharged all die lube process wastewaters. Waste water treatment
ranged from no treatment to complete (100 percent) recycle. The more
extensive treatment systems were installed after 1971.
Of the three foundries with process wastewater discharges, one plant
provided no treatment prior to its discharge to a POTW, another plant
discharged the permeate from an ultrafiltration unit to a POTW, and the
remaining plant provided treatment in a central facility prior to a direct
discharge. This central facility (die lube flow represented only 7 percent
of total central treatment facility flow) provided various chemical
additions, biological treatment, and clarification. The 100 percent
recycle plant used skimming, cyclonic separation, and a paper filter to
treat its process wastewater and recover die lubricants.
The various technologies in use at the three plants with process wastewater
treatment systems are as follows:
a. Ultrafiltration Unit: uses hydraulic pressure to drive the aqueous
phase of the die lube wastes through a semi-permeable membrane.
Higher molecular weight organics remain behind that membrane. Some
lower molecular weight organics pass through with the aqueous phase.
84
-------
b- Cyclonic Separator, Skimming, Paper Filter: this system is used in
conjunction with a complete recycle operation to provide for suspended
solids removal, tramp oil removal, and recovery of process chemicals.
c. Flotation, skimming, addition of ferric chloride and lime, lagoon,
trickling filter, activated sludge, and clarifier. Note: Die lube
flow is only seven percent of the total plant process wastewater flow
to the treatment system.
Plant 20147, Figure V-6, indicated that the sources of die lube process
wastewaters are: 1) excess die lube sprayed on the dies for additional
cooling, 2) leakage from die cooling (noncontact cooling water which
becomes mixed with process wastewater, 3) leakage from hydraulic system
cooling water (noncontact cooling water which passes through a heat
exchanger to cool the hydraulic oil and becomes mixed with process
wastewater), and 4) hydraulic oil leakage.
Process wastewater is controlled in three ways. On each shift maintenance
personnel inspect each die casting machine for leaks. Where necessary,
repairs are made during the shift to reduce the process wastewater flow.
Under the die of each machine, a pan collects excess die lube which drips
from the die. A portable pump and tank is wheeled to each machine during
each shift to collect the die lube collected in the pans. In addition, on
the floor around each die casting machine a dam contains the process
wastewater from various leaks. Die lubricant which does not collect in the
pan is also contained by the dam. The process wastewater collected in this
manner flows to storage tanks through a floor drain.
Stratification of the process wastewater into three layers occurs in the
storage tanks. Tramp oil floats to the top and is removed by a belt
collector. The tramp oil is collected, stored, and removed by a
contractor. The middle layer, comprised of die lubricant, is removed to a
second tank. From this second tank the die lubricant passes through a
cyclonic filter. The die lubricant removed through the top of the cyclone
passes through a paper filter and then stored until it is reused on the die
casting machines. The material removed from the bottom of the cyclone is
stored until removed by a contract hauler.
Die lubricants collected in the pans beneath the dies is removed to the
reconstruction area of the plant where the used die lubricant passes
through a paper filter, is mixed with new lubricant and water to bring it
up to spec, and is stored until needed on the die casting machines.
Table V-34 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-34 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
85
-------
Pollutant Concentrations (mg/1)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 1.8
Parachlorometa cresol 24.0
2,4-Dichlorophenol 11.0
2,4-Dimethylphenol 11.0
Chloranthene 16.0
Naphthalene 7.8
2-Nitrophenol 3.0
2,4-Dinitrophenol 11.0
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 0.74
Pentachlorophenol 3.0
Phenol 38.0
Benzo(a)anthracene 62.0
Acenaphylene 4.5
Fluorene 20.0
Pyrene 1.9
Copper 0.91
Lead 6.0
Zinc 3.05
Copper Foundries
An estimated 9.2 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from the casting of copper and copper alloys. 72.4 percent of this water
is recycled, while 27.46 percent is discharged to navigable waters and 0.14
percent is discharge to POTW's. 11.5 percent of this 9.2 billion gallon
flow is recycled at 100< percent. Three manufacturing processes use water
in the copper casting s'ubcategory.
Dust Collection Process:
An estimated 615 million gallons of process wastewater results each year
from dust collection operations. This represents 6.6 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the copper casting subcategory.
86.6 percent of this 615 million gallon flow is recycled while 13.4 percent
is discharged to navigable waters. Estimates, based on the plant survey
responses, of the discharge flow to POTW's could not be made for this
process. An estimated 86.6 percent of this 615 million gallon flow is
recycled at 100 percent.
A general process and water flow diagram of a typical copper foundry dust
collection system is presented in Figure III-6.
Copper foundry dust collection operations use scrubbers to remove airborne
particulates. The dust collection systems under consideration herein are
used to remove the airborn particulates generated as a result of molding
sand handling operations, mold making and casting shake out. The major
pollutant load from this process results from the casting sand itself and
86
-------
the binders and process chemicals used in the molding and casting
processes. Test data from a representative dust collection system was
obtained during the sampling program. Plant survey data indicate a range
of applied flow rates varying from 63 1/kkg (15.1 gal/ton) to 8,440 1/kkg
(2,027 gal/ton). Recycle rates were either 0 or 100 percent.
A review of the six plant responses with dust collection operations
indicates that all process wastewaters are generated in the same manner and
are handled in the same manner, i.e., all of the treatment systems employ
some type of settling step. Refer to Table V-8 for descriptions of the
treatment systems employed in this subcategory segment. Of the six plants
using this process, four plants employ 100 percent recycle systems and two
discharge all dust collector process wastewaters. Of the 100 percent
recycle plants, three have "internal" recycle systems while one plant
recycles all dust collector process wastewaters through a settling lagoon.
The internal recycle systems recirculate process wastewater within the
scrubber equipment package as designed by the scrubber manufacturer. The
two plants with discharges provide settling prior to the discharge of all
dust collector process wastewaters to receiving streams.
Settling to achieve solids removal is the only treatment technology
identified in the survey responses. Plant 19872, Figure V-7, was sampled
during the sampling program. This plant uses a dust .collector scrubber
with an internal recycle rate of 100 percent. Settled sludge is removed by
a dragout mechanism for disposal.
Plant 9094, Figure V-8, produces process wastewater from three internal
recycle dust collectors. The process wastewaters are collected and treated
in a series of three lagoons to provide solids removal. The lagoon
effluent is recycled back to the scrubbers; Discharge from the ponds was
eliminated in 1977 when the ponds were dammed. Additional water from the
lagoons is used to sluice the sludge from the settling chambers of the
three scrubbers to pond number 1.
Table V-35 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-35 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Phenol 0.17
Cadmium 1.2
Chromium 1.2
Copper 330.0
Lead 110.0
Nickel 3.1
Zinc 730.0
87
-------
Mold Cooling and Casting Quench Process:
An estimated 4.6 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from mold cooling and casting quench operations. This represents 50
percent of the total process wastewater flow at plants within the copper
casting subcategory. 48.75 percent of this 4.6 billion gallon flow is
recycled while 51 percent is discharged to navigable waters and 0.25
percent is discharged to POTW's.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative copper foundry
dust collection system is presented in Figure III-6.
Copper casting foundries generate process wastewaters as a result of
cooling operations requiring contact cooling water for molds and quenches
for castings as they are formed. The major pollutant load from these
operations are the particles of copper and alloying materials which are
represented as suspended solids. These particles settle primarily in the
cooling and quench tanks where periodically the solids are removed and
reclaimed. Test data from a representative mold cooling and casting quench
operation was obtained during the sampling program. Plant survey responses
indicated a range of applied flow rates varying from 583 1/kkg (140
gal/ton) to 110,200 1/kkg (26,470 gal/ton). All plants, except one, had
discharge rates of 100 percent of the applied flow. The exception, which
had the largest applied flow rate (at least eleven times greater than the
next lowest applied flow rate), had a recycle rate of 99.5 percent.
Review of the responses of the surveyed plants with mold cooling and
casting quench operations indicates that all process wastewaters are
generated in the same manner, although the wastes are handled in a variety
of ways. Refer to Table V-9 for descriptions of the treatment systems
employed at these plants. Process wastewater handling schemes varied from
untreated discharges to POTW's to settling and cooling. Settling
operations were dated to 1960.
Of the seven plants identified in the survey with this process, two plants
discharge all of their mold cooling and casting quench process wastewaters
untreated to POTW's, two plants provide settling prior to the discharge of
all of their process wastewaters to a receiving stream, and the process
wastewaters of one plant are treated in a central treatment facility. Of
the two other plants, one had a recycle rate of 99.5 percent (0.5 percent
of the process wastewater from the process was discharged to a POTW). The
response from the remaining plant indicated a recycle system but sufficient
detail was not provided by the plant to determine the recycle rate. This
plant discharges its process wastewater to navigable waters. Both recycle
plants installed cooling towers in their recycle loops. The plant with the
undeterminable recycle discharged its blowdown to a lagoon from where it
was discharged to a receiving stream.
88
-------
Of the five plants using some type of process wastewater treatment system,
the various technologies employed are as follows:
a. Settling: To provide solids removal.
b. Settling, Recycle and Cooling Tower: used in the systems with a high
recycle rate to provide solids removal and cooling of the process
wastewater. Cooling is needed to maintain the proper heat removal
capabilities in the system.
Note: One plant with mold casting and casting quench discharges to a
central treatment facility and therefore was not included in this
discussion since the process wastewater flow from this metal casting
process represents only 0.02 percent of total central treatment
process wastewater flow.
Plant 4736, Figure V-9 operates a mold cooling and casting quench. This
process is a 100 percent recycle with make-up via a float valve. An
auxilliary holding tank is installed to maintain a water balance in this
system.
Table V-36 summarizes the raw and treated waste load observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table XX indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Copper 1.1
Zinc 3.5
Continuous Casting Process:
An estimated 4 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year from
direct chill casting operations. This represents 43.4 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the copper casting subcategory.
96.8 percent of this 4 billion gallon flow is recycled while 3.1 percent is
discharged to navigable waters and 0.1 percent is discharged to POTW's. An
estimated 13 percent of this 4 billion gallon flow is recycled at 100
percent.
Figure III-6 presents a general process and water flow diagram of a
representative copper continuous casting operation.
The continuous casting operation wastewaters result from the cooling of the
molds and castings used in and produced on continuous casting equipment.
The major pollutant loads in these process wastewaters are the suspended
solids consisting primarily of copper and copper alloy materials. Test
data from continuous casting operations was obtained during the sampling
89
-------
program. Plant survey responses indicated a range of applied flow rates of
5,080 1/kkg (1,220 gal/ton) to 42,600 1/kkg (10,230 gal/ton). Recycle
rates varied from 0 to 100 percent.
A review of the data indicates that eleven plants responding to the
information request employ continuous casting operations. In all cases the
operations need water for casting and mold cooling purposes. Refer to
Table V-10 for descriptions of the treatment systems used in this
subcategory segment. Process wastewater handling schemes ranged from
untreated discharges to 100 percent recycle systems. Of the eleven plants,
seven operate a direct chill casting process casting copper or copper alloy
logs, one plant operates a wire bar casting unit and three plants operate
continuous casting wheels.
Three direct chill casting plant, recycle 100 percent of the process
wastewater. The three plants operating the continuous casting wheels
indicated recycle rates of 100 percent. The wire bar casting plant also
indicated a 100 percent recycle rate. Therefore, of the eleven plants,
seven plants indicated recycle rates of 100 percent.
Two addition plants were identified that employ continuous casting
techniques. One plant casts logs while the other plant casts retangular
slabs. Of interest in these two plants is that they employ similar direct
chill casting techniques as the other seven direct chill casting plants,
but these two plants do not produce a process wastewater. Only noncontact
cooling water is used. The difference between these two plants and the
other seven plants is that these two plants have eliminated the quench
water and therefore the process wastewater source. The noncontact cooling
water sprayed on the mold is recirculated, not allowed to come into contact
with the casting and is discharged untreated. Treatment system dates of
installation began in 1945; the oldest cooling tower is dated 1965.
Of the seven plants with treatment system information, the various
technologies used are as follows:
a. Settling and Cooling Tower: used to provide solids removal and
cooling of the wastewater. Cooling is needed to remove excess heat
from the cooling system.
b. Heat Exchanger and Cooling Tower: this system provides cooling of the
process wastewater while eliminating the water losses associated with
the use of a cooling tower. The blowdown from the cooling tower is a
noncontact water. This system is used in 100 percent recycle
operations.
c. Settling: to provide solids removal on systems discharging at least a
portion of their process wastewater flow.
90
-------
Plant 6809, Figure V-10, recycles mold cooling and casting process
wastewaters through a cooling tower. Overflow at the hot wells act as a
blowdown of process wastewater from the recirculating system. This
blowdown represents 3 percent of the combined process wastewater flow.
These combined process wastewaters are settled and skimmed in a lagoon and
are then discharged.
Plant 9979 has a direct chill casting operation producing both copper and
aluminum castings. This 100 percent recycle operation uses a cooling tower
to reduce the wastewater system heat load. Temperature probes activate the
cooling tower when evaporative cooling is required. The recirculating
system of approximately 25,000 gallons supplies water to: the direct chill
casting molds, the casting quench water, the cooling tower, and noncontact
cooling waters systems within the plant. The casting molds are cooled by
passing process wastewater through water jackets around the mold. This
water upon leaving the mold is also sprayed on the casting as it leaves the
mold. The addition of water treatment chemicals to this 100 percent
recirculation system has limited the scale buildup within the molds.
Graphite entering the quench water from the casting applied to the mold
periodically causes a fouling problem but maintenance personnel remedy this
condition.
Table V-37 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-37 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Cadmium 0.11
Copper 2.4
Zinc 4.4
Iron and Steel Foundries;
An estimated 105 billion gallons of process wastewater result each year
from the casting of ferrous metals. 79 percent of this water is recycled
while 18 percent is discharged to navigable waters and 3 percent is
introduced into POTW's. An estimated 47.7 percent of this 105 billion
gallon flow is recycled at 100 percent. Five manufacturing processes have
been identified as using water in the iron and steel casting subcategory.
Dust Collection Operations
An estimated 52 billion gallons of process wastewater result each year from
dust collection operations. This represents approximately 50 percent of
the total process wastewater flow at plants within the iron and steel
casting subcategory. 84.2 percent of this 52 billion gallon flow is
recycled, while 14.2 percent is introduced into navigable waters and 1.6
91
-------
percent is discharged to POTW's. An estimated 55 percent of this 52
billion gallon flow is recycled at 100 percent.
Figure II1-7 presents a general process and water flow diagram of a
representative iron and steel foundry dust collection operation.
Ferrous foundry dust collection systems use the various types of scrubbers
as described in Section III to remove airborne gases and particulates.
These dust collection systems are used to remove the airborne contaminants
generated as a result of sand handling operations, mold and core making,
and mold and casting shakeout. The major pollutant load results from the
casting sand itself and the binders and process chemicals used in the
molding and casting processes. Test data from dust collection systems were
obtained during the sampling programs conducted during 1974 and 1978.
Plant survey responses indicated a range of applied flow rates varying from
171 1/kkg (41 gal/ton) to 96,200 1/kkg (23,110 gal/ton). Recycle rates
varied from 0 to 100 percent. A number of the dust collection scrubber
systems employed process wastewater treatment and handling equipment as
part of the scrubber package. The process wastewater is then frequently
recycled internally at 100 percent.
A review of the 131 plant responses with dust collection operations
indicates that all process wastewaters are generated in the same manner and
are treated in essentially the same manner; i.e., all treatment systems are
primarily settling operations. Refer to Table V-ll for descriptions of the
treatment systems used in this process. Recycle rates vary from 0 to 100
percent. Recycle systems involved both "internal" (within the scrubber
equipment package) and "external" (through separate waste treatment)
recycle of the process wastewaters.
Of the 131 responses indicating the presence of dust collection scrubbers,
68 plants indicated that 100 percent of the process wastewater associated
with the dust collection operation is recycled. Of these 68 plants, 47
plants indicated 100 percent "internal" recycle within the scrubber
equipment package and 21 plants indicated 100 percent recycle of process
wastewater with external treatment provided.
Forty-six plants recycle the dust collection process wastewater at less
than 100 percent. Twenty-five of these plants discharge the recycle
overflow untreated; 17 untreated discharges go to POTW's, 8 untreated
discharges go to navigable waters. The 21 other plants discharged treated
process wastewaters; 8 discharge to POTW's, 13 discharge to navigable
waters.
Seventeen plants discharge all of their process wastewater without any
recycle; 10 plants provide treatment prior to direct discharge; three
plants provide treatment prior to discharge to POTW and four plant
discharge untreated process wastewater to POTW's.
92
-------
The various treatment technologies indicated in the plant data are:
a. "Internal" Recycle: settling for solids removal is provided within a
manufacturer's scrubber equipment package. Sludge is removed via an
endless chain conveyor fitted with scoops to move the sludge from the
settling chamber to an appropriate receptor outside the scrubber.
b. Settling With or Without Chemical Addition and Skimming: solids
removal is accomplished in a variety of ways. These methods include
lagoons, clarifiers, tanks, and dragout chambers. Polymer or other
chemicals may be added to enhance solids removal. Skimming is
provided for surface scum removal.
Plant 55122, Figure V-ll, was sampled during the 1974 sampling program.
Dust collector process wastewaters from casting cooling, core room, molding
and cleaning departments are collected and recirculated from a central
sump. Ninety percent of the process wastewater is recirculated while 10
percent is discharged to a receiving stream. A sidestream treatment system
consists of a cyclone separator, with the underflow screen dewatered and
solids disposed to landfill, while the screen drains to the . central sump.
The cyclone overflow goes to a thickener where polymer is added. The
thickener underflow is vacuum filtered with solids disposal to landfill and
filtrate returned to the thickener.
Plant 59101, Figure V-12, has a series of 12 bulk bed washer type scrubbers
in the foundry for the cleaning of molding and cleaning dusts. The process
wastewater from these units is pumped to a collection sump and then to a
lagoon. No dust scrubber process wastewater is recycled externally.
This plant also had a sand washing system to reclaim sand for reuse. The
process wastewater from this operation also went to the lagoons.
The lagoons were arranged to give maximum use of the land area. The inlet
to the first lagoon was arranged so that the heavy solids could be removed
readily. The lagoon overflow is discharged to a receiving stream.
Plant 57775, Figure V-13, has a process wastewater from a dust scrubber.
The process wastewater flows to a drag tank where solids separation occurs
and sludge is removed. At the time of the plant visit in 1974, 88 percent
of the dust collection process wastewater was recycled. Since that time,
the dust collection process wastewater has been combined with the melting
furnace scrubber process wastewater, recirculation system and 100 percent
recycle of all process wastewater has been achieved.
Plant 53219, Figure V-14, has a scrubber which cleans molding and cleaning
dusts. The process wastewaters from the scrubber drain to a drag tank
where a flocculant is added, and solids are removed. Ninety-eight percent
of the process wastewater is recycled to the collector, and the overlfow
goes to the sanitary sewer.
93
-------
Plant 55217, Figure V-15, has a wet dust collector system. Scrubber
process wastewater flows to a large lagoon. From the lagoon process
wastewater is recirculated back to the dust collection scrubbers. This
recirculation system is common with the melting furnace scrubber
recirculation system. There is no discharge from this common system. One
hundred percent of all process wastewater is recirculated.
Plant 57100, Figure V-16, has four scrubbers to clean dusts from sand
mixing, mold shakeout, and shot blast cleaning operations. They are
mechanical-centrifugal type collectors. After settling, a portion of the
water is recycled back to the dust collector. The remainder is discharged
to the municipal sanitary treatment plant.
Plant 56771, Figure V-17, produces dusts from the molding area, core room
shakeout and cleaning areas. These dusts are cleaned by means of a
scrubber. The process wastewater is settled in a drag tank where chemical
additions aid settling. A portion of the process wastewater is recycled
while the remaining process wastewater flow was discharged to a POTW prior
to 1974. Since then the discharge has been eliminated.
Plant 15520, Figure V-18, is a large foundry with a complex water balance.
Dust collection scrubber process wastewater, slag quench process wastewater
and sand washing process wastewaters are settled and recycled with make-up
from noncontact cooling water. As water balance upsets occur, overflow is
periodically discharged to a POTW.
Plant 20009, Figure V-19, has four wet dust collectors which are operated
with a overflow to a POTW. A sand reclaim process washes the sand for sand
recovery. The waste products are settled in a series of four lagoons.
•Settled sludge from the ponds is removed to landfill. Forty percent of the
lagoon water is discharged by overflow to a POTW and 60 percent of the
process wastewater flow is recycled.
Plant 7929, Figure V-20, has operated nine dust collection scrubbers at 100
percent recycle of process wastewater since 1973. These nine scrubbers
remove airborne particulates generated in the casting shakeout area, core
room muellers, pouring casting casting cooling lines, sand handling and
transfer system, and the molding floor and molding line areas. Western
bentonite clay is used in the foundry sand. A two compartment settling
concrete tank was installed in 1973. Only one settling compartment is used
at a time and as necessary the compartments are switched to allow for
sludge removal. The solids are landfilled on company property. An
inertial grit separator was installed in 1978. Prior to the installation
of the grit separator the scrubbers would become fouled approximately once
per month. The fouling was believed by plant personnel to be caused by the
bentonite clay. The cleaning of all the scrubbers required a maintenance
effort of three men for three 8-hour shifts. At the same time of the
installation of the grit separator, a maintenance program employing a 1,000
psi pump and hand held cleaning wand was initiated to clean the scrubbers
94
-------
on a routine basis. All scrubber cleaning is performed one weekend per
month by one maintenance man and a helper.
Plant 51115, Figure V-21, has two interconnected 100 percent recycle
process wastewater systems. The treatment system was originally installed
in 1959. Prior to 1976, process wastewater was discharged to a navigable
water. In 1976 this discharge was eliminated when 100 percent recycle of
the process wastewater was achieved. Three scrubbers which clean dusts
from the core room and shakeout area are in operation at this foundry.
Process wastewater from the sand washer and the dust scrubbers flow by
gravity to a collection tank. Water in the collection tank flows via
gravity to the grit building where alum, polymer, and flocculant aids are
added. Solids are removed in a drag tank. Water from the drag tank flows
to a settling basin where it is pumped as needed to the dust collectors and
sand washing equipment. Problems were encountered with the 100 percent
recycle system immediately after closing the loop. These problems were: 1)
the determination of the correct amount of polymer addition required for
optimum settling took a number of weeks; 2) during this transition period
plugging of the scrubbers occurred; and 3) a larger than normal amount of
mud collected in the, settling basin. However, after the correct amount of
polymer addition was determined, and the proper water balance achieved
throughout the system, these problems were eliminated.
Plant 50315, Figure V-22, produces process wastewater from scrubbers which
clean dusts from sand molding operations. The process wastewater drains to
a lagoon for settling. One hundred percent of this process wastewater has
been recycled back to the dust collection scrubbers since 1974.
Plant 59212, Figure V-23, produces dust collector, slag quench and melting
scrubber process wastewaters which are collected in a drag tank. Chemical
additions to aid settling are made and the water is recirculated.
Solids are removed by the drag conveyor, and overflow water drains to a
second settling tank. Two settling ponds have been added since 1974.
Water is discharged to a POTW.
Plant 53642, Figure V-24, has a scrubber system for the cleaning of dusts
collected in the molding, core room, pouring, cooling and cleaning areas.
The process wastewater flows to a primary settling tank and then is pumped
to a cyclone separator. The cyclone underflow flows to a classifier for
dewatering and removal of solids, with the dewater returned to the primary
tank.
The upflow from the cyclones goes to a second tank for recycle, with a
blowdown (10 percent) to a thickener. Alum and poly are added at the
thickener. The underflow goes to a vacuum filter. The filter cake goes to
landfill and the filtrate is returned to the thickener.
The thickener overflow is available for reuse or discharge to the river.
95
-------
Table V-38 summarizes the net raw waste loads observed during the sampling
programs. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data presented on
Table V-38 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are present in the
raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Phenols 31.3
2,4-dimethylphenol 1.13
2,4-dichlorophenol 0.3
Phenol 4.77
Copper 2.86
Lead 2.3
Zinc 9.5
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
An estimated 26.7 billion gallons of process wastewater result each year
from melting furnace scrubber operations. This represents 25 percent of
the total process wastewater flow at plants within the iron and steel
casting subcategory. 80.6 percent of this 26.7 billion gallon flow is
recycled, while 16.6 percent is discharged to navigable waters and 2.8
percent is discharged to POTW's. An estimated 11 percent of this 26.7
billion gallon flow is recycled at 100 percent.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative ferrous
foundry melting furnace scrubber operation is presented in Figure III-7.
The major pollutant load is due to the amount, type and cleanliness of
scrap and metal used in the furnace charge and the various by-products
associated with the melting process. Test data from melting furnace
scrubber operations visited during the sampling programs of 1974 and 1978
provided information about the pollutants from this process. Plant survey
responses indicated a range of applied flow rates from 620 1/kkg (149
gal/ton) to 39,780 1/kkg (9,555 gal/ton). Recycle rates varied from 0 to
100 percent.
A review of the 82 plants responses with furnace scrubber operations
indicates that the process wastewaters are not only generated in a similar
manner, but also are treated in essentially the same manner. Refer to
Table V-12 for descriptions of the treatment systems used by plants in this
subcategory segment. Recycle rates may very from 0 to 100 percent and
recycle systems employ both "internal" and "external" treatment systems.
Of the 82 plant responses indicating the use of a melting furnace scrubber
system forty-five plants have 100 percent recycle systems. Of these forty-
five, seventeen have "internal" recycle systems and twenty-eight provide
external treatment for the recycled process wastewaters. Another thirty-
one plants employ recycle systems with recycle rates less than 100 percent.
96
-------
Of these thirty-one plants, three plants have internal recycle systems with
untreated discharges to POTW's, seventeen plants discharge process
wastewaters from an "external" recycle treatment system to a receiving
stream, and eleven plants discharge process wastewaters from "external"
recycle treatment systems to POTW's. One plant treats and discharges all
of its process wastewaters to a POTW, four plants treat and discharge all
process wastewaters to a receiving stream, and one plant discharges all of
its process wastewater without treatment to a POTW.
The various treatment technologies indicated in the plant data are:
a. Internal Recycle: these systems provide solids removal via some type
of settling operaton. In some instances various chemicals are added
to provide pH adjustment and enhanced solids removal.
b. External recycle, settling With or Without Chemical Addition: these
systems use lagoons, settling tanks, dragout chambers, or clarifiers
to accomplish solids removal. Various chemicals are added for the
purposes of pH adjustment and enhanced solids removal.
Note that both the internal and external treatment systems use essentially
the same treatment process.
Plant 6956, Figure V-25, produces wastewaters from melting furnace
scrubber, slag quenching, and dust collection operations which are combined
for treatment. The wastewaters are first treated in a clarifier with
polymer added to enhance solids removal and lime added for pH control. The
clarifier effluent flows to a lagoon fromwhich a portion of the treated
wastewaters are recycled back to the three processes listed above. The
lagoon not only provides system holding capacity but also provides
additional solids removal capability. Clarifier sludge is transported to a
landfill disposal site. A portion of the wastewater flow is discharged
from the lagoon. The recycle rate of the combined treatment system is 95
percent.
Plant 52491, Figure V-26, has a Venturi scrubber for control of cupola
emissions. The process wastewater is collected in a settling tank where
caustic is added. The overflow is recycled to the Venturi Scrubber. This
flow is adjusted to give a slight surplus of return water in the settling
tank. This surplus is discharged to the city sewer. The settling tank is
dumped daily to a dewater box. After additional settling in the dewater
box, the water is returned to the settling tank and the solids are
landfilled.
Plant 57775, Figure V-13, produces process wastewaters from a melting
furnace scrubber system which are treated in a drag tank by addition of
caustic and polymer. Solids are landfilled and the process wastewater is
recycled. At the time of the sampling in 1973, some overflow from the drag
tank drained to the sanitary sewer. However, since collection of plant
97
-------
data in 1973, this plant has closed the loop on the melting furnace
scrubber system. No process wastewater is discharged.
Plant 53219, Figure V-14, has a Venturi scrubber and a separator on the
cupola. The separator has a conical bottom that collects heavy solids.
Caustic is added to the separator via a pump. Water is pumped from the
separator to the process, and an overflow from the separator discharges to
the sanitary sewer. The separator is drained, at the end of the cupola
run, to a dewatering tank, and the solids are sent to a landfill.
Plant 56789, Figure V-27, operates a cupola Venturi scrubber. The scrubber
process wastewater drains to a classifier tank where caustic and
polyelectrolytes are added. The underflow goes to a drag tank where solids
are settled and removed. The drag tank overflow is recycled to the
classifier and excess is drained to a transfer transfer tank. Water in the
overflow transfer tank is pumped to a storage tank. Caustic is added at
the overflow tank for corrosion control. One hundred percent of all
process wastewater from the melting furnace scrubber has been recycled
since 1974.
Plant 58589, Figure V-28, has a melting furnace scrubber process wastewater
which is collected in a separator, and then pumped to a large sump. After
settling overnight, the sump is syphoned to a second sump. Water from this
second sump is recycled to the quench chamber-scrubber the next day- This
plant recycles 100 percent of its melting furnace process wastewater.
Solids were removed from the first sump bi-monthly.
Plant 56123, Figure V-29, collects melting furnace scrubber process
wastewa.ters in a drag tank where caustic is added and heavy solids are
removed.
The overflow from this tank to a filtrate tank where a portion of the
process wastewater is recycled to the furnace scrubber. A sidestream from
this filtrate tank passes through cyclone classifiers and then to pressure
sand filters. From the sand filters the treated process wastewater returns
to the filtrate tank. The filter backwash is blown down to a surge tank
and then to a floe tank where chemical additions are made. The floe tank
overflows to a clarifier. The clarifier underflow is delivered to
landfill, and the overflow is discharged to municipal sanitary sewers.
Plant 55217, Figure V-15, produces process wastewaters from the melting
furnace scrubber on a triplex cupola arrangement. The process wastewaters
are collected in a slurry tank. Caustic is added, and the water is pumped
to a large lagoon that is shared with another plants. One hundred percent
of the process wastewater from the melting furnace scrubber has been
recycled since 1974.
Plant 50315, Figure V-22, and Plant 55217 share settling lagoons. The
process wastewater from the melting furnace scrubbers flows to the lagoon
98
-------
and is recycled from the lagoon to the cupola emission system. Like plant
55217, since 1974 100 percent of the process wastewater from the melting
furnace scrubber has been recycled.
Plant 54321, Figure V-30, produces melting furnace scrubber process
wastewaters and slag quench process wastewaters which are drained to a drag
tank. A sidestream to a classifier removes solids continuously, as well as
the continuous removal of settled material by the drag conveyor. Hydrated
lime is added to control corrosion. Pumps recycle water from the drag tank
to the quencher and Venturi scrubber on the melting furnace. Since the
collection of plant data in 1974, this plant has closed the loop on the
recycle of process wastewater from the melting furnace scrubber. There is
no process wastewater discharge from this system.
Plant 56771, Figure V-17, has a system similar to plant 54321 with the
addition of an aftercooler and a cooling tower. These two units reduce
stack temperature and carryover. And like plant 59321, this plant has
closed the loop on the recycle of process wastewater from the melting
furnace scrubber.
Plant 52881, Figure V-31, has a system that is a duplicate of Plant 54321.
And like Plant 54321, this plant has closed the loop on the recycle of
furnace scrubber process wastewater.
Plant 59212, Figure V-23, produces melting furnace scrubber process
wastewaters, together with dust scrubber and slag quench process
wastewaters which are collected in a drag tank. Chemicals are added to the
drag tank to aid settling. Process wastewater from the drag tank is
recirculated to the mist eliminator. Process wastewater from the mist
eliminator is pumped through two cyclones with the clarified process
wastewater going to the furnace scrubber and returning through the mist
eliminator to the cyclones. The cyclone underflow is drained to the drag
tank. Solids are removed in the drag tank by a drag conveyor. Overflow
from the drag tank drains to a second settling tank. Process wastewater
from the second settling tank discharges to a POTW.
Plant 0001, Figure V-32, operates a cupola furnace with an emission control
system similar to plant 7170. The settled particulates are discharged to a
landfill daily. Settling is aided by a cyclone, and a classifier in the
system, as well as chemicals that are added during operation. The
particulates settle to the bottom of the cyclone due to inertial action.
These are piped to the classifier where further settlement collects them at
the bottom of the cone. After the cupola is shut down, this sludge is
dumped to a tote bucket. The recirculating pumps are operated for a short
period to cool the system and to move any particulates in the system into
the classifier. After settling overnight, the classifier cone is again
dumped to the tote bucket^ This system operates with 100 percent recycle
of all process wastewater.
99
-------
Plant 00002, Figure V-33, is similar to 0001 with an added feature of
energy recuperation before the Ventrui scrubber to reclaim heat from the
furnace exhaust gas stream. The Venturi, separator, hydraulic cyclone and
classifier are similar to plant 0001, as well as the operation methods.
Again, this system recycles 100 percent of the process wastewater.
Plant 15520, Figure V-18, has a separate treatment system for melting
furnace scrubber process wastewaters. The treatment system consists of
chemical additions, clarification and vacuum filtering of the settled
material. Clarifier overflow is recycled to a balance tank and then to the
melting furnace scrubber. Noncontact cooling water is used as makeup water
to the melting furnace scrubber recirculating system.
Plant 6956, Figure V-34 produces wastewaters from melting furnace scrubber,
slag quenching, and dust collection operations which are combined for
treatment. The wastewaters are first treated in a clarifier with polymer
added to enhance solids removal and lime added for pH control. The
clarifier effluent flows to a lagoon from which a portion of the treated
wastewaters are recycled back to the three processes listed above. The
lagoon not only provides system holding capacity but also provides
additional solids removal capability. Clarifier sludge is transported to a
landfill disposal site. A portion of the wastewater flow is discharged
from the lagoon. The recycle rate of the combined treatment system is 95
percent.
Plant 7170, Figure V-35, is small gray iron-foundry which operates a
melting furnace scrubber system. The melting furnace operates
approximately two hours per day during which time all system process
wastewaters are recycled. Caustic and polymer are added to the process
wastewater system following furnace operation and the process wastewater is
allowed to settle overnight. Prior to operation of the furnace the
following day, the settled solids are drained from the system to a company
landfill. One hundred percent of all process wastewaters are recirculated
in this system.
Table V-39 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling programs. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-39 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
100
-------
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Acenaphthylene 0.69
Antimony 3.4
Cadmium 2.2
Chromium 4.6
Copper 12.0
Lead 140.0
Selenium 1.2
Zinc 340.0
Slag Quench
An estimated 8.7 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from slag quenching operations. This represents 8.5 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the slag quenching subcategory.
45.4 percent of this 8.7 billion gallon flow is recycled while 52.8 percent
is discharged to navigable waters and 1.8 percent is discharged to POTW's.
An estimated 19.7 percent of this process wastewater is recycled at 100
percent.
Figure II1-7 presents a general process and water flow diagram of a
representative ferrous foundry slag quenching operation.
In this operation, the slag removed during the melting operation is
quenched in order to cool and thus solidify the slag. The quenched slag is
subsequently reirtbved for disposal or reuse in other applications. The
pollutants in this process wastewater result *from the slag quenching
operation. Test data obtained from slag quenching operations during the
1974 and 1978 sampling programs provided indication of the pollutants
expected in this process. Plant survey responses indicated a range of
applied flow rates varying from 117 1/kkg (28 gal/ton) to 23,860 1/kkg
(5,731 gal/ton). Recycle rates varied from 0 to 100 percent.
A review of the 63 plants responses with slag quenching operations in-
dicates that the process wastewaters are not only generated in a similar
manner but also are generally treated in a similar manner. Refer to Table
V-13 for descriptions of the treatment systems used in this process.
Degrees of process wastewater treatment vary from no treatment at all to
the recycling of 100 percent of all process wastewaters. The oldest
process wastewater treatment component was installed in 1948.
Of the 63 ferrous foundries with slag quenching operations indicated in the
plant data, twenty-two plants recycle all of their process wastewater while
six foundries discharge all of their process wastewaters untreated to a
POTW and four plants discharge all of their process wastewaters untreated
to receiving streams. Three plants treat and then discharge all of their
process wastewaters to POTW's and ten foundries treat and then discharge
all of their process wastewaters to receiving streams. Seventeen plants
101
-------
have recycle systems with recycle rates less than 100 percent; 10 of these
17 facilities discharge a portion of their wastewater flow to a receiving
stream and seven of these plants discharge a portion of their wastewater
flow to a POTW. One plant did not provide sufficient treatment system
information to determine the discharge mode.
Settling with or without chemical addition is the basic treatment system
indicated in the plant data. Settling tanks, dragout tanks, or clarifiers
were used as the main means of solids removal. Various chemicals (polymer,
lime, caustic, etc.) were added to the process wastewaters to aid in solids
removal.
Plant 51026, Figure V-36, produces slag quench, mold cooling, casting
quench, dust collecting, and sand washing process wastewaters which are
drained to a series of lagoons, and after 84 hours detention are discharged
to the river. The first lagoon in the series is periodically dredged with
the sludge trucked to a nearby landfill. During this clean-out operation,
the flow is diverted to a duplicate lagoon.
Plant 54321, Figure V-30, produces slag quench process wastewaters and
melting furnace scrubber process wastewaters which are drained to a drag
tank. A sidestream to a classifier removes solids continuously, as well as
the continuous removal of settled material by the drag conveyor. Hydrated
lime is added to control corrosion. Pumps recycle all the process
wastewater from the drag tank to the quencher and Venturi.
Plant 56771, Figure V-17, has a slag quenching system similar to plant
54321. Process wastewater is recycled 100 percent.
Plant 52881, Figure V-31, has a system that is a duplicate of plant 54321.
This system also recirculates 100 percent of the process wastewater.
Plant 59212, Figure V-23, produces slag quench, dust collector, and melting
furnace scrubber process wastewaters which are collected in a drag tank.
Chemical additions to aid settling are made and the water is recirculated
to the mist eliminator. Drainage from the mist eliminator is pumped
through two cyclones with the clarified water going to the Venturi and
returning through the mist eliminator to the cyclones. The cyclone
underflow is drained to the drag tank. Solids are removed by the drag
conveyor, and overflow water drains to a second settling tank. Water is
discharged to a POTW.
Plant 15520, Figure V-18, produces slag quench water, dust collection
scrubber water, and sand washing process wastewaters which are settled and
recycled with makeup from noncontact cooling water. Discharge of excess
water is to a POTW.
Plant 6956, Figure V-34, produces process wastewaters from melting furnace
scrubber, slag quenching, and dust collection operations which are combined
102
-------
for treatment. The process wastewaters are first treated in a clarifier
with polymer added to enhance solids removal and lime is added for pH
control. The clarifier effluent flows to a lagoon from which a portion of
the treated wastewaters are recycled back to the three processes listed
above. The lagoon not only provides system holding capacity but also
provides additional solids removal capability. Clarifier sludge is
transported to a landfill disposal site. A portion of the wastewater flow
is discharged from the lagoon. The recycle rate of the combined treatment
system is 95 percent.
Table V-40 summarizes the net raw waste loads observed during the sampling
programs. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data presented on
Table V-40 indicates that the following to^ic pollutants are present in the
raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Cyanide 0.184
Phenols 2.1
Zinc 0.67
Casting Quench and Mold Cooling Process:
An estimated 10.7 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from casting quench and mold cooling operations. This represents 10.4
percent of the total process wastewater flow at plants within the slag
quenching subcategory. 87.9 percent of this 10.7 billion gallon flow is
recycled while 8.4 percent is discharged to navigable waters and 3.7
percent is discharged to POTW's. An estimated 56.9 percent of this process
wastewater is recycled at 100 percent.
Figure II1-7 presents a general process and water flow diagram of a
representative ferrous foundry mold cooling and casting quench operation.
In this process, process wastewaters are generated as a result of
operations requiring quenching and contact cooling waters. The various
types of cooling and quenching operations are listed on the summary Table
V-14. The mold cooling operations require contact cooling waters (those
mold cooling operations indicated as using noncontact cooling waters were
not included on the summary tables). Quenching of the castings takes place
either subsequent to casting or to a heat treatment operation following the
casting operation. The major impact on the waste loads are the suspended
solids which consist primarily of scale-like material from the surface of
the castings. Test data obtained during the 1978 sampling program provided
information about the pollutants from this process. Plant survey responses
indicated a range of applied flow rates varying from 17 1/kkg (4 gal/ton)
to 39,280 1/kkg (9,434 gal/ton). Recycle rates varied from 0 to 100
percent.
103
-------
A review of the 44 plant responses with casting quench and mold cooling
operations indicates that, although the process wastewaters are similar in
origin, several approaches are taken for process wastewater treatment.
Refer to Table V-14 for descriptions of the treatment systems employed in
this subcategory segment. The degree of recycle varies form 0 to 100
percent. The oldest treatment system dates from 1964. Of the 44 foundries
with casting quench and mold cooling operations indicated in their data,
eleven plants employ 100 percent recycle systems while seven plants
discharge all of their process wastewaters to POTW's untreated and nine
plants discharge all of the process wastewaters to a receiving stream
without treatment. Six plants provide treatment prior to discharging all
of their process wastewaters to receiving streams and one plant provides
treatment for all of its process wastewater prior to discharge to a POTW.
Ten foundries employ recycle systems with recycle rates less then 100
percent, with seven of these operations discharging a portion of their
process wastewater flow to a POTW and three operations discharging a
portion of their process wastewater flow to receiving streams. v
The treatment technologies noted in the plant data are as follows:
a. Settling: to provide solids removal. In some cases recycle follows.
b. Cooling Tower and Settling: the cooling tower is used to provide a
means of reducing the heat load on the system. In some cases settling
is incorporated to provide solids removal as necessary. The cooling
tower system is used generally on the higher recycle rate operations.
Plant 51026, Figure V-36, produces casting quench, mold cooling, slag
quench, dust collecting, and sand washing wastewaters which are drained to
a series of lagoons, and after 84 hours detention are discharged to the
river. The first lagoon in the series is periodically dreged with the
sludge trucked to a nearby landfill. During this clean-out operation, the
flow is diverted to a duplicate lagoon.
Plant 15654, Figure V-37, employs a heat treated casting quench operation
involving the complete recycle of all process wastewaters. The treatment
system utilizes a settling channel, from which solids are removed
infrequently, and a cooling tower to provide for quench water cooling.
Table V-41 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on TAble V-41 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewater from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Zinc 0.13
104
-------
Sand Washing
An estimated 6.4 billion gallons of process wastewater results each year
from sand washing operations. This represents 6.1 percent of the total
process wastewater at plants within the iron and steel casting subcategory.
75.9 percent of this 6.9 billion gallon flow is recycled, while 12.2
percent is discharged to navigable waters and 11.9 percent is discharged to
POTW's. Though two plants have been identified which recycle 100 percent
of their process wastewater, one plant did not furnish sufficient detail to
properly assess the flow data and the other plant lies outside the
statistical survey frame. This plant recirculates (at 100 percent) 45.4
million gallons of process wastewater per year in a combined sand washing
and dust collection system. Seventh-two percent of the process wastewater
comes from the sand washing operation.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative sand washing
and reclamation system is presented in Figure 111-7.
In this operation, wastewaters are generated as a result of using water to
wash the used casting sand. The waters are used to remove impurities,
primarily "spent" binders and sand, from the casting sand prior to its
reuse in the molding processes. The sand and binders become "spent" as a
result of the heat present in the casting process. The major pollutant
waste load is due to the various materials (primarily metals and binders)
washed from the sand. Test data obtained at sand washing operations during
the 1974 and 1978 sampling programs provided information about the
pollutants from this process. Plant survey responses indicated an applied
flow rate range of 625 1/kkg (150 gal/ton) to 12,840 1/kkg (3,085 gal/ton).
Recycle rates varied from 0 to 100 percent. It should be noted that
various pieces of settling and solids removal equipment are used in the
sand washing process to collect and dewater the sand prior to its drying
and reuse. This equipment is considered to be part of the sand washing
operation rather than a part of the process wastewater treatment system,
and as such, process wastewater treatment equipment is applied to the
discharges from the various pieces of sand washing equipment.
A review of the 10 plant responses with sand washing and reclaiming
operations indicates that the process wastewaters are not only generated in
the same basic manner, but also are treated in essentially similar systems.
Refer to Table V-15 for descriptions of the treatment systems used in this
process. These systems vary from 100 percent discharge to 100 percent
recycle systems. The oldest treatment technology in use was installed in
1950.
Of the 10 foundries with sand washing operations indicated in the plant
data, two plants (1381 and 5115) recycle all of their process wastewater
while three plants treat and then discharge all of their process
wastewaters to receiving streams. Five plants have recycle rates less than
100 percent, with four plants discharging a portion of their wastewater
105
-------
flow to POTW's and one plant discharging a portion of its process
wastewater flow to a receiving stream.
Settling is the basic treatment technology observed in all plant responses.
Settling tanks, clarifiers, etc. are used in order to provide solids
removal. Four of the plants incorporate a polymer feed in order to enhance
solids removal capabilities.
Plant 51473, Figure V-38, has a sand washing process. The process operates
as follows: The sand from shakeout is conveyed to a screen. A magnetic
separator removed all metallic items from the sand.
The screen oversize (+3/8 in.) went to a mixer vessel where city water was
added. This was thoroughly agitated, and then pumped to a slurry tank.
The slurry tank metered the mix to a dewater table where the solids were
screw conveyed to a rotary dryer. The underflow from the dewater table was
pumped to a settling tank.
The settling tank is cleaned out on a weekly schedule and solids are
removed to landfill. The settled water drains to the river.
Plant 51115, Figure V-21, produces dust collection and sand washing
wastewaters which are collected, treated with flocculants and sent to a
drag tank. The sludge from this settling operation goes to a landfill, the
overflow water is drained to a settling pond for additional settling.
Overflow from the settling basin goes to a pump wet well. This is pumped
to a tank where it is pumped (as needed) to the dust collectors and the
sand washing equipment. This is a 100 percent recycle system.
Plant 15520, Figure V-18, produces sand washing process wastewaters, duct
collection scrubber process wastewaters, and slag quench process
wastewaters which are settled and recycled. Makeup water is from
noncontact cooling water. Overflow is discharged to a POTW.
Plant 20009, Figure V-19, operates a sand reclaimation process. The sand
washing process wastewater is settled in a series of four lagoons. Sixty
percent of the process wastewater is recycled while 40 percent is
discharged by overflow to a POTW.
Plant 51026, Figure V-36, produces sand washing, mold cooling, casting
quench, slag quench, and dust collecting scrubber process wastewaters which
are drained to a series of lagoons, and after 84 hours detention are
discharged to the river. The first lagoon in the series is periodically
dreged with the sludge trucked to a nearby landfill. During this clean-out
operation, the flow is diverted to a duplicate lagoon.
Plant 59101, Figure V-12, has a sand washing system to reclaim sand for
reuse. The process wastewater from this operation flows to lagoons. The
lagoons were arranged to give maximum use of the land area. The inlet to
106
-------
the first lagoon was arranged so that the heavy solids could be removed
readily. The lagoon overflow is discharged to a nearby creek.
Table V-42 summaries the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table 42 indicates that the following priority pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
Chromium 0.23
Copper 0.5
Lead 2.0
Phenols 0.81
Zinc 4.4
Magnesium Foundries
An estimated 2.16 million gallons of process wastewater result each year
from the casting of magnesium. Two manufacturing processes have been
identified as using water in the magnesium casting subcategory.
Grinding Scrubber Process:
An estimated 2.15 million gallons of process wastewater results each year
from scrubbers collecting dusts from the grinding of magnesium castings.
This represents 99+ percent of the total process wastewater flow at plants
in the magnesium casting subcategory.
Figure II1-8 presents a general process and water flow diagram of a
representative magnesium foundry grinding scrubber operation.
Scrubbers are provided on grinding systems in order to remove particulate
magnesium generated as a result of the grinding operation. The scrubbing
process not only serves to remove the particulate magnesium as an airborne
contaminant, but also reduces the fire hazards which can result from an
accumulation of fine magnesium particles. Test data obtained during the
sampling program provided information about the pollutants from this
operation. Plant survey responses indicated an applied flow rate of 6,660
1/kkg (1,600 gal/ton) with one 100 percent recycle operation and one 100
percent discharge operation.
Of the two foundries with a grinding scrubber systems indicated in the
plant data, one plant recycles all of its process wastewater and one plant
discharges all of its process wastewater untreated to a receiving stream.
The recycle operation employs an "internal" scrubber equipment package to
treat the process wastewater. Refer to Table V-16 for descriptions of the
treatment approaches used in both the magnesium foundry grinding scrubber
and dust collector systems.
107
-------
Plant 8146, Figure V-39, employs a dust collector scrubber and a magnesium
grinding scrubber. The process wastewaters from these scrubbers are
discharged untreated to a receiving stream.
Table V-43 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed in the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-43 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mg/1)
Lead 0.13
Zinc 1.2
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
An estimated 13,200 gallons per year of process wastewater results each
year from dust collection operations.
Figure II1-8 presents a general process and water flow diagram of a
representative magnesium foundry dust collection operation.
As described in the previous dust collection system discussion, this system
is used to remove airborne particulates generated as a result of sand
handling, mold making, and shakeout operations. The major pollutant load
results from the various process chemicals and binders within the casting
sand. One dust collection system was indicated in the plant survey data.
This operaton had an applied flow rate of 92 1/kkg (22 gal/ton).
One foundry was indicated in the plant data as utilizing a dust collector
system. This plant discharges all of its process wastewater untreated to a
receiving stream.
Plant 8146, Figure V-39, uses scrubbers to clean sand handling dusts and
dusts arising from the grinding of magnesium castings. The process
wastewater flow is discharged untreated.
This plant was visited during the sampling program and the raw and treated
waste loads observed during this visit are summarized in Table V-44. A
quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data presented on Table V-44
indicates that the following toxic pollutants are present in the raw
process wastewater from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentration (mg/1)
Phenols 1.14
Zinc 0.36
108
-------
Zinc Foundries
An estimated 1.07 billion gallons of process wastewater result each year
from the casting of zinc. Sixty percent of this 1.07 billion gallon flow
is recycled, while 37 percent is discharged to navigable waters and three
percent is discharged to POTW's. Two manufacturing processes have been
identified which use water in the zinc casting subcategory-
Casting Quench Process:
An estimated 383 million gallons of process wastewater result each year
from casting quench operations. This represents 36 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the zinc casting subcategory.
Seventy-four percent of this process wastewater is recirculated, while 24
percent is discharged to navigable waters and two percent is discharged to
POTW's. An estimated 70 percent of the process wastewater is recirculated
at 100 percent.
General process and water flow diagrams of a representative die casting and
casting quench operation are presented in Figure II1-9. The process
wastewater considered in this operation is that which is discharged from
the casting quench tanks.
Raw waste loads will vary depending upon the duration of the quenching
cycle, the degree of quenching recycle, the nature of the quenching
solutions used, the nature (hardness, corrosivity, etc.) of the raw makeup
water and the contamination of the quench wastewater with wastes from other
sources (example: hydraulic oil leaks from the die casting machines).
However, all process wastewaters sampled contained zinc. The effluent load
is due to the type and nature of the quenching solutions and makeup water
used in the quenching solutions and due to the contamination resulting from
other sources. Test data from casting quench operations indicated the
expected higher metal concentrations from the more corrosive streams and
also the expected results of contamination from other sources. Plant
survey responses indicated applied flow rates ranged from 20 1/kkg to 8,960
1/kkg (4.8 to 2,152 gal/ton) while effluent discharge flow rates ranged
from 0 and 8,960 1/kkg to (0 to 2,152 gal/ton.) Recycle rates varied from
0 to 100 percent.
A review of'the plant data within this subcategory segment indicates that
casting quench process wastewaters are handled in a variety of ways
although they are generated in the same manner. These treatment schemes
range from untreated discharges to publicly owned treatment works (POTW's),
and contractor hauling to complete recycle systems. Refer to Table V-17
for descriptions of the treatment systems used in this subcategory segment.
Generally, all plants use some form of settling stage even if this is only
accomplished in the quench tank itself. However, the quantity of castings
quenched, the waste flow through the quench tank, and the size of the
quench tank are factors which may necessitate the need for a separate
109
-------
settling stage. One plant employing emulsion breaking, pH adjustment,
flocculation with a variety of chemicals and clarification installed the
treatment equipment in 1956 while two other emulsion breaking systems were
installed in 1973 and 1974.
Of the twenty zinc foundries with casting quench operations indicated in
the plant data, 3 of these plants indicated that they employed systems
involving the complete (100 percent) recycle of their casting quench
process wastewaters. Four other plants utilized systems with varying rates
of recycle less than 100 percent. Two of these systems had untreated
discharges to POTW's, while the other two provided more extensive treatment
including emulsion breaking, chemical precipitation, and clarification. On
the other hand, three of the twenty plants discharged all of their casting
quench wastewaters untreated to publicly owned treatment works (POTW's).
In addition, the discharges of two other plants, which amounted to only
periodic quench tank dumps, were discharged untreated to the POTW. The
wastes of one plant were removed by a contract hauler.
Of the eleven plants using some type of process wastewater treatment
system, the various technologies used are as follows:
a. settling and skimming: achieves primary solids removal and removal of
tramp oils. In some instances recycle follows.
b. Emulsion breaking: using alum and sulfuric acid, the emulsified oils
are broken out of the emulsion and are then removed as a scum.
c. pH adjustment, flocculation and clarification: lime, polymer, alum
and other chemicals are used to adjust pH and promote floe formation
after which the floe is allowed to settle in the clarifier. This step
provides for heavy metals removal, some oil removal, and enhanced
solids removal compared to settling tanks.
Plant 18139, Figure V-3, has a number of die casting machines and
associated quench tanks which are emptied on a scheduled basis. The
schedule results in the emptying of one 300 gallon quench tank each
operational day. Each quench tank is emptied about once a month. The
quench tank discharge mixes with melting furnace scrubber process
wastewater, aluminum casting quench tank flows, and other non-foundry flows
prior to settling and skimming. The treated process wastewaters are
discharged to a POTW. The zinc quench process wastewater makes up 0.2
percent of the total flow.
Plant 4622, Figure V-40, produces casting quench process wastewater which
is hauled away on a contract basis by a reprocessor. The oil and grease
and phenol concentrations in the process wastewater of this plant are
substantially higher than in the other two plants sampled. The analytical
information for this plant is of interest, in that it shows the results of
110
-------
extensive contamination with nonquench wastes (casting machine hydraulic
fluids in particular).
Table V-45 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads for those plants
visited. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data presented on
Table 45 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are present in the
raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mq/1)
4-nitrophenol 1.6
2,4-dinitrophenol 0.9
Methylchloride 0.3
Phenol 0.46
Trichloroethylene 0.23
Zinc 62.00
Melting Scrubber Process:
An estimated 683 million gallons of process wastewater result each year
from melting scrubber operations. This represents 64 percent of the total
process wastewater flow at plants within the zinc casting subcategory.
Ninety-one percent of this process wastewater is recirculated while six
percent is discharged to POTW's and three percent is recycled 100 percent.
A general process and water flow diagram of a representative melting
operation scrubber is presented in Figure II1-9.
The major effluent load is due to the amount and the cleanliness of the
scrap used in the furnace charge. The cleanliness of the scrap influences
the furnace emissions. Generally, zinc melting furnaces which melt high
quality scrap do not require air pollution control devices. However, when
dirty, oily scrap is used, furnace emissions are often controlled by the
use of scrubbers. The process wastewater from these scrubbers may be
either recirculated within the scrubber equipment package (which includes a
settling chamber) or may flow to an external treatment system and then
recycle back to the scrubber. Test data from this melting furnace scrubber
operation provided information about the pollutants present. Plant survey
responses indicated a low applied flow rate,of 22,770 1/kkg (5,468 gal/ton)
and a high applied flow rate of 102,840 1/kkg (24,700 gal/ton). Recycle
rates within the scrubber equipment package ranged between 85 percent and
100 percent.
Plant 18139, Figure V-3, has melting furnace scrubber systems for both its
aluminum and zinc furnaces. The quench tank process wastewater mixes with
melting furnace scrubber process wastewater, aluminum casting quench tank
flows, and other non-foundry flows prior to settling and skimming. The
treated process wastewaters are discharged to a POTW. The scrubber process
wastewater comprises 27 percent of the total treatment flow.
Ill
-------
Table V-46 summarizes the raw and treated waste loads observed during the
sampling program. A quick look synopsis (partial summary) of the data
presented on Table V-6 indicates that the following toxic pollutants are
present in the raw process wastewaters from this manufacturing process.
Pollutant Concentrations (mg/1)
Phenols 36.0
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1.0
2,4,6-trichlorophenol 1.4
2,4-dichlorophenol 1.3
2,4-dimethylphenol 12.1
Naphthalene 3.3
Phenol 36.0
Zinc 19.0
112
-------
TABLE V-l
Penton Foundry Census Information
Ductile Iron
Gray Iron
Malleable Iron
Steel
Brass & Bronze
Aluminum
Magnesium
Zinc
Other Metals
Less than
10 employees
28
149
11
45
533
843
30
225
150
10-49
Employees
127
489
20
177
714
1,016
50
289
158
50-249
Empl oyees
283
579
42
337
277
450
42
175
59
Greater than
250 employees
98
156
37
97
37
75
8
39
9
-------
TABLE V-2
DISTRIBUTION OF ADDITIONAL 1000 PLANT SURVEYS
Ductile Iron
Gray Iron
Malleable Iron
Steel
Brass & Bronze
Aluminum
Magnesium
Zinc
Other Metals
Less than
10 empl oyees
25
54
11
41
119
167
28
50
32
10-49
empl oyees
26
104
18
30
144
200
46
65
24
50-249
empl oyees
60
103
36
56
69
98
36
43
50
Greater than
250 employees
69
79
22
33
28
52
4
25
8
-------
Age of
Flint Oldest
Code Furnace
5206 196S
6389 NA
4704 1951
Production
Tons/Yr.
76
12
•430
T/S
0.3
0.05
•0.65
TABLE V-3
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
Applied Flow
Discharge
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
GPT
12,800
8,000
4,900
Recycle %
X POTW
100
1
Direct
100
100
Central Treatment
YesNo % of total
97
Treatment Technology
Settling
Untreated
Polyner.Lamella Seperator
Treatment
Equipment
Age
NA
1977
*These figures apparently represent product. Based on visit, the tonnage Is 5.0 tons/day.
NA - Not available
17089 1960
>10,000
TABLE V-4
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ALUMINUM MELTING
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
20114
0206
13562
22121
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1968
1967
1936
1971
Production
Tons/Yr.
9,400
2815.5
13.442
2265.6
T/S
17.8
11.3
18.2
6.47
Shift
/Day
2
1
3
1.25
Discharge
Recycle % % Central Treatment
GPT
2481
NA
527
13,280
I
97.5
>97
37
>95
POTU Direct Yes No X of total
2.5 x
<3 x 3
63 x 1.8
<5 x
2800
60
40
70
Treatment Technology
Internal recycle-Untreated
Discharge
Settling Lagoon
Settling In lagoon,skimmed
Untreated-(Contact with
personnel provides per-
centages)
Skim.Alum,Polymer
Clarlfler, Filter—
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1969
1975
1973,75,75.75
1973.1975
-------
TABLE V-5
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ALUMINUM CASTING QUENCH
Plant
Code
4809
14924
26767
29697
9951
0206
13978
14401
19405
11703
14789
Age of
Oldest
Melter
1963
1946
NA
NA
1976
1967
1969
1949
1960
NA
1952
Production
Tons/Year
40
587.9
1736.7
2,810
1,404
2815.5
6.812
32,500
33,350
3601.2
9,961
T/S
0.15
2.1
3.1
3.75
1.95
11.3
7.76
43.5
42
7.2
13.1
Shift
/Day
1.25
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X % Central Treatmen
GPT % POTW Direct Yes No * of To
Tank 100 X
232 100 X
Tank 100
888 100 X
NA 90 10 X
221 100 X 1
NA 100 X
(Minimal Flow)
99.3 90 10 X
19 100 X
NA 100 X
1.45 *hauled
Treatment
t Equipment
tal Treatment Technology Age
No discharge or dump from
tank
Untreated
Tank with an untreated
discharge of 400 gal/yr
Untreated
Untreated
Settling Lagoon 1969
Untreated
Untreated (combined with
die cooling)
Untreated
Untreated (non-continuous)
Commercial waste disposal
10615 1950 602.5
NA - Not available
1.675
1.5
6866
100
company
Untreated
-------
TABLE V-6
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES - DIE CASTING
Plant
Code
10615
11665
14401
12040
13562
19405
5878
17089
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
pre-1950
1961
1949
1955
1936
1948
HA
1960
Production
Tons/Yr.
602.5
22,692
32,500
32.195
13,442
33.350
18.000
>10,000
T/S
1.675
23.7
43.5
43
18.2
42
22.5
>10
Applied Flow
Discharge
Treatment
Shift Recycle % % Central Treatment Equipment
/Day GPT X POTU Direct Yes No X of total Treatment Technology Age
1-2 2866 100 x
(MOLD COOLING)
3 506 100 x 18
(MOLD COOLING)
3 1655 90 10 x
(DIE SURFACE COOLING)
3 1300 100 x 90
(DIE COOLING, SPRAY.ETC.)
3 14,464 37 63 x 59.6
(DIE COOLING PROCESS MASTEWATER)
•
3 479 100 x
(SURFACE SPRAYS)
3 88.9 100 x
3 1200 79 21 x 30
Untreated
Emulsion break .Skimming 1957
Alum feed
F lot at Ion, Skimming 1974
Combined with quench wastes
In a holding tank-overflow
untreated
Emulsion break, floe with 1952
polymer. float scum.neutrallze
with lime.
Combined with scrubber and 1957
non-contact waters - settling
lagoon and skimming.
Untreated
Settling tank and skimming 1977
Combined with meltlng.oll
Die cast and casting quench combined
(Flows From Visit)
(Die Casting Only)
Pressure fliter.Alum,
Polymer. ClaHfler 1975
NA - Not available
-------
19275 1957 57,442 76.6
7138 1966 8,697 14
TABLE V-7
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES - DIE LUBE OPERATIONS
Plant
Code
19405
20147
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1948
1945
Production
Tons/Yr.
33,350
> 30. 000
T/S
42
>30
Shift
/Day
3
3
GPT
14.3
45.2
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle t %
I POTW Direct
100
100
Central Treatment
Yes No t of total
X
X
Treatment Technology
Treatment
Equipment
Age
Untreated
Skim
*r on holding tank
1977
8.7
71.4
100
100
Cyclone separator,
paoer filter
Floatation (Skimming) 19*57
ferric chloride,lime,lagoon 1971
trickling filter, activated 1977
sludge, clarlfler
Ultraflltratlon unit 1974
(Semi-permeable membrane)
co
-------
TABLE V-8
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
Plant
Code
12322
5946
3884
9094
19872
10011
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1960
1970
1940
1960
1964
Visited
1940
Production
Tons/Yr.
7580
2330
4978.3
6129.4
7744.1
2127
MTL/SAND
21.9 25.4
10 45
13.98 34
12 256
21.7 333
8.86 40
Shift
/Day
1-1/3
1
1
2
1-1/2
1
GPT
15.1
2027
424
180
NA
HA
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X t Central Treatment
% POTW Direct Yes No X of total
100 x 0.1
100 x
100 x 2.9
100 x 82
100 x
100 x
Treatment Technology
Settling with non-contact
and Metal coating
Internal Recycle
Settling
110 gpt through lagoon
Internal Recycle
Internal Recycle
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1960
1972
NA
NA - Not available
-------
TABLE V-9
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY FOUNDRIES
MOLD COOLING AND CASTING QUENCH
Plant
Code
4951
11740
Age of
Oldest
Melter
1963
1953
Production Shift
Tons/Year
27
215
T/S /Day
3
0.43 2
Recj
GPT 5
2300
140
Applied Flow
Discharge Treatment
«:le % % Central Treatment Equipment
i POTW Direct Yes No % of Total Treatment Technology Age
100 X Untreated
100 X 0.02 Settling, emulsion break, 1953
17704 1960 7580 21.9 1 1/3 817
19484 1949 167 .42 1 NA
16446 1972 9969 27.2 2 26,470
38846 1940 5639.8 7.5 3 1,280
99.5
100
0.5
100
100
6.4
1.9
skimming, lime, polymer,
ferrous sulfate, clarifier
Settling a non-contact
and metal coating
Untreated
1960
Cooling tower with untreated NA
discharge
Settling Lagoon
1972
NA - Not available
-------
TABLE V-10
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY FOUNDRIES
CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATION
Plant
Code
40013
t0007
40009
40006
40150
40054
40038
40250
40052
40017
40056
6809
Age of
Oldest
Melter
1970
1961
1966
1971
1975
1965
1967
1969
"
1955
1941
1966
1942
Applied Flow
Production
Tons/Year
2541.46
>50,000
58,822
11.225
18.000
54.500
9440
35.000
75.000
260.800
42.400
> 1*0, 000
TVS
10
>90
87.3
82.5
37
72
49.17
60-70
100
456
56.3
>10
Shift
/Day
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
Recycle
GPT %
NA 100
2518 100
8247
NA 100
9730 100
4000 98.3
NA 100
10,000 100
7200 94.3
8168 97.5
10,231 100
2593 90
Discharge Treatment
X X Central Treatment Equipment
POTM Direct Yes No % of Total Treatment Technology Age
X Reclrculate through sunp
and cooling tower
X Reclrculate through sump and NA
cooling tower - polymer, caustic
clarlfler. sludge to sand bed.
sump (40,000 gal) drained 4
times a year
100 X Untreated
X
X Closed loop recycle through 1975
heat exchanger - cooling
tower for non-contact supply
to heat exchanger
1.7 X 22.5 Cooling tower on entire flow 1965
X NA
X Closed loop recycle through 1975
heat exchanger - cooling
tower for non-contact supply
to heat exchanger
5.7 X 22.2 Mixed with non-contact for 1941
settling and skim 1945.7
2.8 X 68 Skinning, lime, polymer. 1974
clartfler-acld for final
pH adjustment
X Closed loop recycle through
heat exchanger and cooling
tower
10 X Cooling tower on recycle loop
u4+h lh«*+ »•**! «*«*! *4 r 1 •!! • Ak>4kM _
sumps.
flow at hot sump pumped to
lagoon and discharged.
NA - Not available
-------
TABLE V-ll
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
DUCTILE IRON FOUNDRIES
OUST COLLECTION
ro
ro
Plant
Code
18888
6450
17018
17370
15372
24595
5941
19733
12393
16502
14809
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1967
1965
1972
1951
1959
1966
1966
1964
1968
1971
1972
1948
Production
T/S
Ton/Year
1068.9
2000
1419
42,242
19,200
14,500
10.953
17,068
126,000
71,452
42,530
>70.000
.Sand
40
54.1
45
3.15
480
20
408
226.5
3150
1800
228
874
Metal
4.3
8
6
2235
40
19.3
79.9
34.1
293
180
91.6
>100 :
TS/TM
10
4.05
4.5
0.014
12
1
4.8
5.26
11.7
10
2.49
>0.1
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
*
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
GPT
NA
NA
NA
NA
400
3600
NA
318
283
192
77
4160
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X X
X POTH Direct
100
90 10
90 10
100
93 7
100
100
96 4
84 16
100
100
99.4 0.6
Central Treatment
Yes No X* of Total
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 75
X
X
X
Treatment
Equipment
Treatment Technology Age
Internal Recycle
2.96 gpt untreated
80 gpt untreated
Internal Recycle
Polymer and settling 1970,74
Through settling tank 1966
Internal
Untreated
With other grinding 1968
scrubbers cyclones, screen-
Ing, polyacr,. thickener.
vacuua filter
Clarlflers 1971
Internal Recycle
Recycle and/or reuse 1948
for Belting, etc. 1968
16612 1966 >85,000 875
>200 >0.3
3946
100
55
Polywr.aliN.settllng, 1977
clarlfler
-------
TABLE V-ll (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
DUCTILE IRON FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
ro
co
Plant
Code
20784
10684
14173
27743
5417
88281
9148
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1973
1951
1943
1940
1962
1943
1974
Production
T/S
Ton/Year
126,054
213,386
335,000
130.435
7200
18.946
8500
Sand
1550
133
507
2667
12.5
180
1240
Metal
248
335
447
181
14
43
34
TS/TM
5
0.45
1.3
8
1
4
NA
Shift
/Day
2
3
3
3
2
. 2
• 1
GPT
154
1805
61
132
3840
NA
151
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle % X
X POTW Direct
1000
NA NA
100
87.4 12.6
100
NA NA
100
Central Treatment
Yes No % of Total Treatment Technology
X 73 Polymer, lagoon, skimming
with slag quench
X 4 Lagoons
X 0.5 Lagoon - REUSED
X Polymer and settling for
discharge and recycle
X Internal Recycle
X 8 gpt untreated
X _ Lagoon
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1973,1975,
1971
1965
1964
1966
1971
1974
-------
TABLE V-ll (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
Plant
Code
19933
14417
11245
20408
26777
1644
2121
2195
2236
2511
28822
3646
3913
4688
5008
6565
6999
7344
8070
9593
14069
Age of
-Oldest
Furnace
1972
1973
1971
1945
1974
1973
1971
NA
1970
1942
1960
1974
1972
1945
1954
1968
1955
1966
1946
1953
1966
•
-
Production
T/S
Ton/ Year Sand
70.237
33.144
10.000
(Iron)
19.597
27.500
5.500
11.250
3.948
3605
6440
54.644
6263.7
12.670
32.000
22.411
15.275
6910
22.008
14,170
12.126
62.873
128
62.5
111
- ;
150
1800
220
200
160
175
140
1160
350
178
1600
500
Unk
135
365
124
286
1370.5
Metal
290
67.92
13.9
(Iron)
39
120
30
55
16
18
27
114
29.5
52
68
92
69.5
28.8
45
60
55
146.2
TS/TM
0.44
1.06
8
4.5
15
7.3
3.6
-
6
4.66
10.9
11.86
3.4
24
5.43
Unk
4.7
9.75
2
5.2
10.6
Shift
/Day
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
GPT
164
NA
592
625
200
236
120
165
NA
48
368
43
NA
NA
132
NA
560
270
NA
488
253
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X X
X POTW Direct
100
100
90.2 9.8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98.2 1.8
NA NA
100
88 12
Treatment
Central Treatment
Yes No X of Total
Equipment
Treatment Technology
Age
Reuse for hydroblast then 1949.1978
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 38
settled
Internal Recycle
58 gpt untreated
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Untreated
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Polyaer. Settling- 1968
Reuse In Melting
Scrubber and/or Discharge
Internal recycle
Mix with other Hastes, NA
and reuse
Untreated-Internal recycle
15.5 gpt untreated to POTU
Internal recycle
Lagoon 1977
1946
.1970
.1974
-------
TABLE V-ll (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
ro
en
Plant
Code
10242
12164
2031
6426
8482
18919
18941
15104
14670
19347
396
17230
Age of
Oldest
. Furnace
NA
1975
1972
Replaced
1970
1957
1942
NA
NA
1975
1939
1949
1968
Production
T/S
Ton/Year
723
4,631
5,222
2,200
24,265
15.882
100,380
325,770
12.678
29.500
7,750
25,011
Sand
10
125
138
40
100
150
125
154
189
350
250
384
Metal
NA
17.8
23
19.4
39.5
61.8
385
514
25.36
64
55
96
TS/TM
5
7.3
6
2.1
1
2.14
0.32
0.3
7.5
5
2.5
4.19
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
1
2
.1
1
1.7
2
2
1
1
GPT
BA
NA
533
NA
446
48
252
935
688
1029
54
139
Applied Flow
Discharge ;.«. >,.
Recycle X X Central Treatment
X POTM Direct Yes No X of Total Treatment Technology
NA NA X Untreated
90 10 X 0.96 gpt untreated
99 1 X 40 Dragout fl Belting
(4 gpt) 6 Lagoon
NA NA X
99 1 X 4.8 gpt to settling
100 X 10 Lime.Acid, Polymer, Clari-
fier.Settling.Skla
66 34 X Untreated
100 X Settling, Polyaer Plate
Separator
99.8 0.2 X Untreated
100 X 48 Clarlfler.Reservolr.Cool-
Ing Tower on Reservoir
Recycle and Reuse •.Melt-
ing and Slag Quench
100 X Internal
100 X Settling and Polymer for
Treatment
Equipment
Aae
1975
1967
1975.1976
1955
1979
1959.1970
1977
Reclrculatlon
-------
TABLf V-ll (confd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
OUST COLLECTION
INi
CTi
Plant
Code
17380
17348
11865
17746
10837
10600
15520
19820
13460
19533
14104
13089
18073
11111
20208
20249
20345
20699
Age of
-Oldest
Furnace
1972
1946
1974
1956
1963
1971
1971
1946
1971
1960
1974
.
1971
1952
1971
1965
1966
1965
1900
Production
T/S
Ton/Year
108.794
132.995
34.662
57,938
243.125
91.956
166.578
57.778
21.600
11.604
374.098
558.391
632.506
121.053
107,041
259.733
188,160
161.819
Sand
130
186
220
1000
8753.5
2344
2430
48
832.5
121.6
240
1333
5238
1368
66.5
1950
1154
623
Metal
241,
294
158.1
131
496.2
194.8
359
123
90
49.4
356
920
962
161.4
208
477
384
133
TS/TM
0.54
0.69
1.39
8
17.6
11.1
6.48
0.75
9.3
2.5
0.5-
1.45
6.1
8.6
0.3
5
3.01
2.75
Shift
/Day
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
GPT
6780
3740
27
NA
173
NA
96
450
NA
316
NA
68
824
649
NA
1329
NA
NA
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle 1 %
% POTW Direct
88 12
100
100
100
100
NA NA
90 10
70
30-Reused
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
NA NA
Central Treatment
Yes No X of Total
X
X 61
X
X
X 89
X
X 85
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 8.8
Treatment Technology
Screening, Clarlfler,
Polyaer.Vacuua.Fllter
Lagoons. SklMlng
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Polymer, Clarlfler, Lagoon
Deep Bed Filter
0.35 gpt untreated
Settling Tank
Internal recycle
POTU discharge untreated
when cleaning units
Internal recycle
Individual settling tanks
for each collector
33. 5X untreated
Settling
Settling
Treataent
Equipment
Me
1972
1958
1967.1977
1978
1949
1976.1969
1958
NA
NA
1967
I
Internal-solids to landfill
Internal -sol Ids to landfill
Internal recycle
Vac. Filter. Pol vmer.Clari-
1977
20112 1905 187.037 248 159 0.85
91
100
5.6
Her. Skimming
Settling.Skimming
1972
-------
TABLE V-ll (conf d)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
ro
Plant
Code
1381
1801
58823
3313
3760
5640
S6S8
6265
53772
63773
77775
6680
7322
7*991
7929
94*12
9929
Age of
- Oldest
Furnace
1955
1956
1967
1960
1943
NA
1947
1968
1969
1962
1962
1965
1950
NA
1966
Flows
1969
1977
Production
T/S
Ton/Year
14.200
"
58,280
27.934
78.594
35.609
28.500
8500
81.400
43.281
73.767
37.485
12.999
17.500
11.750
52.500
from visit
114.133
12,950
Sand
300
1095
509
659
2000
2440
412
133
75
175
50
924
280
640
650
1636
325
Metal
59
141.8
58.2
110
150
122
60
133
83.2
113
72
27.4
37.5
24
105
237.8
52.4
TS/TM
3
8.8
9.1
6
13.3
20
6.8
1.18
1.1
1.23
NA
13.7
7.5
23
6
6.87
6
Shift
/Day
1
1 3/4
2
3
1
1
1
3'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
GPT
NA
690
830
1318
41
120
161
NA
NA
411
4056
NA
36
NA
570
137
43
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle % %
% POTU Direct
100
100
99 1
100
99 1
100
99 1
100
100
100
100
100
100
NA NA
100
85 15
100
Central Treatment
Yes No X of Total
X NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 1
X 25
X
X
X NA
X
X 26
X 29
Treatment
Equipment
Treatment Technology Age
Recycle through alua. NA
polymer .clarlfler.thlck-
ness
Internal
Internal recycle-untreated
blowdowi
Sludge and blowdown to 1974.1976
polymer, lagoon.settllng
Settling In scrubber Itself
Settling NA
Polymer .Caustlc.Thlckener 1970
One system for wltlng.dust,
grinding, blast
Internal recycle
Kith other scrubbers, treated
settled together
Settled with other scrubbers
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Polymer.Clarlflers 1967
Settling Basin 1973
Polymer, Settling 1976.1974
Sk1m1ng.Caust1c.Ac1d. 1977
13416 1968 >115,000 4800 >20o >5
436
100
95
Polymer.Clarlfler,Pressure
Filter for Sludge, and
Emulsion Breaking
Settling Tank. Polymer 1926,1974
-------
TABLE V-ll (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
OUST COLLECTION
ro
oo
Plant
Code
10865
11964
19408
16612
839
27500
Age of
-Oldest
Furnace
1962
1954
1955
1953
1966
1964
Production
Ton/Year
>110,000
>125,000
>95,000
>85,000
133.516
157.912
T/S
Sand
10.526
1052.5
4051.7
1350
1640
2240
Metal
>800
>500
>l»00
>200
213
319.65
TS/TM
>1
>0.5
>2
>0.3
5.8
7
Shift
/Day
3
2
2
2
2
2
6PT
114
1020
752
3619
1014
455
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X X
X POTU Direct
100
77.4 22.6
Recycle
t Reuse
97 3
100
100
100
Central Treataent
Yes No X of Total Treatment TecMolooy
X 83 Lagoon,Polya»r, Cool Ing
Tower.F11ters.Alun
X 30 Settllng.Clarlfler
X 66 VacuuB Filter .Polyaw
Clarlfler
X 55 Polywr.A1uB.Sett ling
Clarlfler
X Internal recycle
X Sett Una. Polyvtr on.
Treatment
EqulpaMt
Aae
1966.1969
1970.1974
1954.1964
1966.1973
1977
1973
part only
-------
TABLE V-ll
GENERAL StfMARY TABLES
MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
ro
vo
Plant
Code
17331
28488
2243
3049
3432
5622
6773
8436
8998
11197
12203
18797
3118
3898
3901
6123
4100
7472
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1949
1974
1967
1976
1975
1970
1907
1968
1951
1966
1955
1965
1916
1940
1965
1949
1970
1927
Production
Ton/Year
5920
10,619
11,590
11,264.6
8591
4235
13.241
13.539.2
44.299
81.600
207.530
17,402
20.640
30.000
104.356.
12,544
54.660
T/S
Sand
722
250
128
12
343
300
300
160
214.2
875
200
1425
280
400
1500
15 24.8
312
661
Metal
32.7
54.5
32
46.36
45.2
21
20.3
27
23.8
93.5
109
259.4
70
70
200
222.03
42
95
TS/TM
22
4.5
4
0.25
7.6
10
15
5
9
9.36
5.5
5.2
4
7
7.5
.11
6
6
Shift
/Day
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1 1/2
1
2
1
2
GPT
397
NA
NA
200
NA
NA
48
NA
NA
738
337
100
144
1041
NA
134
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X X
X POTW Direct
100
90 10
100
40 60
100
NA NA
(>95) « 5}
100
100
80 20
100
100
97 3
100
90 10
100
100
100
100-
Central Treatment
Yes No X of Total
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 5JT~
X
X
X 25
Treatment Technology
Untreated
38.4 gpt dlsch.thru
settling
Internal recycle
Untreated
Internal recycle
0.8 3.2 gpt - polyner.
caustic, filter
Untreated
Line, Aluminum, Polyner
and Dragout
Untreated
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
Clarlfler.Lagoon.Sk Inning
Internal recycle
16.8 gpt untreated
Through Oragout Tank
Settling, Lime, FeCla
Internal recycle
Polymer and Settling
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1972
1975
NA
1976,1977
1973.1975
1970
-------
TABLE V-ll (conf d)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
Plant
Code
9306
16882
23455
Age of
Oldest
Furnace Ton/Year
1971 13,602
1968 >1 11,000
1946 83539.7
Production
T/S
Sand
319
5767
822
Metal
34
>500
191.2
TS/TM
8.5
>6
5
Shift
/Day
2
3
2
GPT
NA
305
231
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X %
% POTW Direct
100
100
99 1
Central Treatment
Yes No % of Total Treatment Technology
Internal
X 35 Lagoons
Untreated
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1975
OJ
o
-------
TABLE V-ll
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
STEEL FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
OJ
Plant
Code
14761
11635
15873
1835
5333
5560
5643
10225
17015
11598
15654
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1959
NA
1968
1953
1955
Pre-1943
1962
. 1914
Production
Ton/Year
7024
15,438
5985
4411.5
10,120
2500
9464
37,000
T/S
Sand
50
258.6
182.5
46.5
80
NA
113.2
367
1977 11,700 350
(Apparently new production
1948
1954
15,250
125.000
141.6
80
Metal
14.6
19.53
12.5
10.9
23
10
19.7
44
TS/TM
3
12.21
11.4
3.32
4
NA
5.4
4.17
114.7 4.1
facilities)
31
173.6
3.2
3.75
Shift
/Day
2
3
2
2
2
'l
2
3
2
2
3
6PT
58
223
112.8
392
NA
NA
NA
NA
( 190)
309
NA
130
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle X X
X POTW Direct
100
100
100
95 5
100
100
100
100
100
90 10
100
Central Treatment
Yes No X of Total
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 2.5
Treatment Technology
Internal recycle
Settling, alum, polymer
clarifier
Internal recycle
Dragout
Internal recycle
Internal recycle
For all purposes It Is
Internal recycle - can
untreated to POTW
Untreated
Internal recycle
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1949
1978
1940
100X
overflow
Internal recycle, untreated
discharge
Settling
1972
(Flows from visit)
(Processing scrapped molds, etc.)
10629 1968 10,791
88
23
3.8
164
100
0.2 Alum, polymer, clarifier 1977
thickener, skimming
-------
TABLE V-12
DUCTILE IRON FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
Applied Flow
CO
IV)
Plant
Code
14254
14444
15555
7438
18947
12393
10684
14173
30160
8944
9148
14809
16612
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
NA
1970
1962
1954
1974
1976
1951
1943
1972
1956
1974
1964
1966
Production
Tons/Yr.
11,973
70.498
73,968
4410
114,107
71,452
213.386
335,000
26,965
74.200
8500
>70,000
> 85, ooo
T/S
82.6
329
296
21
423
180
335
447
115
327
34
>100
>200
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
Discharge
Recycle X X Central Treatment
GPT X POTH Direct Yes No X of total
5230 >80 <20 X
978 43 57 X 43
819 70 30 X 60
2000 100 X
149 100 X
2400 100 X 82
5731 100 X
3812 100 X
626 100
201 40 60 X 3
1524 100 X 22
2100 99.4 0.6 X 57
2035 100 X 42
Skinning
Vac. Filter.Lime,Polyner 1978
Settling (Internal re-
cycle of 64X)
Internal Recycle
Gas Quench Syste* -
which reusers what Is left
after evaporation for slag
quench
Polyicr.C1ar1f1er 1971
Screening. Vac.Filter 1971
Polymer, Clarlfler.
Thickener, Sk1«, Lagoon
Llme.Polyner.Settllng Tank. 1977.1978
Lagoon
Lagoon
Settl1ng,Ac1d.Sk1m*1ng 1970
Lagoon 1974
Lagoons 1948,1968
AHm.Polywer,Clarlfler 1966
-------
TABLE V-12 (conf d)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
Applied Flow
co
CO
Plant
Code
2031
2418
3868
6426
7170
8092
9925
0000
14670
19347
0396
17230
23454
1942
2121
2195
2884
3399
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1972
1930
1946
1970
1952
1924
1938
1948
1975
1939
1949
1968
1960
1972
1971
NA
1960
1976
Production
Tons/Yr.
5222
1300
1723.5
2200
200
1775
1000
3724
12,678
29,500
7,750
25.011
3684
32,385
11,250
3,948
54,644
2700
1/5
23
5.2
8
19.4
4
15
4
16
25.4
64
55
91.6
14.6
115.7
55
16
114
11
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
l(10hr)
1
1
2
1
GPT
4876
NA
3000
3943
2880
NA
2700
450
5906
6000
2600
4913
9555
1556
2182
9000
3032
NA
Recycli
99
400
99+
100
100
100
50
100
99
100
100
100
96+
100
95
100
100
100
Discharge
e % X Central Treatment
POTU Direct Yes No 1 of total
10 X 60
X
X
X
X
X
50 X
X
1 - X
X 25
X
t> T' " r x
^ 3* X
X
5 X 40
X
X
Treatment
Equipment
Treatment Technology Age
Settling. Lagoon 1973
Settling with dragout 1978
Cyclone, Classifier. L1«e 1974
Scale Pit 1971
Settling. Urn. fo\ymr 1977
No discharge-to leach field
Scale Pit 1972
Settling. L1«e. Caustic 1978
Settling with dragout 1973
Clarify. Lagoon. Caustic 1959
Internal Recycle
Settling. Caustic.Polyaer 1977
Polyner 1970
Settllng.Polywr.Caustlc 1972
Settled.Caustlc 1971
Settled (Internal) 1970
Internal Recycle
Internal Recycle
-------
11964 1963
>112,000 >350
19408 1955 315,707 607
16612 1952 >85,000 >200
5691 1964 >65,000 >100
6956 1959 >119,000 >200
FLOWS FROM VISIT
TABLE V-12 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
1801
58823
3313
5533
5640
5658
6213
6265
53772
63773
7*991
77775
17746
19533
13416
10865
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1956
1967
1973
1960
NA
1947
1948
1968
1969
1974
NA
1963
1956
1960
1968
1965
Production
Tons/Yr.
58.280
27,934
78,594
57,123
28,500
8500
24,820
81,400
43,281
73,767
11,750
37,485
57,938
11,604
>100,000
> 50, 000
!Ł
141.8
58.2
110
115
122
60
52
113
83.2
113
24
72
131
49
>300
>250
Shift
/Day
1.75
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
GPT
2031
7093
1903
3130
2295
1440
2538
5522
NA
3186
500
7222
649
3673
4400
1632
Recycle
t
100
100
81
40
100
100
100
100
NA
100
-
100
100
70
98+
100
Discharge
1 % Central Treatment
POTW Direct Yes No % of total
X
X
19 X 75
60 X
X
X
X
X NA
NA X
X
100 X 12
X
X
30 X 20
1+ X
X 10
Treatment Technology
Internal Recycle
Internal Recycle
Settling. Lagoon, Polymer
Settling, Lagoon
Settling Tank
Dragout and unk.
Settling Tank
NA
Untreated discharge fron
Internal Recycle
Internal Recycle
Internal Recycle
Settled
Settling for discharge
Settling tank.thlckner
Caustic, Polywr.SMm
Settling with dragout lagoon
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1974
1974
NA
NA
1963
1968
1967
1970
NA
1975
,1966.1969
2
2
2
3
1041
2141
960
286
1900
95
100
100
95
0.7
100
52
Polymer,Llme.Alum,Press. 1970,1974
Filter 1978
Classlfler-blowdown co-treat-1965
ed In clarlfler
Settling NA
Settle,Clarify.Polymer 1966
Settling,Tank.Lagoon 1964
Clarify,L1we,Polymer,Lagoon 1974
-------
TABLE V-12 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
Applied FlOM
Plant
Code
7472
8436
23455
3898
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1927
1973
1974
1940
Production
Tons/Yr.
54.660
>8,000
>*0,000
>15,000
T/S
95
>20
>180
> 50
Shift
/Day
2
2
2
1-1/2
GPT
2284
NA
3163
2400
Discharge
Recycle % t
% POTW Direct
100
100
99.7 0.3
97 3
Central Treatment
Yes No X of total
X 69
X NA
X
X 97
3901 1976 30.000 200
1350
100
Treatment Technology
Lagoon
Alim.Llw.Polywr
Dragout,Sludge to Holding
Pond
Internal Recycle
Polyner.Settllng Pits.
Lagoon
Settling
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1967
1968
1971
MA
GO
in
-------
CO
en
TABLE V-12 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
3646
3913
4577
4955
5008
5584
6343
8828
9183
9441
9593
2236
14069
17746
15520
19820
18073
0749
20249
20345
1381
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1974
1972
1936
1952
1954
1970
1962
1955
1964
1967
1953
1970
1966
1956
1971
1946
1952
1975
1974
1965
1955
Production
Tons/Yr.
6263.7
12,670
16,800
6,003
22,411
15,742
37,790
4996.4
7,646
31.421
12,126
3,605
62,873
57,938
166,578
57,778
632,506
86,421
259,733
188,160
14,200
T/S
29.5
52
70
25
92
67.3
72.7
22.6
63.7
65.5
55
18
2
131
359
123
962
157
477
384
59
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2052
2
2
2
3
2.37
2
2
1
GPT
6834
3323
3000
300
2217
NA
4952
139
1883
536
1676
3653
88
649
401
6572
2694
2599
1610
425
NA
Recycle
X
86
100
99.9
100
99
100
100
100
NA
100
100
-
100
95
100
100
90
NA
77
100
Discharge
X X Central Treatment
POTW Direct Yes No X of total
14 X
X
0.1 - X
X
1 - X
X
X
100 - X
NA X
X
X
12 X 33
X
5 - X
X NA
X NA
10 X 40
NA X
23 X 43
X NA
Treatment Technology
Settled
Settled (Internal Recycle)
Settled, Caustic. Polymer
Untreated
Scale Pits (2) Settling Tank
Polymer
Settling with dragout Caus-
tic, Polymer
Internal Recycle
Untreated
Settling, Caustic
Lagoon Settling
Internal Recycle
Settled
Lagoon
Internal Recycle
Clarify ,Sk1m, Alum, Polymer
Settl 1 ng , Lagoon. Settl 1 ng
Settled, Lagoon
Settling, Polymer, Lime .Clari-
fy Lagoon
Untreated
ClaHfler
Clar1f1er,Alum,Th1ckner,
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1974
1971
1976
1964
1971
1974
1972
1970
1946,1974
1977
1971
1976
1952
1973
1965
NA
Polymer
-------
OJ
TABLE V-13
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
DUCTILE IRON FOUNDRIES
SLAG QUENCH
Age of
Plant Oldest
Code Furnace
17018 NA
14444 1970
15555 1962
24595 1966
18947 NA
10684 1951
14173 1943
16666 1966
20784 1977
30160 NA
14809 1964
16612 1966
20784
27743 1956
Applied Flow
Production
Tons/Yr.
42.242
70,498
73,968
10,953
114.107
213.386
335.000
109.187
126.054
26.965
1.226.942
>85,000
126.054
130.435
1/5
223.5
329
296
79.9
423
335
447
237
248
115
2606
>20C
248
181
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
GPT
HA
540
997
935
236
5731
805
60.8
58*1
NA
1234
1943
581
NA
Recycle
X
100
100
100
90
100
100
39
99.4
NA
Discharge
X % Central Treatment
POTH Direct Yes No X of total
X
X
X
100 X
10 X 10
100 X
X
X
61 X
100 X
0.6 X 29
100 X NA
NA X
Treatment Technology
Treatment
Equipment
Age
Settling Tank NA
Settling.Reused for quencher NA
Settling.Reused In scrubber 1978
Untreated NA
Settllng.Acld.Lagoon NA
Settling Pond,Chior1nation NA
Settl1ng.Polymer.L1me 1972
Settling NA
Settl1ng,Polymer.Lagoon 1973
skim
Settling Pond NA
SettlIng.SettlIng Pond 1948.1968
Settling Pond.Alum.Polymer 1966
Clarlfler
NA
-------
TABLE V-13 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
SLAG QUENCH
00
oo
Plant
Code
2031
18919
19347
1942
2121
2195
3646
4577
4688
6565
8070
8663
8828
9441
2236
14069
17348
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1972
1964
1974
1972
1971
NA
1974
1936
1945
1968
1946
1972
1955
1978
1974
1966
1946
Applied Flow
Production
Tons/Yr.
5,222
15,882
29,500
32,385
11,250
3948
6263.7
16,800
32,000
15,275
14,170
11,177
4996
31,421
3605
62,873
132,995
T/S
23
61.8
64
115.7
55
16
29.5
70
68
69.5
60
31
22.6
65.5
18
146
294
Shift
- /Day
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
Recycle
GPT %
274
777 100
1500 100
1287 100
873 95
1650
1007
NA(Tank) 100
1162
NA 100
16
NA 100
160 57
1088
NA(Tank) 100
378 90
327
Discharge
! % % Central Treatment
POTW Direct Yes No X of total
100 X 75
(LAGOON)
X
X 16
X
5 X
100 - X
100 - X
X
100 X
X
100 - X
X
43 - X
100 X
X
10 X 5.8
100 X 10
Treatment Technology
Lagoon
Settling Tank
Clarifier,Lagoon,Cool ing
Tower
Settled', Caustic. Polymer
Settled, Caustic added
untreated
Settled
Settled (Tank)
Untreated
Settled
Untreated
Settled with Dragout
NA
Lagoon
none(tank w/makeup)
Lagoon, Skimmer
Screen,Clarifier,Polymer,
Vac.Filter, Skim
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1975
NA
1959,1970
1972
1971
1974
NA
NA
NA
1955
1946,1974
1977
1958
-------
GO
vo
TABLE V-13 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
SLAG QUENCH
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
11865
.-%uV'
17746
19820
0749
20249
20345
20699
20112
27500
1801
3313
5533
5658
6213
63778
63779
7322
7499
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1974
1956
1946
1975
1974
1965
1954
1966
1964
1956
1973
1960
1967
1948
1971
1974
1975
NA
Production
Tons/Yr.
34.622
57,938
57,778
86.421
259.733
188,160
161.819
187,039
157,912
58,280
78.594
57,123
8,500
24,820
43,291
73,767
17,500
11,750
IŁ
158
131
123
157
477
384
230
211
319.65
141.8
110
115
60
52
83.2
113
37.5
24
Shift
/Day
NA
2
2
2.37
2
2
3
3
2
1 3/4
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Discharge
6PT
607
229
468
183
NA
300
620
895
1652
28
436
2713
240
3173
NA
NA
256
600
Recycle *
X POTW
100
Recycled &
Reused
80
Reused
100
90 10
NA NA
62 38
90
-
100
-
-
40
100
-
100
100
100
100
X Central Treatment
Direct Yes No X of total
X NA
20 X 30
X 6
X
X
X 15
10 X 3
100 X 47
X
100 X
100 X
60 X 56
X
100 X
X
X
X 10
X 15
Treatment Technology
Treatment
Equipment
Age
Settle w/DO.CIarlfy.Polymer 1976
Deep Bed Sand Filter
Clarlfy.Polywr.Deep Bed 1976
Filter .Cool Ing Totter
Settled.Lagoon 1976
Settling P1t,Alum.Po1ymer 1974
Untreated
Clarlfler NA
Sk1m,Clar1fy.Polymer,Vac. 1977
Filter
Lagoon, ski* 1972
Settling with Dragout 1969
Settling with Dragout NA
Untreated
Settling, Scale Pit, 1972.1951
Lagoons (2)
Settling with Dragout NA
Settling with Dragout NA
NA NA
Untreated
Lagoon. Polymer. Alum 1976
Settling. Clarlfler 1967
Thickner. Polymer
9440 1977
114.133 237.8
1067
70
30
30
Settling, Polymer. Lagoon 1974.1976
-------
TABLE V-13 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES
SLAG QUENCH
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
4222
5538
6773
7472
23455
3901
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
NA
NA
1964
1927
1974
1976
Production
Tons/Yr.
80,435
2100
4235
54,660
83,539
30,000
T/S
40.2
9.5
20.3
95
191.2
2000
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
2
2
1
GPT
NA
378.9
259
1026
753
1350
Discharge
Recycle i X Central Treatment
% POTW Direct Ves No % of total
50 50 X
100 X
100 X
100 X 31
100 X
100 X
Treatment Technology
Untreated
Untreated
Untreated'
Settling Lagoon
Untreated
Settling with dragout
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1967
NA
-------
TABLE V-14
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
DUCTILE IRON FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING OPERATIONS
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
17081
1444
15555
19733
14580
18947
16502
14173
Age of
Oldest Production
Furnace tons/Yr. T/S
1951 >15.000 >10
(Mold Cooling and Pipe)
1970 > 56, 000 >300
Pipe Quenching. Mold Cooling
1962 > 51, 000 >250
Pipe Quenching, Mold Cooling
1968 126.000 293
Casting Cooling
1973 >100,000 >150
Mold Cooling and Pipe Quench
1974 >97,000 >200
Mold Cooling and Pipe Quench
1972 42.530 91.6
1943 335.000 447
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
GPT
NA
350
190
328
4377
9434
157
*NA
Discharge
Recycle X X
X POTW Direct
NA NA
64 36
Reused
14 86
Reused
100
85 15
100
100
100
Central Treatment
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
No X of total
48
21
46
*
5
60
X
X
NA
Casting Quench and Mold Cooling
8944
1956 74.200
Mold Cooling
327
1376
80
20
23
Treatment Technology
Treatment
Equipment
Age
Settling, Acid (36 gpt DIs- 1965.1972
charge
Lime. Polymer. ClaHfler, 1974
Skin
Vac.Fllter. Lime, Polymer 1978
Settling
Polymer, Thlckner. VAc. 1968
Filter
Settling and Skimming, re- 1970
cycle In spray basin -f
Recycle through spray basin NA
Untreated to landfill
Settling Lagoon for re- 1965
circulation
Settling Lagoon. Acid. 1970
Skimming
-------
ro
TABLE V-14 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH AND HOLD COOLING OPERATIONS
Applied Flow
Age of
Plant Oldest Production
Code Furnace Tons/Yr. T/S
15104 NA 325,770 514
Hold cooling, cleaning, and Quencl
17289 1962 9719.7 11.39
Centrifugal Casting
20408 1945 19,597 39
Casting Quench
3068 NA 214,373 355
Flask cooling and ladle cleaning
11865 1974 > 32. 000 >145
Hold Cooling and Washdown
17746 1956 >i»7,000 >121
Hold cooling and washdown
20112 1905 187.037 210
Pipe casting machines
3069 NA 129,399 412
Shift
/Day
1.7
ling
3
2
2
1
2
3
1
GPT
NA
588
NA
}23
266
534
120
55
Discharge
Recycle % t Central Treatment
t POTU Direct Yes No X of total
100 X
100 X
100 X
100 X
100 X 35
80 20 X 70
100 X 6.S
100 X
Treatment Technology
Untreated
Untreated
In Tanks
Polymer, Clarlfler
Polymer, clarlfler
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1978
1976
Flask cooling and ladle cleaning
Polymer, clarlfler. cooling 1976.1977
Settling lagoon, skim 1972
Skimming 1977
-------
TABLE V-14 (cont'd)
MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING OPERATIONS
Applied MOM
Age of DischargeTreatment
Plant Oldest Production Shift Recycle X^~Z Central Treatment Equipment
Code Melter Tons/Year T7? /Day GPT X POTW Direct Yes No X of Total Treatment Technology Age
6123 1949 104,356 222.03 2 113 100 X 2.5 Settling 1973
Cooling/Tumbling Mill
-------
TABLE V-14 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
STEEL FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING OPERATIONS
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
11643
20000
20002
20011
20719
21175
2495
7898
8768
10225
17015
11598
15654
16934
17017
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1970
1957
1964
1961
1942
1948
NA
1967
NA
1914
1977
1948
1954
1943
1952
Production
Tonr/Yr. T/S
41,478 70
Casting Quench
66,144 95.44
Quenching
62,331.2 90
Quenching
75,346 107.3
Quenching
4108 11.3
Quenching
4450 12.4
Quench
600 2.5
Quench
397 0.8
Casting Quench
6754 13.3
Casting Quench
37,000 44
Casting Quench
11,700 114.7
Roll Quench Tank
15,250 31
Quenching
125,000 173.6
Quench from heat treat
20,599 38.2
Quench
66,117 88.1
Casting Quench
Shift
/Day
3
3
3
3
1.5
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
GPT
8229
1320
1493
2237
NA
NA
4
125
75
NA
NA
145
5100
52
11.4
Discharge
Recycle X % Central Treatment
% POTW Direct Yes No % of total
100 X
99.8 0.2 X 34
99.8 0.2 X 29
99.8 0.2 X 42
100 X
100 X
100 X
100 X
100 X
75 25 X
100 X
100 X
100 X
100 X
76 24 X
(Reused)
Treatment Technology
Dragout and Recycle
Cooling Tower
Cooling Tower
Cooling Tower
Tank
10,000 Gal Tank -
Dump once a year to POTW
Untreated to Pond
Untreated
Untreated to dry well
Cooling Tower
Tank
Untreated discharge from
tank
Cooling tower, settling
Untreated
Untreated
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1970
NA
NA
NA
NA
1972
-------
-Pi
en
TABLE V-14 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
STEEL FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING OPERATIONS
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
10388
20003
20007
20009
24566
28634
1665
1834
4880
7882
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1968
1943
1969
1969
1971
1951
1976
1957
1965
1942
Production
Tons/Vr. T/S
33.192 46.3
Casting Quench
19.210.7 39.9
Quenching
46.778 192
Casting Quench
72.341 105
Casting Quench
38.106 82.48
Casting Quench
15.796 30.37
Casting Quench
9151.6 15.2
Quench
38.700 42.6
Casting Quench
24.995 49.5
Heat Treat Quench
5467 10.9
Casting Quench
Shift
/Dajr
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
GPT
583
1170
55
NA
1164
1391
291
76
199
5505
Discharge
Recycle % t Central Treatment
% POTW Direct Yes No X of total
100 X
100 X
100 X NA
<100 X
100 X NA
100 X
100 X
100 X
100 X
100 X
Treatment Technology
Untreated
Untreated
Clarifler
Drain tank once • year
or less
Settling Lagoon and recycled
or reused
Untreated
Untreated
Untreated
Untreated
Untreated
Treatment
Equipment
Age
NA
NA
-------
TABLE V-15
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
SAND WASHING AND RECLAIM
Plant
Code
17348
15520
20699
1381
Age of
Oldest
Melter
1946
1971
Flows from
1954
1955
Metal
Tons/Year
132,995
166,578
visit
161,819
14,200
Metal
294
359
133
59
T/S
Reclaimed
Sand
120
2404
25
75
Shift
/Day
2
2
2
1
Applied Flow
Discharge
GPT Recycle % %
Rec. Sand X POTW Direct
3040 100
198 81 91
1402 100
NA 100
Central Treatment
Yes No X of total Treatment Technology
X 32 Settling Lagoon
X Settling tanks, classifier
vacuum filter
X 6.6 Polvmer.clarlfler.sklm.
vacuum filter
X NA Sett ling, classifier.
Treatment
Equipment
Age
1969
.1971
1977
NA
centrlfuge.clarlfler, polymer
11964
7902
1965 >1
1975
12,000
17,143
>350
77
903
40
I
1
3085 77.5 22.5
NA NA NA
X 41 Settling tanks, claHfler
alum, polymer
X Incomplete data
1954.1964
-------
TABLE V-15 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
STEEL FOUNDRIES
SAND MASHING AND RECLAIM
Plant
Code
20007
20009
24566
Age of
Oldest
Me Her
1969
1969
1971
Production
Metal
Tons/Year T/S
46,778 192
72,341 105
Flows from visit
38,106 82.5
Applied Flow
(Tons/Shift)
Reclaimed
Sand
285 '
83
50
Shift
/Day
1
3
2
GPT
NA
1565
1461
Recycle
X
NA
(>90)
56
Discharge
X X
POTW Direct
NA
44
100
Central
Yes No
X
X
X
Treatment
X of Total
NA
80
96
Treatment Technology
Clarifier
Settling Lagoons
Polymer, calcium
Treatment
Equipment
Age
NA
1950
1975
chloride, settling
lagoon
-------
TABLE V-16
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRIES
Plant
Code
5244
8146
8146
Age of
Applied Flow
Oldest Production
Me Her Tons/Year
GRINDING SCRUBBERS
1975 49.7
1940 's 192
Flow from visit
DUST COLLECTORS
1940's 49.7
Flow from visit
T/S
0.2
0.82
100 T/S
of sand
Shift
/Day
1
1
1
Recycle
GPT X
NA 100
1600
22
Discharge
X X Central Treatment
POTW Direct Yes No * of Total Treatment Technology
X Internal recycle
100 X Untreated
100 X Untreated
Treatment
Equipment
Age
CO
-------
TABLE V-17
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ZINC FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH
Plant
Code
4525
12060
2589
5091
5947
9707
10640
18139
13524
18463
21207
4622
5117
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1959
1967
1970
1956
1970
1956
1965
1952
1956
NA
1965
1956
1940
Production
Tons/Yr. T/S
330 1.4
>1,000 >U
500 1
360 0.75
3600 14
586 1.4
>5.500 >12
>10.000 >10
>25,000 >30
>7,000 >15
1421.5 3.17
10,671 22.2
>10,000 >16
Shift
/Day
1
1 1/2
2
2
1
1 1/2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
GPT
NA
32.7
500
533
NA
NA
857
4.8
66.7
2152
772
93
546
Applied Flow
Discharge
Recycle % % Central Treatment
% POTU Direct Yes No X of total
100
100 X 0.01
100
100
100
80 20 X NA
100 X 5
100 X 0.2
100 X NA
100 X X 35
NA NA
100
30 70 X 8
Treatment Technology
Untreated
Polymer. Clarlfler
Untreated
Untreated
Tanks, also circulated for cooling
Reservoir, untreated discharge
EB for casting quench and melting
followed by flocculatlon with lime.
alun, polymer and Iron sulfate;
neutralization with line, acid and
wastes, clarlfler and thickener
Settling and skimming
Emulsion break; flocculatlon
with alum and polymer; flotation;
neutralization with caustic;
settling tanks, skinning
Flocculatlon with line and polymer;
flotation; neutralization with caustic.
line, and other wastes; lagoons
Untreated - A portion Is recycled
through a filter
Wastes are removed by a reprocessor
Emulsion break; vacuum filter;
flocculatlon with lime and polymer;
neutralization with lime; clarlfler,
thickener; skimming
NA - Not available
-------
TABLE V-17 (cont'd)
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ZINC FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH
Applied Flow
en
o
Plant
Code
6606
9105
10308
10475
1334
1707
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1946
UNK
1954
1955
1964
1975
Production
Tons/Yr. T/S
6000 6.41
8030.3 10.3
>5.000 >7
>6,000, >10
6,000 15
2,500 3.4
Shift
/Day
3
3
3
2
2
3
GPT
NA
NA
NA
NA
"NA
706
Discharge
Recycle % % Central Treatment
% POTW Direct Yes No % of total
X
X
NA NA X 25
(28gpt)
100
100 X NA
100 X 5
8724 1952
2,268 2.9
5.5
100
0.01
Treatment Technology
Uses • quench tank which
Is periodically drained
Uses a quench tank which 1$ drained
once a year
Recycled through settling and
skinning - Emulsion break; floccu-
latlon with alim, caustic and polymer
neutralization with caustic;
flotation; sklnalng
Not Available
Nixed with mold cooling In a reservoir
Pressure filter; flocculatlon with
neutralization with line;
settling; sklmlng
So small a part of total treatment
flow, treatment process not
representative
NA - Not available
-------
18139 1952 >10,000 >10
13524 1956 >25,000 >30
10475 1955 11.000 25
TABLE V-18
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLES
ZINC FOUNDRY MELTING OPERATIONS
Applied Flow
Plant
Code
4622
10640
Age of
Oldest
Furnace
1956
1965
Production
Tons/Yr.
10,671
>S,500
_[/S
22.2
Shift
/Day
2
2
GPT
NA
24,700
Recycle
I
100
(Internal)
98.3
(Internal)
Discharge
X
POTM
X
Direct
1.7
(41l9Pt)
Central Treatment
Yes No X of
X 2.4
total
3 5468
3 NA
2 NA
85 15
(Internal)
>90 <10
(est.) (556gpt)
(Internal)
>90 <10
test.) (102gpt)
(Internal)
27
(816gpt)
10
Treatment Technology
Envision break for casting
quench and Melting - flocculatlon
with line, aliM, poly«er and Iron
sulfate; neutralization with line.
acid and wastes; clarlfler and
thickener
Settling and sklnrtng;
Emulsion breaking, line, polymer,
clarlfler, pressure filter Installed
Emlslon break; flocculatlon with
alum and polymer; flotation;
neutralization with caustic;
settling; skinning
Untreated
NA > Not available
-------
TABLE
V-19
LIST OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Compound Name Mole Wt.
1. *acenaphthene 154
2. *acrolein 56
3. *acrylonitrile 53
4. *benzene 78
5. *benzidine 184
6. *carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane) 155
•Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorofaenzer.es)
7. chlorobenzene 113
•8. 1,2,4-trichIorobenzen'e 182
9. ' hexachlorobenzene 285
*Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-dichloroethane,
1,1,1-trichloroethane and hexachloroethane)
10. 1,2-dichloroethane 99
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane 135
12. hexachloroethane 237
13. 1,1-dichloroethane 99
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane 134
15. l,*l,2,2-tetrachloroethane 168
16. chloroethane
*Chloroalkyl ethers (chloromethyl, chloroethyl)
and mixed ethers)
•Specific compounds and chemical classes as listed in the
Consent Decree.
152
-------
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis (2-chloroethyl) attar 137
19- 2-ehloroethyl vinyl attar (mixed)
•Chlorinated naphthalene
20. 2-chloronaphthalene 162
•Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed
elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and
chlorinated cresols)
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 202
22. parachlorometa cresol
23. *chloroform (trichloromethane) 121
24. *2-chlorcphenol 130
*Dichloroben2enes
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene 150
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene 150
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene 150
*Dichloroben2idine
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
*pichloroethylenes (1,1-dichloroethylene and
1,2-dichloroethylene)
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene 96
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. *2,4-dichlorophenol 166
*Piehloroprogane and diehloropropene
32. 1,2-dichloropropane - 113
•Specific compounds and chemical classes are listed in the
Consent Decree. *
153
-------
33. 1,2-dichloro?ropylene (1,3-dichlorcpropene)
34. *2,4-dimethylphenol ' 122
*Dinitrotoluene
35. 2,4-diaitrotoluene 182
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene 182
37. *l,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. *ethylben2ene
39. *fluoranthene
*Ealoethers (other than those listed elsewhere)
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis (2-chioroisopropyl) ether
43. bis (2-chloroe-thoxy) methane
.*Halomethanes (other than'those listed elsewhere)
44. methylene chloride (dichlorernethane) 87
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane) 50
46. methylbromide (bromomethane) 95
47. bromoform (tribromomethane) 253
43. dichlorobromomethane 164
49. trichlorofluoromethane 139
50. dichlorodifluoromethane 121
51. chlorodibromomethane 209
52. *bexachlorobutadiene
53. *hexachlorocyclooentadiene
•Specific compounds and chemical classes are listed in the
Consent Decree.
154
-------
54. *isophorone 138
55. 'naphthalene 128
56. ^nitrobenzene 123
*Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol and
31,nitrocresol)
57. 2-nitrophenol 139
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. *2,4-dinitrophenol 184
60. 4,6-dinitro-c-cresol
*Nitrosamines
61. fr-nitrosodiaethylamine 74
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine 198
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. *pentachlorophenol 267
65. *phenol 94
*Phthalate esters
66. bis (2-ethylhexyl) phtnalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate 310
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-cctyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
*Polynuelear aromatic hydrocarbons
72. benzo(a)anthracene (1/2-benzathracene) 243
•Specific compounds and chemical classes are listed in the
Consent Decree.
155
-------
73. benzo(a)pyreae (3,4-benzcpyrene)
74. 3,4-ber.zofluoranth.ane
75. benao(k)fluoranthane (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
76. chrysene 223
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene I*78
79. benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
80. fluorene
31. phenathrene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-diienzanthracene)
83. indeno(1,2,3-cd)?yrene (2,3-o-phenylenepyrene)
84. pyrene
85. *tetrachloroethylene 168
86. *toluene 92
83. *trichloroethylene 132
88. *vinyl chloride (chloroethylene) 63
Pesticides and Metabolites
39. *aldrin 363
90. *dieldrin 383
91. *chlordane (technical mixture & metabolites) 410
*DDT and metabolites
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'«DDE (p,p'-DDX)
*Specific compounds and chemical classes are listed in the
Consent Decree.
156
-------
94. 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
*endosulfan and metabolites
95. a-endosulfan-Alpha
96. b-endosulfan-Beta
97. endosulfan sulfate
*endrin and metabolites
98. endrin 381
99. endrin aldehyde
*heptachlor and metabolites
100. heptachlor 376
101. heptachlor epoxide 394
*hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
102. a-BEC-Alpha
103. b-BEC-Beta
104. r-BEC (lindane)-Gamma
105. g-BEC-Delta
•
*polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)
106. PC3-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107. PC3-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110. PC3-124S (Arochlor 1248)
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112. PC3-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
*SoeciŁic compounds and chemical classes are listed in the
Consent Decree.
157
-------
113. *Toxaphene
114. *Antimony (Total)
115. *Arseaic (Total)
116. 'Asbestos (Fibrous)
117. ' *BeryIlium (Total)
118. *Cacmium (Total)
119. *Chromium (Total)
120. *Copper (Total)
121. *Cyanide (Total)
122. *Lead (Total)
123. *Mercury (Total)
124. *Nickel (Total)
12S. *Seleniunt (Total)
126. *Silver (Total)
127. 'Thallium (Total)
128. *2inc (Total)
129. **2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
130. Xylene
•Specific compounds and chemical classes are listed in the
Consent Decree.
**This compound was specifically listed in the Consent Decree
because of its extreme toxicity.
158
-------
TABLE V-20
Conventional and Nonconventlonal Pollutants Analyzed
en
10
Acidity, free
Acidity, total
Alkalinity (Methyl Orange)
Alkalinity (Phenolphthalein)
Alumi num
Ammonia
Calcium
Carbon, Organic
Chi oride
Cyanate
Fluoride
Hardness
Iron
Magnesi urn
Manganese
Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
pH
Potassium
Silica, Soluble
Sodi urn
Solids, Dissolved
Solids, Suspended
Solids, Volatile
Sulfate
Sulfide
Temperature
Thiocyanate
Tin
-------
TABLE V-21
INORGANIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR VERIFICATION ANALYSIS
CN
Sb Aa Be Cd Cr Cu (Total) Łb Hg IU Se Aj Tl^ Zn
CTl
O
Aluaunuai Foundries
Investment Casting Operation*
Melting Furnace Scrubbers
Canting Quench Operations
Die Casting Operations
Die Lube Operation*
Copper and Copper Alloy Foundriea
Duct Collection Systi>n>»
Hold Cooling and Canting Quench
Continuous Caating Operation*
Ferroua Foundriea
D»'*t Collection Systems
Melting Furnace Scrubbera
Slug Quenching
Canting Quench and Hold Cooling
Sand Washing
Magngaiuaj Foundrie*
Grinding Scrubber Systems
Duat Collection Systrsts
Zinc Foundries
Casting Quench Operation*
Melting Furnace Scrubbera
X
X
X
X
•a
X X
h X
X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X
ig X XX X X
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE V-22
PLANT ASSESSMENT OF THE KNOWN OR BELIEVED PRESENCE
OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN FOUNDRY RAW PROCESS WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY: ALUMINUM CASTING
ALL PROCESSES
POLLUTANT
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
Hexachloroethane
2-chloronaphthal ene
2,4-dichlorophenol
Phenol
Heptachlor epoxide
(BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)
Delta-BHC
(PCB-polychlorinated blphenyls)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
Beryl 1i an
Cadmiun
Chromium
Copper
Lead
102 -
020 •
031 -
065 -
101 •
105 -
110
117
118
119
120
122
124 - Nickel
128 - Zinc
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
1
1
1
SUBCATEGORY: COPPER ft COPPER ALLOY CASTING
ALL PROCESSES
POLLUTANT
114 - Antimony
119 - Chromium
120 - Copper
122 - Lead
124 - Nickel
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
1
1
2
2
1
161
-------
TABLE V-22 (Cont'd.)
PLANT ASSESSMENT OF THE KNOWN OR BELIEVED PRESENCE
OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN FOUNDRY RAW PROCESS WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY: IRON & STEEL
PROCESS: DUST COLLECTION
POLLUTANT
004 - Benzene
007 - Chlorobenzene
008 - 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
009 - Hexachlorobenzene
021 - 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
024 - 2-chlorophenol
025 - 1,2-diChlorobenzene
026 - 1,3-diChlorobenzene
027 - 1,4-dichlorobenzene
031 - 2,4-dichlorophenol
034 - 2,4-dimethylphenol
035 - 2,4-dinitrotoluene
036 - 2,6-dinitrotoluene
038 - Ethyl benzene
052 - Hexachlorobutadiene
055 - Naphthalene
064 - Pentachlorophenol
065 - Phenol
086 - Toluene
114 - Antimony
118 - Cadmium
119 - Chromium
120 - Copper
121 - Cyanide
122 - Lead
124 - Nickel
125 - Selenium
126 - Silver
127 - Thallium
128 - Zinc
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
1
30
1
2
11
12
10
9
2
1
10
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
2
1
SUBCATEGORY: IRON & STEEL
PROCESS: MELTING
POLLUTANT
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
065 - Phenol 2
105 - Delta-BHC
(PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls) 1
114 - Antimony 2
115 - Arsenic 2
118 - Cadmium 4
119 - Chromium 9
120 - Copper 9
121 - Cyanide 2
122 - Lead 10
123 - Mercyry 3
124 - Nickel 10
125 - Selenium 4
126 - Silver 4
127 - Thallium 1
128 - Zinc 14
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
162
-------
TABLE V-22 (Cont'd.)
PLANT ASSESSMENT OF THE KNOWN OR BELIEVED PRESENCE
OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN FOUNDRY RAW PROCESS WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY: IRON 8 STEEL CASTING
PROCESS: SLAG QUENCHING
POLLUTANT
! !$ _ Antimony
118 - Cadmium
119 - Chromiun
120 - Copper
122 - Lead
123 - Mercury
124 - Nickel
125 - Selenium
126 - Silver
127 - Thallium
128 - Zinc
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
1
4
6
6
6
2
4
1
3
1
7
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
SUBCATEGORY: IRON & STEEL CASTING
PROCESS: SAND HASHING
POLLUTANT
065 - Phenol
122 • Lead
124 - Nickel
128 - Zinc
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
1
1
1
1
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
163
-------
TABLE V-22 (Cont'd.)
PLANT ASSESSMENT OF THE KNOWN OR BELIEVED PRESENCE
OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN FOUNDRY RAW PROCESS WASTEWATER
SUBCATEGORY: ZINC CASTING
ALL PROCESSES
POLLUTANT
-55 - Naphthalene
065 - Phenol
073 - Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
114 - Antimony
115 - Arsenic
117 - Beryllium
118 - Cadmium
120 - Copper
121 - Cyanide
124 - Nickel
128 - Zinc
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
1
1
1
SUBCATEGORY: MAGNESIUM CASTING
ALL PROCESSES
POLLUTANT
117 - Beryllium
120 - Copper
124 - Nickel
128 - Zinc
KNOWN
TO BE
PRESENT
1
1
1
1
BELIEVED
TO BE
PRESENT
164
-------
TABLE 23
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
LIKELY TO BE PRESENT IN FOUNDRY PROCESS WASTEWATERS
SUBCATEGORY: ALUMINUM CASTING
ALL PROCESSES
004 Benzene
006 Carbon tetrachloried (tetrachloromethane)
044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
065 Phenol
086 Toluene
124 Nickel
125 . Selenium
128 - Zinc
SUBCATEGORY: COPPER CASTING
.ALL
114 •
117 •
119 •
120 -
122 •
124 •
128 •
PROCESSES
• Antimony
• Beryllium
• Chromium
• Copper
• Lead
• Nickel
• Zinc
SUBCATEGORY: IRON & STEEL
PROCESS: DUST COLLECTION
003 - Acrylonitrile
004 - Benzene
055 - Naphthalene
061 - N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 - N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 - N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
065 - Phenol
086 - Toluene
119 - Chromium
120 - Copper
121 - Cyanide
122 - Lead
124 - Nickel
125 - Selenium
128 - Zinc
SUBCATEGORY: IRON & STEEL
PROCESS: MELTING
004 - Benzene
055 - Naphthalene
061 - n-nitrosodimethylamine
062 - N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
065 Phenol
•086 Toluene
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 - Copper
122 - Lead
124 - Nickel
125 - Selenium
128 - Zinc
SUBCATEGORY: IRON « STEEL CASTING
PROCESS: SLAG QUENCHING
055 - Naphthalene
061 - N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 - N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 - N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
065 - Phenol
086 - Toluene
118 - Cadmium
119 - Chromium
120 - Copper
122 - Lead
124 - Nickel
125 - Selenium
128 - Zinc
SUBCATEGORY: IRON I STEEL
PROCESS: SAND WASHING
003 Acrylonitrile
004 Benzene
055 Naphthalene
061 N-nitrosodimethylamine
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
063 - N-nitrosodi-n-propylam1n
065 - Phenol
086 - Toluene
119 - Chromium
120 - Copper
121 . Cyanide
122 - Lead
124 - Nickel
125 - Selenium
128 * Zinc
SUBCATEGORY: MAGNESIUM CASTING SUBCATEGORY: ZINC CASTING
ALL PROCESSES
065 - Phenol
ALL PROCESSES
004
006
044
061
062
063
065
086
124
128 - Zinc
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane
Methylene chlorice (dichloromethane)
N-nitrosodimehtylamine
N-nitrosodiphenyl amine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Phenol
Toluene
Nickel
165
-------
TABLE V-24
Types and Amounts of Binders
Used In Foundries
Pounds per Year
Binder
Aluminum Copper
Iron
Steel Magnesium Z1nc
Total
en
01
Linseed Oil
Alkyd Oil
Urea Formaldehyde
Furan: No Bake
Furan: Hot Bake
Oil Urethane
Furnace Bake
Sulfonlc Acids
Phenolic Urethane
Cold Box
Cold Box Isocynates
Silicate
Collolded Silica
Hot Box
No Bake
co2 Process
Air Setting Process
40.447 10.504,383
28.800 7,160 3.942,725
555.000 164.236 22,183.186
48.285 3,614,239
7.631 1,907,936
580.308
737,617
2,132 162,415 18.209,723
1,243 - 4,752,151
493.284 4.662 575.749
521,700 - 21.700
75.480 173.915 79.006.515
15.318 5.238.642
668.775 44.400 1.471.304
872.015 - - 21.416.845 11.5
676.145 - - 4.654,830 2.5
426.406 - - 23.328.828 12.5
1.277,424 - - 4.939.948 2.7
4,262,400 - - 6,177,967 3.3
580,308 0.3
72,150 - - 739.767 0.4
5.350.200 - - 23.724.470 12.8
- 4.753.394 2.6
921.780 - - 1.995.475 1.1
75,036 - - 618.436 0.3
567,594 - - 79,823.504 42.9
3.120,183 17,100 3.330 8,424.543 4.5
2.649,667 16,000 - 4.850.146 2.6
Total
86.029,470 99.9
-------
TABLE V-25
Annual Weight of Metal Poured in Plants
With A Process Wastewater
Million Tons Per Year
Total
Weight of
Metal Poured
Weight of
Metal Poured
In Plants With
Direct Discharge
Weight of
Metal Poured
In Plants Dis-
Weight of
Metal Poured
In Plants With
charging to POTW's 100% Recycle
O)
Aluminum Casting
1.781
0.891
0.700
0.190
Copper and Copper
Alloy Casting 5.431
2.548
2.666
0.217
Iron & Steel Casting 33.002
15.474
8.372
9.156
Magnesium Casting 0.0008
0.00075
0.00005
Zinc Casting
0.381
0.063
0.172
0.146
-------
TABLE V-26
Total Process Wastewater Flow
Mil 1 ion Gal Ions Per Year
Flow Discharged Flow Flow At
Applied Recycle To Navigable Discharged 100%
Fl ow Flow Waters to POTW s Recycle
oo
Aluminum Casting 3,826 1,993
Copper and Copper
Al1oy Casting
1,499
9,233 6,685 2,535
334
12.7
108
883
Iron & Steel
Casting
105,031 83,667 18,291
3,073
50,120
Magnesium Casting 2.16
2.16
Zinc Casting
1,067 906 1,334
26.5
267
-------
CTl
10
Aluminum Casting
Copper and Copper
Alloy Casting
Iron & Steel Casting
Magnesium Casting
Zinc Casting
TOTAL
TABLE V-27
Discharge Mode Profile
Direct Discharge 100%
Discharge to POTWs Recycle TOTAL
76
35
381
12
108
24
325
511
59
516
21 205
35
94
690 1396
13
36 102
783 1800
-------
TABLE V-28
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TOXIC
POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN 44 FOUNDRY RAW PROCESS WASTEWATER STREAMS
POLLUTANT
001 Acenaphthene
002 Acroleln
003 Acrylonitrile
004 Benzene
005 Benzidlne
006 Carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane)
007 Chlorobenzene
008 1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
009 Hexachlorobenzene
010 1,2-dichloroethane
Oil 1,1,1-trlchlorethane
012 Hexachloroethane
013 1,1-dichloroethane
014 1,1,2-trichloroethane
015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
016 Chloroethane
017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether
018 B1s (2-chloroethyl) ether
019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
(mixed)
020 2-chloronaphthalene
021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
022 Parachlorometa cresol
023 Chloroform (trichloro-
me thane)
024 2-chlorophenol
025 1,2-dichlorobenzene
026 1,3-dichlorobenzene
027 1,4-dichlorobenzene
028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
029 1,1-dichloroethylene
030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
031 2,4-dichlorophenol
Concentration Concentration
<0.01 rng/1 >0.01 mg/1
13
0
0
20
1
15
3
1
2
4
9
1
1
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
14
13
10
9
1
1
1
0
0
2
14
7
0
0
5
1
5
1
2
0
1
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
9
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
Concentration
^ 0.1 mg/1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Concentration Concentration
^fl.Q mg/1 ^H.O mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE V-28 (Cont'd.)
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TOXIC
POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN 44 FOUNDTY RAW PROCESS WASTEWATER STREAMS
POLLUTANT
032 1,2-dtchloropropane
033 1,2-dlchloropropylene
(1,3-dlchloropropene)
034 2,4-d1metnylphenol
035 2,4-d1n1trotoluene
036 2,6-d1n1trotoluene
037 l,2-d1phenylhydraz1ne
038 Ethylbenzene
039 Fluoranthene
040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
042 61s(2-ch1oro1sopropy1) ether
043 B1s(2-chloroethoxy) methane
044 Methylene chloride
(dlchloromethane)
045 Methyl chloride
(dlchloromethane)
046 Methyl bromide
(bronomethane)
047 Bromoform (trlbromo-
•ethane)
048 Olchlorobromomethane
049 Trlchlorofluoromethane
050 Dlchlorodlfluoromethane
051 Chiorodibronomethane
052 Hexachlorobutadi ene
053 HexachToromyclopenta-
dlene
054 Isophorone
055 Naphthalene
056 Nitrobenzene
057 2-nltrophenol
058 4-nltrophenol
059 2,4-dlnltrophenol
Concentration Concentration
<0.01 mg/1 >0.01 mg/1
0
21
4
6
2
8
20
0
0
0
2
13
0
1
6
0
0
1
0
1
2
15
4
11
6
11
0
16
2
2
0
3
8
0
0
0
1
8
0
Concentration
>0.1 mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
Concentration
>1.0 mg/1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
Concentration
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE V-28 (Cont'd.)
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TOXIC
POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN 44 FOUNDRY RAW PROCESS WASTEMATER STREAMS
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
POLLUTANT <0.01 rng/1 ^.Q.Ol mg/1 > o.l mg/1 ^.1.0 rng/1 >10.0 mg/1
060 4,6-dinltro-o-cresol 11 6 0 0 0
061 N-n1trosod1methylamine 00 0 00
062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine 53 1 10
063 N-nltrosodi-n-propylamine 32 1 00
064 Pentachlorophenol 13 7 3 1 0
065 Phenol 20 17 10 63
066 B1s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 23 20 10 51
067 Butyl benzyl phthalate 18 12 3 00
068 D1-N-Butyl Phthalate 23 12 3 11
069 01-n-octyl phthalate 93 4 10
070 Dlethyl Phthalate 17 9 2 00
071 Dimethyl phthalate 12 8 2 10
072 1,2-benzanthracene
(benzo(a)anthracene) 96 2 22
073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-
pyrene) 83 0 00
074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene
(benzo(b)fluoranthene) 42 0 00
075 11,12-benzofluoranthene
(benzo(b)fluoranthene) 30 0 00
076 Chrysene 11 7 3 2 2
077 Acenaphthylene 14 6 0 00
078 Anthracene 15 8 3 00
079 1,12-benzoperylene
(benzo(ghi)perylene) 00 0 00
080 Fluorene 17 9 3 00
081 Phenanthrene 16 9 3 00
082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
(dibenzo(,h)anthracene) 00 0 00
083 Indeno(l,2,3-cd) pyrene
(2,3-o-pheynylene pyrene) 11 0 00
084 Pyrene 22 8 2 10
085 Tetrachloroethylene 98 4 00
086 Toluene 15 5 1 00
-------
TABLE V-28 (Cont'd.)
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TOXIC
POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN 4* FOUNDRY RAW PROCESS HASTEHATER STREAMS
POLLUTANT
087 THchloroethylene
088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
089 Aldrln
090 Dleldrln
091 Chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)
092 4,4-DDT
093 4,4-DDE (p.p-DDX)
094 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
095 Alpha-endosulfan
096 Beta-endosulfan
097 Endosulfan sulfate
098 Endrln
099 Endrln aldehyde
100 Heptachlor
101 Heptachlor epoxlde
( BHC-hexachl orocyc 1 o-
hexane)
103 Alpha-BHC
103 Beta-BHC
104 Ganma-BHC (llndane)
105 Delta-BHC (PCB-poly-
chlorinated blphenyls)
106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108 PCB-1221 {Arochlor 1221)
109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113 Toxaphene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
116 Asbestos
Concentration Concentration
<0.01 mg/1 S?0.01 mg/1
13
0
7
13
7
15
14
7
9
6
6
6
13
7
5
8
7
15
7
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
1
7
6
0
1
2
1
5
8
8
8
10
10
10
10
0
5
3
Concentration
0.1 mg/1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
3
2
Concentration Concentration
^1.0 mg/1 ^10.0 mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
TABLE V-Z8 (Conf d.)
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TOXIC
POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN 44 FOUNDRY RAH PROCESS WASTEWATER STREAMS
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
POLLUTANT <0.01 mg/1 >0.01 rng/1 ^0.1 mg/1 >1.0 mg/1 ^10.8 tng/1
117 Beryllium 10 1 0 00
118 Cadmium 75 5 10
119 Chromium 14 8 4 20
120 Copper 23 21 16 52
121 Cyanide, Total 24 11 1 0 0
122 Lead 28 22 16 10 7
123 Mercury 23 0 0 00
124 Nickel 21 16 7 00
125 Selenium 63 2 10
126 Silver 31 0 00
127 Thallium 21 1 10
126 Silver 00 0 00
128 Zinc 30 28 26 21 12
129 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-diox1n (TCDD) 00 0 00
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY FObUITANTS IN AUMINUN POUMWT 1NVKSTMNT CA8TIHB OPEMTIfHIS
IAI.I, euwKHrwTiotis IN
Page 1
01
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1. •cen.phlhene
2. •croleln
3. Hcrflonltrtl*
' • Dcvtxdtc
5. Itencidln*
6 . Carbon Tetrachlorlde
7 . Oil orobenzene
9. Iteiacblnrobenxene
10. 1,2-Dlchloroettuine
11. l.I.I-Trlchloroetham
12. HeiaehtoroeUiiiim
1). 1.1-OlchlaroethMie
1*. 1.1.2-Trlcblaraethnim
19. l.l.2.?OT>i
IB. blB-(?-chlor
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqe 2
PRIORITY POI.UITAtrrS IN AUIMINUN FOUNDRY INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
(ALL OUtK.-RHTKATIOUS IM Mli/U
R POLLUTANT PARAMETER
JS* _2r0»loro«l»rll flnjl Eltwr
20. 2-Chlorofuphthalena
21. 2.4,6-Trlclilorophenol
22. Parach 1 or«iet aci*€ao 1
2J. Oilorofoni
2<. 2-Chlnm|4ienol
25. l,2-Dlc!iloroli«nrefi«
24. 1, J.-Dldilorotwnzwie
27. l,V-l>lrhloi'Oli«nzen«
28. J,3-nichtnrobenzldene
29. 1,1-blchlnroethrlene
30. l,?-Tran.im
47(
R.>w
»
O.HO5
4
Tic.il f*l
•
O.02O
»
RAW
Treated
RAW
Trented
t>M
Treat nt
Raw
Tteatod
Rim
Treat e
-------
TABLE V-29
pan* 1.
MUOHITY POI.IJHTAWrS IN MUMIHUN rOUHDKV INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
(ALL (XWL-KHTHATIOHS IN MH/I.I
POLLUTANT PARAHETER
37. 1 ,3-Dlphenylhya'raEfine
18. eUivlbenteim
j». n.^ru.Lh**.
§l«_^-Proiaophcnii Flicnr! JEthei
elher
*J. bls-(2»otiloroetlN»r/)aethi
M. NehtfleiM Chloride
45. Nethfl Chloride
W. Nethfl Brodldo
•T. BrOKfoni
M. Trlchlorofluoroawthane
58 _ DlrhlnrodirinnroMethiiw
51. ChlorodlbroiKMet.ha.ne
V.. HeiaohlorobnUdlow
5J. Heiachloro
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 4
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN AUININUN POUNDRT INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
(AM. (VNCEHTflATinNR IN H:/l.)
--J
oo
A. POLLUTANT PARAMETER'
5».J.«r*o™«
•K. B.phlh.1^.
96. Nltrahmum*
ST. 2-NltroDhenol
58. 4-Hltroohetiol
60. 4l6-Dtnltry-o.9reM|
61. M-nltroaodla»thrUa)lne
62. H-nltroaotHrhenrlaitlnfl
63. N-nitro90ti
64. FentachloroflieiKil
65. Phenol
66, t>ls-(2-elbrll«ri DphUia
67. Butrl.Benzjrl PbLhaiata_
69. Pl-a-ootTl Tbthalata
JO. Dlethrl ftiltalate
71. Pl.etbrl fhlbaUta „ .
RAW
•
.
e
•
at
.
0.006
0.004
.
Treated
A
'
O.012
.
.
O.blJ
Raw
Treated
Maw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
•heated
Nil. of
Mtore,
Raw
1
1
I
1
1
1
rlmi«A
Foimd
Tieatetl
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 5
PRIORITY roi.l*rtKN"S IN AUMItKM rOUMURV INVESTMENT CASTING OPP.RMTIONS
(KM. i-owem-HATiims IN H:/I.)
10
% POLLUTANT PARAMETER
_72._ Benzn(a)aallwiemw
TJ. Hnrn (p) pjnwiui
_Il._J»A-JlaitoriiMiranLliena.
.J5_. Jhozo(k)tliMKiDUieoe
. 76. Chrraene
77. Ncenanhthrlena
7B._Anthr«cen«
_T9- Denzo(a.H.I)rerylen&_
BO. Fluorena
81. rhenMthreiw
82. Dlbfflto(a.h)*nthriccne
83. lnd«H>(lt2,3.cd)j>rren«
8*. Pfrene
85. Tetrndiloroetlijrlene
86. Toluene
87. Trlchloruethylene
88. flnyl Chloride
89. Aldrln
470
K>iw
0.002
< •
<•
<•
0.024
0.010
•
0.116'J
\
tro.il
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 6
PRIORITY POLUJTMfTS IH M/M1NUN FOUNORT INVESTMENT CMTING OPERATIONS
(M.I. Cut*'RNTRAT IONS IN MI/1.)
00
o
ft POLLUTANT PARAMETER
90. Dleldrln
92. t.f-UDT
9». i.«'-DDn(P.I"-TDEJ
95. 2-Grak>suiran-Mpha
96. b-Cndosul fan-Beta
97. Endos.il fa.. Sulfate
98. Eiidrln
99. Emir In Aldehyde
100. Ifeptachlnr
101. Heptavhlor Epoxtde
102. a-MrC-alpha
103. b-NIC-beti
10*. r-n«KMLInd»ne>0«i.a
105. g-IKIC-OelU
106. Pcn-l*2< 1
10T. PCB-125* I
108. PCB-1221 J
470
"
..
••
••
O.OOJ
4
..
t •
..
••
..
..
• •
••
* *
Rax
'
Tteated
Haw
Treated
Rax
Treated
Rax
^
Treateil
M>. of
R.ix
1
1
1
1
Plant*
F
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POUJUT
IN MMNIMIM rOIMIRV INVESTMENT CASTING OPKHAT IfJNS
(KM. ClrlllTirMlATICIIM IN H:/|.|
O5
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
J0», fCB-l?J2 1
no. rcn-izw |
III. KB-1260 1
112. fCB-1016 J
111. To««|4ien«
l?9. 2,1.7,8-TetradilafO'
dllmizo-r-dloiln (TCM»
IJO. Irlnie
471
Max
B.UIO
14
Tii-aled
• •
• •
HAM
Tienl.nl
Mm
Trailed
NM
Trrflted
^
Haw
Trcateil
H*w
Treat eil
Mt. nl
MM-K
*M
1
I'laiiln
1 rnml
TlRftlnil
1
1
-
-------
TABLE V-29
IMOKT.ANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN AUIHINIIH FOUNDRY INVESTMENT CASTING WASTEHATBRS
(ALL COHCENTRlmONS 1M HC/LJ
oo
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER .
Aabustoa
UiruMiiM
Copper
Cyanide (Total )
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Seleiliun
Zitic
i
1
4704
Nnv
O.020
0.4S
-(0)
O.OS
O.OOU2
O.OU5
0
0.49
0.030
0.083
0.007
*
•
•
«
0.1
.
Maw
Treated
DM
Treateil
RAW
Treat*
-------
TABLE V-29
Page' I
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS M.IJHIMUH FOUNDRIES - WKLTING FlIRNIVTE SCfHinBRRS
(M.I. Cdwr.irntnriiins in M:/I.)
oo
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1 • KcCIMpnlhOffW
2. Rcrololn
3. Herylonllrlle
4. Benzene
5. B*ntitlMin
1). 1. 1-Ulcti lor cw than*
1*. l.l,?-Trl«-hloro«ttiaiw
15. l,l,?.20Tetr«chloroetlwi
16. ChllM.hri
18. li|s-(?-chlri»-rM?thfl). nf Planfn
Miorff FoiifMt
Raw
2
1
Treated
2
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqe 2
PRIORITY POIAJUTANTS KUIMtNUH rOUNDRIR - MPLTIHG FURH/VCE SCRUBBERS
(ALL nitKt.1fTRATfCltlS IN MI/I.)
00
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
JJ. _2-Chlorocthrl flnyl Ether
20. 2-Chloronaplittialene
21. 2.4.6-Trlchlorophenol
22. PsrachlcM-aetacresol
23. Chlororom
24. 2-Chloroplienol
29. 1,2-Dldilorobcnzene
26. 1,3,-Dlchlorobenzene
?T. 1,^-Dlcliloi-obanr.ene
28. 3,3-Dlehlnrobenzldcne
29. l.l-0lchlm-o*th|r)efi«
3O. 1.2-Tmnndlnhlnroethylmw
31. 2,«-Dlrhlnroptx>nol
32. 1 ,?-Oldilot orropnne
3J. l,2-0lnliloroprnp)rlene
31. 2,<-DlMlhrl H^nol
35. 2,<-Dlnltrotolu«im
36. 2,6-DlnllrololuciM
171
RAW
0.039
•
0.022
0.011
)89
Tt *?a( oil
O.O52
0.12
•
0.012
O.O06
18
n*»w
0.014
*
*
•
'39
Tieateil
O.OO6
O.O16
*
«
Row
Trent ert
DM
.
(*>. of
Wit1 re
Raw
2
1
1
2
2
rlmitn
FOIHH!
Trcrt(t'«)
2
1
2
2
-------
TABLE V-29
Pmge J
PRIORITY POMMTMITS MJUMINUH miNORICS - MRWIMB FlIRNHCr SCRUBBERS
I M.I. CclHCBKrilATIOMS IN Mi/1,)
oo
tn
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. l,?-Ulphwif IhTdrazene
_J«._etbil benzene
._ 39- _ f 1 uoraoltwmr
_ to. JrCbloroubenrl -HwnTLEUK
91. *-Qr(NM>fil>ctijrl fhanjl Ethci
»?_. b!a-(?-pilorot9gpr9p»U
ether
43. bla-(2~chloroethoi{)*ethi
M. IMitflene Chloride
*5. Hethrl Chlorlita
V>. Hi- thy 1 Brmlde
<7 . BroMarani
48. DlehlorohrmMMethnne
49. TrlchlornriiKH-CNKltane
50. DIchlarodiriiiariMWtlwiw
91. Clilorodlbfo«i>«»eth>in0
5?. He««chlorobuUdlene
53- llv inch Inrncycl open l«dlen«
17089
HAW
r
ne
TiMled
0.019
O.Ull
18139
RUM
•
•
Treated
•
*
•
•
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Tieated
Nu. of Planta
Mhote Punnd
Raw
1
1
Tiealerf
1
2
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
rRKWlTT I'OI.IJITANTS AMJMlMIM rOUNTIRlKS - HKI.TING PINNACE STKIIUHKK9
•M.I. miK-KirritATimif: IM K;/I.|
Page
co
CTi
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1» 1 4VH-..
Vi tophi !•*!»««
57. ?-NUroulienol
58, 1-BHi i/i. Itwnol
.66. bi0-<2-«lbyllicirl)phUu
_ .*7, Plltyl Uciizjl Fbtlialata
*?! filTl-0
0.41
O.O2O
•
181
•
•
0.011
II. 20
4
.
•
11.014
•
39
.
•
O.OOl
0.21
.
*
11.1124
•
' •*.. of
Mli»j r a
Hnw
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
I'laiiti
FOMII'I
Ti cat p.l
1
1
1
2
1
2
2 -
1
2
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
FRIOR1TY POLLUTANTS M.UHIWIH FOUNDRIES - MPI.T1HU FURNACE SCKIIDHERS
(AM. COMI-EIITRATIOHS IN r»!/l.»
00
—I
POLLUTANT PARAMETER -
.72. BenznU)anthraccna.
_73~- Benzn. (a)-pyrene
-Jl. J.*-Bentorioocaiithn»__
J5» ..Dnuo(k)tliKir*DltKD«
|6. Oirvaetw
77 1 Mcrvwplilhr lene
7*. «nthr»cene
JS-. 0onzo(Q.n. I )r«rrlcoe
•0. riuoreiM
Si. Plienanthreiw
8?. Dlbenxo(*,h)llnthr»cen«
83. ImteiraU^J-ctltarreiM
8*. Prr«ne
K. Tatrachloroelhf lene
86. Toluene
87. Trlchloroetnrlom
88. Vlnrl Chlnrlde
89. «l
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS ALUMINUM rOMNDRIKS - MKLTIWR FtlRNACF SCRUBBKRS
(ALL ttmCKMTRATKINfl IN MC/I.)
Page 6
oo
oo
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
40. nirl.h-ln
Ql. Phlrwreton^
92. *,«<-UOT
91. ^.V-DOEir.P'-TDE)
s^.M'-MHKW-TDE)
f>. 2-Kndo3uir«n-»lplia
96. b-biJosuiran-Beta
9T. Endonulfan Stilfale
98. Endrln
99. Bndrin MdrliMe
100. Heptaclilor
101. Hvptachlor Epoxld<>
102. a-MIC-DliilM
10). b-B1IC-b«t«
10%. r-DIIC-(l.ln,l»n
-------
TABLE V-29
1
PRIORITY POLIJUTMfTii AUJHimm FOUNDRIES - MPI.TTNR rUMIACE SCRIIIHirRS
(ALL CDNCRNTRATKIII3 IN HC/I.)
00
IO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER -
lOJ^-fCBTigJ? _ _. J.
110. KB-I2W 1
111. KB- 1260 t
112. fCB-1016 J
113- Toniiphnie
129. 2.1,7. S-Tetrachloro-
d!linito-r-dlo«ln (TCBO)
190. lylene
17C
MAM
0.011
189
Trnalcil
0.008
18
Rjw
• •
39
Treated
Kaw
Treated
Paw
Tifiited
RAW
Treated
Raw
Treated
v
M>. fit
Mmr«
Raw
2
r Pl.mlfi
I r.niiKl
Ticated
1
-------
TABLE V-29
INORCMIIC PRIORITY Itll.MrTAHTS IN MJMINUH FOUNDRY HELTINR FURNACE SCRIWBER HASTKWATKR
(M.L COHL-Btn-RBTIOMS IM MU/M
POLLUTANT PARAMETER-
A9bento9
L> an lik.- (Tut.il)
Lam)
Mercury
Nl.kol
SelRfiliB
Klnc
•
170
Maw
0.002
O
O
O
O
0.09
89
Treated
O.IK) 2
•
O.OOOJ
•
•
0.056
18
Maw
<>.OI«
O
O.OO09
0
O.I
39
Treated
0.1114
ft
O.OOO9
•
o. 01 >on
O.OfeS
Raw
Treated
Haw
Troateil
Raw
Treotnl
Rnw
^
Ttealeit
R.w
TienliH
-
-------
TABLE V-29 '
Page 1
PRIORITY POI.UITAN1S ALUMINUM KXINPKIES CUSTINT! QUENCH OPERATIONS
(AM. (.ONI KNTHATHINS IN Hi/I.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1 . acenaphlhene
2. ftcroleln
9. Hrrrlonltrlle
t. Benzene
5. Bpnziillmi
6. Carbon Tetranhlorlite
7. Oilorobenzaw
8. 1,2,4-TrlchlM'olwnzetw
9. He»rlilnrobenzene
10. 1 ,2-Dlchlnrmthane
II. 1,1,1-TrlchloroeilMira
12. HeiachloroellMfM
13. I.l-Dlchloroethmw
It. 1,1,2-Trlrhloroethane
15. l.lfZ.roTvtrAchloroflthaf
16. Chlnrnellnm*
17. Mfl-(diluro •Bth»l)»lt.pi
18. li|a-(2-nliloro<>Ui|rl)etlH>i
10308}
Rnw
0.030
•
•
n 0.018
Treated
O.HS
17089
R.iw
•
Ttonled
A
*
18139
Maw
0.014
•
Tt eat oil
*
DM
Trrateil
»
Raw
Tteatrd
Raw
Treated
•
tkv. of rimilfl
Hlicte FrmiHl
M.iw
3
2
1
I
Treated
J
i
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqo 2
PRIOMTt POI.LUTMITS MJJMINIM POUNUOIKS CUSTIN*; OIIRNCII OPKRM'I'IMS
(M.I. oil* KtrrHATKitin IH w:/i.)
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
J9. 2-thloroelhfl »injl Ether
20^ j-C*)toruna>>hlh«lene
21. 2,^,6-Trlchloroplicnol
22, tarachlooetacreaol
23- CtiloroforB)
2». 2-Uiloro|4icnol
25. l,2-blch)oroUenr.me
26. 1, J,-l>lrtiIorolx-nzen«
27. 1,4-DlchlofotMnzene
28. 3,3-DlclilorohCTlll«ne
30. 1,2-Trwi.iillchloroolliylene
31. 2.«-l>IHiloroph*nol
32. l,2-Dli:hlwo|>i'o|)an«
33. 1 ,2-tllrtiloropi opyletK-
3*. 2,4-DlMlhyl Fttrnol
35. 2,«-l>lnltrotolii«n«
3*. 2,ft-Dlnltrotol«pn«
103
R
U.JOO
0.017
08
1.4
17(
0.3B
0.032
0.10
0.053
0.72
O.OV1
)89
O.30
0.42
*
o.oie
O.O7S
181
0.2OO
0.283
O.O60
39
O.087
0.012
O.OO2
'
1*1. Of
MtM-t*
R.iw
1
2
1
1
2
rl mil *t
t'fHMid
Tl<-illr-il
2
3
1
1
_
2
-------
TABLE V-29
I.RIOR.TT
10
CO
ft. POLLUTANT PARAMETER
HI. 1.2-Dlphenylhydrar.ww
JB. Etlurlbentene
_JJU_|-ailoroBljeii»l_rbeiul..EUi'
91. *rPniMoplienil rtnail Ethci
ether
*}. bla-(2-chloroetlMMr)MtlK
M. Hehlylene Chloride
«9. HP thy 1 Chloride
•6. Methyl Brimtde
*7. Hfflanfora)
*B. DldilorobroiHMethiiM
«9. TrlchlororiuoroMthane
y) _ Dlchlorodiriuoroawthane
51. ChlorodllmMuaKthnne
92. llexachlorobiitcdlene
53- lleiaohlorucirclofimladleiia
103C
K.m
O.078
*
r
ne
U.I1I7
•
•
)8
Treat «l
9.6
1701
Haw
*
O.U02
'1.002
39
Treated
.
0.061
0.011
18139
Ran
0.209
Tinated
0.48
0.007
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
*
ft>». nl
Hltorc
Raw
2
1
1
2
l-lmla
rcHMMl
Tieaterf
2
J
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY I'OLIJrrHNT.S AUIMINUH fOONORIES CASTING 0IIEHCPI OPERATIONS
(M.I, COWEIfNUM'IIWS IH H./l.t
POLLUTANT PARAMTTro
*A - iMflhni-fin^
55. Naphtha 1 Mia
56. HILrnlMiMtKf
57. Z-NltruDheoul
.Sai.^-lfJtroHienol.
59..*.6-Pln>Vr«mi«irol
. .M-.?.6-Plnllrfc9-Qr«wl_
61. M-nllroaodlirclhTlaalne
6?. H-nltroaodlplmnTlulna
63. N-nltrosodl-N-propylaBli
6* . rmilarlilorophenol
65. Phenol
. 6>. bla-<2-etbyJlmxrljphLha
__ §7. 9utyl Denzil fhlliaJate
68, BI-H-Mulil Plilhalate
69. IU-n-.~,lTl FliLhalala .
70. Dlethjrl Phlhalate
. -71. Pl»eth»l Pbtbalale
103
H,!W
0.029
e
.ti051
O.OJ1
*
0.015
08
Trc.il oil
0.017
O.0035
O.O.M
J.2
17C
R/iw
0.011
O.O33
0.061
1.1
0.6»
0.12
O.091
)8g
Trcftlcd
•
O.O12
O.O57
2.2
0.01')
181
Rao
0.117
0.07O
O.049
6.70
0.049
O.OS6
59
«
O.OO4
0.71
0.029
0.25
•
RAV
Tlcaleil
Iki. »r
W|H»r«9
Rnw
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
I- 1 n»« *
FO«IIM|
Tical »•«!
1
2
2
3
1
3
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POI.IJUTAHTS MJM1MIH fOtlNDRlES CHSTII*: QUF.NCII OPFRATKHIS
(M.I. ltlWFtflHATI"NS IN Hi/1.)
rag, 5
vo
en
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
-72.. BoiznCalantbracrae .
-33. Benza (•) pyr«M
-I9._3.4-BenzoUiimDthefKL__
+ 75. . Qenzolk ) CluacaoUieiw
76. Otrracfw .
IT. ftcetMDhthilena
JB. «nlhr»c«iie
.JS- PenzQ(Q.ll.l)rerrlcne
90. Fluoreno , ,
81. PhenonthreiM
82. Dlbcnzo(a,h)«nlhrKcme
fl]. lMl«io(lL2,3-cd)pjrrene
8». ryren*
85. Tatrachloroethflcne
86. Toluene
87. Trlehlorvelhjrlena
88. Vinyl Chloride
89. AlOrln
1030
Raw
•
•
•
0.121
•
O.O2II
8
Tl nnteil
1.0
•
170
Raw
<13
<13
•
•
•
89
Treated
•
0.024
•
O.OG1
*
*•
181
Raw
0.047
0.25B
*
•
39
Treat ert
•
' * ;
0.44
0.1J
•
•
-
Raw
Ttpatcil
'
Raw
Treatril
Rnw
Treateil
-
Mi. ol
WlH>r«
Maw
1
1
1
2
]
3
3
Plant*
rnuml
Tinatnl
1
2
2
2
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
rage' e
PRIORITY roLLUTAHTS ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES CASTING QUENCH OPERATIONS
(M.I. (DW tllTHAI IIXIS IN H:/|.)
CT>
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
90. Dl*litrln
91. fTM'wn'l^n*
42. *I«'.DDT
9V M'-WEir.r'-TDE)
9*. J.^'-MHMr.F'-TDE)
95. ?-Endosul fun-Alpha
96. b-Cndoauiran-BelH
97. Fjxfosuirim Sulfate
96. Fo.li- In
99. Kn.li In Alitehyle
100. llrplachlor
101. lleplachlor Epoilda
102. a-miC-«lplm
10). b-DIK:-li«la
lot. r-DHC-(LlndHne)GaiM
105. K-NIC-Dnlta
106. ITH-I»2« "I
107. TCB-i?5» 1
10B. PTB-1221 J
1030
PAW
*•
• •
• •
*•
• •
* *
• •
**
**
*•
9
Tl onl otl
• •
*•
• *
• •
* *
170
RAW
• *
O.O1O
• •
* *
1.4
89
Trf»*l«»«!
• •
• •
• •
* *
0.11
18139
Raw
• •
• •
• •
• *
• *
• •
«•
*•
*•
Trfat^il
• •
«*
Raw
Treat e«l
•
Raw
Trcatcil
Raw
Treated
-
ito. «r
HlH-»<
R.iw
1
1
2
I
2
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
Hunt*
KfHIlnl
Tical<->l
I
1
1
I
1
1
?.
I
2
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 7
PHIOR1TT POLMrTMITS MJUMINUH nXINnniKS CASTING pUENTH OPERATIONS
(ALL Cot*'MnilAT IONS IN HI/I.)
^Q _ _T
POLLUTANT PARAMETER.
we. rcB-1221
109. PCB-1332 7
110. PCB-12M |
111. PCB-1260 \
112. K8-I016 J
113. Toxaphene
129. 2.J.7.a-Tetrachlnro-
dlhcnxo-f-dloxln (TCOO)
130. lyleiie
-•
10
M.iw
• •
308
Tioal nj
170
Mow
0.8J
89
T[«atod
O.OBO
1813
Raw
• •
0.01S
9
Treated
Paw
Treated
»
Raw
Treali>il
Raw
Treated
Mi. of
MlK-te
Raw
J
1
ri.nii*
FnufMl
TlKalol
1
-------
TABLE V-29
INOKC-.AN1C PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN ALUMINUM ruUNDRY CASTING QUENCH OPKRATION WASTKHATERS
(ALL COtH-BNTRBTlOtlS IN Htt/L)
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
ftcbevtoa
OiroKluB
CY.uilrte (Total)
Lead
H-Tcurf
Nickel
Selentim
Zinc
,
•
103
Rao
0.4
0.01
•
8.8
08
Treated
*
O.OO59
•
O.OOO2
0.12
•
0.96
1708
Raw
O.O04
0.64
9
Treated
•
O.OO4
»
U.OO02
»
*
0.64
1813
Raw
O.OOB
O.OOO1
0.28
9
Treated
•
O.OO79
•
O.OOOJ
•
O.O095
O.I6
Raw
Treated
• —
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
RAW
TienKM
-
-------
TABLE V-29
rage 1
PRIORITY
IH MIIN1WM rAUM>*T DIR CMTIW! OPRHATIONS
(M.I. awErn-RM-iiiiis IN
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
I. Heen.rt.then.
2. ftcrolelH
3. "crjrlonltrtl.
"• BMixcitQ
5. Bmzidlnn
6. Carbon Telrachlorlde
7 . Oil orotaf izene
9. I,2,t-Trlchlornbenzene
9. Noiachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-DlchloroetlMn.
II. I.l.l-Trlchloraethan.
1?. Heiarhloraethan.
13. 1.1-niHiloroelhane
1*. 1.1.7-TrlnlilaraellMiM
15. 1.1.2.20T>-traelilaroetlH»
16. nilaraethnm*
IT. Mn-Jrtiloro •eth-D-llM-i
in. h|a-<2-cMoroellirl>el.lie,
170f
Raw
.
e
19
Treated
.
.
120*
Haw
O.2II
.
.
o.ww
lO
Treated
.
.
.
O.OS1
Haw
Treated
Haw
Troateil
Haw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Ito. nl
«her«
•aw
1
2
1
1
Plant*
Found
Tro*l*.|
1
2
1
2
-------
TABLE V-29
rage 2
PRIOR ITT FOLI.UTAHTS IN AUmiMIM FOUNDRY Die CASTING OPERATIONS
(M.I. COtHT.HTRATIl'H1: Ifl
ro
o
o
'POLLUTANT PARAMETER
J9i 2_-ailqroolhjl Ilnjrl rthor
20. 2-CMorooaphllialene
21. 2.*.6-Trlchloroprienol
22. Paradilorawtacreral
23. Clilorofo™
2*. 2-ChIoro|ili«iol
25. 1,2-IHchlorobvncene
it. l,3,-l>lolilorob*ni*rw
27. 1,4-Dlchlorobcnzene
2B. J,J-l>lrhlo.-ohonr.lden«
?9. 1,1-Dlchlomethrlene
JO. t,?-Tranan«
36. 2,6-ninltrotolunne
17089
Raw
O.J8
U.OJ2
0.1O
U.OS3
0.72
0.091
Tic.ltpil
O.JO
0.42
•
0.018
11.025
12040
fl.1V
0.11
0.004
*
0.041
TicAteil
O.OA2
O.OO7
•
•
•
Maw
Treated
Pa*
Trealeil
*
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treat *<\
Nit. of Manif*
Micro Fomxl
Maw
1
2
2
1
2
2
Ttnal rfl
1
t
2
1
1
2
.
2
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUJTANTS IN AMMINUM rout»nr Die CASTING OPERATIONS
(AM. nwuKimvmoN!; IN ML:/I.(
Page' I
ro
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. 1 ,2-Dlphenf Ihydrarme
38. Blhrlhenzene
39. riuwaoLhene .
_4lk IrCbJorviilwafl-flKiuUEllii
91..*-Prgwwheafl-nienil Ether
W.-M*-(?TC|ilor«j9Vprpp»ll .
elher
43. bl3-(?-ehloroethoiy)Mth
M. HehtjleiM Chloride
»5. Nethrl Chloride
M. Hethfl DicMlde
»7. BroBorora
kH ••! • ».
»9. TrlchloruriiiorcMKlhmie
51. ChlnrodlbroMMthane
W. neiTClilorobuUdlene
5). Il
-------
TABLE V-29
I'HIOHITT POUirrhHTS IN MJMIWIN rOIINOHT OIK COSTING OfLHATHWS
IM.t. niucKUTHATiniis in MN/I.I
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
W- l***|4*ortm«
^ ^ outoeaol
59- *.*-PlnHroHwnol
60. 4.6-ninllro-o-creaol
62. •-filtroMMfli'tenrtiMliMi
6]. M-nltro90rl»1r
64. reiilachloroftftenol
6V llMfiol
66 bl»-<2 tb Ibni 11 ihtit*
67 > Putrl Dcuzjl riiUialat«
68, D|-H-0iiifl HilhalaLa
69 "l-a-j»:l il FlillMlala
70. DlelbjrL PhtlwJala
71. OjaclhrL ruibalata ...
17C
H.iw
0.011
0.1J
0.061
e
1.1
.O.6H
0.12
O.O*JI
)89
Tinatcil
.
0.012
0.057
2.2
n.ni'j
12
ll.w
0.16
O.OI4
0.016
5.5
0.64
0.074
0.7)
.
040
Trcnlrd
0.001
•
0.012
.
O.OO1
.
Kw
•
Tre«»«.l
B«-
TreAtcil
Biw
Tiratr.l
Mm
.
T.Mlf.l
Nil. "f
R.iw
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
l-l.mtn
t'lNHMl
Ti«alf.l
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY rCLtUTMTfS IN MJUHIMM rOUHOKT DIB CKSTlWi OPERATIONS
(AM. fOWrm-HM-IOHS IH
ro
o
co
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
72. •««.<» t«.ll~.~_T
TJ. Rfmxo (a) pyr«M
_M »_ 3. IrBcnioriuoranLtieae-
15, Bn*p(k)riiM>ravtl)en4
76. ChrtaeiM
77. •eeiMDhlliflena
.7.9: r»enro«3.M.l)reryl«na_
BO. FluorffM
•I. Itienantlirene
82. 01benzo(«.hMnthrac«iM
SJ. Indenod^^-iMDnrrma
•*. Prrnie
85. Tetrachlorn«lhjrlene
86. Toluene
87. TrldtloroetlyleiM
88. tlnyl Chloride
89. Aldrln
17089
Haw
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUJTftNTS IN ALUHINDM. rOOMDRY DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
(AM. cum-KinwvTiim.s IN M:/I.|
ro
o
-p.
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
90. Dtelrtrln
91. Chln-n>l»n»
92^ ^.I'-DOI
Jl^iJ'-BOEtP^'-TPE)
9*. M'-WtKP.r'-TUE)
f). 2-EndoauirBn-Mpha
96. b-endoaul fan-Beta
97. Enrtoauiran Sulfale
98. Endi-ln
99. Endt-ln aldeliyde
100. Hrptachlor
1OI. Heptachlor Epoildi*
102. a-nilC. Alpha
103. b-MIC-bela
ion. r-MK-(Lln
-------
TABLE V-29
tmge 1
PRIORITY POMAITMfTS IN MjUHIMM FOUNDRY DIB CASTING OPERATIONS
uwrrjcTRATicms IN *;/i.)
INS
O
tn
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
109. PCB-I23Z ")
110. rcR-12«8 |
111. PCB-1260 \
112. fCB-1016 J
11]. Toiapliene
129. 2,3,T,8-Tetr«chloro-
dlboizo-r-dloiln (TCDO)
130. Xylene
(
17
Raw
0.83
089
Ti nalnl
0.080
120'
Maw
0.075
(0
Treated
0.007
Rao
Treated
Raw
Treated
HAH
Tr**ale(i
Maw
Treated
HII. ol
MKT<
Raw
1
1
r rt. int*
i Found
Treated
1
I
-------
TABLE V-29
INURCANIC PRIORITY POI.MITAtrrS IH MDNIMUH raWDHT BIB CASTING OPERATION KASTEHATERS
(ALL COMCPfnUtTIOHS IH MU/I.) _
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Aabestua
Chroalin
cyanide (Total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SelrnluB
Zinc:
170
Hm
O.OO4
O.64
89
TreAlrd
•
O.004
*
U.OOO2
•
*
0.64
12
Raw
<0.1
0.005
O.2
•
'O.O9
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 1
PRIORITT Pni.MITAN
JIBE OPRRATTONS
ro
O
—I
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1 . Acmiaiihthene
2. ftcroleln
J. Acrflmltrllv
4. Benzene
5. Dencidlmi
6. Carbon Tetraohlorlde
T. Chlorubenzeiw
6. 1,2,4-Trlchlorobenzmie
9. HemchlarabenzeiM
10. 1 ,2-Dldilaroethane
II. 1,1,1-Trldilaroetham
1?. Menaehluroclhurw
11. 1,1-KlchloroffllMioe
I*. I,l.?-Trlctiloro«llwii«
15. l.l,?.20Ti>tr«ehloraeUMi
16. Chlarnetlnne
IT. Mn-fHiloru »eth«l Mhtw
ID. ht!i-(2-nfiloro>illqrl)etlwi
201«i7
K.iw
o^M. .
O.084
0.47H
0.24S
0.17]
is.esn
o.o»
n
Tn-«l«l
0.050
0.055
0.465
2. ISO
O.OO7
O.O18
Rnv
Trealcil
Haw
Treated
RM
Trf*Al:eil
Rao
Treated
Mm
Treated
Ni>. of Ptntil*
Miere t'onn-t
Han
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Trralnl
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Pa<)e 2
PHIOHITT foUJITIMfTS IN AUIHIMM KUIMOBY OIK IJII1B OTtHATIONS
(M.I. coiirKMTiiftTHHi:; JH H:/M
ro
o
co
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
JJ,. ,2-l?|lqi-o«llif!. fln|J. Ether
JO, 2-Cli|ufOfM|iliUialene
21. 2.».6-Trl.-hloro|4i«H.l
22. FarachlonMlanreaol
2). Clilot-nrni-a
2*. 2-Chl<«tiHimal
25. 1,2-DlchtorotMftznM
26. l,3.-l)lrhlo«-oh«oir»e
27. 1.4-DlchlnrobMizena
28. l.l-|ilrhlmut>nizldfHM
29. I,l-Dlr4ilnro«thrlene
30. 1.2-Tr.iHnilli-hlufnelhf leiMi
Jl. ?.<-lllchlorO|4w>ool
J2. 1.2-IHclilm-oproiwn*
1). 1,2-OIHiluf opropylmm
)N. 2,4-Dlwtthyl Ptwfiol
J5. 2.4-ninUrolnliMM
J6. 2.«-|t|iiltrutolii«n«
201^7
Haw
O.JSJ
(L«lt (Ml
O.OC*>
_Q.J?5_
M.IW
Ticnlrd
RAW
.
Ticalcil
Haw
Treat i>. ol
Wliorfl
M.iw
1
1
>
fl.mln
KIHIIM!
Tl f.il •-!
1
- •--
-------
TABLE V-29
I'KIOHITV 1'OI.I.IITANTli III MJIM1NUH KOUNI.HY OIK IJIHK KI'KIDVTKPNS
(AM. nitiTHHYimTloM:; IN n:/i.)
ro
O
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
17 . 1 ,2-lil|>li«'tiylliyi1rar.eiie
.3?. ElliyJIwiizraie
. J'J. FluuranUiciit!
. W. .IrUilocuvliciiyl Tlienyl Elh<
. 11. 4-BrMuvlietiyl rimiiyl tllici
IL. tiin>(?-Clil. Melhyl <:iil<4-tilc
^1 1 (.'li|€ii-o«lll*n.i«»iiwl.liMli»'
'ii* . llf.R.i'Ji 1 «.|-O|H||.;I>| 1 *ff|p
it. II i.i. hi in yi li.p ulallHiin
20
K..W
r . .
ne
2.41D
-
1*7.
Tti'.it vil
M.II'Jl
l.-ill
..
Haw
•
Irvat vil
.
R.iw
_
Tn;.it«.'il
Haw
Tir.ilfil
— -- --
-
Tic-alixl
fljw
IV.. ..I
B-.w
—
1
IM.nifl
I'trtiiifl
Tlf.ll I'll
1
1
.
-------
TABLE V-29
r.v|i. 4
I...I.IJHTAHTS IN M.1IMIIIIIH FmillllHY DIH MIHK I >PKKAT II .1) ;
(M.l. I'Di* i in PA I n ni:; ill H:/I.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
V>. ll.-<|,lillnleiie
56. HI lrob.-Mzi.iie
'j». 1-NJtrupliciiul
'». 1.6-OliillruHignol
dO. 1,6-IMnUi-o-o-cie»ol
61 . N-rillronipMHvtlirlamliie
62. H-nItro.iodl|iheny lamlne
6j. N-iiltro.ipJI-N-|>r<>|.rl.tnli
61. P,.|ita..-lilor«,<,«i,0l
d'j. I'ln-nol
06. b)3-(3-clliylhri,l)pl,IJ,a
6/. Mulyl Uunzyl riil.h.il.il G
6*. Hl-H-Hul»l 1'lithalaLc
(•'>. IU-ii-«»-lYl Hilhiilate
70. UlUhyl 1'hll.al.iLe
n. DJnclhTl I'htliQUle
t
" • •'" '
l.i.i)
21,
II) 1
iLe
'.- . H.
D.I. Illl
.f .»).'•)
!01'i7
M
"'•'">
•». ji.
In.1.
HIi.-.O
i
i
i
1
i
i
r
l-l.llll-l
1.. .111.1
1
'
I
I
-------
TABLE V-29
rtiioRiTi poiLUTMm IH ALUMINUM rouNnnr OIB iimv OPERATIONS
(M.I, uitreirriiATiiiNS IN MT./I.I
Paqe 5
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
72. HM»»(» )pnthr*'^nt .
7}- lUnui (• ) fff^nf
15, Bra*olkmuoc«nllienfl_
76. Chr*9em
ro
78. Anthracene
79. 0enr.o(ti.H l)Perylaie_
80, riiiorcne
81. rbmtmthrene
82. DlbenzoU.hMnthracene
83. lnrteno(l,2,J-cd)pyrene
8*. Pjrene
85. Tetrachloroetliylene
86. Toluene
87. Trlditoroethjrlene
H8. flnrl Clilorlda
89. HMrln
201
RAW
<0.«67
_SvQ«
<0.4G7
0.157
O.SJ7
0.277
"
U7
Ttralctl
7.JJ
0.50O
O.23
10,0
<].2J
1.21
0.211
0.177
0.118
*
Raw
Treated
Mnw
Trcatod
Ran
Tieateil
Raw
Trcatpcl
Raw
Treated
.
•*>. of
Mlmci
Rnw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
rlnnrn
Found
Tiealwl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 6
I-RIORITT roi.WTAMTS IN AUMtNIIM, rODNJWY Ttlf HIDE OPERATIONS
(AM. CUNCKNTHATIIINR IN K:/|,|
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
.90. Dleldrln
, 12. 1^1' -MIT
91. I.I'-IHJOCP.P'-TOK)
95. ?-Endo9uUan-Alpha
96. b-Endosuiran-Bela
97. EiĄlo9uir«n Sulfate
98. Endrln
99. Endi-ln Aldehyde
100. HepUohlor
101. flnplachlor Rpoilde
102. a-miC-Alpha
103. b-WIC-bela
101. r-RIKMUwlaneXIaBM
105. g-HIC-Df-llfi
106. rcB-ii?i 1
107. p«:B-i?5i J
.... 1
108. PTB-1221 J
20
Haw
..
o.oia
.'
•
« *
0.026
O.07O
O.O07
"
O.8D7
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Paq« 7
PRIORITY rol.lM1-ANTS IN MJUNtMM rOUHDMT DIB UJBE OPERATIONS
IM.t ciiMCKNTRATmtis IN H:/I,»
ro
i—•
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
108. KB-1221
109. rcii-i2« )
110. PCB-12M |
in. rcn-i26o \
112. FCB-1016 J
113. ToHfilieiM
1?9. 2.1.7.8-Tatrachlora-
(Ithcnzo-P-dloiln (TCIIO)
130. lylem
-
20
N.1M
O.STO
47. 0
<»7
Treat ml
0.4B1
11.8
Rtlw
Tienleil
Row
Treat- ml
I>M
Treat pit
M.1H
T text nil
Miw
Treated
Mi. of
Mnrf
H.IV
1
1
PI MllS
r-niHKl
Treatml
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
ION 1C PRIORITY FOUJITANTS IN BUIMINUH FOUNURf DIE I.IIIIB DERATION HASTKHATERS
(fiU, COHCRm-nATIONS IN HO/I.}
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Asbeatoa
CliroMliM
Cyanide (Total)
Lvad
Mercury
Nickel
SeleiiliM
Zllic
2011(7
Raw
*
O.O08
2.0
•
•
•
1.6
Treated
»
0.01
2.1
•
•
•
1.5
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Row
—
T rented
HAW
Ttentw
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN COPPER toUHDRY'DUST CniJfX'TIOH SVST0IS
(ALL CUMrFNTHATIOHS IN »!/!.(
ro
i—•
en
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1 . Acenaphthene
2. Acroleln
3. ftcrylonllrlle
*. Benzene
5. frmzidln*
6. Carbon Tetrachlorlde
T . Chlorvbenzene
8. 1,2,4-Trlchlnrolnnzene
9. Heiachtnrobenzene
1O. 1.2-Olcblaraethane
11. 1,1.1-TrlchloroethaiM
1?. neMacbloroethan*
11. l.l-Dlchloroethane
l«. l.t.Z-Trlirhlaroethane
19. l.l.Z.ZUTetradiloitMtlMi
In. niloroetlmw
IT. Mn-lchloro •eth«IMI»i
18. bla-(2-ehloroetlijl)ethei
9W
Rnw
O.OOS
•
.
e
4
Tl IMtRft
«
M.tw
Treated
Maw
Treated
Haw
Treated
Maw
Treated
Maw
Treated
!
N». ol
HtM-Ifl
Maw
1
1
1
FuiNld
Trfal.ed
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Pa,).- 2
PRIORITY POI.UUTKNTS IN COPPER FOUNDRY DUST COUfCTION SVSTIMS
(ALL fUNceMTRATKIMS IN f»:/l.l
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
19. 2-Chloroethfl flnyl Ether
20. 2-Chloronaptiltialem
21. 2.t.6-Trlchloro|ilienol
22. FaraehlofBelacreaol
23. Chloroform
2«. 2-Chlorophenol
25. 1,2-llldilnrobenzefW
26. 1 ,3»-0leh1orobenzen«
27. 1,4-Dlchloi-obenxene
28. 3(3*Dldilorobenclderw
29. 1,1-Dlehloroethf Icne
30 . 1 , ?-Tmna<1 1 ch liiroelhjf 1 ene
31. 2,4-Klchlnroplrenol
32. 1 t2>Dldilm'Opro|>ana
33. l,2-Dlrliloroprop7lene
3». ?.»-OI«ellifl Phenol
35. 7,4-Dtnltrotoltren*
36. 7,6-PlnllrololuerM
'JO'
Ra«
.
.
O.OJ6
O.OO4
»4
i
Tlf.lliMl
.
.
P.n*
Treated
RAW
Trcat.ed
I'M
•
Wlmre
RAW
_JL
1
j
1
F«1!!!r
Ti(*«ilr«|
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqe 1
PRIOR ITT POI.IWTAKTS IN COPPRN FOUNOHT OUST COI.I.KLTIOM SYSTEMS
IM.L cimi'BHTtu>TniM!» IN M:/I.)
ro
»-•
—i
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. 1,2-Dlphenylhydratera
JB. Ethrlbeiizene
59. FIlinpMiLhniM
ML JrCblorDcbenrl_Cbeiul_CUt<
tl. il-BrvMiihenvl riKnyl EllMi
«2, b»?-(?-Cbl W Ql9oprp«fl)
ether
»3. bl9-(2-cfiloroelho«T)«>th.
44. Hehtylow Chloride
45. Methyl Cltlorlde
»6. Hethyl Drcwlde
47. DrtMnrora
48. DI«hlorobr«aclilai-ocyrlo|ient>dl«M
9OT
H[«
K.W
t
A
1
Plantn
round
Tr«.il IH!
1
4
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 4
PRIORITY POLUT1MITS IM COPPER rOUNURY DOST OOI.LJX-TION SYSTEMS
(M.I. (.•UHCKNTH/lTHItiniN W:/l.)
ro
H->
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
56. MUrob.,1,™.
57, 2-Nltropheaol
58. t-Nllropbeuol
59. k.6-Dlnltroulienol
61. N-nltroaodlMlhilamlije
62. N-nltroaodlphenrlaailne
6]. M-nllro9ndl-ll-prop]rla*ti
6*. Pentad) loropheno I
65. PlKMiol
-*.-"-«— »Ua»i*:
68. BI-N-Butyl Pl.thnl.t.
69 l>l-n-"oi »1 rblbalate
70^ Dletbyl Phlhalale
. 71. Pl»cthrl.rhtbalale
9O91
O.O11
.
.
e
_fl Q1J>_
0 . 02^
0.011
0.18
0.001
.
O.OOf,
O.O10
0,^06
0.004
.
O.017
.
0.011
0.011
Paw
Ho. of rlniils
Wlmre FOUIH!
Raw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Treat o
-------
TABLE V-29
faqe 5
PHIOK1TT rOLUITANTS IN COPKM FOUHTOIY DUST COLI^TTIOH SYSTEMS
(M.I. OmrEHTHATIOHS IN
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
_72.. l)rani(«)antJmaan*-
T)- Brnrn (•) pymt*
.7*. Itt-PnptoflnnrvtUpnm,
75. Benxo(k)rliKir»nthene
76. Chi-*a«M
77. AomMpMhflale
7B. Rnthraacne
_Ki.B(B.h)«nthr>oeiM
83. Iml«no(l.?.l-cd)prrene
84 . tjrtnf
8$. Tetrachlaroelhylene
86. TolimM
87. Trlrhlanmthrleira
88. rinjrl Chloride
89. Ulilrln
901
Km
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 6
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN COPPER FOUHOKT DOST COI.LKCJTION SVSTKMS
(INLI, CONCFtrrHATHIN.'; IN H:/l.)
ro
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
90. Dlftldrln
92. «,*t-UOT
9*. •.V-UOU(P.P>-TDE)
96. b-Rndoaal fan-Beta
97. findoauiran Sulfale
98. Endrin
99. Endrin Aldehyde
100. Heptachlnr
101. Heptachlnr Epoilde
102. a-WIC-Alpha
10}. t-UIIC-hela
10*. r-IMIC-(l.liRtKne)G»MU
105. ft-MIC-Del la
106. PCB-1«2< 1
107. PCU-125* I
9O94
Raw
0
..
O.OU4
*•
Tlcal^d
*•
*•
..
..
..
A *
ft ft
Raw
*
109. lftt-IZ21 J
Treated
Raw
Treated
|i*»*
Raw
Treated
Nri. of rlnnll
Mint a F«MIIH|
Rnw
1
1
1
1
Treatotl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Pagn f
PRIORITY POLIJITANT9 IN COPPER rOIINDRT OUST COI,IŁCTION SYSTWS
(M.L CUHTRNTIIATtOtl!) IN HI/1.}
r\s _-'-
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
100. res-rat
109. PCB-I2J2 I
110. FCB-12U |
111. PCB-1260 1
112. n:B-ioi6 J
11]. To«a|iliene
129. 2.3,7, a-Tetrnrhlora-
dllxnzo-r-dloiln (TCDO)
130. Xylen*
9I»I
Ha»
Treated
*•
R*iw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Rax
Treated
Rax
Tr«*ateil
Rax
Treated
*>». of
Hlicrii
R.1W
Plant-n
fnnwl
Tceatml
1
-
-------
TABLE V-29
INOHT.ANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN COTPKH AND COPPER ALLOT FOUNDRY DUST COLLECTOR HASTEWATERS
(m.L COtfcEMTBimOMa IN HU/M
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Asbestos
Cartelw*
ChruiMiim
Coivet
Cyanide (Total)
Lead
Ptorcury
Nickel
Sclcnlw
Zinc
9094
0.10
110
0.041
28
0.72
130
*
*
0.16
O.OOI
0.081
O.O005
•
•
0.45
Raw
Treated
Rao
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
_~
Treated
Raw
TteatPi
-
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 1
PRIOR ITT PUI.UITMfTS IN COPPEft AND COPPKM ALUW FOUHDRY MOLD COOLING AND CASTING gllKMCII OPERATIONS
(M.I. mMfEMTMATIIHia III MVP
r\>
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1 . Hcenaphlhene
2. ftcroleln
3. »crylonHrll«
4. Dentine
5. BenzidliM
6. Carbon Tetrachlortde
T. Chlorobenzene
8. I.Z.t-Trlchlorobenxene
9. NeiraehlarobenzeiM
10. 1,2-DlrhloroetlMiie
11. 1,1,1-Trlchloroethan*
1?. h>xachloroethane
13. 1 , 1-Dlchloroethane
14. 1,1.2-TrlRhloroethwM
15. l.l.?.20Tetr«cfiloroethii.
16. rtiloraeltaiM*
IT. Mn-ldilorx. Beth'! M.hri
Ifl. b1n-(Z-chloroelliyl)ellwi
earn
M.iw
•
0.011
O.OJ7
I!
Treatntl
0.044
Maw
Treated
Maw
Tie* tori
Ma-
Ticateil
Maw
Treat rH
Raw
Tiealed
Mi. »(
Mllflf
Raw
1
1
1
1
Hanta
FoiHMl *
Trn.ilml
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
E 2
PR.ORITY Poi.um.rrs IH COTPER MD COPPB. »LLOY FOUNDRY *>u> com.mi «ND C*STIHG QOPNCH OPERATIONS
(ALL (_1>W Km-RATKlMS IN MC/I.)
ro
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
19, 2-Chloroethrl tlnjl Ether
20. 2-Ciiloronaplilhalene
21. 2,^.6-Trlchlorophrnol
22. ParachlofB«tacreaol
23. Chlororom
2*. 2-Chloro|*«»ol
25. It2-Dlchlorobcnzen«
26. 1,1,-Dlchlorolwnzen*
27. 1 ,<-Dlctilorob«nzffne
28. 3,3-DlchlnrotaenzlilefM
29. 1,1-Dlchloroelhrlena
JO. l,2-Trann. of l-lalitn
Wlir*r<9 ^«>IIIH|
R.iw
Troat r
-------
TABLE V-29
Pane I
PMIUIIITT rOLIUTANTS IN OOt»E* ANO COPPER MAO* FaMPIIT HMD COOLING Mill CASTING QUEHCII OPKRATIONS
(AM. UmCKNTRATIOMS IN Hi:/1.)
ro
ro
en
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
3T. l,2-Mphenjlh»«lr«i«ne
18. Elhrlbenzrm
J». Plun.-Mlh»«
9V. _l-Chlorontioiiil_niBn»l_CU«
il. *rProwwbeiurl fbcaxl Ethei
42. bt3-f2_-Chl«TQi90pCQPrU
ether
•3. bls-t?-chlor«ethoi]r)»eth.
M. Hehtytem Chloride
%5. Methyl Chloride
46. Nellyl BroBlde
47. Brotmror*
»• -. ^«
*9. Trlchlorariuonwethme
50. UlehlorodiriuaroMethtine
51. Chlorodlhi o»jaett»oe
57. Hesaclilorotiatjnllvtie
5). Iteiai4ilaificfnln|ientadlen*
6HIW
Haw
•
r
ne
•
Tifvttetl
•
O.030
Haw
Treatml
*JM
Trnnted
Raw
Treated
B.1W
Treated
Raw
Treateil
•»
»>. of riant*
Mmc* round
Maw
1
1
Treated
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqe 4
PRIORITY POLUITftNTS IN COT»PH KHO COPPER M.LOY FOUNDRY MOID COOLING M*> CASTING gilENCII OPERATIONS
(AM, (tJMi'ENTitATiiiNs IN w:/i.)
ro
ro
en
I
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
54. l9nphAfl*Offt*
SS. Mxphllulon*
56. HI Lnit».nTJl«wi
57. 2-RllroDhenol
58. ^-Hltroph*nol
59. 4.6-Dlnltronhenol
_60. *,6.01nUrs-9-cc9MJL
61. D-nltro9odllne
62. H-nltroaodlphenrlaalM
6). H-filtroaodl-N-proprlauli
64. fentachlorophenol
65. Phenol
_66. bla-(Z-«tbrlheiyl)phUu
6T..Pulvl DeozrUtitbaUte
M^Dl-^Rvifl ruthalBLa .
69- ni-ctootil Fbllwlate
70. lUettvl ItittalaLe
-71,-PlBetbrl fbUwlate
680
K.iw
•
•
•
•
0.017
•
>(*
•
•
•
O.015
9
Treated
0.17
•
O.U19
0.014
0.093
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Raw
Tiealed
-
M>>. of
Mlinie
R.lw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PI mil ^
r'OMINl
Tin.it 0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POI.UUTMIT5 IH COPPER MID COPPER M.UJT rouNDNT HOLD COOLING wm cwmtr; OIIENCM OPERATIONS
(M.I. CUtHTHTBATIOMi IH NS/I.I
Paqe
ro
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
"
72. BrmnUhmlhracMM
73- *«•«? (•) pfrvna
_tt._J.I-Daizoriuarantbeaa__.
^li _BraseU)riuwantlMnft__
76. Chrira«M. .,
77. •eciMDhthvlen*
78. Untlmcene
J?:-Penro(»l.H.I)ferrloM___
60. riuorme
01. flwiiMithrffn . .. .
82. Dlbencod.hlHiitliraaefM
•3^ J"«?«»>
Tipatpil
•
0.019
0.019
•
0.093
0.05*
Haw
Treated
RAW
Treated
Rao
Treated
Raw
»
Trratpil
R.IW
Treated
^
N». nl
Mmre
Raw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Plant*
FfXMKl
Treat oil
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY I-OLUITANTS IN COPPER AMD COPPER ALLOT rouNtmr HOIB COOLING AND CASTING UMKNCH OPERATIONS
(AI.I. CONrENTRATKINS IN H:/|.|
ro
ro
oo
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
90. Dlaldrln
Ql . Chlnp*'^*'uf
42. «,«'.MiT
Jl. «.*'-Dl»E(r.r'-TOE)
9«, ^.^'-OOOCP.P'-TUE)
95. Z-Endosulfan-Alpha
96. b-Endosul Tan-Beta
9T. Endosuirm Sulfate
90. Endrln
99. Emlrln dldehjrdo
100. llcptaehlor
101. Hriitachlor Cpolldo
107. •-niK-«lplw
10 J. b-n»C-li«ta
10H. r.MK-(l.lmt«ne)Ri»M
lift. g-mC-PelU
106. rCft-ll?t "I
107. PCB-1?5* J
108. PCR-I72I \
6BO9
Rax
• •
• •
• •
.
• •
• •
• •
0
• •
• •
Ti vntcil
Raw
Treated
Raw
Troated
Raw
Treated
Rnw
Treated
Raw
~
Treat-.fltl
Ho. of
Micro
Raw
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
Pl.int*
Ftniiid
Tteatnl
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POUJrTANTS IN CUPPER AMI COPPER ALLOY rtWMWIT MOLD COOLING AND CASTING OUKNCH OPERATIONS
(AIX UHk.-rtrrRATKlNS IN Ni/l.)
ro
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER.
109. rCR-1232 1
110. KB-1248 |
111. K0-1260 1
11?. PCB-1016 J
113. Tonifteiw
129. ?,J.7,«-Tetr«chloro-
dlbcnio-r-dloxln (TCIlD)
190. Ijrlene
68U
Hn«
•
• *
9
Treat cil
Kw>
Treated
Mm
Treated
•*'
»••
Treated
Raw
Tr«nte
-------
TABLE V-29
INORGANIC PRIORITY POI.I.UTANTS IN COITER ANI> COFFER ALJAY FOUNDRY HOLD COOLING ANI> CASTING QUENCH WASTKWATERS
(ALL COMCBHTRftTIONS IB HC/I.)
rxi
oo
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Asbestos
Catkiiu«
|t|>er
Cyanl
-------
TABLE V-29
••9. I
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN COPTER MO COPPER AI.UMT
POtMlRY CONTINUOUS CASTIIW (XTRATIOHS
(AM. com Kwnu\Ti(»is IN H:/I.|
ro
GJ
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1. fteemphthen.
2. Acrolotn
3. Acryluiiltrlle
4. Benzene
. V Benxidlim
(. Carbon Tetrachlorlde
T. Chlorobenzena
6. 1,2,4-Trlchlorobemene
9. Henichlorobenieiw
10. 1.2-Dlchloroethane
11. 1.1,1-Trlehloroettana
12. Hennhloraettana
13. I.l-Dlrtiloroeth»n«
11. 1.1.7-Trlchlorwthane
15. l.l.2.20Tetr«cbloroetni«
|6. ClilororthaiM
IT. Mfl-(uhloro •alli'D'l.lm
Ifl. Ma-(2-chloroetlijl)etlNH
997
Mm
r
e
9
Trent cd
•
1
KftW
Treated
HIM
Treated
KM
TrD*tp
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IH COPPER AND COPPER ALU>Y
FOUNDRY CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATIONS
(ALL cuNTFirniATioN!: IN M:/D
ro
co
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
J9,__?-Ct!}qro«|.hfl_»lnjJ _Ether
20. 2-Chloronitplithaleiie
21. 2.*,6-Trlchlorophenol
22. rarachlor«etacr«9ol
23. ChloroCorw
24. 2-ChloroplMnol
25. 1,2-DlchlorotamCHW
26. 1,3,-UlnhIur ibenzeiM
27. 1,4-DlclilorolMwizefW
28. 3.).Dldilurobenzlden«
29. l.l-DlcMnro«lh]rlene
30. l,?-Trannx*
Trcnl pr« f'oiltttl
R.1W
1
Troal rd
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY FUIJJVTMITS IN COPPBR AND COPPI* M.M>»
CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATIONS
(M.I. CIWCKMTRATMIN!: IN Hi/I.}
Page 1
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. 1 ,?-DI|4ienylhydriizeiM
38. EUnlbentene
, J9 FpimnnthM^
M. JrOaoroiilimilJlieiui_CUK
ll> «-DrMQCheiiyl rtKQil_eUKi
•?*- bl9Tl2-C1»I«:«j9PPC9PlU
ether
*3. bI«-(2-chloroetho«r)»»th.
4*. Nchtylene Clilarlde
*5. Methyl Chloride
46. Nelhfl Bnmtde
47 . Brogwfor*
n. DIchlarohruwMettaiM
kn » i«j.t n *k
50 _ DIchlaroiliriaariMethMM
51 ChlaradlbraMawtlwne
•#. l^inclilni-obuLiiillPTMi
53- llexatthlarnci'clofwfiliidleiM
99
H.w
r
ne
-Hi)
79
Treated
•
0.015
Raw
Trent eil
Haw
Treated
HM
Treated
»
R.w
Tipnteil
RM
Treated
Nn. of
Minre
R.-W
1
rlantii
Fotiml
Trent <«l
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Paq« 4
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN COPPER AND COPPER ALUH
roilNpKT CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATIONS
(M.l. COWRHTRATIIIIIR IN H./l.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
-5JL Isnphorooe _
55. tonhUialme
56. HltmbMiriww,
_57_^ 2-Hltrool.cnol
5*. .KrHltrvptaenol.
59- *»'-uinHroDlteriQi_
61. N-nllroaodliiethjIaBlm
62. N-nltroaodlphenjlaHlna
63. N-nllrosodl-N-pi-opflAKh
64. Pentachlarophenol
6%. nwnol
66, bJ»-t-n-~;lU FliUialaLe.
70. Olellurl-ltiUalaLa
71. ni»elhrl fbtbalate
95
Raw
,
»U_
o. we
79
Tlp.ilccl
•
•
0.315
O.030
•
*
RAW
Trnal-ed
ft AW
Treated
RAW
Treated
*
Raw
Treated
Maw
Treated
MM. of
Hlirrc*
Kiw
1
S"
Ti.-.iled
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN COPPER AND COPPRH ALLOY
FOUNI1RY CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATIONS
(ALL CUNCBNTRATIONS IN N:/|.)
POLLUTAMT PARAMETER
72. *»•»'>(• )rDthrav*na
_I3.. Denzn. (a) pyrciM
_7).. 3.i-0eDzariuor*nttaM__
^75^ . JewolkJ riirar«oLban__
76. Chriscne
71. KcciUDhUiTlena
79, «nthr»cen«
_7»- Penwi
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY PULLUTMTTS IN COPPER AND COPPFR M,l/l»
FOUNDRY CONTINUOUS CAST 1 HO OPERATIONS
(MM. CONCENTRATIONS IN MC/l.t
ro
UJ
1OB. PCB-IZ2I
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
40 Dl.ldPln
91 Chlnmd.n.
92. *,«'-nr>T
„ JJ^ M'-WECtP'-THM
9^. «.»'-POO{r.P1-TOE)
9%. 2-Eodosuiran-Mpha
96. b-Cmtoaul Can-Beta
97. Endo.iuirm SulfaU
90. Ehdrln
99 • Endr in N Iclcnyo*!
100. Hcplaohlnr
101. Ik-pinch lor Epoild*
107. a-miC-«lpha
10]. b-IWr-beta
104. r-MH;-(l.|nd.in«)GMM
105. g-MIC-belU
106. Kit- 1«2» ~l
1O7. PrR-|25t )
1
9979
Raw
••
"
•'
Tlealwl
• A
• *
"
•«
"
"
"
"
"
RAW
Treated
Raw
Treated
Haw
Ti eatod
Raw
Treato<1
Raw
Treated
Mi. of I'lnnll
Wlicre Fmiiul
Row
1
1
1
Tiealfl
1
1
1
1
1
~r—
1
i
i
•
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUFTAKTS IN caert* AMI COPI-EH M.IX>»
rOUHIIftV CUWTIMKHH CASTING OPERATIONS
(ALL CUM.-KimUkTIUHS IN Mi/I.)
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
, 10». KD-1232 1
110. KB-12W |
111. tCB- 1260 \
11?. KB-1016 J
11). Toiarhene
I?9. ?.3.T,«-T«tr«chloro-
dlbcnzo-r-dloiln (TCDO)
1)0. lylem
99
Urn
79
Tmtol
••
Now
Treated
Mw
Treated
Pa<
Trrated
•»-
Haw
Treated
Hun
Treate.1
Nn. ol
Mmrq
Haw
rl.ml-l
rmml
Treat
-------
TABLE V-29
INORGANIC PRIORITY POI.LirTANTS IN COPPER AND COPPER AI.I.OY
FOUNDRY C-ONTINIKXIS CASTING OPERATION WASTCWATBRS
(ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN HC./l.t
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
AlbeatO*
Caitalun
Copper
Cyanide (Total)
l««l
Mercury
Nickel
Sel«nlui
Zliic
•
9979
Raw
0.07
2.7
Treated
o.nl
O.OOI
O.I 3
*
*
•
4.4
'
Raw
•
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
.
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treatn
ro
oo
00
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqe i
PRIORITY POMJUTMTTS - remwus rouwwr-wisT
(AM. oiKinmMTifwn IH
ro
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1. Aennaptilhene
2. ftoroleln
3. Aerylonltrlle
4* B0flKCIM
5. Bmcidlne
«. Cnrbon Tetridilarlde
T. ChlarobenxaM
8 . 1.2, *-Tr lehlorabenzene
9. fteiitchlorobeniene
10. 1.2-DlchlaraethiiM
11. 1,1.1-Trlehlaroethana
12. HeuctiloroettMiM
13. 1,1-Dldilorcwthane
11. 1,1,2-Trlchloroethane
15. 1.1.2,?OTetmchloro«ltwi
16. Chlaroelhiine
IT. Mn-idiloro >oUi*l )~lhr,
IB. bla-(?-ohlormthfl)«ttwi
15520
R.TW
O.OOT
e
Tioalcd
0.010
•
I
i
«
j
6950
Raw
0.02
•
A
0.037
•
Treated
•
•
•
7929
Haw
0.036
-|0>
-<0)
O.O2
Tioated
•
•
•
*•-
TtPHlc.l
r
Raw
Ti eal o J
RUM
Treated
Ho. of Plimln
Hlmrit Fniiml
M.1W
2
1
1
Tro.il <<
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS - FERROUS FOUNDRY OUST COIJJUCTORS
(M.I. COMCEHTIWTICINS IN MS/1.)
ro
-p»
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
JJi..J-Chl«?rS«thjL»lnil Ether
.2JL 2.-Chlorpn«i*thaleiw
21. 2,*.6-Trlchloro|>h«nol
22. rar«chloriKtiicr«aol
23. Chlororom
2<. 2-Chloro|4>«noI
25. 1,2-DluhlorobcnzefW
26. 1,3,-Dlchlorobenzene
27. l,Q-Dlchlnrob«fizen«
28. J,J-Olchlorobfmrl
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 3
PRIORITY poujjTMirs - FERROUS rniNORr WIST roi.UK.Tons
(RI.L COMl'EtrrRATIOMii IN KV
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER-
37. 1,2-DlphenjrlhydrazefM
J8. EthrlbeniciM
. 39. FliiorM)t-iM>«if*
_JO.-lrCblQ»>Bben>lJ3nfiiLEtb<
11^^-llroiKWheiul Cbcnxl EtlMi
*2, bls-I?-Ct»lorsl90propjlL
ether
43. bl9-(2-ctiloroeUK»r)iKth;
M. Hehtylene Chloride
45. Methyl Chloride
46. Melhfl nrmlde
47 . Broanrora
kfl ni I 1
^o , uidii*it vuruanHpuBina
•9. TrlchlarnriiiaroMlhmw
50. Dldilorodiriunrwwthmn
51. Clilofodlbf-ooonelhane
•>?. lleiai'hlorobutadlene
53. Hr« round
ftitw
2
2
2
Ttented
2
1
]
J
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 4
PPIOHITT POIJJUTAWTS - FERROUS fOHNDRY DUST COM.RCTOHS
(M.I. cotKTmwmoNS IN w;/i.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
11 Janphorone
_ 55. Naphtha J cite
5t« Jtltrubenznna.
,. 51. 2-NltronlMHiol
58. *-Nllro|jlK-nol
59. 4.6~DlnltroDhenol
61. N-nllroaortlanthilMilne
62. N-nllroaodlj4iefr2lMlnq_
(3. H-nltrosoUI-N-propjlaarti
6*. Penlachloropltwiol
65. Phenol
_67..ftitjJ..Beniyl CbUulata_
68i_B|-N'Butjri rtithalala
f-9. i>l-n=nnj.Tl rbtlulate
.71. OJ«elhrl thllMUte . .
15520
tl.iw
-------
TABLE V-29
1*9. »
poLumwn - PBMOUB mmuinr MIST COLUCTMS
(KM. UMrnmWTIfMS IN HVl.l
ro
-P»
co
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
.-72»_Bauui(a)anlnrac«a*
TJ- HM«A (•) pr~~
_U^JJLrBenzoriinranttem_ .
75 • •ejiM(l)r|TwHiline
76 r Chf-paem
77. Acenaohthrlena
78. Anthracene
_!•• «enza
-------
TABLE V-29
Tage 6
PRIORITY POUWTMITS - PKRROUS fOUNDRY WIST COI.IJSCTORS
(M.I, afflTENTRATHIte; IM
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
9O. Dlftlrirln
91- '>il«X'«*«n'1
92. »,»'-Dt)T
, «. «.V-DDE(P.P'-TDE)
9*. ^'-DBIXP.P'-TDE)
. 2-KMoauiran-«lpta
96. b-Endoaul Tan-Beta
97. EMoauiran Sulfite
90. Bmtrln
99. Endrln *lptachlor
101. Heptachlor Kpollde
10?. a-MIC-«lpha
103. b-B«C-h«ta
104. r-INIC-
-------
TABLE V-29
PR ion ITT pot.iirrwfra - PRRROUS rounoir» OUST COMDCTORS
(M.L CIHlrEHTRATHIIIS IN Ni/l.)
Page 7
ro _J5L-.
POLLUTANT PARAMETER -
iw. PCB-UK |
110. PCB-I2M j
111. rCB-1260 \
112. PCB-1016 ^
11). Toiaphene
129. 7,3,7.»-Tetr«chloro-
dlbenzo-r-dloiln (TCDD)
1)0. Irleiw
15520
N.1V
••
Tn-nleil
• •
6956
How
4
Treat oil
••
•
7»»
Raw
Treated
• •
Paw
Treated
»
Raw
Treated
•mr
Tieated
H». nl
Mlmr«
Maw
PlmiH
KOIHHl
Tiealml
1
1
-
-------
TABLE V-29
INORCAIIIC PHIOfllTY POLLUTANTS IN F'ERHMIS FOUNDRY MIST COM ACTION SYSTEM
(ALL. com.-EHmATiuto IM MO/I.)
ro
-^
CT>
POLLUTANT PAF-.vMETER
Antlatmr
Arsenic
Asbestos''"
Morrlllu*
C^tail am
• 3u u»l am
Coiiwr
Cyxnlile (Total)
Le«J
Hurcuiy
Nl.k.-l ,
Si.'lt-iilw
2liH.- '
|
r
i
59101
ftM
0.0)7
Tieatpd
•
0.019
O.OOO2
/ 536^2
Haw
0.14
0.14
0.1]
O.O97
reacted
•
o.nso
o.uio
*
0.09
50315
*•«
•
0.11
O.IO
1.9
Treated
4
0.021
0.02]
0.46
0.007
•
I.B
59212
Raw
0.069
Trnated
NA
NA
1 5520
Nnw
0.07 "
O.OO7
0.09
».0(i7~
0.0]
Treated
•
b
'
»
0.074
O.OI
n.ool
0.02
•
0.37
695*
HAW
1 . IH)»
i.oi
>. 1
>.Z1
>.2
I.OOOOJ
).59
Treat™
0.05
•
6.01
070003
674-9
0.0059
O.OO06
n.oi
*
O.023
-------
TABLE V-29
INORGANIC PRIORITY POUJJTWtTS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY DOST CCM.I.BCTION 3YSTKH WASTKWATKRS
(M.L qmCENTRATIOHS IB MB/I.)
ro
-p»
—i
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Kntiaonr
Arsenic
AabMtoS
Bervlliw
Cadalw
CIlKMlin
Coivvr
Cyanide (Totalt
Ledd
Hotcury ,
Nickel i
SrlonliOT
Zinc
71
Rnt
U.OI
*
•
O.OJ
0.047
U.OJ7
0.01
•
129
Treated
•
•
*
•
•
0.14
0.014
0.20
O.OOO7
O.O4
•
0.16
Maw
Treated
Maw
Treated
Maw
Treated
Haw
Treated
.
Maw
_
Treated
*aw
TreatiN
-
-------
TABLE V-29
PR ION ITT I-OLLUTANTS IN FRRHOUS toUNtiRf MEI/TUIC FURNACE SCRUBBER OPEKATIONS
(M.I. <1M4rt:NTRATION3 IN W:/l.|
ro
•t»
oo
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1. Amnaphlhene
2. kcfoleln
3. Acrjlonltrlle
*. Benzene
5. Benzidlne
6. Carbon Tetrachlorlde
T. Chlorobmzcne
6. 1,2,%-Trlchlorobenzene
9. Hcxachlorobenzene
IO. 1,2-Dlchloroethdn*
11. 1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1?. Itenachloroethane
13. 1,1-Dlchloroethane
1». 1,1,2-Trlrtiloroelliane
n. t,l,2.20Tetrachluro«trwi
16. Oiloronl hniw
IT. l>ln-0»
•
0.007
•
•
0.02)
*
Treatr.l
•
*
*
»
Rav
Treated
Raw
Treated
Nn. of Plmitx
Mliere Fmiiftl
Raw
1
2
1
1
Treal<»«l
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
.1 .
-------
TABLE V-29
•OUJUTAHT9 IN rtnanus rnimoM Hetrim niMMCic SCPUWIKK OPKRATIOMS
IAI.I. OJWWITHATUIIIS IN N:/U
•a*, a
ro
-p.
10
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Jl, . Z-PllPWlhfl «_•>»}. Blhrr
Mi.. .?rC!ll9rai»pHM«l*»» .
Jl. 2,»>-Trlc«iloro|*enol
22. farachla-Bctscreaal
2|. Chlarorara
24. 2-Chlar»|ilicnol
». 1.2-DlahlarolwnxaM
2*. 1.1,-UlRhlM-ubenira*
27. l.»-tHchlorob«iozei««
2*. J.J-DlctilnrobenzldWM
29. I.l-Ulchlor«ithflen«
30. 1,2-TrwtfMllchlaroellvletM
Jl. 2,«-Uli!lilfira|ilie«ol
J2 . 1 , 2-DI rh 1 or«H'rofwiiie
JJ. l.?-Dlrlilfwn|M-aprl«iM
}k. 2.*-fii«elbri flHmol
35. 2,4-HlnltivtaliMM
36. ?,6.|ilnUralolwiiM
ooot
O.IW4
Trp.itfil
rw
HA
HA
H»
m
HA
HA
HA
HA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
0002
•
Treated
MA
MA
HA
MA
HA
MA
MA
MA
HA
HA
HA
MA
HA
NA
MA
MA
HA
15220
HUM
J1.1US
Trnatfld
<0.140
O.072
0.061
0.026
0.085
J.IHQ , ,
0.40
-IBJQ1-
Maw
Treatfd
__•«!•
Tr««tefl
Ha. of I'lMilM
Mhn>« fimml
•aw
1
-*—
1
Ttenlvd
1
1
t
j
2
I
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqti 3
PRIORITY POLUrTAKTS IN FERROUS FOUMORT MBI.TINR fURNACK SCRUHHKR OTKRATIONS
(M.I. CDNCeNTMATIUNS IN Mi/1,1
en
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. I.Z-Dlphenflhrdrar.en*
30. Ethrlb«nzen«
39, F p. mri.nl V>-
__Uj JL-CbloroiAetiil _BKfl»l_EUK
(1. l-Bmortieofl FtreniXJUbe/
«?. bl3-(?-Chlorol90Droi>Tl)
ether
*3. bl8-(2-chloroelhoijr)«ieth.
M. Nehtjlen* Chloride
ft. Hethjrl Clilorlde
46. Hethjrl Brould*
*7. Dromror*
*8. DIohlorobrcMKMiethanv
49. Trlchlorofluoro«»aettloroflfclop«Titadlefl«
0001
0.049
r
tie
TrpAlcil
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0002
01,036
.
Treated
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15220
Raw
*
<0.39
0.02
•
«
<0.097
0.003
O.036
6906
•
0.026
•
•
0.013
l*>. of l-l.inli
Wltor4 KotHHl
2
4
1
2
2
A
2
-
-------
TABLE V-29
MUOWITY PUUJITANT8 IN FERROUS rOUHDHY HELTINO rtlHNACK SCRIIIIHKR OI'KIIATKMS
(M.I. umrMfUiATliHi!! IM n:/l.(
r\3 rrj_zt.—-
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
5* JaniihoraM
. !A..lla|ihUialeiM .. .. .
56..Hltrut>uiunci. .
57. Z-MLroubeiiol
. 5». 4-Nltroubcfiul
60. «,»-l»ln|lnt9-sr«9l
61. N-nllrosodlBethvlaBliM
62. N-nllroMHll|>lietif laailn;
6). H-nltrosodl-N-p-oprUejIi
64. renlairliloro|4ieiKiI
65. Itienul
66. l>J9-(2-elliylheiyl)|>l>U>a
.«. fcilyl .Benzyl .niLlialate.
68. Qj-N-pvlyl riilliaUla
69 l>l-a-=$iQt.vl FliUiAlfltfl
70. Ulellvl fhltalale
ooc
e
O.J40
O.Of.l
»B«17
0.049
O.021
O.I 111
11
Ti oal cil
NA
NA
NA
HA
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
IIA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
0002
0.051
0.044
0.14
0.072
0.021
Treated
IIA
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IIA
NA
NA
NA
IIA
HA
NA
NA
HA
15220
Maw
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUrTANTS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
(ALL UIHrENTRATHWS IN Mi/l.»
Page 5
ro
tn
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
12. RMMinfa )•«• brazen*
73- Itonro (») pyr**"*
7^. V<-B«ninfliinr«nt.h»tui
J5, _Braso(k)fJjiocuabene__
76. CtirraeiM
77. Acvnaplilhflene
70 • Anlhncene
79- P^nio(iJ.II,I)Ferylene
80. Film-em
Bl. Ptmianlhreiw
8?. Dlbenzo(a.hl*nlhr«ceiM
6). lntf«io( l,?,3-cd)prren«
8*. rrrem>
85. Telrachloroethjlene
86. Tolumw
87. Trlchloroethjrlmte
88. Tlnyl Chlorldfl
89. Ulrtrln
0001
— —
0.04
Tioaleil
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0002
iO.OJl
•cO.OJl
0.074
Tienled
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15220
Row
O.OO9
O.OO4
0
0.021
«
O.OO6
O.OO6
0.021
0.016
50.067
0.014
<0.067
0.027
QJU6.
0.026
Treateil
•
f
•
<•
*
BJU6_
0.014
0.018
•
Raw
Tientr.l
Raw
TrAat«il
Mi. of rlnntH
Hl*«*i«> FOIHM!
RAW
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
4
t
3
1
Ti entnl
1
2
2
2
2
2
.-JZ. z.
2
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUJTANTS IN FKRROUS FOUNDRY MELTING FIIRNACK SCRUWIER OPERATIONS
(M.I. C»>K'E>ITI»\TIOMS IN Hi/1.)
rv>
en
OJ
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
. 90. niM^ii,
91- Chlnr«it»i»
92. «,«>-n>T
.^j^j^'-Jweip.r'-TDe)
9». »..V-W)D>. or
Nliotfl
Haw
3
2
1
1
J
1
Plant 4
P
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUITANTS IM rFRHODS FOOflDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
(M.I, CONCENTRATIONS IN Hi/1.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
109, PCD- 1232
110. PCB-1218
111. PCB-1260
112. PCD-1016 -*
113. To«»phene
129. ?,3.7.B-Tetraehloro-
dlhcnzo-P-dloln (TCDD)
1JO. Xylen«
0(
O.O2O
301
Ttcal 04!
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0002
Tlenled
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15220
Haw
0.27
Treated
O.046
•
69Sft
KM
O.023
TrMtecl
«•
•
lt>. of rl.niln
MlmlA FiftllMl
4
2
TlCittt^l
2
2
.
-------
TABLE V-29
INORGANIC PRIORITY POLI.UTAHTS IH PEMHOUS POUNDIIV MEI.TIMO FURNACE sctnnmrx MASTKHATERS
(Obi. COMCeHTBATIOHS IH MB/I.)
ro
in
in
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
AiitlBony
ftraenic
Asbestos
Beryl Hun
Cadntw
Cliroolim
Cn|i)>er
Cyanide (Total)
Lt-ad
Hercury
Hlckel
Soleiiliat
Silver
Tlialliui
Zliic
Hiwber X).1OO mg/t
58589
Max
•
0.17
40
O.OO7S
O.O6
8.5
)
. Treated
•
0.10
O.OO6
2.2
0.0025
0.1)5
O.76
1
56123
Maw
•
2.S
O.OOO1
54
0.0040
I6O
J
Treated
•
0.01
0.047
0.91
0.0041
0.01
1.5
2
55217
taw
•
0.37
;
9.O
0.090
22
}
Treated
•
0.01
0.0073
0.50
0. 00007
•
1.4
2
50315
Raw
•
4.4
29
0.006
0.91
87
4
Trflflted
•
0.09
•
1.4
O.OOJ
•
4.4
2
0001
Raw
2.4
1.2
0.016
0.62
4.6
12
25
0.55
O.22
O.OOS
3.8
no
10
nated
rut
HA
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0002
Raw
1.4
1.5
-(0)
2.2
4.2
5.5
O.O79
~19
0.43
1.2
O.O7
190
9
Trenr«»
NA
in
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE V-29
INORUANIC miORITY POLLUTANTS IN FKRROUS FOUNDRY HALTING FURNACE Sl'RIIBBEP •-V-.STFWATBR
(ALL COt rtMTRAT tOMS IN HC/M
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
AntlHLMiy
Arsenic
Asbestos
fleryl 1 it*t
Cjcl-li-
I'lirowluH
Cufifwr
Cyanl.tr (Total)
Lead
Horrtiry
Nickel |
SelctiluM
Silver
Ttialllw
Zinc
Niotx>r JO.IOU mt/\
152
Raw
O.8
0.16
O.74
0.4)
3.4
n.i)47
100
0.0011
0.11
0.03
•
150
B
10
Treated
0.4
0.03
•
O.R4
•
O.22
0.164
8.5
O.OO11
0.13
4
*
•
190
7
695
Raw
O.9
'
0.63
O.20
1.7
140
O.OOO3
0.04
*
170
f>
6
Treated
0.4
*
•
O.O2
0.06
O.I
O.OB9
0.87
O.OOO4
O.04
*
•
*
1.7
4
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
Row
-
Treated
Urn
Tieatm
r-o
on
CT)
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN PRMOIIS rouMDMT su«! gop.MciiiHO OFRMTIOHS
IM.L cum'BMnuvrtims IH M:/I.)
•age 1
ro
tn
—i
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
M • ACCIMpltUMflC
2. toroleln
3. terrlonltrlle
*. Benzene
5. Ifenzirtltt
6. CcrlMii Tetrachlorlde
T. Chlorobentene
8. 1 .Z.H-TrlGblarobenxeM
10. 1.2-DlchlorooUniM
11. 1.1.1-TrlchloroettaM
12. IteiaehluroathnM
13. 1.1-DlehtaroethaM
1*. 1,1,2-TrlchlaroethMM
15. l.l,?,20TatrachloroethM
16. Cblnroettom!
IT. Mn-Jcliloro wtlvl )»t.hn
Id. bl9-(2-ekloroellqrl)ethei
15520
Urn
0.02
0.10
0.02
O.O6
0.02
1
Ti natixl
0.027
0.06
(I.O4
69S4
RAW
•
•
•
Tieated
*
•
u.uuo
Kw
Treated
MM
Treateil
.
Him
Treated
HIM
™
Ttaatwl
Ifc*. of Plitntii
Mll«l« Fnund
fa*
2
2
2
I
Treat ml
2
2
2
„
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 2
PRIORITY POUJITMrrS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY SIAG QUKNC1IINR OPERATIOHS
(M.I. OmcFHTRATIUNS IN Hi/1.)
ro
en
oo
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
19. 2-Oiloroethfl »ln»l Ether
20. 2-Chloronaphllialene
21. 2,4.6-Trlcliloroplienol
22. Paraclil«-»flacr«9ol
23. Clilcnofor*
24. 2-Chloro|*ienol
25. 1,2-Dlchlorobenzene
26. l,3.-Dlclilarobenzene
27. l.4-l>lchlorohenzene
26. 3l3-Dlchlnrobenzlro|»ropane
33. l,2-Olrhloro|M-op)flene
3*. 2,»-DI«w»tlijri Ptn-nol
35. 2,1-Dlnltrotolii>Tie
36. 2,6-Dlnllrololuem
1552
RAW
o.oa
0.12
o.oa
0.02
0.02
o.or,
D
Tl n,ij *M!
0.051
0.21
O.O4
O.O1
0.04
69 5<
R.i-
.
0.011
I
Tieated
.
•
0.016
Raw
Treated
Pa*
Treated
Raw
Treato.1
Rnw
Treated
Mi. of
Mm re
H.IW
1
1
2
1
2
rlniirn
Trnar.^1
1
2
2
1
-
2
-------
TABLE V-29
Pago J
PHIORlTf POLUITANT3 IN FRHHOIIS FOUNDRY SLAG OtlKHCIIINT. OI'KRATIOtlS
(M.I. row:KIITPATIONS IN rt:/M
ro
en
10
POLLUTANT PARAMETER -
3T. l,2-IM|iheiirlhydri«T.one
J«. Blliflbcnzcne
39. riunpT»'hr>">
tt. _l-Cliloroi!tienrUh«niLEUx
Si. ilrRiiMKwheinl tlNorl Elhei
*.?,_ bla -J?-C!llQr«J»oprgpj:lJi
ether
43. bta-(2-chloroeUK»jr)MUv
M. Hehtfleiia. Chloride
*•>. Methyl Chloride
«6. Heihyl Bromide
*7. DroonforB
48. D 1 Hi 1 oroN-onoaet Imna
49. Trldilnroriuoron«lhiine
50 _ Dlohlorodiriiioroaetliana
51 Chlorodlbromwthiine
0?. llexacliloroliutadlene
53. lk>iiaclilorocyclo|Miitadlene
155
H.w
0.051
r
ne
0.47
0.037
20
Tvriiteil
0.072
o.n
0.021
69S6
Raw
•
0.001
Treated
•
•
0.012
Km
Treated
HIM
Treated
Haf
Treat*il
Raw
-
Treated
M>. nl
MlK>r«
H.IW
2
2
1
flMiln
finuut
TlP.llnl
1
2
2
1
-------
r>o
01
o
TABLE V-29
HHIOIIITY POI.IJITAHTS IN rEKHOUS ffldNOHY SIM fMKHCIIIMG OrtHATIDHU
(M.I. CONrKCTHATIIlNS IN Hi/I.I
Pd-je 4
POLLUTANT PARAMETER -
57. ?-Nllroulienol
W. 4.6-l>lnlLroi4i«iol
61. H-nllro3uill««lh}lHaliHi
12. N'lillroaodliilwnf laailn;
63. N-ultro:iodl -W-pi'i>|,jf laali
64. fuiilanliluroHicnnl
. 6f, Kulrl Benzyl FlitlialaU .
60. H|-K-Hyl,l rtiUulale
(•1 lil-it-»:|»l llilhalalD
. 70. Wcllifl llillialaLe
. .71. l>l»elli)rl FbUulale . ..
15520
H.I-
a. 02
O.O4
O.O2
0.112
1.4
e
O.O21
0.1
1.2
0.02
0.11
O.OJ'J
noat.,.1
.O.Oi . -
O.04
O.O4
0.18
0.027
O . Ollf)
o.orw
O.O27
O.O7D
O.O2
6'^
H.IK
.
^
.
.
-(01
-KM
0.024
56
A
0.002
.
0.011
A
•
O.OIH
.
B..-
Trisatoil
Haw
Tr <•;>(<•.»
R«l
1
2
J
1
2
1
2
•2 -
2
.1 .
-------
TABLE V-29
PRHWITV PoturrAHTs IN rRHMiis roUNMir SUMS uowrinnr; CIFRKATIUHS
(MM, UWKWTRATKIMS JM HVl.)
..-_.- -—_ - _..__—, • •—— -•• I. i M--^roff-f ifc. L ar — • -— - - • • - — -••-
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
72. Pmu)(a)«DtlM^c*n«
73. Beoso.IaJ.pyrciM ..
_7)._3.irBeasonuaraoLbeM__.
. K,. Jciizo(k)riuarHillwM
76. Chr|raMM
77. AeeiwDblhvlcn*
. 70. Anlhrcccn* .
_Ii:-B«n*o(O.H. Drerrlcna
BO. FlunreM
81. rtmianthrena
82. Dlbenzo<«.h)tbithmeene
83. lndenoMMM|
Rnw
1
2
2
Treated
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 6
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN fKRROUS FOUNDRY SLAR OUEIICIIING OPERATIONS
(M.I. CUMTEKTRATIIINn IN KI/U
ro
01
rso
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
tO Dlolilrln
91. riilfvnitan*
92. •.,*'-DOT
_ 91. «.<--PPE(P.r'-Tl)E)
9<, ^'-DWHP.P'-TtiE)
95. 2-F4*lo3ulran-»lp)»
96. b-Endoauiran-Reta
97. Kodosullan Sulfate
96. Endi-In
99. Endrln Aldehyde
1OO. Iteptachlnr
101. lloptichlnr Epoilde
102. a-MIC-Alpha
1O3. b-W(C-bcla
10*. r-IMIC-(l.lnilnne)na«*a
I'l*;. p.-miC-DelU
106. rcB-i«?* ~t
iof. rcB-i25"i (
10B. K-B-I27I J
15520
Raw
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.02
0.02
O.02
0.02
O.O2
O.U2
Tl rnlfMl
0.02
0.02
O.O2
O.O2
O.02
69 56
R.i*
• *
• •
• •
Treal.ed
• »
« •
• •
0.02
«•
«*
0.01
* *
Rnw
Tieated
Haw
TrcM Ofl
f
nnw
Treated
Raw
Trent e»l
Nn. of IMnnlff
Hltoift rtnillil
R.iw
2
1
1
1
1
Tieal oil
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POUUTMITS IM rERROUS FOUNDRY SlAG yiKHCHlHT. OPERATIONS
IAI.L UmCKHrHATIIINS IN
ro
en
co
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
109, KV-123? 1
no. rcB-»M |
15520
Hm
[ 0.02
111. fCB-1260 \|
112. rcn-ioi*
11]. Tourhnw
129. ?.J.T.«-Tetr»chlor«-
«lbenso-r-
-------
TABLE V-29
ININHiKNIC PRIORITY POIXirTAIfrS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY SIAO OURHC1IIKG tWSTKWATRRS
(M.L COMCKMTRMTIOlig III Bti/L)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
ftsbeato*
Cadailtn
ChroolUB
roM«tr
Cyanide (Total)
Lead
Hrrcury
Nickel
Selenlun
Zinc
•
1
51026
Raw
O.OOIS
. Treated
0.019
O.O006
15520
Maw
-
0.2
0.7O
0.3S '
6.1
O.CI021
0.04
25
Treated
-
•
•
*
O.S9
O.OO2
0.099
•
8.0
6956
Maw
-
O.O4
0.094
0.32
O.OO02
O.O6
Treated
-
•
•
0.007
O.JI
O.OO77
O.OO04
o.an
*
0.012
Maw
Treated
•
Maw
Treated
Maw
Treated
M.1H
Tcentw
CTl
-------
TABLE V-29
Pag* 1
PRIORITY rOUJUTANTS IN FERROUS POUHDRY CASTING (JIIKHCH OPERATIONS
(M.I, COWTHTHATIONS 111 Hi/1.)
no
01
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1. feen.rf.lteM
2. Aoroleln
3. Acrrlonltrlle
». Benzene
5. Benzidlim
«. C«rl«n Tetrachlorlde
7. ChlorobenznM
8. 1,2,4-TrlchlnrolMnzeiM
9. Heiiaclilarobenzxiw
10. 1,2-Dlctiloroettuno
11. 1,1.1-TrlehlaroethaiM
12. Hexachloroethmw
13. 1,1-DlchloroethaiM
l«. 1.1.2-TrlGhlnroettafM
15. l,l,2,?OT«lr«chlor«'lhai
|6. rhloroRthniK
IT. Mn-teliloro Mlh<> 1 )M.lm
18. l.l»-(?-chloro«lhf Dellwi
156
R.w
•
•
t
&
floated
•
•
A
•
II«M
Treated
Maw
Treated
PM
.
Treated
Raw
Treated
Rao
Treat «l
Nn. nf
Micre
RM
1
1
Flmlfl
PfMlml
Treated
1
1
1
-
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 2
PRIORITY POUJITANTS IH KERROdS rtXINDRt CASTING (HIKNCII OI'UIATIOIIS
(Al.l, CUM•ENTRATIONS IN «./!.(
ro
O1
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
19. 2-Chloro«lhjl Tlnrl Kther
2O. 2-ChlorotiRf>hlhalene
21. ?.*,6-Trlchlorophritol
22. Parachlof-aetacrcanl
23. ChlorororM
24. Z-Chloroplienol
25. 1,2-Dlchlnrobencene
26. 1,3,-Ulrhlorobcnzem
27. 1,4-DlchlorotanzeiM
28. J,3-Oldilorobeozlileti«
29. l,l-Dlchlorl
32. 1,2-Dloliloroprofwrw
33. l,2-Dldilorn|>rop|rlene
3<. 2,t-DlBi>lhyl P»M>nol
Ą>. 2,^-Dlnltrotolucna
36. ?,6-l>lnltrutoliH>ne
156
Raw
•
•
5*
Treat f* «l
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
R.iw
Treated
RAW
Treated
n«-
Treated
/
r
H.I-
Trentct]
Raw
Tre»te.1
Nil. rif
MI»T«
Raw
1
1
I'lantn
Koiin.l
Troat c*l
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
I
-------
TABLE V-29
Page 3
PRIORITY nn.urrRNTs IN FERROUS raiNDRT CASTING OHKHUH IN OPERATIONS
(AM. COWMfnWTIOIIS IN M:/l.)
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. 1,2-Dlphcnjrlhrlriicnw
38. ethtlbenzene
jo.. Flwatt.'H'iMi
_ iD^L-ChlaroiilieiiilJCbeoil^Uv
_J1. ^DnMoriiaul rtwoil.ethei
*?, bl?-{?-P>«?r«l?PprS!PjU
•tlwi-
*3. bla-(2~dilaroethaK2)iH>th!
M. (Mitflene Chloride
«5. Helhyl Chloride
«6. Helhjrl Braalde
47. Brtuwfom
»B. nichlorobfoww-tlMiw
«9. TrlchlororiiioroBelhane
50 _ DIchloi-odiriunroBKlliane
51 ChlorodlhroHnKthane
58. Heiachloi-obiitJidlene
53. HexacttlorncjrclnfMmtadteiM
1565"»
M.1V
p
ne
•
Ti «•.!» vd
•
•
RAH
Treated
«
ROM
Treated
RM
Treat eil
*
Rav
Treated
Raw
Treated
Mi. of Plants
MH>r« Punnd
Raw
1
Tiealwl
1
1
-
-------
TABLE V-29
Pai|« 4
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 1H TEKROUS FWWtHT CASTING
(M.I. UNKT.NTHATION3 IN Hi/ 1.)
OTKRATIONS
ro
CTi
co
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
«;*. Iwtpiipfniui
SS. H.l|lliLhal«ui
30. Nltrobenznw
57. 2-Nltroohanol
58 , S-Bi IroplicnoL
59. *.6-DlnltrODh«nol
_ 60. «,6-Dlnllro-g-crf»ol_
61. N-nltrosalne
6?. N-nltroaodlption/laalne
6J. W-nltrosodl-H-propjr laali
64. rrntnchloroptMHiol
65. Ilicnol
. W . ,ble-<2-clh>lbfli»l)phtha
.67, Pulfl. Denzsl -FltUtalattt.
. M. B»rstpvi»i_n,iial«ta
.69.. Ulrik^-trl.nilhalatfc.
70. Plelhyl Phltalit*
71. Plpclbrl FbtbaUte _
ISfeS'*
H.iw
»
e
aU
•
Ticnlril
•
•
O.027
«
«
n.iw
TioAtei]
RAW
Troatcrl
Ra««
•
_-_.
— -
-
>»>. of I'l.illlfl
Mi'*re t'«>iiiKl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
Page S
PRIORITY POLUITANTS IH FERROUS FOUNDRY CASTim QUENCH OPKMTIONS
(M.I. l.tlWKMTRflTKItlS IH Mi/1.)
1N3
vo
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
72. Ben74>(a)antJirMMM.
1). Itonnt (•) pjrr«M
_II. B.L-BoitoriiKK-uiLtetM
75. Bcnxofklflunmithenq
76. Chr«9«M
77. AceiWDhthrlane
78. Unthraocm
19- Ihmcala.H.Drerrlaie
•0. FlaorfM
•l, rhmmthreiM
62. Dlbenxo(a.h)«ntlmiceiM
83. lnd«to(l.Z.J-od)pfr«M
8«. rrreiw
83. Tetr«chlomethylen«
86. Toluene
87. TrlchloroetlqrleiM
88. flnyl Clilarlde
89. *l5«t
TlCAtKll
A
*
•
•
•
• •
H.1V
Treated
Urn
Treated
HIM
Treated
.
Maw
Trmioil
Maw
Treat eil
Iki. of
MK»lfl
•JW
I
rinnrn
F
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IH FERROUS rcJINOHT CRSTTIW OIIFNCII OPERATIONS
(M.I. CUWKm-RATKIN!. IN
Paqe 6
ro
-~i
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
40. 0l«lrirln
, 92. •.••-DOT
91. *.«'-DOe(P.P'-TDE)
9», •.»'-UDHP.PV-TDE)
95. 2-Endosuiran-dlpha
96. b-Endosul fan-Beta
9T. Endoaulran Sulfale
96. Ehdrln
99. EiKlrln Aldehyde
100. lleptachlor
101. llnptanhlor EpoKlde
107. a-miT-«lpha
101. b-Dltr-tota
10«. r-BIIC.(Llndan«)Oi
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUrTANTS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH OPERATIONS
(ALL cimrKwrnATiiitis IN
tmqe 7
rv>
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
_JOJ. rCB-1232 |
no. rcB-izu 1
111. PCB-I?60 ^
112. PCB-1016 J
11). ToMphene
129. ?,3.7.a-Tetrachloro-
dlbcnzo-r-dloxln (TCDD)
130. lylme
1?
Kmi
.&
TinAtPil
*•
•
RAM
Trealp. of
MicfC
MM
PlMltfl
K'HHHl
TceAtei!
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
IMORIJANIC PRIORITY POLLUTMTTS IM FERROUS FOUNDRY CASTING pUENCII AND MO1J) COOUNG HASTKWATERS
(ALL COtlLT.rfrRATlOM5 IH IHi/L)
ro
^j
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Ant Iwjiiy
Arsenic
Asbeatos
Borrlllun
CajMliH
Chroolun
C»H>cr
Cyanide (Total)
Lead
Mercut y
Nickel
Selcnlui
Silver
TtiallluH
Zinc
15
Raw
O.O2
O.OO3
651!
Treated
«
*
•
*
•
O.O5
O.OO2
0.06
o.onos
•
*
•
*
0.14
Raw
Treated
Maw
Treated
Raw
Treated
.
Raw
Treated
Raw
Treated
R.1W
Trcatni
-
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUITMITS IN PBRROUS POUtflW SUM) MASHING OPRMTKIHS
(M.I. CUnVKMTIMTKJUS IH
ro
—i
co
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
... _f i . **«n«|ilitlwn«
?. ftorolaln
3. HrrylowllrllB
4. Benzene
5. Bmxidlnn
6. Carbon Tetrachlorlde
T. Chloronenzefw
8. 1,2,4-Trlehlorabanzena
9. lto(Mdilorobeniaw
10. l.a.Dlchloroetliane
11. 1,1,1-TrlchloroettaiM
1?. HeMchlaroethnm
13. I,l-Dlctiloroeth»n«
M. l,l.?-Trlclilaroetlune
15. l,l.?,?OT«lr«ohloi-o«thiii
16. ChloroethaM
IT. Mn-IHiloio Mth«l )<-t.hei
|1. bla-(?-chlnrnethrI>etliei
15520
Maw
•
•
8
Treated
*
•
•
20009
KMW
0.01
•
Trenteil
O.OSJ
•
*
Mm
Treated
Pw
Treateil
«
Haw
TreaLeil
Hun
Treat mA
Nn. of Plnnlii
Mhrre rowtl
Hav
1
Troalnl
2
1
1
2
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqe 2
PRIORITY rui MITHNTS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
(M.I. COIITKNTHATIKNS III HU/I.I
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
_1J. 2-ChloroethTl Vinyl Ether
JO, J-CI)loronaplitha)ene
21. ?,<,6-Trlchlo.ojJ»ienol
22. Parnchloraetacreaol
23- Ch lorn fora
2^. 2*Chlorophenol
n. 1,2-Olchlorobenzme
?*. l,3«-Ulchlorobenzene
27. 1,^-Dlchlorobenzi-n*
?8. 3,3-DlchlorotMmcldene
29. 1,1-Dlchlnroethjrlena
30. l,?-Tranndlrhloro*lhrlen«
31. 2,^-Dlclilcn-optienol
32. 1,2-Dlrtiloropropaim
33- t,2-Dlchllnllrntolurm
15520
Ha«
•
•
•
•
Tl ('ill IMl
•
A
*
*
*
•
20009
R/IW
*
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS TH PKRROUS' POUNDM SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
(AM. CUNTKHTRATKIH!) IH Mi/I.)
ro
—i
en
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. l,?-Dtphrn»lhydr«x«n«
». BlhTlbcnt«MJ
JO P|i»r.nLh«u>
_J9. JrOblarprtieiurl -ttemLEUu
11. «-PrMmAeiul.nien>l_EUKi
^. bla-(?-Ctilorol90Drof>tl>
ether
43. bl9-(2-cbloroellioi]r)«etlK
M. Hehtflene Chloride
<5. Hclhfl Oilorlde
W. Methyl DroMlde
*T. BronurofB
»B. ninhlorobrtMmwthMW
49. Trldilm-oriuorovethMM
i>l J.I ~tlrt ____«k.
51. ChlorcxIllirfMaKthane
5?. He«MlilarohuU
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqc 4
PRIORITY POLHITAKTS IN FERHOUS FOUNDSr SAM) MASKING OH1HATIOMS
(ALL (XHH KMTH/\TI(IMS IN K;/l.(
ro
~j
01
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
^. Iffofhornw
SS, M.|Alh.lM.
56* JllLrolMsn««««
. 57. 2-Mltroohenol
58. t-Nlti-oDlHmol
59. t.6-Dlnltronhenol
&°- li'-Pinllrs-e^sr^aol
61. N-nUroaodlKlhrlanlrM
67. N-nltroaodlphenrlaiiln«
6). N-nllrosoiH-M-proprlaBli
64. Pentachlorophenot
60. Phenol
ft . . tilar (2-eLbjrlhRifJJphlha:
67,_Pul»l Baizjil PbthaJata
68. DI-H-DuLtl PhthalaL*
69. Pl-fto.:lTl rtithalate
70. lUethfl PliU«Lite
JJ. Plaelhyl rbttuUte
15520
K.1H
•
•
e
•
aB*°°5
TI0.1(.M|
«
*
•
*
•
*
O.OI1
*
•
*
O.O10
20009
HAW
«
o.ooo
0.50
O.OO4
•
O.OOfl
O.003
O.OO)
Treated
0.021
•
0.67
0.071
O.OO7
O.O28
U.016
O.CM7
Raw
Treateil
DHW
Trcrtleil
R.w
Tre»l*J
Rfiw
Treat »rt
-
Ni>. of I'i.intn
wlinio FfMiiifl
R.w
1
1
1
2
1
Tieal nV
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-------
TABLE V-29
Paqo 5
PRIORITY FOIXUTAHTS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY SAND MUSHING OPERATIONS
(M.I. aWCRHTIIATKINS IN HU/I.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
_72^fienzo(aJanlbracena-
_ M.. 3. ^T
ro
•^j
-j
Jo,. FlwreiN
_82. Dlben»o(«.h)«nthr«c«iie
63. lmleno( 1.2. }-cd )prren«
86. Tolue-rw
_B7. TrlohloroflUijrl
88. Vinyl Chloride
89.
15520
20
TicalfM)
•
•
•
•
<0.004
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN FERROUS FOUNDRY SAND HASHING OPERATIONS
(AM. CUMTENTItATIOnS IN MC/I.)
Page 6
ro
-~j
oo
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
90 ni-tdrln
„ ChInmrt.M
92. *,1'-DDT
9J. ^'-DUetP.P'-TPE)
9*. I.V-DWKP.P'-TUE)
95. 2-Endo9uiran-Alph>
96. b-Endoaulfan-Bela
97. Endoauiren .lulfate
98. Emtrln
99. Endrln Aldehrde
100. Heptaclilor
101. ItepLachlor Epoilde
10?. a-RIIC-«lpha
103. b-BIIC-bnla
101. r-B1IC-(l.lnrtnne)rai»i
1O5. g-BIIC-DelU
106. ltn-lli'1 1
107. PCB-l?Ti1 |
ion. Pcn-1221 \
15520
IIJ1X
,
••
**
"
Ti onl ,.,!
• ft
A •
• *
"
• *
**
* *
ft*
* •
* *
*•
.-
20009
Raw
* *
Tro.ited
« *
* *
•*
• *
• *
*•
••
••
*•
••
**
Rnw
Tie.iteil
R«x
.
.^
No. of Pl.ititn
Wtmte FIMJIH!
I
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POLUrrANM IH FERROUS FOOHOUT SMffi WASHING OPERATIONS
I M.I. cuwemiutTicms IN MB/I.)
PO
>^i
10
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
109. rce-121? 1
110. PCB-I2W
111. rce-i26o
112. rcn-ioie
111. Tomipheo*
129. 2,J.7,
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY PoijAfT/vHTs IN rwwoiis rrjunwiT KANO
(M,I, cot*ciamu>Ttotis lit
ro
oo
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Kntluwny
Ar**"nlr
Aithrstos lz*
B^ryl Miiw
r«lHliM
Chrom 1 tun
ropfwr
Cyan Mo (Totnl)
If**
H"rcury
Hlckol .
S«l»nfiM '
7.1nr
59101
Rnw
•
O.07fi
O.OOOOI
Treated
»
0.014
O.OOO3
^
51"»73
Maw
•
0.5O
Z.O
O.OOIfi
o.?o
4.1
Treated
»
o.so
O.OO3
l.ft
O.O03O
O.IB
3.J
51026
Km
•
O.OO1S
Treated
O.O'IB
O.OOI
15520
Pnw
0.3
o.noi
-
O.OO5
O.I
n.oool
«
Tr«"tcd
•
«
-
•
•
•
O.O7
0.02S
O.OR
O.OOI 3
•
ft
12
20009
Raw
O.O7
-
0.7
O.3
O.O1O
O.OO04
O.O10
Tieolr-
•
o.ol
-
•
n.oi
ii. 1
0.33
o.ot
0.43
o.ooo«
0.07B
•
O.73
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIOIUTT roi.timwTS IM Hir.MtsjOH rouNnnr
IAI.I, CVNTMrrnATHINS IM
srwwnF.n
ro
00
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Ł• RC^fW|HllllBIM^
Z. ftcroleln
3. ftcrrlonllrllo
4. Bmicene
5. Bon»i«11n»
6. Carbon TetracMorlda
T. rhlarobenzene
B. 1,2,4-TrlehlarolmnzMie
9. llpiiaehlarobenxnw
10. 1 ,?-Dlctllnrwthniw
II. l.t.t-Trlphlaroettane
17. HemirlilarfWtlmM
13. 1,1-Dlrhloro-thniM
1*. 1,1 ,?-Trlr*iloro«"lhi«n«»
15. l,l,2f?OT<)triicfilor*>eUMr
16. Chloroothnfw
IT. hl»-(rflloro «l!Hr.|)Mho,
Id. Mn-(?-rhloro«thyl)eth»i
814
MilW
•
•
i»
Ti nnl.pil
NA
HA
m
HA
HK
HA
HK
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RJW
TlMl«wl
Maw
Trcnted
.
Fn-
Trrntwl
.
HUM
Tr<«iit<>d
Mm
_
Tr<«»l
-------
TABLE V-29
roi.iJirrArrrs IN MAGNFSIUH FOUWPHT GRINKIHT;
(M.I. «X»WKWrnRTIOMS IN
OTOIATIOWS
ro
oo
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
J9. 2-Chloro«lhTl Tlnjl Eth»r
20. Z-thlortnuiplithalFne
SI. 2,*,6-Trlchloror«wm>l
22. t«r»chlonret»cr^»o!
2J. Chlort>ror»
2*. 2-Chlorophcnol
25. 1 ,2-Dlchlorob*lr»>lorob»nr,»»H?
27. l,<-Dlchlorob«i7.ri»«
?'• 3,J-Olphloroh«iil<1tm«
79. !,1-I»lpll1oro<"l.hTlnw
JO. I.Z-Trnnrnltrhloro^lhylen*
31. ?,^-Dlchlornph«iol
32. 1 ,7-OI'-hloropmp>tn<"
33- 1,2-OlrhloropropylMH!
3^. ?,»-ni«-t.hyl Ptwnol
35. ?,<-ninltrotoliMn»«
36. 2,6-flnltrotoln"!!*
BUf
Dm
«
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n.i-
Trrnlr.l
-
Pnw
TrMtrvl
Bow
.
ft*, rtf
Wltf»r»»
Fotltwl
Ti r.il r*«l
-------
TABLE V-29
rmoi»m roLumurn; IN MARHRMIIN FOUNDHT GRiNniw:
IAI.I. ciiNcRrrrnATKiNn in N:/I.|
ro
oo
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
37. l.?-Dlpheny]hjrdrnzrne
38. Elhylbenzme
lO^JrChlflTonhcnilJPhenjUllii
91. t-BroBODheiul Fhenrl Ctbei
42. bIa-(?-Oilorpl90propjl)
ether
*3. bt9-(*-chl<>roethoiy)ii«UK
"*. ffphtylme Chloride
*5. Methyl Chloride
^v. Nel.hfl Brtwlde
*T. frnmofiyrm
•0. nirtilorohl imoa'thung
»9. TrlchlorortuoTo^lhnira
SO. OlrhlorodiriunrfHmMiHiw
51. ChloroHlliioimaii'tliatm
5P. lleii«*hlnfnliutjiifl«m«
53. n-Mrhlnrocrclopmbidl''!!*
R146
Row
0
r
ne
o.o«
Trp/il-,1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
Rnw
Treated
Mnw
Treated
RIM
Trrnle.1
•
Mm
a^-
Trrnred
Mnr.<>il
t».. of i-l.inl->
Maw
1
1
Tteaf.!
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY rot.urrANTS IN M ACHES urn rowNDRT nntNiiTMn prminnFR orFRATJONS
(AM. cwiiwniATioNS IN M:/U
ro
00
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
^_i^hoponln«
6). H-nttromxII-N-propyliiMli
6*. rentachlorofihenol
65. rtM-nol
66. blD-(2-etbyJhnxyJJphtha
67, Outrl BenzTl Fhttwl»te_
68, ni-R-ButyUChlhalala
69. 01-n-nrlil fhthalile
JQ. Dlctb»LPhth«late
71, Dlnethrl HitlnUle
SI'
e
0.051
xLm
0
0
ir>
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fw
Trnn»«-,1
,
Rnw
Trp«»-«»i1
Unw
Tr*».tl ^il
ik>. »r
Wlini«
Raw
1
I
1
rl ,tni n
Fofitnl
Tfnl »»
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POI.UITANTS TN HAKNFSTIM raiNWRT OMNPIW; WRIinnRR CIPF.RATtnllS
(M.I, umcnrrnATiiiNS IN M:/M
ro
00
en
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
T2._Dffnrji(»)antt»-»cgn«
_73._0enr.o-(fi).pyn»ni» . .
_7^. 1.1-lk!nioriiiamntheim__
. J5, JtenxoOi ) fluoraithene
76. ChrT9«M
19. Rnthracem
.J9j.l»nnJ!o(fl.n. I tfrrflGnn
T80. Fltnrene
81. Phenanthren*
82. Dlbmc»U.b)«nlhrie«n«
8J. Inrt»no(I,r,3-cfw
88. *lnjrl ^l
-
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY roi.uiTAirrs TN MAGNESIUM m)HORT ORtNorw; w:nmit»rn
(M.I. COHfHITRATIlHI!! IN «:/!,)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER-
OU(P,P'-TDEJ
95. Z-Endoauiran-Mpha
96. b-Krnlos«iran-B«t«
97. Bn»fo9ulr«n Sulfat«
96. Endrtn
99. Eiwfrln *!<1»]Ui
106. pcn-i«?< 1
107. PO»-I?5* 1
ni
R.1V
..
.,
* •
• A
*•
..
..
if.
Trr.llr.l
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Itw
Trenlcd
Rnw
Trpsfw|
H/T»
f
tin. «r
i
i
1
1
^
l
1
Jiv
-
ro
co
01
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY POI.UITftNTS IH HHlNfSJHH FOHNPRT nP.lNDING STOTIRnKR OPFRATIOIIS
(M.l. fOWEWTIIATMllin III !«:/!.I
PO
CO
--J
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
109. PCB-1232
no. rco-uw
111. rCH-ITMI
11?. rcn-ioie -J
113. Toimphene
1?9. 2,J,T,H-Tetr»phlort>-
. nf
WlK-r*
n.i»
1
1
rl-inlt
^»MMItl
Tt »tnl *•*!
•
-------
TABLE V-29
tnnnM. COMCnmWrlWW IM MB/I.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
A-.be.to,
Copr-r
Cyanide (Total)
l«ad
H-rr,.ry
Selenlw.
Zinc
ro
00
1
•
m
Km
0.06
O.Ofl
1.2
»f>
Treated
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Rao
Treated
Raw
Treated
Raw
Trrtnl.ed
.
Rav
Trrafd
Rav
^
Treat etl
Rm*
Ttenl^
-
_
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY rol.MTANTS IN
(M.i.
rf»INn*t mi!7T «rOf.t.RT|OH orrRATICNS
S IN
I\S
CO
IO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
1 • Ac9mpti1.twfiv
2. •protein
3. •crrlonUrll«
"• W**tlX*?IIP
S. BensMInn
6. Cwrbon Telr«chlorl<1<"
T. ChlorobmznM
8. Il?l^-Trlnhlorab*n7.rn«
^. npvnctilorolMnx'wc
10. 1,7-PlrblortM-thanr
11.- 1,1,1-TrlchIm-o-thJ.iw
1?. Ni>nieMnro<>thnn<*
13. 1,1-nichlortmthmw
1*. l.l.?-Trlehlorllvim>
15. l,l,?,?WTetmchIom*ll»i
]K. Cliinrtlmie
IT. Mn-I«-(?-i!lilnnicth7l)<>lh»i
n\«
K.1H
n.nii
•
R
r,
Tl f»nl oil
Hl\
N/V
HA
UK
NA
IW
MK
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
R.iw
Tr«»tpd
HIM
Treatmt
PlM
Trp.ilvl
.
KHW
Tr>-lll«l
Han>
Tr»»lp«l
N... of
Wwr«
l>aw
,
1
ri.-mi^
»'m>n.l
Tr-.il-.!
-
-------
TABLE V-29
»i* 2
PRIORITY POLt-UTAWTS IN MAGtlKSTJH rotlHORT WIST COU.FCTICW OPERATIONS
(AM. «x»NrrNTiiATi'iN5: in n:/i.)
ro
10
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
19. 2-CMoroethyl flnyl Ether
20. 2>C!ilnronnphthalm«
21. 2,*,6-TrlchloroplmKFl
22. rarachloi •eturreaol
23. Chlortifor*
2*. 2-Chlorophcnol
25- 1,?-DlchlorobrnT.»m»
c6. l,3t-0lphlort>h«ii«i»
27. l,*-f»lchlorol>««n7.rti«
2". 3,3-'lt<'hI'Tob»nz1*"f>«
29. l,l-nirhlnrn»thr]rap
3O. I,7-Tr»nndlchlororopro|>jin<"
33. lt?-OI"hloropropf l«w
3«. 2,<-DI»wlhrl Phwiol
35. ?,^-nin1trntolii*«*»
36. ?,f.-Dlnltrololti»iw
0146
B.TW
•
•
— --
Ttf-.llfMl
HA
NA
NA
KA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
n.iw
Trpnled
Raw
Trentwl
P.v
Ttr.il n*l
.
N». nf I'l.inl^
WHT** f'lHiiiil
n.iw
1
1
Tr-.ll »v|
-
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY OTI.MITMIT* tH HAGNKSNIH rmnmur WIST cm.Mrrinn OPERA-I-TOMS
(AM. fMM.r.NTItnTKItK IN N:/l,)
ro
<Ł>
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
3T. 1,2-Dlphenylhydrmtene
38. Ethylbeitzone
_Jl._«-"ro»w*wl nwnxl _Elh«i
*Z. bl9-(2-Chlorolaoproorl)
ether
»3. bls-(?-chloro«lhoxT)M>th.-
«. MHitrlene Chloride
*5. Methyl Chloride
DA. Methyl Oroaldo
4 T . Bronorom
*B. IHcMm-otii umm'l.tmn*
*9. Tr Ich lorof luoi-oiBithaiHi
5fl _ Dlchlorodiriuoronrt.hntm
51. ChlorofllbrpPnwtlHnq
5P. lk»xnvhlorohut*dl
-------
TABLE V-29
rnuwiTY rin.uiTANTS IN HAGNKSIIIN rouNnpT WIST COU.FCTION OPERATIONS
(IILK COWrNTHATKItK! IM Ht:/l.)
ro
to
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
•>(- I*nflh«i-nn.
. ft. Naphtha 1 rne
TA . . Hi InibflnzmwL _
57. 2-NllroDltcnol
5"- *-»llrvr»ienol
59. ',6-Dlnltrortienol
60. 4p6-Dlnttro-9-cr«9o|
61. M-nttrosodliiplhrliiiiliTC
6?. M-nltroaodlphenylmilne
63. N-nUrosodl-H-propjInnl
6^. r. «r
WlHM ••
1
1
1
1
t
_JL
M.inlv
Klnlll.1
_
-------
TABLE V-29
roi.urriuiTS IN NAGHRSHM mnmnr OUST COM.HTION orn»ATioHS
(AM. i.iiwMmiATiiiws IN M:/I.|
ro
vo
co
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
-J2._Brn7j>(»)»nthric*n«
_7_3._ Hmn>. In) .pyrem .
J'., J.^-Brniortuornnth«im__
-J5._Bro»o*t<*il
i" •' •"
Ms-
TreatrH
V
Knv
Trvnto'l
MAW
™
Trait erf
It., of
WlK»r*
Mnw I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ttr.nl "tl
-------
TABLE V-29
pig** 6
pptoniTT roujiTANTs in MAOHTSIUM FOUHDRT WIST COU.PCTION
(M.I. COW TOT-RAT MlNS IN N:/|.)
ro
<Ł>
-P.
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
. 50. Dleldrln _
91. rhlnrnrtanlt
92. M'-WT
93. «.«'-DOK(P.P'-TOE)
95. 2-F.n!»iiran-ftlptM
96. b-&Hto»u>rwi-n«tji
97. Rhdoanirm Soir»le
98. Enrtrln
99 . &HIf" 1 o A liffffiyiw
100. n>ptjinhlnr
1O|. llcpln<-hlor Rpo
-------
TABLE V-29
roLMmurrs IN Mivwrsum rniimuT OUST cnu^rrinH ornvmoHK
(M.I, UIWr.Hr|IATI<>HS IN t*!/M
rsa
VO
tn
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
09. rcB-17?l
IW. rcV-1232
no. rcn-izM
111. ro>-i2«o
112. fCH-1016
1IJ. To«Mph«tM>
129. 2.5.7. B-Tetrachloro-
(Hhmzo-r-dloxln (TCPO)
130. lylme
(III
Mnw
•
6
Ti ml.ml
NA
HA
rm
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
Haw
Treated
Urn
Treated
,
"a-
Treated
•>
Haw
Tr«-«tr«l
HIM
Ttealf~l
N.I. 0
Kl»-r.
Hi»
1
Ivrr roitml
Tre.il "
-------
TABLE V-29
rmoniTT foi,urrANTS m HV»RSIUM roumwY WIST roi.i.rcroR HASTEHMTRS
(I\LL cofteEin-iumoMS in m;/i.) __
POLLUTANT PARAMETER -
tabosto*
Corpsr
CTanld« (Total)
l«ad
Hprcnry
S^lvnluo
7.lnc
RM
Ra*
O.O2
O.O3
f.
Tr*»l«tJ
HA
MA
MA
NA
NA
NA
Kaw
Tteatnl
Kim
Treated
.
M«w
Tt«tat«I
naw
Tr«at«tl
Mow
Treat -.1
Itnw
Tt»»tr«
-
-------
TABLE V-29
ORGANIC PRIORITY POI.I«TAKrrf(lN 7.1NC FOONDHV CASTIMR
(ALI. CONCENTRATIONS 111 HG/I.)
OTFRRTICHS
ro
iO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
I AceMphtha*
i. Aeroleln
3. IcrylonUrll*
^» IWfflXCfW
5. BnniWliw
6. Ortmn Tetracdlorlda
T. Chlorabenxeim
•. 1,2,4-Trlehlarobmsem
y • ftoXM*!*! KOTO DCtlXCffM
10. 1,7-Olchlorwittaiw
11. 1,1,1-Trlchlorw.thntw
1?. Be»i»phloro<"thinm
13. 1,1-Dlnhtorocttaim
I«. 1,1,7-TrlHilaroellmiNi
' 15. 1,1,2,2 TelrKchlorw-lhsi
16. OilnrimMMiw
IT. MM-(cblara Mth>1)«lhm
18. bjB-iZ-chloroethflM.hri
10308
R.-~
i|
Trcnlcil
18139
Mm
•
Treated
*
Dm
Treated
HI
tan
0.130
0.019
0.14*
Tre*t*il
NA
"4_
HA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
«
HAW
Treated
Km
Treated
Mn. of rimit^
Mw*t«* Pfmnif
MAW
TrpMt rd
1
i
_
-
-------
TABLE V-29
PP1PHITY rOU-UTMITS tN ZIW FOUHrmY rUBTTNT.
(ALL CONCENTRATIONS IH HC/L)
OTFBAT1ONS
ro
10
oo
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
19. 2-Chloroelh»l Tlnjl Ether
20. Z-Chlot-nnnphlhaleno
21. 2,^,6-Trlchlorophenol
22. rBTBcblotTwtacreBol
23. Chlorofom
2*. 2-Chloroph«fK»l
n. l,2-01chloroh«nxen«
26. l,J,-niohlort>b«nxw»e
27. 1 . ^-Dlchlof ob^nignc
29. 3,3-nichlorob*nilil««»
29. l,l-Dlchlonwlhyl«i«
JO. l,?-Tmnfr<1lrhlir<7
-------
TABLE V-29
OflRANIC mtOnlTY rOI.MITMITS IN ZINC ftUfNORV CASTtfK!
(ALL CTNCBHTMTIONS IN n:/L>
HFKWTfOMI
ro
10
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
3T. 1,2-Dlphniylhyilnizeim
3B. EUurlbeitMM
M FlunRmthOTi
_J9, JbCblocvrtMiulJEboiiUMii
5i. Chlorodllii ciimni>thiin«
V-- RnnchlorolNiljiillxHi
53- B*«»cWorocyclop«iUrtl^«
103C
Nnw
*
r
nfl
0.011
8
Tr-nl^.1
o.ro
181
Km
0.014
39
Tr.ntM
0.01)
*
Rmr
Tr«*t«I
«77
K*.
0.290
Trmtnl
NA
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Raw
TICK tod
**•
-
TmtM
till. Of
N*v
2
riml.n
Tronlnl
|
2
-------
TABLE V-29
OPCANJC PRIORITY POI.U/TRWTS IN 7.TNC FOUNDRY CAKT1MC yiFNTII OTFIWTKlHS
(AM, CONCENTRATIONS IN MT/I.)
POLLUTANT PARAMETER-
CO
o
o
^JlltrobenznnR
__5L_Z=JUlronhenol_
58,_».-)Uicortien
-------
TABLE V-29
ORGANIC PRIORITY roUJUTAKTS 111 7.1HC FOOWIH1Y OWTIIIR OlIFMCII OPKHATIOHS
(All. COHCF.HTHATIOHS III HC/I.)
OJ
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
72. BrnmU >•">>•«"••>•
7J^ l*rww (•) pyr»iMi
7<. _3L_1-BenzQŁluoraothr.iw__^
_ 15.. B«uo( k)riuarant>*f|« .
76. CtirTaene
_77- •cen»ohth»l«n«
„?•. AnthraceiM
.79. Rmxofa.H.IlPerrlMHi ..
01. nienanthreiw
•2. Dlbenito(i,h)lnthr«cen«
8J. Inl«iM>(1.2.J-ed)prrfliw
8*. ryrem
95' Tetmchloroetbylen*
66. Toluene
•7. Trlctiloroetlqrlefw
M. Vlnrl Chloride
89. ftlnrln
10308
R.IW
*
*
•
Trrnlrrl
<•
« •
1813
Raw
•
•»
9
Tr*nt.fHl
0.020
0.031
Rnv
TreRted
Aft?
|im
O.IJI
0.027
0.230
I
Tr««ate
-------
TABLE V-29
PBiomTT POMOTANTS IN Tim ZINC ruwnnv cAr.Tinr: yiirwn orrwmoNS
(ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN HC/1.)
CO
o
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
T
93. ».v-DOEfr.r-m)
9*. M'-DWXF.r-TDE)
95. J-Endomilfwi-Alpha
96 . b-Fndonul fan-Beta
97. Emfoauiran Sulfata
96. Enrtrln
99. Enrtrln dldHiyrt*
100. Rrptachlor
101. neptnchlnr Rpotlite
10?. n-WIC-AlpM
103. b-RIIC-twU
I0<. r-HK-dlnafimflOmmm
105. n-miC-D-Iln
106. PCB-I»?»
107. PCT-175*
1
IVnw
**
**
**
**
**
*•
**
**
**
0308
Tr«»nt»vl
*4
**
**
**
181
RMW
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
r **
[with ion
59
TfMted
**
**
«*
1 **
|wlth ion
flm*
Trc«t**l
Hlth 10P
4f>?
H*w
**
**
**
**
#*
**
**
**
#*
/
j 0.043
7
Trpntrrt
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
HUM
Trenlril
HAW
Treated
/
101
l»». of
wtif r"
Pnv
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
,
1
1 .
f'l.1fll ft
Ffdiml
Tt<»rtl.r»fl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 -
I
1 •
-------
TABLE V-29
PRT'lBITV roi.HITAMTS 1M THK J!INC FOUNDRY
(ALL CnNcr.MT»ATION(l IX
: 'JHF.HI1I orKHRTir»IS
O
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
109. fCB-1221
109. FCIU1Z32 -
110. PCO-1Z*8
111. rCB-1260
11?. PCB-1016
11 J. Tiriaphene
129. 2,3.T.B-Tetn«chlorfl-
<1ltwnzo-P-dlo«tn (TCDI>)
130. Xjltne
10
Mm
}08
Trrnt^il
181
RAM
**
*
39
Trentmt
Mm
Treated
462
Duo
JJ.054
1
Tr«>.tt^l
NA
MA
MA
MA
MA
NA
MA
HA
^
Mm
Tri«»t«vl
M«m
Tr^»l-rt
N». of
M1mr«
n.iw
I.
ri.tHi*i
KmttMt
Tre.tl.**«t
0
-
-------
TABLE V-29
INORGANIC PRIORITY
B IN 7inc FOUNDRY CASTING PIIFIKII
(M,L concrMTRftTioBfl IN nn/i.)
CO
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
ft^hcstr»«
Clirnwliim
Con»*r
Cynnl'lp (Totnl)
|<^Ad
Herc»iry
Nickel
?Vl?nliM
Zinc
10
n««
*
0.15
O
•
O
O.OJ
0
350
308
Ttc»t«^l
•
O.O5
O.OO4
•
n.nooi
0.12
ft
36
1
Haw
•
n
O.OO9
*
O.OOOJ
o
o
3.7
8139
Trented
•
O.O79
O.0079
ft
O.OOO9
•
0.0095
2. 1
Mm
Trpnted
*r,7
Raw
n.i»9
•
62
;
Tiwiited
NA
HA
tin
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
Raw
TrpntoO
F.iw
Tr«nle
-------
TABLE V-29
PBIDRTTT rwtMmins ulr.iHc mmm nw.Tt*: riimiwR
(ALL COHCKKTRATIOM3 Ml HG/M
CO
o
in
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
I. Hcmphll^ne
2. ftcrolfttn
J. Rcrrlmltrll*
4. Henxm?
5. Bntcirfliw
6. dirlmn T*tr«chlortthmN>
n. l,l.?,70T«triKlilor"lh«
1H. lilB.(2-clilaroeUirl)vtlwi
18139
RAW
O.OJ7
*
•
1.0
"I
Tl "ill
Trt*nl-.*i1
»
Itmt
Tt<»ii»r<1
HIM
•
Treated
IM. of rtmti
Mirr* Tnntvt
It-m
1
1
1
1
Trml "1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
ORT.HNTC PBIOBITT.. POLIiUTANTS IH 7.INT FrKIHDRr MELTIMi". FIJRHW.T SCRtlBflERS
(ALL CONCENTBATIOHS IN MC/L
OJ
O
CT>
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
M^_ 2-Cbloro«th»l »lnyl Ether
20. 2-Chloronaphth«lene
21. 2.4,6-Trlchloroptienol
22. Pirachlorvetacraaol
23. ChloroTorB
2^. 2-Chlorophenol
25. l,2-Dlchlorob<"ni€n«
2S. 1, J^-IMchlorolWTizpn*
2T. 1 . '-PlchJ m-oh"nr.»o«
28. 3l3-l'l'*l'<''''*'*n*l
31. 2,*-Dlchloroplwi»ol
3?. l,2-Dlchloroprt>iu»n<»
33- l,7-l>lohloro|»rop)rlrn«
3*. 2,<-ni«»thyl Itwnol
35. 2,*-Olnltrotolu»ne
36. ?,6-Dlnltrotolii*m
181
Raw
1.4
0.071
"
1.3
12
<0.nl7
AO.037
39
T» r.^t»»tl
0.6O
•
0.22
0.19
•^0.017
•a1, ol 7
R.1-
Tre»»««
-------
TABLE V-29
OHOMIIC pRicmm PCH.UITMITS IN sine ronnwr HKI.TINO niRwcK scwmneRS
, CONCENTRATIONS 1M MG/I.I
CO
o
—1
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
JT. 1 ,2-Dlphenylhydrir.ene
38. Ethylbcnzeira
JO. riimranLliMO
_JO,_lrCblor«iihenilJQMDrl-EUH
_Jl. *rBraxwhetuljrbcnfiJEUKi
«2. bla-UrClilorQlsoiM-jmr.U
ether
»J. bla-(?-ohloro«tho«T)iMttlv
M. Hehlrlene Chloride
*5. Hethjl Chloride
•6. Methyl BroBlite
*T. Bronofor*
M. Trlchlororiirarow>thiine
50. DIchlorodiriunramthMne
• 51. OilorodltiroxoMnthHne
V. H*XKchlorolwU»dl1
MP. of PL-Mil <<
H|K
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORrrr roLumrrrs IN ZINC njmiunr HO/TINT: rimwrK SCRIIBPF.RS
(MJ. CONCENTRATIONS IN MG/I.)
fnr," 4
CO
o
CO
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
S%. t«f.phoron»
Vtn Ibphthfllmt
56. MIM-ntMir.iiM
5T,. 2-RltroDhenal
56. 4-Hltrophenol
59 .^ * . 6-Dlnl tronhenol
W. ».6-DInHro-o-cre»ol
61. R-nltrmodlBethTlsuliM
62. R-nltrosodlptonrliBlnv
63. R-nltro8odl-M-propfla«li
64. Pentnehloroptienol
65. rh«nol
66, .bl9-(2-athylhRiyUphUu
67, _ ftitrl Beniy l_nitlnl«ta
68. Bl-M-Butfl Phthalata
69. l'1-n-ootil Fbthalata
10.. Dlelhrl fhttalflta
11.. PlMtbrl.AtlMUte. ..
181
RAW
3.3
O.O60
9
JO
»te.
O.OBO
•
0.11
o.iwm
39
Trewtml
•
2.}
5.5
O.O49
n.oTO
O.1H
n.u
RAH
Trentet!
Rm
•
Trrntwl
RUM
Trpatod
Raw
Trp»t«J
Row
-
Treated
fk>. nl
Mhr>r«
R.fw
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
rlniifw
Pntm*l
Tt«?»lr.l
1
1
1
1
1
1
„ 1_
-------
TABLE V-29
rRionirr POI-UWWCTS IN r,inc FnwimT HF.I.TJHR nmwicB
(M.L COHCENTIUVrlOHS IN MU/U
CO
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER '
_ 72. •MHM>» )«nHif «rTB»
_73..Bmiiu>- (nj.fif raM
J^._a.L-*anoriuoc«nthen«___
TL Jet«olk) auocantben«^__
7*. Chr*aeiM
77. HeeiwDhthTlem
7>. Anthriceiw
T9. VenzatQ.H.Iirerrleoa
80. Fluorem
91, PlieiiMithreiM
62. Dlbenro(i.h)*nthrieeira
83. Ind>>no(l.?.3-cd)p7r«ne
•W. Fyrene
85. T«traohloro«thjlcn«
86. Tolu*fie
87. Trlehloroothrlmw
88. Vinyl Chlorltfa
89. Klilrln
18
RUM
•
•
0.04]
SO.Oflft
O.04B
in.nefi
•
•
•
139
Tri*Mnl
+
0.017
*
•
•
Raw
«
Trrntml
Hnv
Treated
Kx*
TrMlcd
Raw
Tr^ntcd
HIM
-
Treated
»•. »r
Mi»r«
•av
1
1
I
I
1, „
1
1
1
1
rlimt-i
Fount
TlVfflrtt
1
JL
1
1
1
-------
TABLE V-29
ORGANIC rHIDRtTY IMlt.t.UTANTS IN ZINC FrY MKI.TIM; FURNACE
(ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN M«/L)
CO
1—"
o
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
40. Dlnlilrlit
Ql- CMT^tann
12. ».*'-DOT
93. ».<'-POE(f.r'-TOg)
9*. M'-DWUP.P'-TDe)
95. ?-Endosul Tan-Alpha
96. t>-Cn«5o»ul Tan-Beta
97. Endosulfsn SulTat*
98. Endrln
99. Endrln DHpfiyde
100. n^ptachlor
101. B«?pi.»rhlor RfKnlde
1O7. •-miC-«lphii
103. b-mtC-hpta
101. r-ntir.(l.fn
-------
OW.RMIC
TABLE V-29
POWITMITS IN 7,tMC r«IHOHY MKLTIMT,
(MJ. COMCKHTPATIOtlS IN MG/U
POLLUTANT PARAMETER-
108. PCB-1221
109 1 PCB-1232 . 1
no. rco-i?w |
111. FCH-1260 \
112. FCB-1016 ^
113- Toufihviie
129. 2.3,7. 8-Tetmchloro-
dlbn»o-r-dl. of
MH>r«
Maw
» ...
t
1-l.inti
rnnmt
Ttnal «l
_
-------
TABLE V-29
PRIORITY rotiJiTMiTS IN 7i»c FOUNDRY HELTtur; OTEPATIOH
IMA CPHt.KMI BATIOHS IM H(;/l»|
oo
I—I
ro
POLLUTANT PARAMETER
Mnhaotoa
ChrowltiiB
Cori-r
Cy>nl<1<>(Tutnl)
L»ad
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
11
Haw
•
O.OOB
•
O.OOOJ
19
)139
Trc«tpi1
O.OOO57
O.O071
•
O.OOO5
•
o.ww
11
Raw
Troatcd
Maw
Treated
Rnw
Tr«»nl*
-------
PROCESS;
PLANT:
INVESTMENT FOUNDRY
(ALUMINUM)
4704
PRODUCTION: 5.0 TONS/DAY
(4.54 METRIC TONS/DAY)
SOLIDS TO
LANDFILL
^SAMPLE POINTS
TO RIVER
50 GPM
(3.2 I/sec)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-l
-------
TABLE V-30
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALUMINUM
INVESTMENT CASTING PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 4704
Production: 5 Tons Per Day
Flow : 20,380 1/kkg
4,900 Gallons Per Ton
Pollutant Raw Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1 Ib/ton
Total Suspended Solids 930 38 83 3.2
Oil & Grease 18 0.74 10 0.38
Aluminum 2.1 0.84 0.2 0.008
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.026 0.001 0.01 0.0004
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.14 0.006 0.046 0.0019
Methyl Chloride 0.040 0.002 0.034 0.0014
Trichloroethylene 0.069 0.003 0.078 0.0032
Copper 0.45 0.018 0.083 0.0034
Zinc 0.49 0.020 0.1 0.0041
pH 6.6-7.5 7.1
314
-------
10
i-»
en
PROCESS: ALUMINUM
PLANT: 17089
PRODUCTION:
>110 METRIC TONS/DAY
> 100 TONS /DAY
10.853 JLfSGC.
(172 GPM)
52.244 i/SEC
(SM GPM)
DIE CAST
AND
QUENCH
ALUM I POLY
PecDlFBED
FURNACE
SCRUBBER
FLASH
MIX
TANK
OIL
SEPARATORS
42.78* J/SIC.
IS.7S4J/SEC. fe78GPM)
DEWATEH-
OVERFLOW
IO.S98J/SEC
GPM)
CITY
WATER
PISTON
HEAT
EXCHANGE*
i>TO LANDFILL
I/SEC
(70 GPM)
NORTH CHLORINI BOOTH,
HCAT EICHAN6ER5 FOR
HRA. WAI MCLT OVT AREA
SLUDGE SETTLING
/^-SAMPLING POINT
IS.44i/etC.
»4S GPM)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
»OUTFALL
O02
NORTH SETTLING POND
OUTFALL OOI
FIGURE V-2
-------
ASSEMBLY AREA OCA/MS
NQN PDUMCCy
WASTE TEEATMEffT AQgA
PROCESS'- ZNC A ALUMNUM FOlfCRf
PLANT: 13139
PRODUCTION2 Aluminum >30 tontAkn
t>27 mtlric lom^oy)
Zinc >50 font/day
(>l»5 metric tomboy)
REOCLE TANfc
K',
-Si
*3
$5
» x*
r
-------
TABLE V-31
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALUMINUM MELTING
FURNACE SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 17089
Plant 18139
t*J
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Aluminum
Ammonia
Cyanide
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Production
Flow
Raw
JOS/1
48
13
4.7
4.7
0.004
0.06
0.840
0.26
: >110 tons per day
: >8,000 1/kkg
>1,923 gallons per ton
Treated
Ib/ton mg/1 Ib/ton
9
2
0.4
0.002
0.14
0.056
Production: >30
tons per
day
Flow : >3,000 1/kkg
>72]
Raw
mg/1 1 b/ton
9
3
0.4
0.4
0.015
0.02
0.032
0.04
0.11
gallons
per to:
Treated
mg/1
7
2.9
5
0.6
0.014
0.002
0.0044
0.057
0.065
Ib/ton
7.4
7.1
8.1
8.0
-------
CO
I—•
CO
ALUMINUM AND ZINC
DIE CASTING
10308
PRODUCTION' ALUMINUM > 20 TONS/DAY
P18 METRIC TONS/MY
Zlne
TO CONTRACT
HAULER
SULFUR 1C ACID
OIL SOLO TO
CONTRACT HAULER_JEJOSJ!NGJ
RECOVERED
ALUM
RECOVERED
ALUM
PROPRIETARY
COP^POUNOS
RECOVEREC
ALUM
TANK
GLYCOL, ETC. FOR
REUSE
IN PLACE FOR FUTURE USE
PROPRIETARY
IODINE
COMPOUND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM !
TO
LOCKED
SWAMP
INSPECTION TANK
-------
Pollutants
Total
TABLE V-32
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALUMINUM CASTING
QUENCH PROCESS UASTEMATER
Plant 10308
Production:
Flow :
>20 tons per day
>100 1/kkg
>24 gallons per ton
Raw
•g/1 Ib/ton
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton
Plant 17089
Product Ion
Flow
Raw1
>110 tons per day
>2,000 1/kkg
>480 gallons per ton
Treated
/ton Kg/1 Ib/ton
Plant 18139
Production:
Flow :
Raw
>30 tons per day
>10 1/kkg
>2 gallons per ton
Treated
ton •g/1 Ib/ton
co
(0
Suspended Solids
Oil * Grease
AluMlniw
Aimnla
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
SulHde
Copper
Lead
Zinc
PH
58
139
5.3
0.01
4.7
0.56
0.066
37
0.07
0.44
9.1
8.6
4.9
7.1
3.5
0.00059
3.8
0.2
0.23
0.03
0.96
9.1
48
13
4.7
4.7
0.004
0.06
0.840
0.26
7.4
9
2
0.4
0.002
0.14
0.056
7.1
941
155
1.4
0.2
0.09
0.081
2.4
0.25
0.29
5.8
710
170
10
0.25
0.08
0.011
1.6
0.28
0.16
8.0
Casting process wastewater pollutants
-------
_1
ALUMINUM
01
E CASTING
PLANT
ZINC
DIE CASTING
PLANT
1
| 47 GPM
A (3.0 l/s.c) ,
14 GPM
(0.68 1
PROCESS'- ALUMINUM a ZINC DIE CASTING
PLANT: 12040
PRODUCTION ALUMINUM 90.8 TONS/DAY
(46.1 METRIC TOMS/DAY)
ZINC 11.45 TONS/DAY
(10.39 METRIC TONS/DAY)
Off
TO RECEIVING
TANK
RIVEH
FILTRATE |5-9 GPM
PUMP 1(0.37 l/»«c)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-5
-------
TABLE V-33
INS
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALUMINUM
DIE CASTING PROCESS HASTEWATER
Plant 17089
Production:
Flow :
Pollutants
mg/1
Raw1
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil ft Grease
Aluminum
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
2 ,4-Trlchl orophenol
Chloroform
2 ,4-01 chl orophenol
2 ,4-Dlmethyl phenol
2-N1trophenol
2,4-Dlnltrophenol
Pentachl orophenol
Phenol
PCB 1242"!
PCS 1254V
PCB 122LX
PCB 12321
PCB 12481
PCB 1260f
PCB 1016J
Copper
Lead
Zinc
pH
110
504
0.9
0.1
0.007
0.04
3.25
0.5
0.5
0.267
0.71
0.1
1.14
1.4
0.87
0.84
7.4
>110 tons per day
>2,000 1/kkg
>480 gallons per ton
Treated
ton mg/1 Ib/ton
8.0
10
0.04
0.004
0.64
0.4
0.3
0.42
0.018
0.025
0.057
0.11
0.08
0.64
7.1
1
Includes Casting Quench process wastewater pollutants
2 Also contains die lube process wastewater pollutants
Plant 12040
Production:
Flow :
mg/1
Raw
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton
Plant 20147
Production:
Flow :
Raw
535
707
3.1
0.5
0.007
1.0
0.087
36
5.9
7.8
0.034
0.0055
0.00008
0.011
0.00096
0.4
9.9
12
8.0
0.37
0.0023
0.04
0.069
0.11
0.13
0.088
0.0041
0.000026
0.0004
0.00076
1.739
5.619
10.43
18.6
0.01
0.014
66.3
2.3
17
2.3
1.8
4.8
43
1.0 0.011
3.7 0.041
7.2
0.15 0.0016
0.04 0.0004
9.1
0.49
2.01
1.63
6.9
>120 tons per day
>40 1/kkg
>9 gallons per ton
Treated (recovery process)
ton mg/1 Ib/ton
3,072
26,757
16
16.76
0.046
0.5
82.13
93
15
14
19
0.61
2.95
2.13
-------
OJ
ro
ro
IYDRAULIC OIL
COOLING WATER!
SYSTEM
LEAKAGE
0 GPMIO I/SEC)
DIE CASTING
MACHINES
\ PAN /
LEAKAGE
0 GPM (O I/SEC)
PROCESSi ALUMINUM DIE CAST
PLANT" 20147
PRODUCT ION:
>108 METRIC TONS/DAY
<>120 ONS/OAY)
DIE LUBE WASTES
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
CYCLONIC
\ / SEPERATOR
PORTABLE TANKS TOi
©DELIVER DIE LUBES TO
MACHINES
(f) PICKUP AND TRANSPORT^
DIE LUBE WASTES
FROM MACHINE PANS
CITY WATER
0 GPM (0 I/SEC)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE v-6
-------
TABLE V-34
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALUMINUM
DIE LUBE PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 20147
Production:
Flow :
>120 Tons Per Day
>20 1/kkg
>4 Gallons Per Ton
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
A1 uminum
Ammonia
Cyanide
Magnesium
Phenols
Sulflde
2,4,6-Trlchlorophenol
Parachlorometa
Creso]
2,4-Dlchlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Chioranthene
Naphthalene
2-N1trophenol
2,4-Dinltrophenol
4,6-D1n1tro-o-cresol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzo(a)anthracene
Acenaphylene
Fluorene
Pyrene
Copper
Lead
Zinc
PH
mg/1
2,700
43,300
23.
24.
Raw
Ib/ton
0.038
0.22
106.4
1.8
24
11
11
16
7.8
3.0
11
.74
3.0
38
62
4.5
20
1.9
.91
6.0
3.05
mg/1
3,072
26,757
Treated
(recovery process)
Ib/ton
16
16.76
0.046
0.5
82.13
5.2
6
57
93
15
13
14
19
0.61
2.95
2.13
7.0
323
-------
PROCESS:
PLANT:
PROCXJCTION;
BRONZE FOUNDRY
OUST COLLECTION
19872
49 TONS/DAY
M0.8 METRIC TONS/DAY)
CLEAN AIR
CO
ro
OUST LADEN
AIR
CITY WATER
LEVEL CONTROL VALVE
TO LANDFILL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
IGURE V-7
-------
^3 QPM
2.7 VMC
33
OUST COUKTM
SdfUBBCK
A*/
r,
-&—*
TRouqH
USCD 4
SAND
3PM
f/*ee
<
(
1
KUTAL
RECLAIM
KCCLMMLD
MfTAL
PROCCU s COPPCM ALLOY TOUNDRY
PLANT: tO»4
PROOUCTK)M< 64 MTrfclC TOM8|0*kY
II TONS/DKY
LAQOON Nt I
LAOOON Nff t
yjsraniKnx
BCKUBBCK
H* a.
55 QPM
OQPM
o f/<«c
0.4/A.C
u
LAQOON Nfl
SAMPLWW POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE v'8
-------
TABLE V-35
CHARACTERISTICS OF COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY
DUST SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 19872
Plant 9094
00
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
2,4,6-Tri chl orophenol
Parachlorometa cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
PH
Production:
Flow :
Raw1
mg/1
1
1
45 tons per day
Not Determinate
(internal recycle)
Treated
mg/1
710
55
75
0.344
11
2.6
15
.021
.041
0.084
0.079
0.170
1.2
1.2
52
16
3.1
1,200
Production
Flow
Raw
mg/1
1,600
21
3
0.087
1.9
1.7
0.12
0.25
330
110
3.1
730
71.4
tons per day (sand)
: 4,021 1/kkg
970
gallons
per ton (sand)
Treated
Ib/ton
21
0.17
0.03
0.00070
0.015
0.014
0.00096
0.0020
2.7
0.87
0.025
5.9
mg/1
2
0.4
0.2
0.001
0.1
0.16
0.081
0.45
Ib/ton
0.002
0.0005
0.0002
0.000001
0.00011
0.00017
0.000088
0.00049
7.4
7.2
7.7
Raw process wastewater inaccessable for sampling
-------
WELL
WATER
PROCESS! BRASS. Ł COPPER. FOUNDRY
PLAMTI 47J«
PRODUCTIONt»02 MCTWIG
112 TONS/DAY
CO
ro
MAKE-UP
RECYCLE
SUMP
A
SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
UWN6-ZO-TI
FIGURE v-9
-------
TABLE V-36
CHARACTERISTICS OF COPPER & COPPER ALLOY
CASTING QUENCH PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 4736
Production:
Flow :
112 Tons Per Day
Undeterminable (100% Recycle)
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Copper
Raw1
mg/1
Treated
mg/1
16
0.009
<0.3
1.1
Zinc
PH
3.5
8.1
1
Raw and treated (settled) process wastewater continuously mixed
328
-------
MOLTEN
METAL
MOLTCN
METAL
DIRECT
CHILL
MOLDS
M.XI/MC.J2290PM)
MAKE-UP FROM TREATED
WELL WATER SYSTEM
PROCESS: MASS • COPPER FOUNDRY
PLANT: «»ot
PRODUCTION: >5oo METRIC TONS/OAT
>550 TONS/DAY
co
ro
<Ł>
979 t/SEC
(23 GPM)
MOM - FOUNDRY PLOWS
ISO//SEC
4—(2036GHM)
A
SAMPLMO POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE v-io
-------
TABLE V-37
CHARACTERISTICS OF COPPER
CONTINUOUS CASTING PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 6809
Production:
Flow :
>500 tons per day
>600 1/kkg
>120 gallons per ton
Pollutant
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton
56
40
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton
20
6.2
Cyanide
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Arsenic
Cadmi um
Copper
0.004
0.09
0.006
1.3
0.010
0.11
0.36
0.002
0.087
0.004
0.01
0.04
0.11
Zinc
PH
2.1
8.3
1.4
7.9
330
-------
TABLE.V-37 Cont.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COPPER
CONTINUOUS CASTING PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 9979
Production:
Flow :
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
9.3 Tons Per Day
8,710 1/kkg
2,100 Gallons Per Ton
mg/1
33
10
Raw
1
Ib/ton
0.0026
0.0008
mg/1
Treated'
Ib/ton
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Copper
Lead
Zinc
PH
0.035
0.005
0.35
2.4
0.13
4.4
0.000004
0.0000004
0.00003
0.00018
0.00001
0.0003
8.0
Raw and treated waste continuously mixed during casting. Treatment
consists of only settling. Process wastewater is recycled 100%.
331
-------
OJ
GO
PROCESS: FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT' 55122
PRODUCTION:
DUST COLLECTION' 7732 Metric Tons/Day
(8947 Tom/Day)
ELECTRIC
FURNACE SHOP
MISC. DRAINS
8 COOLING
WATERS
(Non-Contact Cooling Water)
AT-lfC (20"F)
(5> 97 8 lAec (1550 gpm)
CASTING. COOLING ft
CORE ROOM AREAS
FUGITIVE
EMMISSION
DUST
COLLECTORS
Rearculated
Dusl Cdlecled
Wat ir
Oitchoroe lo
Sanitary S«w«r
SAMPLING POINT
Ctean „ .
Sid. Solldl lo
Disposol
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
164.1 l/iec
(2600 gpm)
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RECIRCULATING WATER SUMP
FIGURE V-ll
-------
136 I/SEC
(2150 GPM)
/-NUN
/ COi
r/A-
NON-CONTACT
COOLING WATER
-MAKE-UP FLOW
AS REQUIRED
63 I/SEC
(IOOO GPM)
35 I/SEC
(55O GPM)
Co
CO
00
-44 I/SEC
(700 GPM)
'PROCESS;
PLANT:
PRODUCTION!
DUST COLLECTION
FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
59101
SAND WASHING
6367 METRIC TONS/DAY
(70fcO TONS/DAY)
160 METRIC TONS/DAY
(176 TONS/DAY)
MOLDING S CLEANING
DUST COLLECTORS
(12 INTERNAL RECIRC.
PACKAGE UNITS
LAGOON *l
LAGOON *2
DISCHARGE
CREEK
107 I/SEC
(I70O GPM)
POINT
l
SAND TO REUSE
IO METRIC TONS/MR
(II TONS/HR)
SUMP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-12
-------
Evoporotive
Lois
-Got Slr«om
Flow
PROCESS FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT1 57775
PRODUCTION;
DUST COLLECTION: 34.9 Mtlric Tont/Doy
(38.5 Tont/Doy)
MELTING: 23 Metric Tom/Doy
(23 Toot/Day)
00
00
COLLECTION
BOX
Solids to
Disposal
601 kg/day
(1300 Ibi/doy)
9.47 l/««c
(150 gpm)
063 I/MC
(10 gpm)
Solids to
Disposal
673 kg/day
(1482 Ibs/doy)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-13
-------
NoOH
X
PROCESS' FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT, ,53219
PRODUCTION'
OUST COLLECTION' 59 Molrie Toot /Day
(65 Tons/Day)
MELTING: IZ.r Metric Tone/Day
(14 Torn/Day)
1.9 I/MC
(90 gpm)
CO
CO
en
City Water
Supply
Solid* to
Disposal •*
Discharge to
Sanitary Sawer
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
I I E
IGURE V-14
-------
CO
CO
en
PROCESS' FERROUS FOUNDRY(GRAY IRON)
PLANT' 55217
PRODUCTION •
DUST COLLECTION: 1897 Metric Tom/Day
(2091 Tom/Day)
MELTING: 197 Metric Toot/Day
(217 Tone/Day)
Evaporative
Los*
From Wet Wen
Ptant HHH-2B
Plant Water
Supply
Make-Up Water
a* Required
MOLDING AND
CLEANING
DUST COLLECTORS
OO
SLAG CAR
NOTE'
Zero discharge to receiving
stream from plant HHH-2A 8
HHH- 28
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
I L_t
IGURE V-15
-------
Co
Co
.- .2 I/SEC
\ (5O GPM)
DISCHARGE TO SANITARY
SEWER 2.7 I/SEC (42 GPM)
PHOCtSS: FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT: 57100
PRODUCTION:
DUST COLLECTION 1814 METRIC TONS/DAY
(20OO TONS/DAY)
MELTING
3\9 METRIC TONS/DAY
(352 TONS/DAY)
X
DUST
TO
DISPOSAL
/\ SAMPLING POINT
»> EXHAUST GAS FLOW
1.6 I/SEC.
(25 GPM) TO
SANITARY
SEWER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
I I I
FIGURE V-16
-------
CO
CO
oo
MAKE-UP
WATER
COOLING
TOWER
COOLING WATER
(CITY WATER)
I
SLOWDOWN
CUPOL A
0 UENCHER
WET SLAG
OUE NCHING
MAKE-UP WATER
(CITY WATER)
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
VE N TURI
I
PROCESS:
FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT: 56771
PRODUCTION:
OUST COLLECTION
MELTING
2277 METRIC TONS/DAY
(25IO TONS/DAY)
175 METRIC TONS/DAY
(193 TONS/DAY)
AFTER COOLER
SEPARA TOR
H
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
TANK
HYORATED
LIME
T
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
DRAG
TANK
15.8 I/SEC
(250 GPM)
75.7 I/SEC
WASTE GAS
TO STACK
DUST
COLLECTOR
SYSTEM
MAKE-UP
WATER
DRAG TANK
SOLIDS
DISPOSAL
A
DISCHARGE "TO
SANITARY SEWER-
3.28 I/SEC
(52 GPM)
CAMPLE POINT
(I2OO GI'M)
-3.8 I/SEC
(60 GPM)
DISCHARGE ELIMINATED AFTER 1974
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
IGURE v-17
-------
GRAY IRON FOUNDRY
15520
20.2 /SEC. ADO
CUPOLA
GAS
SCRUBBCR
CUPOLA
GAS
SCRUBBER
CITY WATER
EMERGENCY MAKE-UP
VACUUM
FILTER
MOLDING TANKS
TO LANDFILL
19 TONS/DAY
BALANCE
TANK A
320 GPM
20.2 I/SEC.
SPLITTER
BOX
-uncontrollec
moke vp to slog dnraler
274 GPM """'••
17.31/SEC.
•
438 0PM
27.6 I/SEC.
SECONDARY
CLASSIFIER
290 GPM
19.8 I/SEC.
SAND TO
SYSTEM
SETTLING TANK *l
SETTLING TANK #2
-------
CO
-ti
o
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES 23 GPM
t i i L& (13 I/SEC)
CITY ^ ^ , k ^ t - , ^
(103 I/SEC) T Y Y
VAcuuta
FILTER" KILN DUST KILN CHnoMiTt
^ . " ^~ xV SCRUBBER COOLIR SCRUBBER
f ^ \% ^~~~~~~ ' " ' * i *
" FTI ,. .. 1
^ ' J. . -. .1 4.CHJ/SEC.
T, ^ LJ> ^/aec ^ ,, — (O4GPM)
SAND SAND A "^ C24 GPM) " ^ ^
1 WASHtR LSI |^T^ fc Pi - ' PI ^ A 1
WATER "i n n T i* /ft
1411
Q ~n •/ — —
N<5 DUST M«JDUiT N» IA DUST Nf t DUST '""/•»« rpi!rt
COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR l ^ &PM'
xO. 55 QPM 1 ( rJO-ZSGFM
i ' ^ > .+18.05 GPM) ^ r ., , . T0
r\ /
POND N« *
A SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY 6TUDY
WASTE WATER TREATMENT STUDY
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
1E7I/"*I inf~ V 1 O
-•— r lv?Ur\t * A"
-------
PROCESS: GRAY IRON FOUNDRY
PLANT i 7929
PRODUCTION: *2 METRIC TONS/DAT
123 TONS/DOT
RECYCLE
PUMP
MAIfE-UP
WATER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WVSTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
/\ SAMPLING POINT
OWST 6CRUBBERS
FIGURE V-20
-------
diy j
Woler •—
j .
QUENCH ^
1 TANK
ELECTRIC 1
FURNACES «••{
p_______-__^
I— V- L V^-l f fS COMPRESSOR
C *, t; r T-
r \* •• • • ^
l-ci J-ci J a Ł
~i r n r=""~ i ^ ^
III ^ r^^ i r-
- ' c
1 CHILLER 1 r™iin "•-•-- —
i y
»I
Q68 Ifsec- ^ 1
(100 gpm) r ' 1
T-2
n H
* t
Emergency
Discturge to
Swuiury Sewer 8 1
(14
POLYME
. 1.
Wed
Wuler
I.L
a, :..:
DRAG TANK
r ^ ^
i • * #
T-3 \KAfi en/ DUST
^ — i ^ x — } Y**"3* ^^/
^. J ' ' *^ ir / \ / COLLE'CTOR
K - 1 |* M 7,31' " " ' '
0 gpm) ill \
1 (60 gpm)
COLLECTION
n
TANK
1 J
-^
- i — T n 1
(__ '°
TI --- --1 - :c^
\^_ - — ^ i^ -i
SETTLING BASIN SUMP
— ^^
I
I
I
i— .
PHOCCSS' FERROUS FOUNDHY (STEEL)
PLANT' 51115
PRODUCTION'
DUST COLLECT ION'- SIT Metric Tont/Doy
(68O Tont/Day)
MELTING1 128 Metric Tons/Day
(Ml Toni/Doy)
SAND WASHING1 OS Metric Ton* /Day
(96 Tons /Day)
P-l
1 1 We"
City
Woler
I' '1
SANITARY :
I BOILERS
FACILITIES
/\ SAMPLING POINT
r r
j
Diicharg* to
Sanitary Sewer
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY
WASTEWATER
WATER
INDUSTRY STUDY
TREATMENT SYSTEM
FLOW DIAGRAM
i-i/^i ioi~ ir T i
1 IbUHL V /I
-------
U EVAPORATION
LOSS
PROCESS: FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT: 50315
PRODUCTION*
DUST COLLECTION 980 METRIC TONS/DAY
(64O TONS/DAY)
MELTINO 123. METRIC TONS/DAY
u >
OAS
STREAM FLOW
36 TONS/DAY)
QUENCH
RINGS
QUENCH
RINGS
3.2 I/SEC
(50 0PM)
15.0 I/SEC
(247 0PM)
THIS PART OF
PLANT SHUTDOWN
0.31 I/SEC
(100 0PM)
03.1 I/SEC
(IOOO GPM)
17.7 I/SEC
(201 0PM)
14.9 I/SEC
(237 GPM)
MOLDING A
CLEANING
OUST COLLECTOR
NORTH LAGOON
03.1 I/SEC
(IOOO GPM)
FROM PLANT
55217
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SOUTH LAGOON
PLANT
WATER
SUPPLY
5.7 I/SEC
(9O GPM)
TO PLANT
56123
1.9 I/SEC
(347 0PM)
NOTE:
NO DISCHARGE TO RECEIVING
STREAM FROM PLANT 55217 /^SAMPLING POINT
AND smi s
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
i
IGURE V-22
-------
*
-City Wol*r Supply
CO
1
PROCESS1 FERROUS FOUNDRY (STEEL)
PLANT: . 59212
PRODUCTION i
DUST COLLECTION: 2612 Metric Ton*/Doy
(288O Ton*/ Day)
SOFTENERS OISPERSANT
B
^•M
ochwai
Mok«-
Woler
*
!
"P
CAUSTIC
COOLING ^^
TOWFR _
~
1 ' film i All ift
IjlOWOOWfl
1
/
/
J
DUST
COLLECTOR
1\
DRAG TANK
t-
solid* 10 •
)i*po*al T
K>82
I/tec
r:
j
Mti_iiM /j\
_|—
f '
o
?
o
ri m
^
1
^
•—WET SLAG
QUENCHING CYCLONE
_ SEPARATORS
u.9o wtcto opm)
[COAGULANT ACID " 3.2 i/»«e(9o gpm)
. \
P — r— 34./ U*«c(990 gpm)
i i f /
— ... I - /\ /
DRAG, TANK
• Solid* to
Ditposal
04O l/»«c(6.3 gpm)-
I
r
0.40 l/«*c (6.3 gpm)
^SAMPLING POINT
SETTLING
TANK
A
Solid* to
Diipoial
Discharge la
Sanitary Sewer
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
i i i
FIGURE V-23
-------
14.9 I/SEC
WET DUST
COLLECTOR
WET DUST
COLLECTOR
113.6 I/SEC
08OO GPM)
LIME
(230 GPM)
NON -CONTACT
COOLING WATER
.
PROCESS: FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT: 53642
PRODUCTION:
OUST COLLECTION 109 METRIC TONS/DAY
(120 TONS/DAY)
-113.6 I/SEC
(I6OO 6PM)
154.B I/SEC
(2453 6PM)
SETTLING
CHAMBERS
^.SOLIDS tO
DISPOSAL
1.36 METRIC TONS/HR
( 1.5 TONS/HR)
DISCHARGE TO
SEWER OR
REUSE
POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-24
-------
TABLE V-38
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
OUST SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 57100
Plant 15520
Plant 6956
CO
-E=>
cr>
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Copper
Lead
Thai Hum
Zinc
Production: 500 tons per day (sand) Production: 3,700 tons per day (sand) Production: 230 tons per day (sand
Flow : 1,000 1/kkg Flow : 400 1/kkg Flow : 7,080 1/kkg
240 gallons per ton (sand) 96 gallons per ton (sand) 1,700 gallons per ton
Raw
mg/1
5,380
150
7.2
0.02
101
0.8
3.87
Treated1
Ib/ton
10.7
0.29
0.014
0.00004
0.202
0.0016
0.0077
mg/1
12,880
138
6.2
0.02
0.3
<0.8
4.12
Ib/ton
5.15
0.055
0.0025
0.000008
0.00011
0.00032
0.0016
Raw2
mg/1
440
11
16
0.007
21
0.68
0.29
0.11
Ib/ton
0.35
0.009
0.013
0.000005
0.017
0.00054
0.00023
0.000092
Treated
mg/1
41
2.7
17
0.074
3.4
1.4
0.23
0.02
Ib/ton
0.032
0.0022
0.014
0.000059
0.0027
0.0011
0.00019
0.00001
Raw
119/1
4,550
7
25
0.296
52
19
31.3
1.13
0.10
4.77
0.58
1.0
1.4
Treated
Ib/ton
65.2
0.087
0.35
0.004
0.74
0.27
0.43
0.02
0.001
0.065
0.008
0.01
0.02
mg/1
70
3
7.3
0.5
0.28
0.11
2.4
0.19
0.03
0.062
0.0060
0.024
1 b/ton
0.87
0.03
0.09
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.03
0.002
0.00013
0.00086
0.00007!
0.00031
7.5
7.6
7.1
7.3
1
Based on a treatment system effluent flow of 48 gallons per ton
.Determined from two dust scrubber process wastewater streams
-------
TABLE V-38
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
DUST SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEUATER
Plant 7929
Production:
Flow :
123 tons per day (sand)
11,979 1/kkg
2,881 gallons per ton (sand)
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil 4 Grease
Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton
1,496
17.96
599
14.4
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
co Phenols
^ Sulfide
2,4-Dichl orophenol
Phenol
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
pH
49.4
0.0061
0.515
9.68
4.7
0.30
2.3
0.01
0.17
0.24
0.345
7.4
1.19
0.00015
0.0124
0.233
0.11
0.007
0.05
0.0002
0.004
0.0057
0.001
53
0.014
0.35
0.76
1.6
0.048
0.033
0.01
0.003
0.2
.
7.6
1.13
0.00034
0.0084
0.018
0.039
0.001
0.0008
0.0002
0.14
0.0048
Plant 58122
Production:
Flow :
8,547 tons per day (sand)
1,214 1/kkg
296 gallons per ton (sand)
Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton
Treated
mg/1 Ib/tpn
4,762
20.45
1,200
11.5
11.58
4.97
2.92
0.028
4,505
19.35
670
4.8
10.95
0.047
1.62
0.012
0.0024
2.86 0.069
0.57
0.7
7.7
0.0014
0.0017
0.0024
1.6 0.004
0.39
0.49
7.7
0.00095
0.0012
Raw process wastewater Inaccessible for sampling
-------
TABLE V-38 Cont.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
DUST SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Co
-fe
CO
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil i Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
PH
Plant 59101
Production:
Flow :
Plant 53642
176 tons per day (sand) Production:
3.790 1/kkg Flow :
110 gallons per ton (sand)
Plant 50315
120 tons per day (sand) Production:
5,830 1/kkg Flow :
1,440 gallons per ton (sand)
mg/1
Raw
Treated Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1
Treated Raw
Ib/ton mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1
1,207 tons per day (sand)
5,000 1/kkg
547 gallons per ton (sand)
Treated
on mg/1 Ib/ton
4,107
21
2.3
0.042
77
32
1.14
7.6
3.37
0.019
0.0021
0.000038
0.070
0.029
0.0010
4.6
11.6
0.57
0.019
0.29
0.392
0.0002
8.1
0.0042 20,032 240.4
0.011
0.00052
0.000018
0.00026
0.00036
0.0000002
55
793
42
1.98
0.94
0.71
0.70
1.3
7.8
0.66
9.52
0.504
0.024
0.011
0.0085
0.0084
0.016
46
6
1.7
.14
4.12
<.02
0.05
<.02
.09
8.7
0.06 1
0.008
0.002
0.00018
0.0055
<0. 000026
0.00006
<0. 000026
0.0001
1,650
17
2.5
0.016
232
7.7
0.15
0.25
2.38
9.5
8.6
16.4
0.17
0.02
0.00016
1.15
0.076
0.0015
0.003
0.023
0.694
64
2.7
2.16
0.023
4.5
2.06
0.15
0.021
0.5
1.8
8.5
0.64
0.027
0.022
0.00022
0.045
0.021
0.0014
0.00021
0.0046
0.018
-------
TABLE V-38 Cont.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
DUST SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 2009
Production:
Flow :
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Lead
Zinc
PH
433 Tons Per Day (Sand)
260.6 1/kkg
62.7 Gallons Per Ton (Sand)
Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton
Treated1
mg/1 Ib/ton
10,910
4
2.850
0.002
1 0.0005
0.037 0.000019
2.0
4.77
1.2
0.49
0.32
7.8
0.0010
0.00249
0.00063
0.00026
0.00017
Dust Scrubber process wastewater not treated before
introduction to POTW
349
-------
TABLE V-38 Cont.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
DUST SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
OJ
CJl
O
Plant 53219
Production:
Flow :
Plant 59212
65 tons per day (sand) Production:
91 1/kkg Flow :
22 gallons per ton (sand)
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Anmonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
pH
Raw1
mg/1
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1
Raw
Plant 55217
2,880 tons per day (sand) Production:
21 1/kkg Flow :
5 gallons per ton (sand)
Treated2 Raw
rng/1 Ib/ton mg/1 1b/
82
2
3.95
0.026
0.17
0.64
5.8
0.06
0.1
0.05
0,15
0.015 20,795
0.00036
0.00072
0.0000047
0.00003
0.00011
0.001
0.00001
0.00002
0.000009
0.000027
14.5
51
0.07
710
8
2.17
3.2
0.866
0.0006
0.002
0.000003
0.03
0.00033
0.00009
0.00013
41
1.7
61.6
0.126
6.6
31
0.534
4.1
0.00017
0.00007
0.0026
0.000005
0.00027
0.0013
0.00002
0.00017
2,091 tons per day (sand)
1,312 1/kkg
316 gallons per ton (sand)
Treated
on mg/1 Ib/ton
Analytical data not available
This 1s a 100% recycle system
7.4
7.3
6.8
Raw process wastewater inaccessible for sampling
Includes process wastewater pollutants from other foundry processes
-------
PROCESS'
PLANT:
PRODUCTION: >400 TONS/DAY
(>360METRIC TONS/DAY)
FERROUS FOUNDRY
6966
SLUDGE
SLOWDOWN
496PM
^» wm s^^***.
AZ.J vaxxY \
4^—fcLARrCRJ
A
19960PM
000.8
UNDERGROUND^
SPRINGS
II 0PM
(0.69
RUNOFF
WATER
42 0PM
(2.6 I/SEC)
POND
&
I5T3 0PM
I/SEC)
78
(4.9 I/SEC)
OUTFALL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-25
-------
Got Sfrvom
Well Wottr
Supply
CO
on
ro
PROCESS' FERROUS FOUNDRY(GRAY IRON)
PLANT; 52491
PRODUCTION:
MELTING-- 8 M«tric TOM/Day
(9 Toni/Day)
Evaporative
Lots
0.348
(3.31 gpm)
FAN
Minimal Ditcharg*
By Evaporation
SAMPLING POINT
• Discharge to
Sanitary Sewer
T Sol ids to
Disposal
O45 Metric Tom/Day
11000 Lb«/Doy)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
1 I I
FIGURE V-26
-------
CO
in
Co
FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
56789
PROCESS:
PLANT:
PRODUCTION:
MELTING
67 METRIC TONS/DAY
(74 TONS/DAY)
EVAPORATIVE LOSS
GAS STREAM
FLOW
STORAGE
TANK
56775 I
QUENCH
RINGS
CITY WATER
SUPPLY
MAKE-UP
WATER
6.31 I/SEC
(IOO GPM)
4.4 I/SEC
(70 GPM)
23.7
(375 GPM)
MIXING
TANK
2.87 I/SEC
(45.5 GPM)
MIXING
TANK
1.3 I/SEC
(2O GPM) 1
OVERFLOW
TRANSFER
TANK
RECYCLED
FLOW
.42 I/SEC
(22.5 GPM)
SAMPLE POINT
.14 I/SEC
(18 GPM) /3\
KNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
COLLECTION
BOX
0.28 I/SEC
(4.5 GPM)
FIGURE V-27
-------
CITY WATER
SUPPLY
3.2 I/SEC
(50 GPM)
CO
en
PROCESS: FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT: 58589
PRODUCTION: 90 Tons/ Day
CUPOLA
t
• ^
1 I
QUENCH
CHAMBER
i
i
n
— y"
L-GAS S
1 ' 1
VENTURI
TREAM
FLOW
SOLIDS TO DISPOSAL
1.36 METRIC TONS/DAY
(1.5 TONS/DAY)
6.31 I/SEC
(100 GPM)
ONE DAY RETENTION
EACH SUMP
(109.765 I
29.000 GAL)
SOLIDS REMOVAL
BI-MONTHLY
/\ SAMPLE POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
1 I I
FIGURE V-28
-------
FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
56123
PLANT
WATER
SUPPLY
EVAPORATIVE
»5 I/SEC
(150 GPM)
S.2 I/SEC
(50 0PM)
178 METRIC TONS/DAY
(196 TONS/DAY)
3.2 VSEC
(50 GPM)
O.63 I/SEC
(10 GPM)
YDE-CRITTERS!
C2.7 I/SEC
(360 GPM)
1.3 I/SEC
(20 GPM)
0.63 l/SEC-v,
(10 GPMJ ^
WATER SEALS
MISC. DRAINAGE
63.1 I/SEC
(IOOO GPM)
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
DISCHARGE
TO SANITARY^
SEWER
FIGURE V-29
-------
A
^COOLING WATER
(CITY WATER)
PROCESS; FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT; 54321
PRODI ICTION:
MELTING 9S METRIC TONS/DAY
(IO5 TONS/DAY)
CUPOLA
QUENCHER
WET SLAG
QUENCHING
CO
01
o-i
VENTURI
I
SEPARATOR
MAKE UP WATER
(CITY WATER)
34.5 I/SEC
(546 GPM)
COMPRESSOR —
COOLING
WATER
(CITY WATER)
I
I
15.8 I/SEC
(25O GPM)
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
TANK
,- SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
ORAG TANK
-?
WASTE GAS
TO STACK
75.7 I/SEC
(25O GPM)
^-
HYDRATED LIME
A
SAMPLING POINT
TiSOLIDS TO DISPOSAL
^-DISCHARGE
ELIMINATED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
I I I
-IGURE V-3Q
-------
rCooling Wot*
(City WoUf)
PROCESS: FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
PLANT: 52881
PRODUCTION:
MELTIN& 78 Metric Tons/Day
(86 Tons/Day)
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
TANK
Make-up Wot«r
(City Wat«r>
From Plant
N< XX2A
1
Ditchorg*
Eliminated
L—Waste Go* to Stack
A
SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-31
-------
EVAPORATION
2O- 35 GPM
OJ
in
oo
CUPOLA
PROCESS; FERROUS FOUNDRY
PLANT: 00001
PRODUCTION: 20 TONS/DAY
16 METRIC TONS/DAY
CAUSTIC
ADDITION
TOTE BUCKET
160 IbiYDAY
•LANDFILL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-32
-------
PROCESS: FERROUS FOUNDRY
PLANT: 00002
PRODUCTION; 40 TON/DAY
36.4 METRIC TON/DAY
to
CJl
vo
CHARGE
EVAPORATION
74 GPM
STACK
DEMISTER
TO LANDFILL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-33
-------
tOB 0PM
V
WATER
199 OPM
,(0.4 I/SEC
9-
ke.3 I/SEC)
I
*EVAPORAT
A
(9.0 I/SCO
NCC HEAT
EXCHANGER
x900 OPM (97.2 I/SEC)
1 1 n
ION VI 1
CUPOLA SLAG
scRueeeR QUENCH
i
DUST
COLLECTORS
A 040 OPM A 994 OPM A 279 OPM
/L^(99.4 I/SEC1 *>^- (24.9 I/SEC) A^(I7.2 I/SEC)
90.0 OPM t
90 OPM
(\9 U9ECI
DOME
PROCESS* FERROUS FOUNDRY
PLANT: MM
PRODUCTION: >400 TON9JMY
>360 METRIC TONS/DAY)
oo
en
o
30 0PM U.9 I/SEC)
,W4I 0PM
103.8 I/SEC)
CLj
I
SEPTIC
SYSTEM
19980PM
•004 V9ECJ
UNDEfNNOUND
9PRIN03
It 0PM
(0.691/ScT
RUNOFF
WATER
PLASTIC
OEPT
N.C.C.
42 9PM
(2.6 .I/SEC)
POND
1979 0PM
(992 V3EC)
OPM
(4.9 I/SEC)
OUTFALL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-34
-------
5 6PM (O.32 I/IMC) LOSSES
PROCESS'
PLANT:
PRODUCTION:
GRAY IRON FOUNDRY
MELTING SCRUBBER
TITO
4 TONS/DAY
(9.6 METRIC TONS/DAY)
FAN-*
SCREEN
OVER
INTAKE
BOX
(I)-POLYMER
(21-FLOCCULANT
(3)-NoOH
i CITY WATER
9 0PM
(0.32 I/MC»
SLUDGE
TO
LANDFILL
2IO GAL/DAY
(795 I/DAY)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-35
-------
TABLE V-39
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 15520
Co
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil 8 Grease
Annonla
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
Acenaphthylene
Phenol
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
pH
Production: 620 tons per day Product 1i
Flow
: 2,
078 1/kkg
500 gallons
Raw
mg/1
1,162
90
100
0.23
110
91
15.8
18
0.155
2.7
110
340
6.9
per ton
Treated
Ib/ton
4.8
0.37
0.41
0.00095
0.45
0.38
0.065
0.074
0.0064
0.011
0.45
1.4
mg/1
71
21
92
0.18
8.5
46
12.4
8.6
8.5
190
6.
Ib/ton
0.29
0.087
0.38
0.00076
0.035
0.19
0.051
0.036
0.035
0.78
9
Flot
Raw
mg/1
573
21
11
0.053
57
18
2.52
0.8
0.69
0.69
140
170
6.3
Plant 6956 Plant 58589
Production: >400 tons per day Production:
7-3,000 1/kkg Flow :
?720 gallons per ton
Treated
fton mg/1 Ib/ton
90 tons per day
4,988 1/kkg
1 20 gallons per ton
Raw
ing/1 Ib/ton
Treated
•tg/1 Ib/ton
10
10
5.2
0.089
0.22
0.87
0.93
0.87
1.7
8.4 3.7
458
4
2.1
0.010
110
16
0.187
1.3
0.46
40
0.06
8.8
4.58
0.04
0.021
0.0001
1.1
0.16
0.0019
0.013
0.0046
0.4
0.0006
0.088
56
3
2.4
0.006
7.9
1.7
0.356
2.5
0.10
2.2
0.05
0.76
0.56
0.030
0.024
0.00006
0.079
0.017
0.0036
0.025
0.001
0.022
0.0005
0.0076
11.0
-------
TABLE V-39 (Cont'd.)
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 56123
Production:
Flow :
196 tons per day
8,330 1/kkg
2,000 gallons per ton
Plant SS217
Production:
Flow :
217 tons per day
2.993 1/kkg
720 gallons per ton
CO
CT>
CO
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
pH
Raw
mg/1 1 b/ton
Treated
mg/1 1 b/ton
Raw
mg/1 1 b/ton
Treated
ma/1 1b/ton
8,350
36
2.1
0.02
428
356
2.6
11.2
274
0.6
1,372
139.7
0.602
0.035
0.0003
7.16
5.96
0.04
0.187
4.59
0.01
22.96
13
3.5
1.2
0.042
1.11
2.2
2.3
0.03
0.93
0.015
3.5
0.000053
0.0014
0.00049
0.000017
0.00045
0.00089
0.00093
0.000012
0.00038
0.000006
0.0014
788
7.5
3.15
0.024
35
23
0.449
2.15
0.5
11.5
0.09
30
4.73
0.045
0.011
0.0001
0.21
0.138
0.003
0.013
0.003
0.15
0.0003
JO. 18
7.2
0.27
0.39
0.0073
0.32
1.5
0.099
0.0097
0.5
1.4
0.095
0.0036
0.0026
0.000097
0.0042
0.019
0.0013
0.00013
0.0066
0.018
7.6
9.4
7.4
8.8
-------
TABLE V-39 (Cont'd.)
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
CO
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Z1nc
PH
Plant 56789
Production:
Flow :
•52/1
Raw
74 tons per day
375 gallons per minute
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton
Plant 53219
Production:
Flow :
mg/1
Raw
14 tons per day
1,426 1/kkg
393 gallons per ton
Treated
on rog/1 Ib/ton
Plant 54321
Production:
Flow :
Non-representative process
wastewater samples taken
This plant recycles
100% of the melting
furnace scrubber
process wastewater
mg/1
Raw1
105 tons per day
20.798 1/kkg
4,992 gallons per ton
Treated2
on mg/1 Ib/ton
1.800
2
7.3
0.0035
76
75
0.301
5.25
2.5
41
0.17
100
5.14
0.0057
0.021
0.00001
0.217
0.214
0.00086
0.015
0.0071
0.117
0.00049
0.286
22
3.5
0.5
2.0
0.38
0.005
0.0086
0.0014
0.0002
0.0008
0.00015
0.000002
4.3
9.1
Raw process wastewater inaccesible for sampling
Includes slag quenching process wastewater pollutants
-------
TABLE V-39 (Cont'd.)
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER PROCESS HASTEWATER
Plant 50315
Plant 0001
CO
cn
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Anmonla
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenol s
Sulflde
Antimony
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
PH
Production: 136 tons per day Production:
Flow
Raw
mg/1
4,307
0.77
3.82
0.05
523.2
67.8
4.76
4.37
27.64
0.95
94.4
*
: 4,
1.
Ib/ton
41.3
0.007
0.366
0.0004
5.01
0.38
0.04
0.04
0.26
0.009
0.90
780 1/kkg Flow :
150 gallons per ton
Treated Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1 J_
40 0.84
0.03 0.00063
0.5 0.010
4.8 0.1
2.53 0.053
0.09 0.0019
1.4 0.030
4.35 0.091
8
20 tons per day
46 1/kkg
11 gallons per ton
Treated
on mg/1 Ib/ton
8,900
5
0.08
0.0004
Plant 0002
Production:
Flow :
40 tons per day
1.4 gallons per ton
Raw1
mg/1 Ib/ton
1.8 0.00016
870 6.080
420 0.038
0.002 0.0000007
35 0.0032
2.4
0.82
12
25
0.75
130
6.4
0.00022
.000075
0.0011
0.0023
0.00007
0.012
Treated
mg/1 1 b/ton
6.800
10
0.081
0.0001
2.3 0.000022
0.080 0.0000016
180 0.0021
240 0.0029
0.43 0.000005
26 0.00055
3.4
2.2
5.5
19
0.46
190
8.8
0.000040
0.000026
0.000066
0.00023
0.0000075
0.0023
Raw process wastewater Inacceslble for sampling
-------
CO
01
CTi
Plant 56771
TABLE V-39 (Cont'd.j
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 52881
Plant 52491
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Production:
Flow :
Raw1
mg/1 _M>
105 tons per day
1,238 1/kkg
298 gallons per ton
Treated2
/ton mg/1 Ib/ton
527 1.30
26 0.064
4.6 0.011
32 0.079
32.5 0.080
0.71 0.0117
Production: 86 tons per day
Flow : 26,438 1/kkg
6,361 gallons per ton
Raw1 Treated2
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1 Ib/ton
28 1.48
3.0 0.159
1.23 0.065
.16 0.0085
2.95 0.156
0.37 0.196
0.004 0.0002
Production: 9 tons per day
Flow : 636 1/kkg
153 gallons per ton
Raw1 Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1 Ib/ton
1,262 1.60
9 0.0114
2.6 0.003
453 0.577
119.9 0.153
0.02 0.00003
49 0.06
PH
6.9
9.2
8.1
Raw process wastewater inaccesible for sampling
Includes slag quenching process wastewater pollutants
-------
OTHER
USES
PLANT WATER SUPPLY
2.649.OOO I/DAY (7OO.OOO GAL/DAY)
*ETAL
6.31 I/SEC
/(lOO GPM)
MAKE-UP WATER
SUMP
'PIG MACHINE
MAKE-UP
JWATEJ^L
J.I3 I/SEC
(5O GPM)
32.9 I/SEC
(521 GPM)
BAG HOUSE
PIPE
MACHINE
FERROUS FOUNDRY (GRAY IRON)
51026
PROCESS:
f'LANT:
PRODUCTION:
DUST COLLECTION 240 METRIC TONS/DAY
(263 TONS/DAY)
45 METRIC TONS/DAY
(5O TONS/DAY)
4O8 METRIC TONS/DAY
(45O TONS/DAY)
SAND WASHING
BLOWER
/-I3.8 I/SEC
/ (220 GPM)
r_
SAND WASHING
SYSTEM
19 I/SEC
(301 GPM)
MAKE-UP
WATER
(I GPM)7f
(SOLIDS!
POINTS
392 I/SEC
,^
/
(.179.330 I/DAY
(311.580 GPM)
\ X
12 HR. LAGOON
72 HR. LAGOON
12 HR. LAGOON
t
TO RIVER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-36
-------
CO
CTl
00
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
Zinc
pH
Plant 51026
TABLE V-40
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
SLAG QUENCHING PROCESS WASTEWATERS
Plant 15520
Plant 6956
Production: 450
Flow : 998
240
Raw
mg/1
48
1.7
0.186
0.010
1.5
0.16
0.014
0.13
7.8
tons per day
1/kkg
gallons per ton
Treated1
Ib/ton
0.083
0.0037
0.0004
0.000017
0.0026
0.00027
0.000024
0.00023
mg/1
7.2
0.89
0.258
0.019
0.342
0.077
0.015
7.6
Ib/ton
0.013
0.0015
0.00045
0.000033
0.00060
0.00013
0.00002
Production: 620
Flow : 411
99
Raw
mg/1
*
200
51
25
2.1
10
7.3
tons per day
1/kkg
gallons per ton
Treated2
Ib/ton
*
0.1
0.042
0.021
0.0018
0.01
Production: >400 tons per day
Flow : >3,000 1/kkg
>720 gallons per ton
Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1
* *
39 0
7.2 0
11 0
1.7 0
2 0
7.4
.016
.060
.0092
.0017
.002
89
5
10
0.184
6.1
1.1
0.379
0.67
7.2
Treated1
Ib/ton
0.64
0.04
0.072
0.0013
0.049
0.0079
0.0027
0.0048
mg/1
2
2
9.0
0.29
0.032
0.072
0.07
0.011
8.4
Ib/ton
0.01
0.01
0.062
0.0020
0.00022
0.00049
0.00048
0.000017
1 2
• Slag Quenching process wastewater 1s jointly-treated with other foundry process wastewaters. Treated process wastewater
characteristics for slag quenching determined by apportioning mass loadings
* Mass balance results In a negative value
-------
PRODUCT
t
1 I
25 GPM f i
(1.6 I/SEC)
PRODUCT — — - -|
EVAPORATION
25 6PM (1.6 I/SEC)
PROCESS:
PLANT:
STEEL FOUNDRY
15654
PRODUCTION! 216 TOMS/DAY (196 KKO/DAY)
SAND DRYER: eo TONS/SHIFTS KKG/SHIFT)
I 780 0PM
A (49.2 I/SEC I
755 0PM
(47.6 I/SEC)
TOWER
UT* —-AU
CASTING
WHEEL
COOLING
WATER
SYSTEM
22 GPM
(1.4 I/SEC)
21 GPM
0.3 I/SEC)
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES I GPM (O.I I/SEC)
SAND DRYER SCRUBBER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
-[FIGURE v-37
-------
TABLE V-41
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING
PROCESS HASTEWATERS
Plant 15654
Plant 51026
Plant 51026
to
VJ
O
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil A Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
Lead
Zinc
PH
Production: 220 tons per
Flow : 21,200 1/kkg
5,100 gallons
Raw
mg/1
147
9
0.13
0.005
7.3
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.13
day
per ton
Treated
Ib/ton
6.3
0.4
0.0055
0.0002
0.31
0.003
0.0004
0.003
0.0055
mg/1
62
9
0.11
0.002
6.7
0.06
0.01
0.06
0'.14
Ib/ton
2.6
0.4
0.0046
0.00008
0.28
0.002
0.0004
0.002
0.0058
Production: 450 tons per
Flow : 14 1/kkg
3.3 gallons
Pig Machine
Raw
mg/1
496
1.7
0.33
8.0
0.41
6.25
Ib/ton
0.014
0.000046
0.000009
0.00022
0.000011
0.000173
day
per ton
Treated1
mg/1
16
2
0.14
1.55
0.07
<.02
Ib/ton
0.0004
0.00005
0.000004
0.00004
0.000002
<0. 0000005
Production: 450 tons per day
Flow : 977 1/kkg
235 gallons per ton
Pipe Machine
Raw
mg/1
166
22.7
0.117
16.3
0.11
0.25
Treated1
Ib/ton
0.32
0.05
0.00023
0.032
0.0002
0.0004
mg/1
16
2
0.14
1.55
0.07
<.OZ
Ib/ton
0.03
0.0039
0.0003
0.0030
0.00013
0.00004
8.6
8.6
11.1
7.6
7.2
7.6
Treated Jointly
-------
PROCESS: FERROUS FOUNDRY (STEEL)
PLANT: 51473
PRODUCTION:
SAND WASHING 29 METRIC TONS/DAY
5.7 I/SEC
(90 6PM)
(32 TONS/DAY)
CITY WATER
SUPPLY
SLURRY
TANK
EVAPORATIVE LOSS
0.63 I/SEC
(IO GPM)
OE WATERING
TABLE
5 I/SEC
(80 GPM)
3.6 METRIC TONS/DAY
(4 TONS/DAY)
14.5 METRIC TONS/DAY
( 16 TONS/DAY)
DISCHARGE TO
RIVER
5 I/SEC (80 GPM)
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
tNVIRONMENTAL
RETURN TO
SAND SYSTEM
18.1 METRIC TONS/DAY
(20 TONS/DAY)
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE v-38
-------
TABLE V-42
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
SANDWASHING PROCESS WASTEWATERS
00
—J
ro
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Plant 15520
Production:
Flow :
3,600 tons of sand
per day
831 1/kkg
200 gallons per ton
Raw
mg/1 Ib/ton
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton
230 tons of sand
per day
6,640 1/kkg
1,600 gallons per ton
Treated
an mg/1 Ib/ton
810
2.7
8.6
0.031
0.98
0.036
0.24
0.08
9.7
0.032
0.10
0.00037
0.012
0.00044
0.0029
0.001
172
4
8.3
0.025
0.82
0.022
0.55
2.1
0.05
0.10
0.00030
0.0098
0.00026
0.0066
3,300
3
0.3
0.070
80
1.6
0.93
7.0
0.03
0.01
0.23
0.50
0.37
0.12
0.67
43.48
0.043
0.0043
0.00091
1.043
0.0213
0.012
0.0913
0.00039
0.00013
0.0030
0.0065
0.0048
0.00156
0.00869
830
7
0.17
0.01
18
1.2
0.67
6.7
0.014
0.01
0.1
0.33
0.93
0.028
0.73
10.8
0.09
0.0022
0.00017
0.24
0.015
0.0086
0.0086
0.00018
0.00013
0.0013
0.0043
0.0056
0.00036
0.00956
pH
7.3
8.8
6.9
-------
TABLE V-42
CHARACTERISTICS OF FJRROUS FOUNDRY
SANDUASHING PROCESS WASTEHATERS
CO
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Anmonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
PH
1
Plant 59101
Production: 176 tons of sand
per day
Flow : 26,525 1/kkg
6,382 gallons per ton
Raw
mg/1
5,933
14
4.0
0.031
61
1.8
0.591
7.5
Treated1
Ib/ton
473.2
1.12
0.319
0.0025
4.86
0.144
0.047
mg/1
6.6
7.8
0.99
0.014
0.23
0.022
0.021
8.1
Ib/ton
0.53
0.621
0.079
0.0011
0.018
0.0018
0.0016
;s wastewater 1s jointly treated with
Plant 51473
Production: 32 tons of sand
per day
Flow : 4,987 1/kkg
1,200 gallons per ton
Raw
mg/i
8.200
21
0.21
0.013
380
3.6
0.81
0.5
2.0
0.20
4.4
6.3
Treated
Ib/ton
82
0.21
0.0021
0.000013
3.8
0.036
0.00081
0.0050
0.020
0.0020
0.044
mg/1
1.100
19
0.25
0.003
260
2.8
0.068
0.5
1.6
0.18
3.3
Ib/ton
11
0.19
0.0025
0.000003
2.6
0.028
0.00069
0.005
0.016
0.0018
0.033
Plant 51026
Production: 50 tons of sand
per day
Flow : 2.872 1/kkg
691 gallons per ton
Raw
sail . .
226
3.6
0.299
0.010
22
0.14
0.008
7.9
dust collection process wastewaters. Treated process
Treated1
Ib/ton
10.4
0.166
0.014
0.00046
1.01
0.0064
0.0004
•g/J.
34
1.5
0.33
0.018
5.0
0.20
0.007
7.5
Ib/ton
1.6
0.072
0.016
0.00088
0.24
0.0096
0.00032
wastewater
characteristics for sandwashIng determined by apportioning mass loadings
-------
TABLE V-42
CHARACTERISTICS OF FERROUS FOUNDRY
SANDWASHING PROCESS WASTEWATERS
Plant 51115
Production:
Flow :
Pollutant
Phenols
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
96 Tons Of Sand Per Day
6,640 1/kkg
1,600 Gallons Per Ton
0.26
0.35
1.4
1.72
1.60
1.40
4.26
Raw
Ib/ton
0.0035
0.00^7
0.0186
0.023
0.021
0.019
0.568
mg/1
Treated
<0.81
<0.02
<0.01
,005
,02
0.05
<0.00013
<0.00026
-------
JB&
PROCESS.'MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY
PLANT: 8146
PRODUCTION: 0.745 METRIC TON^)AY
0.82 TONS/DAY
CO
-4
MMCC-UP
3ETTUMQ AMD
DRAG TANK
(4.5 GPM)
TO
OUTFALL
0.174^/SEC.
(2.75 GPM)
TO
OUTFALL
A
SAMPLING POIMr
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNOfW INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEVWER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER R-CW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-39
-------
TABLE V-43
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAGNESIUM CASTING
GRINDING SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 8146
Production:
Flow :
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Manganese
Phenols
Sulfide
Copper
Lead
Zinc
PH
0.82 Tons Per Day
6,692 1/kkg
1,610 Gallons Per Ton
Raw Treated (internal to scrubber)
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1 Ib/ton
36
4
0.1
0.003
0.3
0.017
0.08
0.13
0.49
0.05
0.001
0.00004
0.004
0.00023
0.001
0.0018
1.2 0.016
9.8
Raw process wastewater inaccessible for sampling
376
-------
TABLE V-44
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAGNESIUM CASTING
DUST SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 8146
Production:
Flow :
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Manganese
Phenols
Sulflde
Phenol
100 Tons Per Day (Sand)
90 1/kkg
21.6 Gallons Per Ton
Raw Treated (Internal to scrubber)
mg/1 Ib/ton tng/1 Ib/ton
26
10
1.8
0.004
0.07
1.14
13
0.0047
0.0018
0.00032
0.0000007
0.000013
0.00021
0.0023
0.13
0.000023
1
Lead
Zinc
PH
Raw process wastewater Inaccessible for sampling
0.08 0.000014
0.36 0.000065
7.6
377
-------
PROCESS'
PLANT"
ZINC DIE CASTING
4622
PRODUCTION' METAL USED 16.8 TONS/DAY
(15.2 METRIC TONS/CAY)
.RAW WATER
ZINC DIE CASTING
QUENCHING OPERATIONS
WAS
EWATCR 3TO
TANKS
)AGE
U)
-J
oo
TO CONTRACT.
HAULER ^
323 GAL/SHIFT
I.O9 GPM
(O.OT I/SEC)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE V-40
-------
TABLE V-45
CHARACTERISTICS OF ZINC CASTING
QUENCH PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 10308
Plant 18139
Production: 28 tons per day
Flow : 116 1/kkg
28 gallons per ton
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
2 ,4-Dlmetnyl phenol
4-N1trophenol
2,4-Dlnltrophenol
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Raw
94
81
0.008
6.6
.46
0.111
0.12
1.6
0.9
0.16
0.04
350
Ib/ton
0.022
0.019
0.000002
0.0016
0.011
0.000026
0.000028
0.00038
0.00021
0'. 000038
0.000009
0.08
Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton
8.0
4.2
0.0048
5.2
0.026
0.38
0.05
36
0.0019
0.0010
0.000001
0.0012
0.000006
0.000089
0.00001
0.0086
Production:
Flow :
Raw
mg/1 lb/
40
24
0.010
0.07
0.061
0.07
3.7
>50 tons per day
>10 1/kkg
>2 gallons per ton
Treated
ton mg/1 1 b/ton
32
29
0.07
0.07
2.3
5.7
9.1
7.4
8.0
-------
TABLE V-45
CHARACTERISTICS OF ZINC CASTING
QUENCH PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 4622
Plant 12040
Production:
Flow :
CO
oo
o
Pollutants
Total
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Phenols
Raw
mg/1
3,800
17,100
2.
0.
6.
0.
1.
16.8 tons per day Production:
386.5 1/kkg Flow :
93 gallons per ton
Treated1
Ib/ton mg/1
4
020
9
17
42
3
13
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0019
.000016
.0054
.00013
.0011
Ib/ton mg/1
685
1,290
3
0
1
0
Raw
11.45 tons per day
1,800 1/kkg
Treated
Ib/ton
.3
.008
.2
.11
10
20
0
0
0
0
.050
.0001
.018
.0017
mg/1
13
21
0.4
0.002
0.03
0.083
Ib/ton
0.2
0.33
0.0061
0.00003
0.0005
0.0013
Methyl chloride
Phenol
Tetrachloroethyl ene
Trichloroethylene
0.3 0.00023
0.46 0.00036
0.142 0.00011
0.23 0.00018
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
PH
62
7.4
0.048
0.35 0.0053 0.2 0.0031
2.9 0.044 0.02 0.004
No treatment provided. Process wastewater is contract hauled.
-------
TABLE V-46
CHARACTERISTICS OF ZINC MELTING FURNACE
SCRUBBER PROCESS WASTEWATER
Plant 18139
Production: >50 Tons Per Day
Flow : XL20 gallons per ton
Pollutant Raw Treated
mg/1 Ib/ton mg/1 Ib/ton
Total Suspended Solids 428 310
Oil & Grease 758 860
Ammonia
Cyanide 0.009 0.0073
Manganese 0.05 0.05
Phenols 90.6 14
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.0
2,4,6-Trlchlorophenol 1.4 0.6
2,4-Dlchlorophenol 1.3 0.22
2,4-Dimethylphenol 12.1 0.49
Naphthalene 3.3 2.3
Phenol 36.0
Copper • 0.08
Lead 0.08
Zinc 19 11
pH 4.7 8.0
-------
SECTION VI
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION
The major process wastewater parameters of significance for foundry
operations were determined on the basis of analytical review and experience
with the foundry industry. Certain distinct parameters are associated with
various foundry processes.
Raw wastewater and treated effluent characteristics were described in
further detail in Section V. Toxic pollutants and conventional and non-
conventional pollutants in the raw and treated process wastewaters from the
various metal molding and casting processes are discussed below.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Acenaphthene(1). Acenaphthene (1,2-dihydroacenaphthylene, or 1,8-ethylene-
naphthalene) is a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) with molecular
weight of 154 and a formula of C12H10. The structure is
Acenaphthene occurs in coal tar produced during high temperature coking of
coal. It has been detected in cigarette smoke and gasoline exhaust
condensates.
The pure compound is a white crystalline solid at room temperature with a
melting range of 95 to 97°C and a boiling range of 278 to 280 °C. Its
vapor pressure at room temperature is less than 0.02 mm Hg. Acenaphthene
is slightly soluble in water (100 mg/1), but even more soluble in organic
solvents such as ethanol, toluene, and chloroform. Acenaphthene can be
oxidized by oxygen or ozone in the presence of certain catalysts. It is
stable under laboratory conditions.
Acenaphthene is used as a dye intermediate, in the manufacture of some
plastics, and as an insecticide and fungicide.
So little research has been performed on acenaphthene that its mammalian
and human health effects are virtually unknown. The water quality
criterian of 0.02 mg/1 is recommended to prevent the adverse effects on
humans due to the organoleptic properties of acenaphthene in water.
No detailed study of acenaphthene behavior in POTW is available. However,
it has been demonstrated that none of the organic priority pollutants
studied so far can be broken down by biological treatment processes as
readily as fatty acids, carbohydrates, or proteins. Many of the priority
pollutants have been investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at
concentrations higher than those expected to be contained by most municipal
383
-------
wastewaters. General observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation 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 acenaphthene. No evidence
is available for drawing conclusions about its possible toxic or inhibitory
effect on POTW operation.
Its water solubility would allow acenaphthene present in the influent to
pass through a POTW into the effluent. The hydrocarbon character of this
compound makes it sufficiently hydrophobic that adsorption onto suspended
solids and retention in the sludge may also be a significant route for
removal of acenaphthene from the POTW.
Acenaphthene has been demonstrated to affect the growth of plants through
improper nuclear division and polypoidal chromosome number. Howerver, it
is not expected that land application of sewage sludge containing
acenaphthene at the low concentrations which are to be expected in a POTW
sludge would result in any adverse affects on animals ingesting plants
grown in such soil.
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 80C 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.
Benzene 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 is 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
mutagenic effects in humans and other animals.
384
-------
For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to benzene through ingestion of water and contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is zero. Concentrations
of benzene estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk at levels
of 10-7, 10-«, and 10-* are 0.00015 mg/1, 0.0015 mg/1, and 0.015 mg/1,
respectively.
Some 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 seed cultures.
Other studies produced similar results. Based on these data and general
conclusions relating molecular structure to biochemical oxidation, it is
expected that biological treatment in POTW will remove benzene readily from
the water. Other reports indicate that most benzene entering a POTW is
removed to the sludge and that influent concentrations of 1 g/1 inhibit
sludge digestion. There is no information about possible effects of
benzene on crops grown in soils amended with sludge containing benzene.
Carbon Tetrachloride (6). Carbon tetrachloride (CC14), also called
tetrachloromethane, is a colorless liquid produced primarily by the
chlorination of hydrocarbons - particularly methane. Carbon tetrachloride
boils at 77°C and has a vapor pressure of 90 mm Hg at 20°C. It is slightly
soluble in water (0.8 gm/1 at 25°C) and soluble in many organic solvents.
Approximately one-third of a million tons is produced annually in the U.S.
Carbon tetrachloride, which was displaced by perchloroethylene as a dry
cleaning agent in the 1930's, is used principally as an intermediate for
production of chlorofluoromethanes for refrigerants, aerosols, and blowing
agents. It is also used as a grain fumigant.
Carbon tetrachloride produces a variety of toxic effects in humans.
Ingestion of relatively large quantities - greater than five grams - has
frequently proved fatal. Symptoms are burning sensation in the mouth,
esophagus and stomach, followed by abdominal pains, nausea, diarrhea,
dizziness, abnormal pulse, and coma. When death does not occur
immediately, liver and kidney damage are usually found. Symptoms of
chronic poisoning are not as well defined. General fatigue, headache, and
anxiety have been observed, accompanied by digestive tract and kidney
discomfort or pain.
Data concerning teratagenicity and mutagenicity of carbon tetrachloride are
scarce and inconclusive. However, carbon tetrachloride has been
demonstrated to be carcinogenic in laboratory animals. The liver was the
target organ.
385
-------
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to carbon tetrachloride through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic,organisms, the ambient water concentration is zero.
Concentrations of carbon tetrachloride estimated to result in additional
lifetime cancer risk at risk levels of 10~7, 10-*, and 10~5 are 0.000026
mg/1, 0.00026 mg/1, and 0.0026 mg/1, respectively.
Data on the behavior of carbon tetrachloride in POTW are not available.
Many of the organic priority pollutants have been investigated, at least in
laboratory-scale studies, at concentrations higher than those expected to
be found in most municipal wastewaters. General observations have been
developed relating molecular structure to ease of degradation for all of
the organic priority pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of the
limited data is that biological treatment produces a moderate degree of
removal of carbon tetrachloride in POTW. No information was found
regarding the possible interference of carbon tetrachloride with treatment
processes. Based on the water solubility of carbon tetrachloride, and the
vapor pressure of this compound, it is expected that some of the undegraded
carbon tetrachloride will pass through to the POTW effluent and some will
be volatilized in aerobic processes.
Chlorobenzene (7). Chlorobenzene (C6H5C1), also called monochlorobenzene
is a clear, colorless, liquid manufactured by the liquid phase chlorination
of benzene over a catalyst. It boils at 132C and has a vapor pressure of
12.5 mm Hg at 25°C. It is almost insoluble in water (0.5 g/1 at 30°C), but
dissolves in hydrocarbon solvents. U.S. annual production is near 150,000
tons.
Principal uses of Chlorobenzene are as a solvent and as an intermediate for
dyes and pesticides. Formerly it was used as an intermediate for DDT
production, but elimination of production of that compound reduced annual
U.S. production requirements for Chlorobenzene by half.
Data on the threat to human health posed by Chlorobenzene are limited in
number. Laboratory animals administered large doses of Chlorobenzene
subcutaneously, died as a result of central nervous system depression. At
slightly lower dose rates, animals died of liver or kidney damage.
Metabolic disturbances occurred also. At even lower dose rates of orally
administered Chlorobenzene similar effects were observed, but some animals
survived longer than at higher dose rates. No studies have been reported
regarding evaluation of the teratogenic, mutagenic, or carcinogenic
potential of Chlorobenzene.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic properties of
Chlorobenzene in water the recommended criterian is 0.020 mg/1.
386
-------
Only limited data are available on which to base conclusions about the
behavior of chlorobenzene in POTW. Laboratory studies of the biochemical
oxidation of chlorobenzene have been carried out at concentrations greater
than those expected to normally be present in POTW influent. Results
showed the extent of degradation to be 25, 28, and 44 percent after 5, 10,
and 20 days, respectively. In another, similar study using a phenol-
adapted culture 4 percent degradation was observed after 3 hours with a
solution containing 80 mg/1. On the basis of these results and general
conclusions about the relationship of molecular structure to biochemical
oxidation, it is concluded that chlorobenzene will be removed to a moderate
degree by biological treatment in POTW. A substantial percentage of the
chlorobenzene remaining intact is expected to volatilize from the POTW in
aeration processes. The estimated half-life of chlorobenzene in water
based on water solubility, vapor pressure and molecular weight is 5.8
hours.
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (8). 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (C«H3C13, 1,2,4-TCB) is
a liquid at room temperature, solidifying to a crystalline solid at 17°C
and boiling at 214°C. It is produced by liquid phase chlorination of
benzene in the presence of a catalyst. Its vapor pressure is 4 mm Hg at
25°C. 1,2,4-TCB is insoluble in water and soluble in organic solvents.
Annual U.S. production is in the range of 15,000 tons. 1,2,4-TCB is used
in limited quantities as a solvent and as a dye carrier in the textile
industry. It is also used as a heat transfer medium and as a transformer
fluid. The compound can be selectively chlorinated to 1,2,4,5
tetrachlorobenzene using iodine plus antimony trichloride as catalyst.
No reports were available regarding the toxic effects of 1,2,4-TCB on
humans. Limited data from studies of effects in laboratory animals fed
1,2,4-TCB indicate depression of activity at low doses and predeath
extension convulsions at lethal doses. Metabolic disturbances and liver
changes were also observed. Studies for the purpose of determining
teratogenic or mutagenic properties of 1,2,4-TCB have not been conducted.
No studies have been made of carcinogenic behavior of 1,2,4-TCB
administered orally.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic properties of
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene in water, the water quality criterion is 0.013 mg/1.
Data on the behavior of 1,2,4-TCB in POTW are not available. However, this
compound has been investigated in a laboratory scale study of biochemical
oxidation at concentrations higher than those expected to be contained by
most municipal wastewaters. Degradations of 0, 87, and 100 percent were
observed after 5, 10, and 20 days, respectively. Using this observation
and general observations relating molecular structure to ease of
degradation for all of the organic priority pollutants, the conclusion was
reached that biological treatment produces a high degree of removal in
POTW.
387
-------
l,l,l-Trichloroethane(ll). 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is one of the two
possible trichlorethanes. It is manufactured by hydrochlorinating vinyl
chloride to 1,1-dichloroethane which is then chlorinated to the desired
product. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane is a liquid at room temperature with a
vapor pressure of 96 mm Hg at 20°C and a boiling point of 74°C. Its
formula is CC13CH3. It is slightly soluble in water (0.48 g/1) and is very
soluble in organic solvents. U.S. annual production is greater than one-
third of a million tons.
1,1,1-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 determining
toxicity of ingested 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and those data are all for the
compound itself not solutions in water. No data are available regarding
its toxicity to fish and aquatic organisms. For the protection of human
health from the toxic properties of 1,1,1-trichloroethane ingested through
the consumption of water and fish, the ambient water criterion is 15.7
mg/1. The criterion is based on bioassy for possible carcinogenicity.
No detailed study of 1,1,1-trichloroethane behavior in POTW is available.
However, it has been demonstrated that none of the organic priority
pollutants of this type can be broken down by biological treatment
processes as readily as fatty acids, carbohydrates, or proteins.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has been
investigated, at least in laboratory scale studies, at concentrations
higher than commonly expected in municipal wastewater. General
observations relating molecular structure to ease of degradation have been
developed for all of these pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of
the limited data is that biological treatment produces a moderate degree of
degradation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. No evidence is available for drawing
conclusions about its possible toxic or inhibitory effect on POTW
operation. However, for degradation to occur a fairly constant input of
the compound would be necessary.
Its water solubility would allow 1,1,1-trichloroethane, present in the
influent and not biodegradable, to pass through a POTW into the effluent.
One 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.
Hexachloroethane (12). Hexachloroethane (CC13CC13), also called
perchloroethane is a white crystalline solid with a camphor-like odor. It
is manufactured from tetrachloroethylene, and is a minor product in many
industrial chlorination processes designed to produce lower chlorinated
hydrocarbons. Hexachloroethane sublimes at 185°C and has a vapor pressure
388
-------
of about 0.2 mm Hg at 20°C. It is insoluble in water (50 mg/1 at 22C) and
soluble in some organic solvents.
Hexachloroethane can be used in lubricants designed to withstand extreme
pressure. It is used as a plasticizer for cellulose esters, and as a
pesticide. It is also used as a retarding agent in fermentation, as an
accelerator in the rubber industry, and in pyrotechnic and smoke devices.
Hexachloroethane is considered to be toxic to humans by ingestion and
inhalation. In laboratory animals liver and kidney damage have been
observed. Symptoms in humans exposed to hexachloroethane vapor include
severe eye irritation and vision impairment. Based on studies on
laboratory animals, hexachloroethane is considered to be carcinogenic.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to hexachloroethane through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is zero.
Concentrations of hexachloroethane estimated to result in additional
lifetime cancer risks at levels of 10~7, 10~«, and 10~5 are 0.000059 mg/1,
0.00059 mg/1, and 0.0059 mg/1, respectively.
Data on the behavior of hexachloroethane in POTW are not available. 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. The conclusion reached by study of the
limited data is that biological treatment produces little or no removal of
hexachloroethane in POTW. The lack of water solubility and the expected
affinity of hexachloroethane for solid particles lead to the expectation
that this compound will be removed to the sludge in POTW. No information
was found regarding possible uptake of hexachloroethane by plants grown on
soils amended with hexachloroethane-bearing sludge.
l,l-Dichloroethane(13). 1,1-Dichloroethane, also called ethylidene
dichloride and ethylidene chloride is a colorless liquid manufactured by
reacting hydrogen chloride with vinyl chloride in 1,1-dichloroethane
solution in the presence of a catalyst. However, it is reportedly not
manufactured commercially in the U.S. 1,1-dichloroethane boils at 57°C and
has a vapor pressure of 182 mm Hg at 20°C. It is slightly soluble in water
(5.5 g/1 at 20°C) and very soluble in organic solvents.
1,1-Dichloroethane is used as an extractant for heat-sensitive substances
and as a solvent for rubber and silicone grease.
1,1-Dichloroethane is less toxic than its isomer (1,2-dichloroethane) but
its use as an anesthetic has been discontinued because of marked
excitationof the heart. It causes central nervous system depression in
389
-------
humans. There are insufficient data to derive water quality criteria for
1,1-dichloroethane.
Data on the behavior of 1,1-dichloroethane in POTW are not available. 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. The conclusion reached by study of the
limted data is that biological treatment produces only a moderate removal
of 1,1-dichloroethane in POTW by degradation.
The high vapor pressure of 1,1-dichloroethane is expected to result in
volatilization of some of the compound from aerobic processes in POTW. Its
water solubility will result in some of the 1,1-dichloroethane which enters
the POTW leaving in the effluent from the POTW.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane(14). 1,1,2-Trichloroethane is one of the two
possible trichloroethanes and is sometimes called ethane trichloride or
vinyl trichloride. It is used as a solvent for fats, oils, waxes, and
resins, in the manufacture of 1,1-dichloroethylene, and as an intermediate
in organic synthesis.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is a clear, colorless liquid at room temperature with
a vapor pressure of 16.7 mm Hg at 20°C, and a boiling point of 113°C. It
is insoluble in water and very soluble in organic solvents. The formula is
CHC12CH2C1.
Human toxicity data for 1,1,2-trichloroethane does not appear in the
literature. The compound does produce liver and' kidney damage in
laboratory animals after intraperitoneal administration. No literature
data was found concerning teratogenicity or mutagenicity of 1,1,2-
trichloroethane. However, mice treated with 1,1,2-trichloroethane showed
increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Although bioconcentration
factors are not available for 1,1,2-trichloroethane in fish and other
freshwater aquatic organisms, it is concluded on the basis of octanol-water
partition coefficients that bioconcentration does occur.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to 1,1,2-trichloroethane through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is zero.
Concentrations of this compound estimated to result in additional lifetime
cancer risks at risk levels of 10~7, 10-«, and 10~5 are 0.000027 mg/1,
0.00027 mg/1, and 0.0027 mg/1, respectively.
No detailed study of 1,1,2-trichloroethane behavior in POTW is available.
However, it is reported that small amounts are formed by chlorination
processes and that this compound presists in the environment (greater than
two years) and it is not biologically degraded. This information not
390
-------
completely consistant with the conclusions based on laboratory scale
biochemical oxidation studies and relating molecular structure to ease the
degradation. That study concluded that biological treatment in POTW will
produce moderate removal of 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
The lack of water solubility and the relatively high vapor pressure may
lead to removal of this compound from POTW by volatilization.
2-Chloronaphthalene (20). 2-Chloronaphthalene (C10H7C1) is a crytalline
solid melting at 61°C. It is obtained as coproduct (9 percent) with 1-
chloronaphthalene after fractional distillation of the crude product
obtained from the catalysed chlorination of molten naphthalene. Nearly 25
tons of monochloronaphthalene is produced annually in the U.S. The 2-
chloro isomer is readily made in the pure state from 2-naphthylamine. 2-
Chloronaphthalene is insoluble in water and soluble in organic solvents.
No information was found in the literature on uses for 2-chloronaphthalene.
No information was found in the literature on toxic effects of 2-
chloronaphthalene on humans or other animals.
Data on the behavior of 2-chloronaphthalene in POTW are not available.
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. The conclusion reached by study of the
limited data is that biological treatment produces a moderate degree of
removal of 2-chloronaphthalene in POTW. The lack of water solubility and
the expected affinity of 2-chloronaphthalene for solid particles lead to
the expectation that this compound will be removed to the sludge in POTW.
No information was found regarding possible uptake of 2-chloronaphthalene
by plants grown on soils amended with 2-chloronaphthalene-bearing sludge.
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 non-conventional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." No data were
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 elevated
391
-------
also. The compound also produced inhibition of ATP production in isolated
rat liver mitochondria, increased mutation rate in one strain of bacteria,
and produced a genetic change in rats. No studies on teratogenicity were
found. Results of a test of carcinoginicity were inconclusive.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic properties of
2,4,6-trichlorophenol in water, the water quality criterion is 0.100 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 been 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, biological treatment in a POTW is
expected to produce a moderate degree of degradation. Another study
indicates that 2,4,6-TCP may be produced in POTW by chlorination of phenol
during normal chlorination treatment.
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 refer 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 assumed 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 non-conventional 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 foundary 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
severe 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 teratogenicity, or carcinoqenicity
of PCMC.
392
-------
Two reports indicate that PCMC undergoes degradation in biochemical
oxidation treatments carried out at concentrations higher than are expected
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.
Chloroform(23). Chloroform is a colorless liquid manufactured commercially
by chlorination of methane. Careful control of conditions maximizes
chloroform production, but other products must be separated. Chloroform
boils at 61°C and has a vapor pressure of 200 mm Hg at 25°C. It is
slightly soluble in water (8.22 g/1 at 20°C) and readily soluble in organic
solvents.
Chloroform is used as a solvent and to manufacture refrigerents,
Pharmaceuticals, plastics, and anesthetics. It is seldom used as an
anesthetic.
Toxic effects of chloroform on humans include central nervous system
depression, gastrointestinal irritation, liver and kidney damage and
possible cardiac sensitization to adrenalin. Carcinogenicity has been
demonstrated for chloroform on laboratory animals.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to chloroform through ingest ion 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, 10~6, and 10~5 were 0.000021 mg/1,
0.00021 mg/1, and 0.0021 mg/1, respectively.
No data are available regarding the behavior of chloroform in a POTW.
However, the biochemical oxidation of this compound was studied in one
laboratory scale study at concentrations higher than these expected to be
contained by most municipal wastewaters. After 5, 10, and 20 days no
degradation of chloroform was observed. The conclusion reached is that
biological treatment produces little or no removal by degradation of
chloroform in POTW.
The high vapor pressure of chloroform is expected to result in
volatilization of the compound from aerobic treatment steps in POTW.
Remaining chloroform is expected to pass through into the POTW effluent.
2-Chlorophenol (24). 2-Chlorophenol (C1C«H4OH), also called ortho-
chlorophenol, is a colorless liquid at room temperature, 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)
393
-------
and soluble in several types of organic solvents. This phenol gives a
strong color with 4-aninoantipyrene and therefore contributes to the non-
conventional 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 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
determinable relationship to results of oral administration studies.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic properties of
2-chlorophenol in water, the criterion is 0.0003 mg/1.
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. The conclusion reached by the study of these limited data,
and general observations on all organic priority pollutants relating
molecular structure to ease of biochemical oxidation, is that 2-
chlorophenol is removed to a high degree or completely 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.
1,3-Dichlorobenzene (26). 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (C6H4C12), also called meta-
dichlorobenzene, is a colorless liquid at room temperature obtained as a
minor product in the production of the ortho-and para isomers by liquid
phase chlorination of monochlorobenzene. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene boils at
172°C and has a vapor pressure of 2 mm Hg at 25°C. The compound is
slightly soluble in water (0.123 g/1 at 25°C) and is soluble in many
organic solvents and in fats. Commercial production of this compound is
limited. No statistics were found. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene is used as a
fumigant and insecticide.
394
-------
Very few studies have been made of the toxic effects of 1,3-dichlorobenzene
on humans. A substantial amount of data has been generated regarding the
toxic effects of the other two dichlorobenzene isomers. In two studies,
laboratory animals fed the 1,3-isomer developed a metabolic disorder of the
liver. No data are available regarding the teratogenicity, mutagenicity,
or carcinogenicity of 1,3-dichlorobenzene. However, in one survey of data
on dichlorobenzenes, it was concluded that there is a sufficient collection
of varied data to suggest a prudent regard of these compounds as suspected
carcinogens even though no strong direct evidence for that property was
found.
/
For the protection of human health from toxic properties of dichlorobenzene
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.230 mg/1 total
dichlorobenzenes (all isomers combined).
Data on the behavior of 1,3-dichlorobenzene in POTW are not available.
Many of the organic priority pollutants have been investigated, at least in
laboratory scale studies, at concentrations higher than those expected to
be contained in most municipal wastewaters. General observations have been
developed relating molecular structure to ease of degradation for all of
the organic priority pollutants. The conclusion reached by study of the
limited data is that biological treatment produces a moderate degree of
removal of 1,3-dichlorobenzene in POTW. No information was found regarding
the possible interference of 1,3-dichlorobenzene with treatment processes.
Based on the limited water solubility and moderate vapor pressure of this
compound it is expected that undegraded 1,3-dichlorobenzene will leave a
POTW in the effluent, and by volatilization m during aerobic treatment
processes.
l,l-Dichloroethylene(29). 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), also called
vinylidene chloride, is a clear colorless liquid manufactured by
dehydrochlorination of 1,1,2-trichloroethane. 1,1-DCE has the formula
CC12CH2. It has a boiling paint of 32°C, and a vapor pressure of 591 mm Hg
at 25°C. 1,1-DCE is slightly soluble in water (2.5 mg/1) and is soluble in
many organic solvents. U.S. production is in the range of a hundreds of
thousands of tons annually.
1,1-DCE is used as a chemical intermediate and for copolymer coatings or
films. It may enter the wastewater of an industrial facility as the result
of decomposition of 1,1,1-trichloroethylene used in degreasing operations,
or by migration from vinylidene chloride copolymers exposed to the process
water.
Human toxicity of 1,1-DCE has not been demonstrated, however it is a
suspected human carcinogen. Mammalian toxicity studies have focused on the
liver and kidney damage produced by 1,1-DCE. Various changes occur in
those organs in rats and mice ingesting 1,1-DCE.
395
-------
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to 1,1-dichloroethylene through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is zero.
The concentration of 1,1-DCE estimated to result in an additional lifetime
cancer risk of 1 in 100,000 is 0.0013 mg/1.
Under laboratory conditions, dichloroethylenes have been shown to be toxic
to fish. The primary effect of acute toxicity of the dichloroethylenes is
depression of the central nervous system. The octanol/water partition
coefficident of 1,1-DCE indicates it should not accumulate significantly in
animals.
The behavior of 1,1-DCE in POTW has not been studied. However, its very
high vapor pressure is expected to result in release of significant
percentages of this material to the atmosphere in any treatment involving
aeration. Degradation of dichloroethylene in air is reported to occur,
with a half-life of 8 weeks.
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 wastewaters. 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 1,1-
dichloroethylene. No evidence is available for drawing conclusions about
the possible toxic or inhibitory effect of 1,1-DCE on POTW operation.
Because of water solubility.- 1,1-DCE which is not volatilized or degraded
is expected to pass through POTW. Very little 1,1-DCE is expected to be
found in sludge from POTW.
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene(30). 1,1-trans-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE)
is a clear, colorless liquid with the formula CHC1CHC1. Trans-1,2-DCE is
produced in mixture with the cis-isomer by chlorination of acetylene. The
cis-isomer has distinctly different physical properties. Industrially, the
mixture is used rather than the separate isomers. Trans-1,2-DCE has a
boiling point of 48°C, and a vapor pressure of 324 mm Hg at 25°C.
The principal use of 1,2-dichloroethylene (mixed isomers) is to produce
vinyl chloride. It is used as a lead scavenger in gasoline, general
solvent, and for synthesis of various other organic chemicals. When it is
used as a solvent trans-1,2-DCE can enter wastewater streams.
Although trans-1,2-DCE is thought to produce fatty degeneration of
mammalian liver, there are insufficient data on which to base any ambient
water criterion.
In the one reported toxicity test of trans-1,2-DCE on aquatic life, the
compound appeared to be about half as toxic as the other dichloroethylene
(1,1-DCE) on the priority pollutants list.
396
-------
The behavior of trans-1,2-DCE in POTW has not been studied. However, its
high vapor pressure is expected to result in release of significant
percentage of this compound to the atmosphere in any treatment involving
aeration. Degradation of the dichloroethylenes in air is reported to
occur, with a half-life of 8 weeks.
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. General observations
relating molecular structure to ease of degradation have been developed for
all of these pollutants. The conclusion reached by the study of the
limited data is that biochemical oxidation produces little or no
degradation of 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene. No evidence is available for
drawing conclusions about the possible toxic or inhibitory effect of 1,2-
trans-dichloroethylene on POTW operation. It is expected that its low
molecular weight and degree of water solubility will result in trans-1,2-
DCE passing through a POTW to the effluent if it is not degraded or
volatilized. Very little trans-1,2-DCE is expected to be found in sludge
from POTW.
2,4-Dichlorophenol (31). 2,4-Dichlorophenol (C12C6H3OH) is a colorless,
crystalline solid manufactured by chlorination of phenol dissolved in
liquid sulfur dioxide or by chlorination of molten phenol (a lower yield
method. 2,4-Dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP) melts at 45°C and has a vapor
pressure of less than 1 mm Hg at 25°C (vapor pressure equals 1 mm Hg at
530C). 2,4-DCP is slightly soluble in water (4.6 g/1 at 20°C) and soluble
in many organic solvents. 2,4-DCP reacts to give a strong color
development with 4-aminoantipyrene and therefore contributes to the non-
conventional pollutant designated "Total Phenols." Annual U.S. production
of 2,4-DCP'is about 25,000 tons.
The principal use of 2,4-DCP is for manufacture of the herbicide 2,4-
dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and other pesticides.
Few data exist on which to base an evaluation of the toxic effects of 2,4-
DCP on humans. Symptoms exhibited by laboratory animals injected with
fatal doses of 2,4-DCP included loss of muscle tone followed by rapid then
slow breathing. Ir\ vitro experiments reveal inhibition of oxidative
phosphorylation (a primary metabolic function) by 2,4-DCP in rat liver
mitochandria and rat brain homogenates. No studies were found which
addressed the teratogenicity, or the mutagenicity in mammals, of 2,4-DCP.
The only studies of carcinogenic properties of 2,4-DCP used dermal
application which has no established relationship to oral administration
results.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic properties of
2,4-dichlorophenol in water, the criterion is 0.0005 mg/1.
397
-------
Data on the behavior of 2,4-dichlorophenol in POTW are not available.
However, laboratory scale studies have been conducted at concentrations
higher than those expected to be found in municipal wastewaters.
Biochemical oxidation produced degradation of 70,72, and 72 percent after
5,10 and 20 days, respectively, in one study. In another study using an
acclimated phenol-adapted culture 30 percent degradation was measured after
3.5 hours. Based on these limited data, and on general observations
relating molecular structure to ease of biological oxidation, it is
concluded that 2,4-DCP is removed to a high degree or completely by
biological treatment in POTW. Undegraded 2,4-DCP is expected to pass
through POTW to the effluent. Some 2,4-DCP may be formed in POTW by
chlorination of 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 pressure 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 pesticides,
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.
Three methylphenol isomers (cresols) and six dimethylphenol isomers
(xylenols) generally occur together in natural products, industrial
processes, commercial products, and phenolic wastes. Therefore, data are
not available for human exposure to 2,4-DMP alone. In addition to 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,
teratogenicity- 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.
398
-------
Toxicity data for fish and freshwater aquatic life are limited. However,
in reported studies of 2,4-dimethylphenol at concentrations as high as 2
mg/1 no adverse effects were observed.
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, showed 94.5
percent removal based on chemical oxygen demand (COD). Thus, substantial
removal is expected for this compound. 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 effluent
would be degraded within moderate length of time (estimated as 2 months in
the report)-
2,4-Dinitrotoluene (35). 2,4-Dinitrotoluene [(N02)2C6H3CH,], 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 the 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 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.
The major use of the dinitrotoluene mixture is for production of toluene
diisocyanate used to make polyuethanes. 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 the
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.
399
-------
Concentrations of 2,4-dinitrotoluene estimated to result in additional
lifetime cancer risk at risk levels of 10~7, 10-*, and 10~5 are 0.0074
mg/1, 0.074 mg/1, and 0.740 mg/1, respectively.
Data on the behavior of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in POTW are not available.
However, biochemical oxidation of 2,4-dinitrophenol was investigated on a
laboratory scale. At 100 mg/1 of 2,4-dinitrophenol, a concentration
considerably higher than that expected in municipal wastewaters,
biochemical oxidation by an acclimated, phenol - adapted seed 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 was concluded
that biological treatment in POTW removes 2,4-dinitrotoluene to a high
degree or completely. 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 amend soils in which food
crops are grown.
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (36). 2,6-Dinitrotoluene [(N02)gC^HyCHy] 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.
The major use of the dinitrotoluene mixture is for production of toluene
diisocyanate used to make polyurethanes. Another use is in production of
dyestuffs.
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 water quality
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 developed relating molecular structure to
ease of degradation for all the organic priority pollutants. The
conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that biological
treatment produces a moderate degree of removal of 2,6-dinitrotoluene. 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.
400
-------
Ethylbenzene(38). Ethylbenzene is a colorless, flammable liquid
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 consitutent 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 quality criterion is 1.1 mg/1.
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 ethylbezene. Another study at 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, the conclusion is
reached that biological treatment produces only a moderate removal of
ethylbenzene in POTW by degradation.
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 Ci6H10.
Fluoranthene, along with many other PAH's, is found throughout the
environment. It is produced by pyrolytic processing of organic raw
401
-------
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.
Experiments 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.
There 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 determining
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 established
procedure, the ambient water quality criterion for fluoranthene, alone,
(not in combination with other PAH) is determined to be 200 mg/1 for the
protection of human health from its toxic properties.
There* are no data on the chronic effects of fluoranthene on freshwater
organisms. One saltwater invertebrate shows chronic toxicity at
concentrations below 0.016 mg/1. For some freshwater fish species the
concentrations producing acute toxicity are substantially higher, but data
are very limited.
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
402
-------
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.
Methylene Chloride(44). Methylene chloride, also called dichloromethane
(CH2C12), is a colorless liquid manufactured by chlorination of methane or
methyl chloride followed by separation from the higher chlorinated methanes
formed as coproducts. Methylene chloride boils at 40°C, and has a vapor
pressure of 362 mm Hg at 20°C. It is slightly soluble in water (20 g/1 at
20°C), and very soluble in organic solvents. U.S. annual production is
about 250,000 tons.
Methylene chloride is a common industrial solvent found in insecticides,
metal cleaners, paint, and paint and varnish removers.
Methylene chloride is not generally regarded as highly toxic to humans.
Most human toxicity data are for exposure by inhalation. Inhaled methylene
chloride acts as a central nervous system depressant. There is also
evidence that the compound causes heart failure when large amounts are
inhaled.
Methylene chloride does produce mutation in tests for this effect. In
addition a bioassay recognized for its extermely high sensitivity to strong
and weak carcinogens produced results which were marginally significant.
Thus potential carcinogenic effects of methylene chloride are not confirmed
or denied, but are under continuous study. Difficulty in conduting and
interpreting the test results from the low boiling point (40°C) of
methylene chloride which increases the difficulty of maintaining the
compound in growth media during incubation at 37°C; and from the difficulty
of removing all impurities, some of which might themselves be carcinogenic.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of methylene
chloride ingested through water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion is 0.002 mg/1.
The behavior of methylene chloride in POTW has not been studied in any
detail. However, the biochemical oxidation of this compound was studied in
one laboratory scale study at concentrations higher than those expected to
be contained by most municipal wastewaters. After five days no degradation
403
-------
of methylene chloride was observed. The conclusion reached is that
biological treatment produces litte or no removal by degradation of
methylene chloride in POTW.
The high vapor pressure of methylene chloride is expected to result in
volatilization of the compound from aerobic treatment steps in POTW. It
has been reported that methylene chloride inhibits anerobic processes in
POTW. Methylene chloride that is not volatilized in the POTW is expected
to pass through into the effluent.
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.
Based on subacute data, the ambient water quality criterion for isophorone
ingested through consumption of water and fish is set at 460 mg/1 for the
protection of human health from its toxic properties.
Studies of the effects of isophorone on fish and aquatic organisms reveal
relatively low toxicity, compared to some other priority pollutants.
The behavior of isophorone in POTW has not been studied. However, the
biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has been
investigated in laboratory-scale studies at concentrations higher than
would normally be expected in municipal wastewater. General observations
relating molecular structure to ease of degradation have been developed for
all of these pollutants. The conclusion reached by the study of the
limited data is that biochemical treatment in POTW produces moderate
404
-------
removal of isophorone. 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 domestic
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 Ci0H8. As such it
is properly classed as a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH). Pure
naphthalene is a white crystalline solid melting at 80°C. For a solid, it
has a relatively high vapor pressure (0.05 mm Hg at 20°C), and moderate
water solubility (19 mg/1 at 20°C). Naphthalene is the most abundant
single component of coal tar. Production is more than a third of a million
tons annually in the U.S. About three fourths of the production is used as
feedstock for phthalic anhydride manufacture. Most of the remaining
production goes into manufacture of insecticide, 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.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of naphthalene
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion is determined to be 143 mg/1.
Only a limited number of studies have been conducted to determine the
effects of naphthalene on aquatic organisms. The data from those studies
show only moderate toxicity.
Naphthalene has been detected in sewage plant effluents at concentrations
up to 22 »«g/l in studies carried out by the U.S. EPA. Influent levels were
not reported. The behavior of naphthalene in POTW has not been studied.
However, recent studies have determined that naphthalene will accumulate in
sediments at 100 times the concentration in overlying water. These results
suggest that naphthalene will be readily removed by primary and secondary
settling in POTW, if it is not biologically degraded.
Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has been
investigated in 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 a high removal by degradation of
405
-------
naphthalene. One recent study has shown that microorganisms can degrade
naphthalene, first to a dihydro compound, and ultimately to carbon dioxide
and water.
Nitrobenzene (56) . Nitrobenzene (C6H5NOZ), also called nitrobenzol and oil
of mirbane, is a pale yellow, oily liquid, manufactured by reacting benzene
with nitric acid and sulfuric acid. Nitrobenzene boils at 210°C and has a
vapor pressure of 0.34 mm Hg at 25°C. It is slightly soluble in water (1.9
g/1 at 20°C), and is miscible with most organic solvents. Estimates of
annual U.S. production vary widely, ranging from 100 to 350 thousand tons.
Almost the entire volume of nitrobenzene produced (97 percent) is converted
to aniline, which is used in dyes, rubber, and medicinals. Other uses for
nitrobenzene include: solvent for organic synthesis, metal polishes, shoe
polish, and perfume.
The toxic effects of ingested or inhaled nitrobenzene in humans are related
to its action in blood: methemoglobinemia and cyanosis. Nitrobenzene
administered orally to laboratory animals caused degeneration of heart,
kidney, and liver tissue; paralysis; and death. Nitrobenzene has also
exhibited teratogenicity in laboratory animals, but studies conducted to
determine mutagenicity or carcinogenicity did not reveal either of these
properties.
For the prevention of adverse effects due to the organoleptic properties of
nitrobenzene in water, the criterion is 0.030 mg/1.
Data on the behavior of nitrobenzene in POTW are not available. However,
laboratory scale studies have been conducted at concentrations higher than
those expected to be found in municipal wastewaters. Biochemical oxidation
produced no degradation after 5, 10, and 20 days. A second study also
reported no degradation after 28 hours, using an acclimated, phenol-adapted
seed culture with nitrobenzene at 100 mg/1. Based on these limited data,
and on general observations relating molecular structure to ease of
biological oxidation, it is concluded that little or no removal of
nitrobenzene occurs during biological treatment in POTW. The low water
solubility and low vapor pressure of nitrobenzene lead to the expectation
that nitrobenzene will be removed from POTW in the effluent and by
volatilization during aerobic treatment.
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 vapor 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 therefore does not contribute to the non-conventional
pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." U.S. annual production is five
thousand to eight thousand tons.
406
-------
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 iri 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.
No U.S. standards for exposure to 2-nitrophenol in ambient water have been
set.
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 frois various sources produced 95 percent degradation
in three to six days in one study. Similar results were reported for other
studies. Based on these data, and an general observations relating
molecular structure to ease of biological oxidation, it is concluded that
complete or nearly complete removal of 2-nitrophenol occurs during
4-Nitrophenol (58). 4-Nitrophenol (N02C6H4OH), also called para-
nitrophenol, is a colorless to yellowish crystalline solid manufactured
commercially by hydrolysis of 4-chloro-nitrobenzene with aqueous sodium
hydroxide. 4-nitrophenol melts at 114°C. Vapor pressure is not cited in
the usual sources. 4-Nitrophenol is slightly soluble in water (15 g/1 at
25°C) -and soluble in organic solvents. This phenol does not react to give
a color with 4-aminoantipyrene, and therefore does not contribute to the
non-conventional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols." U.S. annual
production is about 20,000 tons.
Para nitrophenol is used to prepare phenetidine, acetaphenetidine, azo and
sulfur dyes, photochemicals, and pesticides.
The toxic effects of 4-nitrophenol on humans have not been extensively
studied. Data from experiments with laboratory animals indicate that
exposure to this compound results in methemoglobinemia (a metabolic
disorder of blood), shortness of breath, and stimulation followed by
depression. Other studies indicate that the compound acts directly on cell
membranes, and inhibits certain enzyme systems in vitro. No information
regarding potential teratogenicity was found. Available data indicate that
this compound does not pose a mutagenic hazard to humans. Very limited
data for 4-nitrophenol do not reveal potential carcinogenic effects,
although the compound has been selected by the national cancer institute
for testing under the Carcinogenic Bioassay Program.
407
-------
No U.S. standards for exposure to 4-nitrophenol in ambient water have been
established.
Data on the behavior of 4-nitrophenol in POTW are not available. However,
laboratory-scale studies have been conducted at concentrations higher than
those expected to be found in municipal wastewater. Biochemical oxidation
using adapated cultures from various sources produced 95 percent
degradation in three to six days in one study. Similar results were
reported for other studies. Based on these data, and on general
observations relating molecular structure to ease of biological oxidation,
it is concluded that complete or nearly complete removal of 4-nitrophenol
occurs during biological treatment in POTW.
2,4-Dinitrophenol (59) . 2,4-Dinitrophenol [(N02)2C«H3OH], a yellow
crystalline solid, is manufactured commercially by hydrolysis of 2,4-
dinitro-1-chlorobenzene with sodium hydroxide. 2,4-Dinitrophenol sublimes
at 114°C. Vapor pressure is not cited in usual sources. It is slightly
soluble in water (7.9 g/1 at 25°C) and soluble in organic solvents. This
phenol does not react with 4-aminoanitipyrene and therefore does not
contribute to the non-conventional pollutant parameter "Total Phenols."
U.S. annual production is about 500 tons.
2,4-Dinitrophenol is used to manufacture sulfur and azo dyes,
photochemicals, explosives, and pesticides.
The toxic effects of 2,4-dinitrophenol in humans is generally attributed to
their ability to uncouple oxidative phosphorylation. In brief, this means
that sufficient 2,4-dinitrophenol short-circuits cell^ metabolism by
preventing utilization of energy provided by respiration and glycolosis.
Specific symptoms are gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, dizziness,
headache, and loss of weight. More acute poisoning includes symptons such
as: burning thirst, agitation, irregular breathing, and abnormally high
fever. This compound also inhibits other enzyme systems; and acts
directly on the cell membrane, inhibiting chloride permeability. Ingestion
of 2,4-dinitrophenol also causes cataracts in humans.
Based on available data it appears unlikely that 2,4-dinitrophenol poses a
teratogenic hazard to humans. Results of studies of mutagenic activity of
this compound are inconclusive as far as humans are concerned. Available
data suggest that 2,4-dinitrophenol does not posses carcinogenic
properties.
To protect human health from the adverse effects of 2,4-dinitrophenol
ingested in contaminated water and fish, the suggested water quality
criterion is 0.0686 mg/1
Data on the behavior of 2,4-dinitrophenol in POTW are not available.
However, laboratory scale studies have been conducted at concentrations
higher than those expected to be found in municipal wastewater.
408
-------
Biochemical oxidation using a phenol-adapted seed culture produced 92
percent degradation in 3.5 hours. Similar results were reported for other
studies. Based on these data, and on general observations relating
molecular structure to ease of biological oxidation, it is concluded that
complete or nearly complete removal of 2,4-dinitrophenol occurs during
biological treatment in POTW.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine (62). N-nitrosodiphenylamine [(C6H5)2NNO], also
called nitrous diphenylamide, is a yellow crystalline solid manufactured by
nitrosation of diphenylamine. It melts at 66C and is insoluble in water,
but soluble in several organic solvents other than hydrocarbons.
Production in the U.S. has approached 1500 tons per year. The compound is
used as a retarder for rubber vulcanization and as a pesticide for control
of scorch (a fungus disease of plants).
N-nitroso compounds are acutely toxic to every animal species tested and
are also poisonous to humans. N-nitrosodiphenylamine toxicity in adult
rats lies in the midrange of the values for 60 N-nitroso compounds tested.
Liver damage is the principal toxic effect. N-nitrosodiphenylamine, unlike
many other N-nitrosoamines, does not .show mutagenic activity. N-
nitrosodiphenylamine has been reported by several investigations to be non-
carcinogenic. However, the compound is capable of trans-nitrosation and
could thereby convert other amines to carcinogenic N-nitrosoamines. Sixty-
seven of 87 N-nitrosoamines studied were reported to have carcinogenic
activity. No water quality criterion have been proposed for N-
nitrosodiphenylamine.
No data are avaiable on the behavior of N-nitrosodiyphenylamine in POTW.
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 in most municipal wastewaters.
General observations have been developed relating molecular structure to
ease of degradation for all the organic priority pollutants. The
conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that biological
treatment produces little or no removal of N-nitrosodiphenylamine in POTW.
No information is available regarding possible interference by N-
nitrosodiphenylamine in POTW processes, or on the possible detrimental
effect on sludge used to amend soils in which crops are grown. However, no
interference or detrimental effects are expected because N-nitroso
compounds are widely distributed in the soil and water environment, at low
concentrations, as a result of microbial action on nitrates and
nitrosatable compounds.
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.
409
-------
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 preservative in glues, starches,
and photographic papers. It is an effective algicide and herbicide.
Although data are available on the human toxicity effects of penta-
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 pentachlorophenol itself and not by the by-
products which usually contaminate 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 the 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 of pentachlorophenol.
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 0.140
mg/1.
Only limited data are available for reaching conclusions about the behavior
of pentachlorophenol in POTW. Pentachlorophenol has been found in the
influent to POTW. In a study of one POTW the mean 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 pentachlorophenol of the same plant and two
additional POTW on a later date 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,
410
-------
inducing the general review of data relating molecular structure to
biological oxidation, indicate that pentachlorophenol is not removed by
biological treatment processes in POTW. Anaerobic digestion processes are
inhibited by 0.4 mg/1 pentachlorophenol.
The low water solubility and low volatility of pentachlorophenol lead to
the expectation that most of the compund will remain in the sludge in a
POTW. The effect on plants grown on land treated with pentachlorophenol
containing sludge is unpredicatable. Laboratory studies show that his
compound affects crop germination at 5.4 mg/1. However, phot©decomposition
of pentachlorophenol occurs in sunlight. The effects 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
clear, colorless, hygroscopic, deliquescent, crystalline solid at room
temperature. Its melting point is 43°C and its vapor pressure at room
temperature is 0.35 mm Hg. It is very soluble in water (67 gm/1 at 16°C)
and can be dissolved in benzene, oils, and petroleum solids. Its formula
is C6H5OH.
Although a small percent of the annual production of phenol is derived from
coal tar as a naturally occuring product, most of the phenol is
synthesized. Two of the methods are fusion of benzene sulfonate with
sodium hydroxide, and oxidation of cumene followed by clevage with a
catalyst. Annual production in the U.S. is in excess of one million tons.
Phenol is generated during distillation of wood and the microbiological
decomposition of organic matter in the mammalian intestinal tract.
Phenol is used as a disinfectant, in the manufacture of resins, dyestuffs,
and Pharmaceuticals, and* in the photo processing industry. 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 "Total Phenols", discussed elsewhere
which are determined by the 4-AAP colorinmetric method.
Phenol exhibits acute and sub-acute toxicity in humans and laboratory
animals. Acute oral doses of phenol in humans cause sudden collapse and
unconsciousness by its action on the central nervous system. Death occurs
by respiratory arrest. Sub-acute oral doses in mammals are rapidly
absorbed then quickly distributed to various organs, then cleared from the
body by urinary excretion and metabolism. Long term exposure by drinking
phenol contaminated water has resulted in statistically significant
increase in reported cases of diarrhea, mouth sores, and burning of the
mouth. In laboratory animals long term oral administration at low levels
produced slight liver and kidney damage. No reports were found regarding
411
-------
carcinogenicity of phenol administered orally - all carcinogenicity studies
were skin tests.
For the protection of human health from phenol ingested through water and
through contaminated aquatic organisms the concentration in water should
not exceed 3.4 mg/1.
Fish and other aquatic organisms demonstrated a wide range of sensitivities
to phenol concentration. However, acute toxicity values were at moderate
levels when compared to other organic priority pollutants.
Data have been developed on the behavior of phenol in POTW. Phenol is
biodegradable by biota present in POTW. The ability of a POTW to treat
phenol-bearing influents depends upon acclimation of the biota and the
constancy of the phenol concentration. It appears that an induction period
is required to build up the population gf 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.
Phenol which is not degraded is expected to pass thorugh the POTW because
of its very high water solubility. However, in POTW where chlorination is
practiced for disinfection of the POTW effluent, chlorination of phenol may
occur. The products of that reaction may be priority pollutants.
The EPA has developed data on influent and effluent concentrations of total
phenols in a study of 103 POTW. However, the analytical procedure was the
4-AAP method mentioned earlier and not the GC/MS method specifically for
phenol. Discussion of the study, which of course includes phenol, is
presented under the pollutant heading "Total Phenols."
Phthalate Esters (66-71). Phthalic acid, or 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid,
is one of three isomeric benzenedicarboxylic acids produced by the
chemical industry. The other two isomeric forms are called isophthalic and
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 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
412
-------
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 enlargeing of liver
and kidney, and atrophy of testes in laboratory animals. Specific esters
produced enlargement of heart and brain, spleenitis, and degeneration of
central nervous system tissue.
Subacute doses administered orally to laboratory animals produced some
decrease in growth and degeneration of the testes. Chronic studies in
animals showed similar effects to those found in acute and subacute
studies, but to a much lower degree. The same organs were enlarged, but
pathological changes were not usually detected.
A recent study of several phthalic esters produced suggestive but not
conclusive evidence that dimethyl and diethyl phthalates have a cancer
liability. Only four of the six priority pollutant esters were included in
413
-------
the study. Phthalate esters do biconcentrate in fish. The factors,
weighted for relative consumption of various aquatic and marine food
groups, are used to calculate ambient water quality criteria for four
phthalate esters. The values are included in the discussion of the
specific esters.
Studies of toxicity of phthalate esters in freshwater and salt water
organisms are scarce. A chronic toxicity test with bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate showed that significant reproductive impairment occurred at 3
mg/1 in the freshwater crustacean, Daphnia magna. In acute toxicity
studies, saltwater fish and organisms showed sensitivity differences of up
to eight-fold to butyl benzyl, diethyl, and dimethyl phthalates. This
suggests that each ester must be evaluated individually for toxic effects.
The behavior of phthalate esters in POTW has not been studied. However,
the biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority pollutants has
been investigated in laboratory-scale studies at concentrations higher than
would normally be expected in municipal wastewater. Three of the phthalate
esters were studied. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found to be degraded
slightly or not at all and its removal by biological treatment in a POTW is
expected to be slight or zero. Di-n-butyl phthalate and diethyl phthalate
were degraded to a moderate degree and their removal by biological
treatment in a POTW is expected to occur to a moderate degree. Using these
data and other observations relating molecular structure to ease of
biochemical degradation of other organic pollutants, the conclusion was
reached that butyl benzyl phthalate and dimethyl phthalate would be removed
in a POTW to a moderate degree by biological treatment. On the same basis,
it was concluded that di-n-octyl phthalate would be removed to a slight
degree or not at all.
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 C6H4(COOC8H17)2. This
priority pollutant constitutes about one third of the phthalate ester
production in the U.S. It is commonly referred to as dioctyl phthalate, or
DOP, in the plastics industry where it is the most extensively used
compound for the plasticization of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate has been approved by the FDA for use in plastics in
contact with food. Therefore, it may be found in wastewaters coming in
contact with discarded plastic food wrappers as well as the PVC films and
414
-------
shapes normally found in industrial plants. This priority pollutant is
also a commonly used organic diffusion pump oil where its low vapor
pressure is an advantage.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is determined to be
10 mg/1.
Although the behavior of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in POTW has not been
studied, biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has been studied
on a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would normally be
expected in municipal wastewater. In fresh water with a non-acclimated
seed culture no biochemical oxidation was observed after 5, 10, and 20
days. However, with an acclimated seed culture, biological oxidation
occurred to the extents of 13, 0, 6, and 23 of theoretical after 5, 10, 15
and 20 days, respectively. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrations were
3 to 10 mg/1. Little or no removal of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate by
biological treatment in POTW is expected.
Butyl benzyl phthalate(67). In addition to the general remarks and
discussion on phthalate esters, specific information on butyl benzyl
phthalate is provided. No information was found on the physical properties
of this compound.
Butyl benzyl phthalate is used as a plasticizer for PVC. Two special
applications differentiate it from other phthalate esters. It is approved
by the U.S. FDA for food contact in wrappers and containers; and it is the
industry standard for plasticization of vinyl flooring because it provides
stain resistance.
No ambient water quality criterion is proposed for butyl benzyl phthalate.
Butylbenzylphthalate removal in POTW by biological treatment in a POTW is
expected to occur to a moderate degree.
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
415
-------
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.
For protection of human health from the toxic properties of dibutyl
phthalate ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is determined to be 5 mg/1.
Although the behavior of di-n-butyl phthalate in POTW has not been studied,
biochemical oxidation of this priority pollutant has been studied on a
laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would normally be expected
in municipal wastewater. Biochemical oxidation of 35, 43, and 45 percent
of theoretical oxidation were obtained after 5, 10, and 20 days,
respectively.- using sewage microorganisms as an unacclimated seed culture.
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 water. Its molecular formula is
C6H4(COOCBH17)2. Its production constitutes about one percent of all
phthalate ester production in the U.S.
Industrially, di-n-octyl phthalate is used to plasticize polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) resins.
No ambient water quality criterion is proposed for di-n-octyl phthalate.
Biological treatment in POTW is expected to lead to little or no removal of
di-n-octyl phthalate.
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 C«H4(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
416
-------
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 biocides, cleaning 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 quality criterion is determined to be 60
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 normally be expected
in municipal wastewater. Biochemical oxidation of 79, 84, and 89 percent
of theoretical was observed after 5, 5, and 20 days, respectively.
Biological treatment in POTW is expected to lead to a moderate degree of
removal of diethylphthalate.
Dimethyl phthalate (71). In addition to the general remarks and discussion
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(COOCH,)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 quality criterion is determined to be 160
mg/1.
Biological treatment in POTW's is expected to provide a moderate degree of
removal of dimethyl phthalate.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons(72-84). The polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH)selected as priority pollutants are a group of 13
compounds consisting of substituted and unsubstituted polycyclic aromatic
417
-------
rings. The general class of PAH includes hetrocyclics, but none of those
were selected as priority pollutants. PAH are formed as the result of
incomplete 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. 1680C
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
m.p. 217°C
76 Chrysene (1,2-benzphenanthrene)
m.p. 255°C
77 Acenaphthylene
HC=Ch
m.p. 92°C
78 Anthracene
m.p. 216°C
79 Benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
m.p. not reported
80 Fluorene (alpha-diphenylenemethane)
m.p. 116°C
81 Phenanthrene
m.p. 101°C
418
-------
82 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzoanthracene)
m.p. 269°C
83 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (2,3-o-phenyleneperylene)
m.p. not available
84 Pyrene
m.p. 156°C
Some of these priority pollutants have commercial or industrial uses.
Benzo( a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, anthracene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and pyrene are all used as antioxidants. Chrysene,
acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene, and pyrene are all used
for synthesis of dyestuffs or other organic chemicals. 3,4-
Benzofluoranthrene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, and indeno
(1,2,3-cd)pyrene have no known industrial uses, according to the results of
a recent literature search.
Several of the PAH priority pollutants are found in smoked meats, in smoke
flavoring mixtures, in vegetable oils, and in coffee. They are found in
soils and sediments in river beds. Consequently, they are also found in
many drinking water supplies. The wide distribution of these pollutants in
complex mixtures with the many other PAHs which have not been designated as
priority pollutants results in exposures by humans that cannot be
associated with specific individual compounds.
The screening and verification analysis procedures used for the organic
priority pollutants are based on gas chromatography (GO. Three pairs of
the PAH have identical elution times on the column specified in the
protocol, which means that the parameters of the pair are not
differentiated. For these three pairs [anthracene (78) - phenanthrene
(81); 3,4-benzofluoranthene (74) - benzo(k)fluoranthene (75); and
benzo(a)anthracene (72) - chrysene (76)] results are obtained and reported
as "either-or." Either both are present in the combined concentration
reported, or one is present in the concentration reported. When detections
below reportable limits are recorded no further analysis is required. For
samples where the concentrations of coeluting pairs have a significant
value, 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
419
-------
cancer mortality among workers exposed to large amounts of PAH containing
materials such as coal gas, tars, and coke-oven emissions. However, no
definite proof exists that the PAH present in these materials are
responsible for the cancers observed.
Animal studies have demonstrated the toxicity of PAH by oral and dermal
administration. The carcinogenicity of PAH has been traced to formation of
PAH metabolites which, in turn, lead to tumor formation. Because the
levels of PAH which induce cancer are very low, little work has been done
on other health hazards resulting from exposure. It has been established
in animal studies that tissue damage and systemic toxicity can result from
exposure to non-carcinogenic PAH compounds.
Because there were no studies available regarding chronic oral exposures to
PAH mixtures, proposed water quality criteria were derived using data on
exposure to a single compound. Two studies were selected, one involving
benzo(a)pyrene ingestion and one involving dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
ingestion. Both are known animal carcinogens.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) through
ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water
concentration is zero. Concentrations of PAH estimated to result in
additional risk of 1 in 100,000 were derived by the EPA and the Agency is
considering setting criteria at an interim target risk level in the range
of 10~5, 10-*, or 10~7 with corresponding criteria of 0.0000097 mg/1,
0.00000097 mg/1, and 0.000000097 mg/1, respectively.
No standard toxicity tests have been reported for freshwater or saltwater
organisms and any of the 13 PAH discussed here.
The behavior of PAH in POTW has received only a limited amount of study.
It is reported that up to 90 percent of PAH entering a POTW will be
retained in the sludge generated by conventional sewage treatment
processes. Some of the PAH can inhibit bacterial growth when they are
present at concentrations as low as 0.018 mg/1. Biological treatment in
activated sludge units has been shown to reduce the concentration of
phenanthrene and anthracene to some extent. However, a study of
biochemcial oxidation of fluorene on a ' laboratory scale showed no
degradation after 5, 10, and 20 days. On the basis of that study and
studies of other organic priority pollutants, some general observations
were made relating molecular structure to ease of degradation. Those
observations lead to the conclusion that the 13 PAH selected to represent
that group as priority pollutants will be removed only slightly or not at
all by biological treatment methods in POTW. Based on their water
insolubility and tendency to attach to sediment particles very little pass
through of PAH to POTW effluent is expected.
420
-------
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 and 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 in organic solvents.
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
depression when the compound is inhaled. Headache, fatigue, sleepiness,
dizziness and sensations of intoxication are reported. Severity 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.
One 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.
For 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 10~5 are 0.000020 mg/1,
0.00020 mg/1, and 0.0020 mg/1, respectively.
No 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. The conclusions reached by the study of the limited
data is that biological treatment produces a moderate removal of PCE in
POTW by degradation. No information was found to indicate that PCE
accumulates in the sludge, but some PCE is expected to be adsorbed onto
settling particles. Some PCE is expected to be volatilized in aerobic
treatment processes and little, if any, is expected to pass through into
the effluent from the POTW.
421
-------
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 the 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 converted to benzene and the
remaining 30 percent is divided approximately equally into chemical
manufacture, and use as a paint 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. However, ingested toluene is expected to be handled
differently by the body because it is absorbed more slowly and must first
pass through the 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 mutagenic. Toluene
has not been demonstrated to be positive in any iji 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 12.4 mg/1.
Acute toxicity tests have been conducted with toluene and a variety of
freshwater fish and Daphnia maqna. 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.
422
-------
No detailed study of toluene behavior in POTW is available. However, the
biochemical oxidation of many of the priority pollutants has been
investigated in laboratory scale studies at concentrations 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. The conclusion reached by study of
the limited data is that biological treatment produces moderate removal of
toluene 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.
Trichloroethylene(87). Trichloroethylene (1,1,2-trichloroethylene or TCE)
is a clear colorless liquid boiling at 87°C. It has a vapor pressure of 77
mm Hg at room temperature and is slightly soluble in water (1 gm/1). U.S.
production is greater than 0.25 million metric tons annually. It is
produced from tetrachloroethane by treatment with lime in the presence of
water.
TCE is used for vapor phase degreasing of metal parts, cleaning and drying
electronic components, as a solvent for paints, as a refrigerant, for
extraction of oils, fats, and waxes, and for dry cleaning. Its widespread
use and relatively high volability result in detectable levels in many
parts of the environment.
Data on the effects produced by ingested TCE are limted. Most studies have
been directed at inhalation exposure. Nervous system disorders and liver
damage are frequent results of inhalation exposure. In the short term
exposures, TCE acts as a central nervous system depressant - it was used as
an anesthetic before its other long term effects were defined.
TCE has been shown to induce transformation in a highly sensitive iin vitro
Fischer rat embryo cell system (F1706) that is used for identifying
carcinogens. Severe and persintant toxicity to the liver was recently
demonstrated when TCE was shown to produce carcinoma of the liver in mouse
strain B6C3F1. One systematic study of TCE exposure and the incidence of
human cancer was based on 518 men exposed to TCE. The authors of that
study concluded that although the cancer risk to man cannot be ruled out,
exposure to low levels of TCE probably does not present a very serious and
general cancer hazard.
TCE is bioconcentrated in aquatic species, making the consumption of such
species by humans a significant source of TCE. For the protection of human
health from the potential carcinogenic effects of exposure to
trichloroethylene through ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water concentration is zero. Concentrations of
423
-------
trichloroethylene estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk of
1 in 100,000 corresponds to an ambient water concentration of 0.00021 mg/1.
Only a very limited amount of data on the effects of TCE on freshwater
aquatic life are available. One species of fish (fathead minnows) showed a
loss of equilibrium at concentrations below those resulting in lethal
effects.
The behavior of trichloroethylene in POTW has not been studied. However,
in laboratory scale studies of organic priority pollutants, TCE was
subjected to biochemical oxidation conditions. After 5, 10, and 20 days no
biochemical oxidation occurred. On the basis of this study and general
observations relating molecular structure to ease of degradation, the
conclusion is reached that TCE would undergo no removal by biological
treatment in a POTW. The volatility and relatively low water solubility of
TCE is expected to result in volatilization of some of the TCE in aeration
steps in a POTW.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (106-112). Polychlorinated biphenyls
(C12H,0nCln,H10-nCln where n can range from 1 to 10), designated PCB's, are
chlorinated derivatives of biphenyls. The commerical products are complex
mixtures of chlorobiphenyls, but are no longer produced in the U.S. The
mixtures produced formerly were characterized by the percentage
chlorination. Direct chlorination of biphenyl was used to produce mixtures
containing from 21 to 70 percent chlorine. Six of these mixtures have been
selected as priority pollutants:
Percent Distilation Pour 25°C Wat
Priority Pollutant No. Name Chlorine Range (°C) Point (°C) Solubili
106 Arochlor 1242 42 325-366 -19 240
107 " 1254 54 365-390 10 12
108 1221 20.5-21.5 275-320 1 >200
109 " 1232 31.4-32.5 290-325 -35.5
110 " 1248 48 340-375 -7 54
111 " 1260 60 385-420 31 2.7
112 " 1016 41 323-356 - 225-25
The Arochlors 1221, 1232, 1016, 1242, and 1248 are colorless oily liquids;
1254 is a viscous liquid; 1260 is a sticky resin at room temperature.
Total annual U.S. production of PCBs averaged about 20,000 tons in 1972-
1974.
Prior to 1971, PCB's were used in several applications including
plasticizers, heat transfer liquids, hydraulic fluids, lubricants, vacuum
pump and compressor fluids; and capacitor and transformer oils. After
1970, when PCB use was restricted to closed systems, the latter two uses
were the only commercial applications.
424
-------
The toxic effects of PCBs ingested by humans have been reported to range
from acne-like skin eruptions and pigmentation of the skin to numbness of
limbs, hearing and vision problems, and spasms. Interpretation of results
is complicated by the fact that the very highly toxic polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDFs) are found in many commerical PCB mixtures.
Photochemical and thermal decomposition appear to accelerate the
transformation of PCBs to PCDFs. Thus the specific effects of PCBs may be
masked by the effects of PCDFs. However, if PCDFs are frequently present
to some extent in any PCB mixture, then their effects may be properly
included in the effects of PCB mixtures.
Studies of effects of PCBs in laboratory animals indicate that liver and
kidney damage, large weight losses, eye discharges, and interference with
some metabolic processes occur frequently. Teratogenic effects of PCBs in
laboratory animals have been observed, but are rare. Growth retardations
during gestation, and reproductive failure are more common effects observed
in studies of PCB teratogencity. Carcinogenic effects of PCBs have been
studied in laboratory animals with results interpreted as positive.
Specific reference has been made to liver cancer in rats in the discussion
of water quality criterion formulation.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to PCBs through ingestion of water and contaminated
aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration should be zero.
Concentrations of PCBs estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer
risk at risk levels of 10-*, 10-*, and 10-« are 0.0000000026 mg/1,
0.000000026 mg/1, and 0.00000026 mg/1, respectively.
The behavior of PCBs in POTW has received limited study. Most PCBs will be
removed with sludge. One study showed removals of 82 to 89 percent,
depending on suspended solid removal. The PCBs adsorb onto suspended
sediments and other particulates. In laboratory-scale experiments with PCB
1221, 81 percent was removed by degradation in an activated sludge system
in 47 hours. Biodegradation can form polychlorinated dibenzofurans which
are more toxic than PCBs (as noted earlier). PCBs at concentrations of 0.1
to 1,000 mg/1 inhibit or enhance bacterial growth rates, depending on the
bacterial culture and the percentage chlorine in the PCB. Thus, activated
sludge may be inhibited by PCBs. Based on studies of bioaccumulation of
PCBs in food crops grown on soils amended with PCB-containing sludge, the
U.S. FDA has recommend a limit of 10 mg PCB/kg dry weight of sludge used
for application to soils bearing food crops.
Antimony(114). Antimony (chemical name - stibium, symbol Sb) classified as
a non-metal or metalloid, is a silvery white , brittle, crystalline solid.
Antimony is found in small ore bodies throughout the world. Principal ores
are oxides of mixed antimony valences, and an oxysulfide ore. Complex ores
with metals are important because the antimony is recovered as a by-
product. Antimony melts at 631°C, and is a poor conductor of electricity
and heat.
425
-------
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 catalysts in organic chemicals synthesis, as
fluorinating agents (the antimony fluoride), as pigments, and in fireworks.
Semiconductor applications are economically significant.
Essentially no information on antimony - induced human health effects has
been derived from community epidemiolocy studies. The available data are
in literature relating effects observed with therapeutic or medicinal uses
of antimony compounds and industrial exposure studies. Large therapeutic
doses of antimonial compounds, usually used to treat schistisomiasis, have
caused severe nausea, vomiting, convulsions, irregular heart action, liver
damage, and skin rashes. Studies of acute industrial antimony poisoning
have revealed loss of appetitie, diarrhea, headache, and dizziness in
addition to the symptoms found in studies of therapeutic doses of antimony.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of antimony
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms the
ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.145 mg/1.
Very little information is available regarding the behavior of antimony in
POTW. The limited solubility of most antimony compounds expected in POTW,
i.e. the oxides and sulfides, suggests that at least part of the antimony
entering a POTW will be precipitated and incorporated into the sludge.
However, some antimony is expected to remain dissolved and pass through the
POTW into the effluent. Antimony compounds remaining in the sludge under
anaerobic conditions may be connected to stibine (SbH3), a very soluble and
very toxic compound. There are no data to show antimony inhibits any POTW
processes. Antimony is not known to be essential to the growth of plants,
and has been reported to be moderately toxic. Therefore, sludge containing
large amounts of antimony could be detrimental to plants if it is applied
in large amounts to cropland.
Arsenic(115). Arsenic (chemical symbol As), is classified as a non-metal
or metalloid. Elemental arsenic normally exists in the alpha-crystalline
metallic form which is steel gray and brittle', and in the beta form which
is dark gray and amorphous. Arsenic sublimes at 615°C. Arsenic is widely
distributed throughout the world in a large number of minerals. The most
important commercial source of arsenic is as a by-product from treatment of
copper, lead, cobalt, and gold ores. Arsenic is usually marketed as the
trioxide (As203). Annual U.S. production of the trioxide approaches 40,000
tons.
The principal use of arsenic is in agricultural chemicals (herbicides) for
controlling weeds in cotton fields. Arsenicals have various applications
426
-------
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-*, and 10~s are 0.0000002 mg/1, 0.000002 mg/1, and 0.00002 mg/1,
respectively.
A few studies have been made regarding the behavior of arsenic in POTW.
One EPA survey of 9 POTW reported influent concentrations ranging from
0.0005 to 0.693 mg/1; effluents from 3 POTW having biological treatment
contained 0.0004 - 0.01 mg/1; 2 POTW showed arsenic removal efficiencies of
50 and 71 percent in biological treatment. Inhibition of treatment
processes by sodium arsenate is reported to occur at 0.1 mg/1 in activated
sludge, and 1.6 mg/1 in anaerobic digestion processes. In another study
based on data from 60 POTW, arsenic in sludge ranged from 1.6 to 65.6 mg/kg
and the median value was 7.8 mg/kg. Arsenic in sludge spread on cropland
may be taken up by plants grown on that land. Edible paints can take up
arsenic, but normally their growth is inhibited before the paints are ready
for harvest.
Beryllium(117). Beryllium is a dark gray metal of the alkaline earth
family. It is relatively rare, but because of its unique properties finds
widespread use as an alloying element especially for hardening copper which
is used in springs, electrical contacts, and non-sparking tools. World
production is reported to be in the range of 250 tons annually. However,
much more reaches the environment as emissions from coal burning
operations. Analysis of coal indicates an average beryllium content of
3 ppm and 0.1 to 1.0 percent in coal ash or fly ash.
The principal ores are beryl (3BeO«Al203»6Si02) and bertrandite
[Be4Si207(OH)2]. Only two industrial facilities produce beryllium in the
U.S. because of limited demand and the and highly toxic character. About
two-thirds of the annual production goes into alloys, 20 percent into heat
sinks, and 10 percent into beryllium oxide (BeO) ceramic products.
427
-------
Beryllium has a specific gravity of 1.846 making it the lightest metal with
a high melting point (1350C). Beryllium alloys are corrosion resistant,
but the metal corrodes in aqueous environment. Most common beryllium
compounds are soluble in water, at least to the extent necessary to produce
a toxic concentration of beryllium ions.
Most data on toxicity of beryllium is for inhalation of beryllium oxide
dust. Some studies on orally administered beryllium in laboratory animals
have been reported. Despite the large number of studies implicating
beryllium as a carcinogen, there is no recorded instance of cancer being
produced by ingestion. However, a recently convened panel of uninvolved
experts concluded that epidemiologic evidence is suggestive that beryllium
is a carcinogen in man.
In the aquatic environment beryllium is acutely toxic to fish at con-
centrations as low as 0.087 mg/1, and chronically toxic to an aquatic
organism at 0.003 mg/1. Water softness has a large effect on beryllium
toxicity to fish. In soft water, beryllium is reportedly 100 times as
toxic as in hard water.
For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects of exposure to beryllium through ingestion of water and
contaminated aquatic organisms. The ambient water concentration is zero.
Concentrations of beryllium estimated to result in additional lifetime
cancer risk levels of 10~7, 10~«, and 10~5 are 0.00000087 mg/1, 0.0000087
mg/1, and 0.000087 mg/1, respectively.
Information on the behavior of beryllium in POTW is scarce. Because
beryllium hydroxide is insoluble in water, most beryllium entering POTW
will probably be in the form of suspended solids. As a result most of the
beryllium will settle and be removed with sludge. However, beryllium has
been shown to inhibit several enzyme systems, to interfere with DNA
metabolism in liver, and to induce chromsomal and mitotic abnormalities.
This interference in cellular processes may extend to interfere with
bioloigcal treatment processes. The concentration and effects of beryllium
in sludge which could be applied to cropland has not been studied.
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
appears at a significant level in raw wastewaters from only one of the
three subcategories of coil coating - galvanized. The presence of cadmium
in the wastewater is attributed to its presence as an impurity in zinc used
428
-------
to produce galvanized coil stock. Some of the zinc is removed by the
cleaning and conversion coating steps.
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 caused by cadmium ingestion via drinking water
and contaminated irrigation water. Ingestion of as little as 0.6 mg/day
has produced the disease. Cadmium acts synergistically with other metals.
Copper and zinc substantially increase its toxicity.
Cadmium is concentrated by marine organisms, particularly molluscs, which
accumulate cadmium in calcareous tissues and in the viscera. A
concentration factor of 1000 for cadmium in fish muscle has been reported,
as have concentration factors of 3000 in marine plants and up to 29,600 in
certain marine animals. The eggs and larvae of fish are apparently more
sensitive than adult fish to poisoning by cadmium, and crustaceans appear
to be more sensitive than fish eggs and larvae.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of cadmium
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010 mg/1.
Cadmium is not destroyed when it is introduced into a POTW, and will either
pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated into the POTW sludge.
In addition, it can interfere with the POTW treatment process.
In a study of 189 POTW, 75 percent of the primary plants, 57 percent of the
trickling filter plants, 66 percent of the activated sludge plants and 62
percent of the biological plants allowed over 90 percent of the influent
cadmium to pass thorugh to the POTW effluent. Only 2 of the 189 POTW
allowed less than 20 percent pass-through, and none less than 10 percent
pass-through. POTW effluent concentrations ranged from 0.001 to 1.97 mg/1
(mean 0.028 mg/1, standard deviation 0.167 mg/1).
Cadmium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the sludge where it
is likely to build up in concentration. Cadmium contamination of sewage
sludge limits its use on land since it increases the level of cadmium in
the soil. Data show that cadmium can be incorporated into crops, including
vegetables and grains, from contaminated soils. Since the crops themselves
429
-------
show no adverse effects from soils with levels up to 100 mg/kg cadmium,
these contaminated crops could have a significant impact on human health.
Two Federal agencies have already recognized the potential adverse human
health effects posed by the use of sludge on cropland. The FDA recommends
that sludge containing over 30 mg/kg of cadmium should not be used on
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
(FeOCr203). The metal is normally produced by reducing the oxide with
aluminum. A significant proportion of the chromium used is in the form of
compounds such as sodium dichromate (Na2Cr04), and chromic acid (Cr03) -
both are hexavalent chromium compounds.
Chromium and its compounds are used extensively in the coil coating
industry. As the metal, it is found as an alloying component of many
steels.
The two chromium forms most frequently found in industry wastewaters are
hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Hexavalaent chromium is the form used
for metal treatments. Some of it is reduced to trivalent chromium as part
of the process reaction. The raw wastewater containing both valence states
is usually treated first to reduce remaining hexavalent to trivalent
chromium, and second to precipitate the trivalent form as the hydroxide.
The hexavalent form is not removed by lime treatment.
Chromium, in its various valence states, is hazardous to man. It can
produce lung tumors when inhaled, and induces skin sensitizations. Large
doses of chromates have corrosive effects on the intestinal tract and can
cause inflammation of the kidneys. Hexavalent chromium is a known human
carcinogen. Levels of chromate ions that show no effect in man appear to
be so low as to prohibit determination, to date.
The toxicity of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic life varies widely
with the species, temperature, pH, valence of the chromium, and synergistic
or antagonistic effects, especially the effect of water hardness. Studies
have shown that trivalent chromium is more toxic to fish of some types than
is hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium retards growth of one fish
species at 0.0002 mg/1. Fish food organisms and other lower forms of
aquatic life are extremely sensitive to chromium. Therefore, both
hexavalent and trivalent chromium must be considered harmful to particular
fish or organisms.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of chromium
(except hexavalent chromium) ingested through water and contaminated
aquatic organisms, the recommended water qualtiy criterion is 0.050 mg/1.
430
-------
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.
Chromium is not destroyed when treated by POTW (although the oxidation
state may change), and will either pass through to the POTW effluent or be
incorporated into the POTW sludge. Both oxidation states can cause POTW
treatment inhibition and can also limit the usefuleness of municipal
sludge.
Influent concentrations of chromium to POTW facilities have been observed
by EPA to range from 0.005 to 14.0 mg/1, with a median concentration of
0.1 mg/1. The efficiencies for removal of chromium by the activated sludge
process can vary greatly, depending on chromium concentration in the
influent, and other operating conditions at the POTW. Chelation of
chromium by organic matter and dissolution due to the presence of
carbonates can cause deviations from the predicted behavior in treatment
systems.
The systematic presence of chromium compounds will halt nitrification in a
POTW for short periods, and most of the chromium will be retained in the
sludge solids. Hexavalent chromium has been reported to severely affect
the nitrification process, but trivalent chromium has litte or no toxicity
to activated sludge, except at high concentrations. The presence of iron,
copper, and low pH will increase the toxicity of chromium in a POTW by
releasing the chromium into solution to be ingested by microorganisms in
the POTW.
The amount of chromium which passes through to the POTW effluent depends on
the type'of treatment processes used by the POTW. In a study of 240 POTW's
56 percent of the primary plants allowed more than 80 percent pass through
to POTW effluent. More advanced treatment results in less pass-through.
POTW effluent concentrations ranged from 0.003 to 3.2 mg/1 total chromium
(mean = 0.197, standard deviation = 0.48), and from 0.002 to 0.1 mg/1
hexavalent chromium (mean = 0.017, standard deviation = 0.020).
Chromium not passed through the POTW will be retained in the sludge, where
it is likely to build up in concentration. Sludge concentrations of total
chromium of over 20,000 mg/kg (dry basis) have been observed. Disposal of
sludges containing very high concentrations of trivalent chromium can
potentially cause problems in uncontrollable landfills. Incineration, or
similar destructive oxidation processes can produce hexavalent chromium
from lower valance states. Hexavalent chromium is potentially more toxic
than trivalent chromium. In cases where high rates of chrome sludge
application on land are used, distinct growth inhibition and plant tissue
uptake have been noted.
Pretreatment of discharges substantially reduces the concentration of
chromium in sludge. In Buffalo, New York, pretreatment of electroplating
431
-------
waste resulted in a decrease in chromium concentrations in POTW sludge from
2,510 to 1,040 mg/kg. A similar reduction occurred in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, POTW where the chromium concentration in sludge decreased from
11,000 to 2,700 mg/kg when pretreatment was made a requirement.
Copper(120). Copper is a metallic element that sometimes is found free, as
the native metal, and is also found in minerals such as cuprite (Cu20),
malechite [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. In the coil coating industry copper can be attributed to
various contaminant sources.
Traces of copper are found in all forms of plant and animal life, and the
metal is an essential trace element for nutrition. Copper is not
considered to be a cumulative systemic poison for humans as it is readily
excreted by the body, but it can cause symptoms of gastroenteritis, with
nausea and intestinal irritations, at relatively low dosages. The limiting
factor in domestic water supplies is taste. To prevent this adverse
organoleptic effect of copper in water, a criterion of 1 mg/1 has been
established.
The toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly, not only
with the species, but also with the physical and chemical characteristics
of the water, including temperature, hardness, turbidity, and carbon
dioxide content. In hard water, the toxicity of copper salts may be
reduced by the precipitation of copper carbonate or other insoluble
compounds. The sulfates of copper and zinc, and of copper and calcium are
synergistic in their toxic effect on fish.
Relatively high concentrations of copper may be tolerated by adult fish for
short periods of time; the critical effect of copper appears to be its
higher toxicity to young or juvenile fish. Concentrations of 0.02 to
0.031 mg/1 have proved fatal to 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.
Irrigation water containing more than minute quantities of copper can be
detrimental to certain crops. Copper appears in all soils, and its
concentration ranges from 10 to 80 ppm. In soils, copper occurs in
association with hydrous oxides of manganese and iron, and also as soluble
432
-------
and insoluble complexes with organic matter. Copper is essential to the
life of plants, and the normal range of concentration in plant tissue is
from 5 to 20 ppm. Copper concentrations in plants normally do not build up
to high levels when toxicity occurs. For example, the concentrations of
copper in snapbean leaves and pods was less than 50 and 20 mg/kg,
respectively, under conditions of severe copper toxicity. Even under
conditions of copper toxicity, most of the excess copper accumulates in the
roots; very little is moved to the aerial part of the plant.
Copper is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It can
interfere with the POTW treatment processes and can limit the usefulness of
municipal sludge.
The influent concentration of copper to POTW facilities has been observed
by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 1.97 mg/1, with a median concentration of
0.12 mg/1. The copper that is removed from the influent stream of a POTW
is adsorbed on the sludge or appears in the sludge as the hydroxide of the
metal. Bench scale pilot studies have shown that from about 25 percent to
75 percent of the copper passing through the activated sludge process
remains in solution in the final effluent. Four-hour slug dosages of
copper sulfate in concentrations exceeding 50 mg/1 were reported to have
severe effects on the removal efficiency of an unacclimated system, with
the system returning to normal in about 100 hours. Slug dosages of copper
in the form of copper cyanide were observed to have much more severe
effects on the activated sludge system, but the total system returned to
normal in 24 hours.
In a recent study of 268 POTW, the median pass-through was over 80 percent
for primary plants and 40 to 50 percent for trickling filter, activated
sludge, and biological treatment plants. POTW effluent concentrations of
copper ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1 (mean 0.126, standard deviation
0.242).
Copper which does not pass through the POTW will be retained in the sludge
where it will build up in concentration. The presence of excessive levels
of copper in sludge may limit its use on cropland. Sewage sludge contains
up to 16,000 mg/kg of copper, with 730 mg/kg as the mean value. These
concentrations are significantly greater than those normally found in soil,
which usually range from 18 to 80 mg/kg. Experimental data indicate that
when dried sludge is spread over tillable land, the copper tends to remain
in place down to the depth of tillage, except for copper which is taken up
by plants grown in the soil. Recent investigation has shown that the
extractable copper content of sludge-treated soil decreased with time,
which suggests a reversion of copper to less soluble forms was occurring.
Cyanide(121). Cyanide compounds are widely used in the coil coating
industry. The major use of cyanide ions in the industry is for
accelerating action of chromating solutions.
433
-------
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 very 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 complexes. The
complexes are in equilibrium with HCN. Thus, the stability of the 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 sodium cyanide.
The toxic mechanism of cyanide is essentially an inhibition of oxygen
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 life. 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
non-toxic 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 the detoxifying reaction reduces the
cyanide concentration 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 concentration, 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 fathead 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.
434
-------
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of cyanide
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water quality criterion is determined to be 0.200 mg/1.
Presistance 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 percent. 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 commonly 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 pretreatment 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.
Lead is widely used for its corrosion resistance, sound and vibration
absorption, low melting point (solders), and relatively high imperviousness
to various forms of radiation. Small amounts of copper, antimony and other
metals can be alloyed with lead to achieve greater hardness, stiffness, or
corrosion resistance than is afforded by the pure metal. Lead compounds
are used in glazes and paints. About one third of U.S. lead consumption
goes into storage batteries. About half of U.S. lead consumption is from
secondary lead recovery. U.S. consumption of lead is in the range of one
million tons annually.
435
-------
Lead ingested by humans produces a variety of toxic effects including
impaired reproductive ability, disturbances in blood chemistry,
neurological disorders, kidney damage, and adverse cardiovascular effects.
Exposure to lead in the diet results in permanent increase in lead levels
in the body. Most of the lead entering the body eventually becomes
localized in the bones where it accumulates. Lead is a carcinogen or
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.
Lead is not destroyed in POTW, but is passed through to the effluent or
retained in the POTW sludge; it can interfere with POTW treatment processes
and can limit the usefulness of POTW sludge for application to agricultural
croplands. Threshold concentration for inhibition of the activated sludge
process is 0.1 mg/1, and for the nitrification process is 0.5 mg/1. In a
study of 214 POTW, median pass through values were over 80 percent for
primary plants and over 60 percent for trickling filter, activated sludge,
and biological process plants. Lead concentration in POTW effluents ranged
from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1 (means = 0.106 mg/1, standard deviation = 0.222).
Application of lead-containing sludge to cropland should not lead to uptake
by crops under most conditions because normally lead is strongly bound by
soil. However, under the unusual conditions of low pH (less than 5.5) and
low concentrations of labile phosphorus, lead solubility is increased and
plants can accumulate lead.
Mercury. Mercury (123) is an elemental metal rarely found in nature as the
free metal. Mercury is unique among metals as it remains a liquid down to
about 39 degrees below zero. It is relatively inert chemically and is
insoluable in water. The principal ore is cinnabar (HgjS).
Mercury is used industrially as the metal and as mercurous and mercuric
salts and compounds. Mercury is used in several types of batteries.
Mercury released to the aqueous environment is subject to biomethylation -
conversion to the extremely toxic methyl mercury.
Mercury can be introduced into the body through the skin and the
respiratory system as the elemental vapor. Mercuric salts are highly toxic
to humans and can be absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. Fatal
doses can vary from 1 to 30 grams. Chronic toxicity of methyl mercury is
evidenced primarily by neurological symptoms. Some mercuric salts cause
death by kidney failure.
Mercuric salts are extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
Mercuric chloride is more lethal than copper, hexavalent chromium, zinc,
nickel, and lead towards fish and aquatic life. In the food cycle, algae
436
-------
containing mercury up to 100 times the concentration in the surrounding sea
water are eaten by fish which further concentrate the mercury. Predators
that eat the fish in turn concentrate the mercury even further.
For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of mercury
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms the
ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.0002 mg/1.
Mercury is not destroyed when treated by a POTW, and will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated into the POTW sludge. At
low concentrations it may reduce POTW removal efficiencies, and at high
concentrations it may upset the POTW operation.
The influent concentrations of mercury to POTW have been observed by the
EPA to range from 0.0002 to 0.24 mg/1, with a median concentration of
0.001 mg/1. Mercury has been reported in the literature to have inhibiting
effects upon an activated sludge POTW at levels as low as 0.1 mg/1. At
5 mg/1 of mercury, losses of COD removal efficiency of 14 to 40 percent
have been reported, while at 10 mg/1 loss of removal of 59 percent has been
reported. Upset of an activated sludge POTW is reported in the literature
to occur near 200 mg/1. The anaerobic digestion process is much less
affected by the presence of mercury, with inhibitory effects being reported
at 1365 mg/1.
In a study of 22 POTW having secondary treatment, the range of removal of
mercury from the influent to the POTW ranged from 4 to 99 percent with
median removal of 41 percent. Thus significant pass through of mercury may
occur.
In sludges, mercury content may be high if industrial sources of mercury
contamination are present. Little is known about the form in which mercury
occurs in sludge. Mercury may undergo biological methylation in sediments,
but no methylation has been observed in soils, mud, or sewage sludge.
The mercury content of soils not receiving additions of POTW sewage sludge
lie in the range from 0.01 to 0.5 mg/kg. In soils receiving POTW sludges
for protracted periods, the concentration of mercury has been observed to
approach 1.0 mg/kg. In the soil, mercury enters into reactions with the
exchange complex of clay and organic fractions, forming both ionic and
covalent bonds. Chemical and microbiological degradation of mercurials can
take place side by side in the soil, and the products - ionic or molecular
- are retained by organic matter and clay or may be volatilized if gaseous.
Because of the high affinity between mercury and the solid soil surfaces,
mercury persists in the upper layer of soil.
Mercury can enter plants through the roots, it can readily move to other
parts of the plant, and it has been reported to cause injury to plants. In
many plants mercury concentrations range from 0.01 to 0.20 mg/kg, but when
plants are supplied with high levels of mercury, these concentrations can
437
-------
exceed 0.5 mg/kg. Bioconcentration occurs in animals ingesting mercury in
food.
Nickel(124). Nickel is seldom found in nature as the pure elemental metal.
It is a 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),SB],
and a lateritic ore consisting of hydrated nickel-iron-magnesium silicate.
Nickel has many and varied uses. It is used in alloys and as the pure
metal. Nickel salts are used for electroplating baths. The coil coating
industry uses nickel compounds as accelerators in certain conversion
coating solutions. Nickel is also found as a contaminant in mineral acids.
It occurs in significant concentrations in the wastewaters from all three
subcategories of coil coating.
The toxicity of nickel to man is thought to be very low, and systemic
poisoning of human beings by nickel or nickel salts is almost unknown. In
non-human mammals nickel acts to inhibit insulin release, depress growth,
and reduce cholesterol. A high incidence of cancer of the lung and nose
has been reported in humans engaged in the refining of nickel.
Nickel salts can kill fish at very low concentrations. However, nickel has
been found to be less toxic to some fish than copper, zinc, and iron.
Nickel is present in coastal and open ocean water at concentrations in the
range of 0.0001 to 0.006 mg/1 although the most common values are 0.002 -
0.003 mg/1. Marine animals contain up to 0.4 mg/1 and marine plants
contain up to 3 mg/1. Higher nickel concentrations have been reported to
cause reduction in photosynthetic activity of the giant kelp. A low
concentration was found to kill oyster eggs.
For the protection of human health based on the toxic properties of nickel
ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms, the
ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.133 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.
438
-------
The influent concentration of nickel to POTW facilities has been observed
by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 3.19 mg/1, with a median of 0.33 mg/1. In
a study of 190 POTW, nickel pass-through was greater than 90 percent for 82
percent of the primary plants. Median pass-through for trickling filter,
activated sludge, and biological process plants was greater than 80
percent. POTW effuent concentrations ranged from 0.002 to 40 mg/1
(mean - 0.410, standard deviation - 3.279).
Nickel not passed through the POTW will be incorporated into the sludge.
In a recent two-year study of eight cities, four of the cities had median
nickel concentrations of over 350 mg/kg, and two were over 1,000 mg/kg.
The maximum nickel concentration observed was 4,010 mg/kg.
Nickel is found in nearly all soils, plants, and waters. Nickel has no
known essential function in plants. In soils, nickel typically is found in
the range from 10 to 100 mg/kg. Various environmental exposures to nickel
appear to correlate with increased incidence of tumors in man. For
example, cancer in the maxillary antrum of snuff users may result from
using plant material grown on soil high in nickel.
Nickel toxicity may develop in plants from application of sewage sludge on
acid soils. Nickel has caused reduction of yields for a variety of crops
including oats, mustard, turnips, and cabbage. In one study nickel
decreased the yields of oats significantly at 100 mg/kg.
Whether nickel exerts a toxic effect on plants depends on several soil
factors, the amount of nickel applied, and the contents of other metals in
the sludge. Unlike copper and zinc, which are more available from
inorganic sources than from sludge, nickel uptake by plants seems to be
promoted by the presence of the 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 non-metallic 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.
9
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 be an essential
element in human nutrition, the toxic effects of selenium in humans are
well established. Lassitude, loss of hair, discoloration and loss of
439
-------
fingernails are symptoms of selenium poisoning. In a fatal case of
ingestion of a larger dose of selenium acid, peripheral 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.
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 POTW 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 (Ag3SbS3y. Silver is used
extensively in several industries, among them electroplating.
Metallic silver is not considered to be toxic, but most of its salts are
toxic to a large number of organisms. Upon ingestion by humans, many
silver salts are absorbed in the circulatory system and deposited in
various body tissues, resulting in generalized or sometimes localized gray
pigmentation of the skin and mucous membranes know as argyria. There is no
known method for removing silver from the tissues once it is deposited, and
the effect is cumulative.
Silver is recognized as a bactericide and doses from 0.000001 to 0.0005
mg/1 have been reported as sufficient to sterilize water. The criterion
for ambient water to protect human health from the toxic properties of
silver ingested through water and through contaminated aquatic organisms is
0.010 mg/1.
The chronic toxic effects of silver on the aquatic environment have not
been given as much attention as many other heavy metals. Data from
existing literature support the fact that silver is very toxic to aquatic
organisms. Despite the fact that silver is nearly the most toxic of the
heavy metals, there are insufficient data to adequately evaluate even the
effects of hardness on silver toxicity. There are no data available on the
toxicity of different forms of silver.
440
-------
There is no available literature on the incidental removal of silver by
POTW. An incidental removal of about 50 percent is assumed as being
representative. This is the highest average incidental removal of any
metal for which data are available. (Copper has been indicated to have a
median incidental removal rate of 49 percent).
Bioaccumulation and concentration of silver from sewage sludge has not been
studied to any great degree. There is some indication that silver could be
bioaccumulated in mushrooms to the extent that there could be adverse
physiological effects on humans if they consumed large quantites of
mushrooms grown in silver enriched soil. The effect, however, would tend
to be 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 central
nervous system is also affected. Somnolence, delerium or coma may occur.
Studies on the teratogenicity of thallium appear 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 0.004 mg/1.
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 sludge. Subsequent use of
sludge bearing thallium compounds as a soil amendment to crop bearing soils
may result in uptake of this element by food plants. Several leafy garden
crops (cabbage, lettuce, leek, and endive) exhibit relatively higher
concentrations of thallium than other foods such as meat.
441
-------
Zinc(128). Zinc occurs abundantly in the earth's crust, concentrated in
ores. It is readily refined into the pure, stable, silvery-white metal.
In addition to its use in alloys, zinc is used as a protective coating on
steel. It is applied by hot dipping (i.e. dipping the steel in molten
zinc) or by electroplating. The resulting galvanized steel is used as one
of the basis materials for coil coating. Zinc salts are also used in
conversion coatings in the coil coating industry.
Zinc can have an adverse effect on man and animals at high concentrations.
Zinc at concentrations in excess of 5 mg/1 causes an undesirable taste
which persists through conventional treatment. For the prevention of
adverse effects due to these organoleptic properties of zinc, 5 mg/1 was
adopted for the ambient water criterion.
Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse changes in the
morphology and physiology of fish. Lethal concentrations in the range of
0.1 mg/1 have been reported. Acutely toxic concentrations induce cellular
breakdown of the gills, and possibly the clogging of the gills with mucous.
Chronically toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause general
enfeeblement and widespread histological changes to many organs, but not to
gills. Abnormal swimming behavior has been reported at 0.04 mg/1. Growth
and maturation are retarded by zinc. It has been observed that the effects
of zinc poisoning may not become apparent immediately, so that fish removed
from zinc-contaminated water may die as long as 48 hours after removal.
In general, salmonoids are most sensitive to elemental zinc in soft water;
the rainbow trout is the most sensitive in hard waters. A complex
relationship exists between zinc concentration, dissolved zinc
concentration, pH, temperature, and calcium and magnesium concentration.
Prediction of harmful effects has been less than reliable and controlled
studies have not been extensively documented.
The major concern with zinc compounds in marine waters is not with acute
lethal effects, but rather with the long-term sublethal effects of the
metallic compounds and complexrs. Zinc accumulates in some marine species,
and marine animals contain zinc in the range of 6 to 1500 mg/kg. From the
point of view of acute lethal effects, invertebrate marine animals seem to
be the most sensitive organism tested.
Toxicities of zinc in nutrient solutions have been demonstrated for a
number of plants. A variety of fresh water plants tested manifested
harmful symptoms at concentrations of 10 mg/1. Zinc sulfate has also been
found to be lethal to many plants and it could impair agricultural uses of
the water.
Zinc is not destroyed when treated by POTW, but will either pass through to
the POTW effluent or be retained in the POTW sludge. It can interfere with
treatment processes in the POTW and can also limit the usefuleness of
municipal sludge.
442
-------
In slug doses, and particularly in the presence of copper, dissolved zinc
can interfere with or seriously disrupt the operation of POTW biological
processes by reducing overall removal efficiencies, largely as a result of
the toxicity of the metal to biological organisms. However, zinc solids in
the form of hydroxides or sulfides do not appear to interfere with
biological treatment processes, on the basis of available data. Such
solids accumulate in the sludge.
The influent concentrations of zinc to POTW facilities has been observed by
the EPA to range from 0.017 to 3.91 mg/1, with a median concentration of
0.33 mg/1. Primary treatment is not efficient in removing zinc; however,
the microbial floe of secondary treatment readily adsorbs zinc.
In a study of 258 POTW, the median pass-through values were 70 to 88
percent for primary plants, 50 to 60 percent for trickling filter and
biological process plants, and 30-40 percent for activated process plants.
POTW effluent concentrations of zinc ranged from 0.003 to 3.6 mg/1 (mean =
0.330, standard deviation = 0.464).
The zinc which does not pass through the POTW is retained in the sludge.
The presence of zinc in sludge may limit its use on cropland. Sewage
sludge contains 72 to over 30,000 mg/kg of zinc, with 3,366 mg/kg as the
mean value. These concentrations are significantly greater than those
normally found in soil, which range from 0 to 195 mg/kg, with 94 mg/kg
being a common level. Therefore, application of sewage sludge to soil will
generally increase the concentration of zinc in the soil. Zinc can be
toxic to plants, depending upon soil pH. Lettuce, tomatoes, turnips,
mustard, kale, and beets are especially sensitive to zinc contamination.
Aluminum. Aluminum is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a silvery white
metal, very abundant in the earths crust (8.1 percent), but never found
free in nature. Its principal ore is bauxite. Alumina (A1203) is
extracted from the bauxite and dissolved in molten cryolite. Aluminum is
produced by electrolysis of this melt.
Aluminum is light, malleable, ductile, possesses high thermal and
electrical conductivity, and is non-magnetic. It can be formed, machined
or cast. Although aluminum is very reactive, it forms a protective oxide
film on the surface which prevents corrosion under many conditions. In
contact with other metals in presence of moisture the protective film is
destroyed and voluminous white corrosion products form. Strong acids and
strong alkali also break down the protective film. Aluminum is one of the
principal basis metals used in the coil coating industry.
Aluminum is non-toxic and its salts are used as coagulants in water
treatment. Although some aluminum salts are soluble, alkaline conditions
cause precipitation of the aluminum as a hydroxide.
443
-------
Aluminum is commonly used in cooking utensils. There are no reported
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.
Ammonia. 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 very 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 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 aqueous
solutions. The ionized form (NH4+) is less toxic than the unionized form.
Ingestion of as little as one ounce of household ammonia 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 ammonium compounds may be accidently treated with
a strong alkali, releasing ammonia gas. As little as 150 ppm ammonia in
air is reported to cause laryngeal spasm, and inhalation of 5000 ppm in air
is considered sufficient to result in death.
The 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 POTW. , One study has shown that
concentrations of unionized 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.
Barium. Barium is a non-conventional pollutant. It is an alkaline earth
metal which in the pure state is soft and silvery white. It reacts with
444
-------
moisture in the air, and reacts vigorously with water, releasing hydrogen.
The principal ore is barite (BaS04) although witherite (BaC03) was a
commerical ore at one time. Many barium compounds have, commerical
applications. However, drilling muds consume 90 percent of all barite
produced. For manufacture of the other chemicals barite is converted to
barium sulfide first. The aqueous barium sulfide is then treated to
produce the desired product. Barite itself and some other insoluble barium
compounds are used as fillers and pigments in paints. Barium carbonate is
the most important commerical barium compound except for the natural
sulfate. The carbonate is used in the brick, ceramic, oil-well drilling,
photographic, glass, and chemical manufacturing industries.
Barium compounds such as the acetate, chloride, hydroxide, and nitrate are
water soluble; the arsenate, chromate, fluoride, oxalate, and sulfate are
insoluble. Those salts soluble in water and acid, including the carbonate
and sulfide are toxic to humans. Barium sulfate is so insoluble that it is
non-toxic and is used in X-ray medical diagnosis of the digestive tract.
For that purpose the sulfate must pass rigorous tests to assure absence of
water or acid soluble barium.
Lethal adult doses of most soluble barium salts are in the range of 1 to 15
g. The barium ion stimulates muscular tissue and causes a depression in
serum potassium. Symptoms of acute barium poisioning include salivation,
vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea; slow and often irregular pulse;
hypertension; heart disturbances; tinnitus, vertigo; muscle twitching
progressing to convulsions or paralysis; dilated pupils, confusion; and
somnolence. Death may occur from respiratory failure due to paralysis of
the respiratory muscles, or from cardiac arrest or fibrillation.
Raw wastewaters from most industrial facilities are unlikely to bear
concentrations of soluble barium which would pose a threat to human health.
The general presence of small concentrations of sulfate ion in many
wastewaters is expected to be sufficient to convert the barium to the non-
toxic barium sulfate.
No data were found relating to the behavior of barium in POTW. However,
the insolubility of barium sulfate and the presence of sulfates in most
municipal wastewaters is expected to lead to removal of soluble barium by
precipitation follwed by settling out with the other suspended solids. It
is reported that the typical mineral pickup from domestic water use
increases the sulfate concentration of 15 to 30 mg/1. If it is assumed
that sulfate concentration exists in POTW, and the sulfate is not destroyed
or precipitated by another metal ion, the dissolved barium concentration
would not exceed 0.1 mg/1 at neutral pH in a POTW.
Boron. Boron is a non-conventional pollutant. Elemental boron does not
occur in nature and in the highly refined form (99.9999 percent purity) has
only limited use. The compounds of boron are the only form used
extensively in industrial application. The boron minerals of commerical
445
-------
significance in the U.S. are tincal (also called borax, Na2O2B203«10H20),
kernite (Na2O2B203»4H20), as well as colemanite, ulexite, and probertite
which are hydrated oxides of boron and calcium, or boron, calcium, and
sodium.
Uses of boric acid and the various sodium, potassium, ammonium, and calcium
borates include manufacture of adhesives, corrosion inhibitors, electrical
insulation, fertilizers, fire retardants, insecticides, photography, and
vitreous enamels, frits and glazes. Boric acid itself is also used as a
mild antiseptic.
Conflicting reports about the toxicity of boric acid and borax in humans
have been published. On one hand, reports are available of high doses of
borax administred for neutron capture therapy for brain tumors without
adverse effects. On the other hand, reports have been repeatedly made for
a hundred years, of human fatalities resulting from theraputic misadventure
and accidental poisoning by boric acid and borax.
Acute poisoning causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle twitches and
convulsions, and bright red skin rashes. Lethal dose for adults is
considered to be 15 to 20 g. In addition to ingestion, application of
boric acid to large areas of bruised skin have been reported to lead to the
above symptoms and fatality. Raw wastewater from most industrial processes
are unlikely to bear concentrations of boron compounds sufficiently high to
be a human health hazard.
No data were found relating to behavior of boron compounds in POTW.
However, it has been reported that boron compounds are toxic to
microorganisms and that their presence must be taken into consideration in
design of biological treatment plants. Concentrations causing interference
were not reported, but the same source reports that typical mineral pickup
from domestic water use contributes 0.1 to 0.4 mg/1 boron in the seweage
system. Thus interfering concentrations are probably greater than 0.4
mg/1.
Cobalt. Cobalt is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a brittle, hard,
magnetic, gray metal with a reddish tinge. Cobalt ores are usually the
sulfide or arsenide [smaltite-(Co,Ni)As2; cobaltite-CoAsS] and are
sparingly distributed in the earth's crust. Cobalt is usually produced as
a by-product of mining copper, nickel, arsenic, iron, mangense, or silver.
Because of the variety of ores and the very low concentrations of cobalt,
recovery of the metal is accomplished by several different processes. Most
consumption of cobalt is for alloys. Over two-thirds of U.S. production
goes to heat resistant, magnetic, and wear resistant alloys. Chemicals and
color pigments make up most of the rest of consumption.
Cobalt and many of its alloys are not corrosion resistant, therefore minor
corrosion of any of the tool alloys or electrical resistance alloys can
contribute to its presence in raw wastewater from a variety of
446
-------
manufacturing facilities. Additionally, the use of cobalt soaps as dryers
to accelerate curing of unsaturated oils used in coatings may be a general
source of small quantities of the metal. Several cobalt pigments are used
in paints to produce yellows or blues.
Cobalt is an essential nutrient for humans and other mammals, and is
present at a fairly constant level of about 1.2 mg in the adult human body.
Mammals tolerate low levels of ingested water-soluble cobalt salts without
any toxic symptoms; safe dosage levels in man have been stated to be 2-7
mg/kg body weight per day. A goitrogenic effect in humans is observed
after the systemic administration of 3-4 mg cobalt as cobaltous chloride
daily for three weeks. Fatal heart disease among heavy beer drinkers was
attributed to the cardiotoxic action of cobalt salts which were formerly
used as additives to improve foaming. The carcinogenicity of cobalt in
rats has been verified, however, there is no evidence for the involvement
of dietary cobalt in carcinogenisis in mammals.
There are no data available on the behavior of cobalt in POTW. There are
no data to lead to an expectation of adverse effects of cobalt on POTW
operation or the utility of sludge from POTW for crop application. Cobalt
which enters POTW is expected to pass through to the effluent unless
sufficient sulfide ion is present, or generated in anaerobic processes in
the POTW to cause precipitation of the very insoluble cobalt sulfide.
Fluoride. Fluoride ion (F~) is a non-conventional 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 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;
perehloryl 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 both decay in children.
The toxic effects of fluoride on humans include severe gastroenteritis,
vomiting diarrhea, spasms, weakness, thirst, failing pulse and delayed
blood coagulation. Most observations of toxic effects are made on
447
-------
individuals who intentionally or accidentally ingest sodium fluoride
intended for use as rate poison or insecticide. Lethal doses for adults
are estimated to be as low as 2.5 g. At 1.5 ppm in drinking water, motling
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 conventional primary and
secondary treatment processes is removed. In one study of POTW influents
conducted by the U.S. EPA, nine POTW reported 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 non-conventional polluant. It is an abundant metal 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 common of these is carbon.
Iron is the basic element in the production of steel. Iron with carbon is
used for casting of major parts of machines and it can be machined, cast,
formed, and welded. Ferrous iron is used in paints, while powdered iron
can be sintered and used in powder metallurgy- Iron compounds are also
used to precipitate other metals and undesirable minerals from industrial
wastewater streams.
Corrosion products of iron in water cause staining of porcelain fixtures,
and ferric iron combines with tannin to produce a dark violet color. The
presence of excessive iron in water discourages cows from drinking and thus
reduces milk production. High concentrations of ferric and ferrous ions in
water kill most fish introduced to the solution within a few hours. The
killing action is attributed to coatings of iron hydroxide precipitates on
the gills. Iron oxidizing bacteria are dependent on iron in water for
growth. These bacteria form slimes that can affect the aesthetic values of
bodies of water and cause stoppage of flows in pipes.
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
448
-------
0.25 mg/1. This represented removals of 76 to 97 percent with a median of
87 percent removal.
Iron in sewage sludge spread on land used for agricultural purposes is not
expcected to have a detrimental effect on crops grown on the land.
Manganese. Manganese is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a gray-white
metal resembling iron, but more brittle. The pure metal does not occur in
nature, but must be produced by reduction of the oxide with sodium,
magnesium, or aluminum, or by electrolysis. The principal ores are
pyrolusite (Mn02) and psilomelane (a complex mixture of Mn02 and oxides of
potassium, barium and other alkali and alkaline earth metals). The largest
percentage of manganese used in the U.S. is in ferro-manganese alloys. A
small amount goes into dry batteries and chemicals.
Manganese is not often present in natural surface waters because its
hydroxides and carbonates are only sparingly soluble.
Mangenese is undesirable in domestic water supplies because it causes
unpleasant tastes, deposits on food during cooking, stains and discolors
laundry and plumbing fixtures, and fosters the growth of some
microorganisms in reservoirs, filters, and distribution systems.
Small concentratons of 0.2 to 0.3 mg/1 manganese may cause building of
heavy encrustations in piping. Excessive manganese is also undesirable in
water for use in many industries, including textiles, dying, food
processing, distilling, brewing, ice, and paper.
The recommended limitations for manganese in drinking water in the U.S. is
0.05 mg/1; The limit appears to be based on aesthetic and economic factors
rather than physiological hazards. Most investigators regard manganese to
be of no toxicological significance in drinking water at concentrations not
causing unpleasant tastes. However, cases of manganese poisoning have been
reported in the literature. A small outbreak of encephalitis - like
disease, with early symptoms of lethergy and edema, was traced to manganese
in the drinking water in a village near Tokyo. Three persons died as a
result of poisoning by well water contaminated by manganese derived from
dry-cell batteris buried nearby. Excess manganese in the drinking water is
also believed to be the cause of a rare disease endemic in Northeastern
China.
No data were found regarding the behavior of manganese in POTW. However,
one source reports that typical mineral pickup from domestic water use
results in an increase in manganese concentration of 0.2 to 0.4 mg/1 in a
municipal sewage system. Therefore, it is expected that interference in
POTW, if it occurs, would not be noted until manganese concentrations
exceeded 0.4 mg/1.
449
-------
Phenols(Total). "Total Phenols" is a non-conventional pollutant parameter.
Total phenols is the result of analysis using the 4-AAP (4-aminoantipyrene)
method. This analytical procedure measures the color development of
reaction products between 4-AAP and some phenols. The results are reported
as phenol. Thus "total phenol" is not total phenols because many phenols
(notably nitrophenols) do not react. Also, since each reacting phenol
contributes to the color development to a different degree, and each phenol
has a molecular weight different from others and from phenol itself,
analyses of several mixtures containing the same total concentration in
mg/1 of several phenols will give different numbers depending on the
proportions in the particular mixture.
Despite these limitations of the analytical method, total phenols is a
useful parameter when the mix of phenols is relatively constant and an
inexpensive monitoring method is desired. In any given plant or even in an
industry subcategory, monitoring of "total phenols" provides an indication
of the concentration of this group of priority pollutants as well as those
phenols not selected as priority pollutants. A further advantage is that
the method is widely used in water quality determinations.
In an EPA survey of 103 POTW the concentration of "total phenols" ranged
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 mg/1 to 0.203 mg/1 with a
median of 0.007. Removals were 64 to 100 percent with a median of 78
percent.
It must be recognized, however, that six of the eleven priority pollutant
phenols could be present in high concentrations and not be detected.
Conversely, it is possible, but not probable, to have'a high "total phenol"
concentration without any phenol itself or any of the ten other priority
pollutant phenols present. A characterization of the phenol mixture to be
monitored to establish constancy of composition will allow "total phenols"
to be used with confidence.
Phosphorus. Phosphorus, a conventional pollutant, is a general term used
to designate the various anions containing pentavalent phosphorus and
oxygen - orthophsophate [(PO*)-3], metaphosphate [(P03)-], pyrophosphate
[(P0207-4], hypophosphate T(P206)-4]. The element phosphorous exists in
several allotropic forms - red, white or yellow, and black. White
phosphorus reacts with oxygen in air, igniting spontaneously. It is not
found free in nature, but is widely distributed in nature. The most
important commercial sources of phosphate are the apatites [3Ca3(P04)2»CaF2
and 3Ca3(P04)2»CaCl2]. Phosphates also occur in bone and other tissue.
Phosphates are essential for plant and animal life. Several millions of
tons of phosphates are mined and converted for use each year in the U.S.
The major form produced is phosphoric acid. The acid is then used to
produce other phosphate chemicals.
450
-------
The largest use for phosphates is fertilizer. Most of the U.S. production
of phosphoric acid goes into that application. Phosphates are used in
cleaning preparations for .household and industrial applications and as
corrosion inhibitors in boiler feed water and cooling towers.
Phosphates are not controlled because of toxic effects on man. Phosphates
are controlled because they promote growth of algae and other plant life in
aquatic environments. Such growth becomes unsightly first, and if it
florishes, eventually dies, and adds to the BOD. The result can be a dead
body of water. No standards or criteria appear to have been established
for U.S. surface waters.
Phosphorus is one of the concerns of any POTW, because phosphates are
introduced into domestic wastewaters from human body wastes and food wastes
as well as household detergents. About ten percent of the phosphorus
entering POTW is insoluble and is removed by primary settling. Biological
treatment removes very little of the remaining phosphate. Removal is
accomplished by forming an insoluble precipitate which will settle out.
Alum, lime, and ferric chloride or sulfate are commonly used for this
purpose. The point of addition of chemicals for phosphate removal requires
careful evaluation because pH adjustment may be required, and material and
capital costs differ with different removal schemes. The phosphate content
of the effluent also varies according to the scheme used. There is concern
about the effect of phosphate contained in sludge used for soil amendment.
Phosphate is a principal ingredient of fertilizers.
Strontium. Strontium, a non-conventional pollutant, is a hard silver-white
alkaline earth metal. The metal reacts readily with water and moisture in
the air. It does not occur as the free metal in nature. Principal ores
are strontianite (SrCO?) and celestite (SrS04). The metal is produced from
the oxide by heating with aluminum, but no commerical uses for the pure
metal are known.
Small percentages of strontium are alloyed with the lead used to cast grids
for some maintenance free lead acid batteries. Strontium compounds are
used in limited quantites in special applications. Strontium hydroxide
[Sr(OH)2] import thermal and mechanical stability and moisture resistance.
The hydroxide is also used in preparation of stabilizers for vinyl
plastics. Several strontium compounds are used in pyrotechnics.
Very few data are available regarding toxic effects of strontium in humans.
Some studies indicate that strontium may be essential to growth in mammals.
Large amounts of strontium compounds orally administered, have retarded
growth and caused rickets in laboratory animals. Strontium is considered
to be nontoxic or of very low toxicity in humans. Specific involvement of
strontium toxicity in enzyme or biochemical systems is not known.
No reports were found regarding behavior of strontium in POTW. At the low
concentrations of strontium to be expected under normal conditions, the
451
-------
strontium is expected to pass through into the POTW effluent in the
dissolved state.
Sulfides
Sulfides are oxidizable and therefore can exert an oxygen demand on the
receiving stream. Their presence in amounts which consume oxygen at a rate
exceeding the oxygen uptake of the stream can produce a condition of
insufficient dissolved oxygen in the receiving water. Sulfides also impart
an unpleasant taste and odor to the water and can render the water unfit
for other uses.
Sulfides are constituents of many industrial wastes such as those from
tanneries, paper mills, chemical plants, and gas works; but they are also
generated in sewage and some natural waters by the anaerobic decomposition
or 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. Thus, when reference is made to sulfides in water, the
reader should bear in mind that the sulfide is probably in the form of HS
or H2S.
Owing to the unpleasant taste and odor which results when sulfides occur in
water, it is unlikely that any person or animals will consume a harmful
dose. The thresholds of tast and small were reported to be 0.2 mg/1 of
sulfides in pulpmill wastes. For industrial uses, however, even small
traces of sulfides are often detrimental. Sulfides are of little
importance in irrigation waters.
The toxicity of solutions of sulfides toward fish increases as the pH value
is lowered, i.e., the H2S or HS- rather than the sulfide ion, appears to be
the principle toxic agent. In water containing 3.2 mg/1 of sodium sulfide,
trout overturned in two hours at pH 9.0, in ten minutes at pH 7.8, and in
four minutes at pH 6.0. Inorganic sulfides have proved to be fatal to
sensitive fish such as trout at concentrations between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1 as
sulfide, even in neutral and somewhat alkaline solutions.
Titanium. Titanium is a non-conventional pollutant. It is a lustrous
white metal occuring as the oxide in ilmenite (FeO«Ti02) and rutile (Ti02).
The metal is used in heat-resistant, high-strength, light-weight alloys for
aircraft and missiles. It is also used in surgical appliances because of
its high strength and light weight. Titanium dioxide is used extensively
as a white pigment in paints, ceramics, and plastics.
Toxicity data on titanium are not abundant. Because of the lack of
definitive data titanium compounds are generally considered non-toxic.
Large oral doses of titanium dioxide (Ti02) and thiotitanic acid (H4TiS03)
were tolerated by rabbits for several days with no toxic symptoms.
However, impaired reproductive capacity was observed in rats fed 5 mg/1
452
-------
titanium as titanate in drinking water. There was also a reduction in the
male/female ratio and in the number of animals surviving to the third
generation. Titanium compounds are reported to inhibit several enzyme
systems and to be carcinogenic.
The behavior of titanium in POTW has not been studied. On the basis of the
insolubility of the titanium oxides in water, it is expected that most of
the titanium entering the POTW will be removed by settling and will remain
in the sludge. No data were found regarding possible effects on plants as
a result of spreading titanium - containing sludge on agricultural
cropland.
Total Organic Carbon. Total Organic Carbon (TOO is an alternative measure
of the amount of organic matter in a wastewater. Other measures are BOD
and COD. TOC is rapid and can be determined on a small quantity of sample.
The sample is injected into a high temperature furnace and oxidized in the
presence of a catalyst. Carbon dioxide is analysed instrumentally. Some
resistant compounds will not be oxidized. Potentially, each organic
priority pollutant makes a specific contribution to TOC. Some however are
not oxidized under the analytical conditions. Many other organic compounds
also contribute to TOC.
Typical TOC values for untreated domestic wastewater are 80 to 290 mg/1.
There is no specific toxic effect associated with TOC because everything
from fecal coliform bacteria, to oil and grease, to phthalate esters are
included to some extent in this parameter.
Behavior of TOC in POTW must be determined by the individual components.
Removal of TOC by primary settling and biological treatment in POTW will
vary from almost zero to almost complete. Effect of TOC on crops grown in
sludge-amended soil must be evaluated by looking at what went into the TOC.
Oil and Grease. Oil and grease are taken together as one pollutant
parameter. This is a conventional polluant and some of its components are:
1. Light Hydrocarbons - These include light fuels such as gasoline,
kerosene, and jet fuel, and miscellaneous solvents used for industrial
processing, degreasing, or cleaning purposes. The presence of these
light hydrocarbons may make the removal of other heavier oil wastes
more difficult.
2. Heavy Hydrocarbons, Fuels, and Tars - These include the crude 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 into two classes:
non-emulsifiable oils such as lubricating oils and greases and
emulsifiable oils such as water soluble oils, rolling oils, cutting
453
-------
oils, and drawing compounds. Emulsifiable oils may contain fat soap
or various other additives.
4. Vegetable and Animal Fats and Oils - These originate primarily from
processing of foods and natural products.
These compounds can settle or float and may exist as solids or liquids
depending upon factors such as method of use, production process, and
temperature of wastewater.
Oils and grease even in small quantities cause troublesome taste and odor
problems. Scum lines from these agents are produced on water treatment
basin walls and other containers. Fish and water fowl are adversely
affected by oils in their habitat. Oil emulsions may adhere to the gills
of fish causing suffocation, and the flesh of fish is tainted when
microorganisms that were exposed to waste oil are eaten. Deposition of oil
in the bottom sediments of water can serve to inhibit normal benthic
growth. Oil and grease exhibit an oxygen demand.
Many of the organic priority pollutants will be found distributed between
the oily phase and the aqueous phase in industrial wastewaters. The
presence of phenols, PCBs, PAHs, and almost any other organic pollutant in
the oil and grease make characterization of this parameter almost
impossible. However, all of these other organics add to the objectionable
nature of the oil and grease.
Levels of oil and grease which are toxic to aquatic organisms vary greatly,
depending on the type and the species susceptibility. However, it has been
reported that crude oil in concentrations'as low as 0.3 mg/1 is extremely
toxic to fresh-water fish. It has been recommended that public water
supply sources be essentially free from oil and grease.
Oil and grease in quantities of 100 1/sq km show up as a sheen on the
surface of a body of water. The presence of oil slicks decreases the
aesthetic value of a waterway.
Oil and grease is compatible with a POTW activated sludge process in
limited quantity. However, slug loadings or high concentrations of oil and
grease interfere with biological treatment processes. The oils coat
surfaces and solid particles, preventing access of oxygen, and sealing in
some microorganisms. Land spreading of POTW sludge containing oil and
grease uncontaminated by toxic pollutants is not expected to affect crops
grown on the treated land, or animals eating those crops.
p_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
454
-------
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
effectiveness. 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.
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or kill
aquatic life outright. . Even moderate changes from acceptable criteria
limits of pH are deleterious to some species. The relative toxicity to
aquatic life of many materials is increased by changes in the water pH.
For example, metallocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in
toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units.
Because of the universal nature of pH and its effect on water quality and
treatment, it is selected as a pollutant parameter for all subcategories in
the coil coating industry. 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 Pretreatment
Regulations for Exisiting and New Sources of Pollution," 40 CFR 403.5.
This section prohibits the discharge to a POTW of "pollutants which will
cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW but in no case discharges
with pH lower than 5.0 unless the works is specially designed to
accommodate such discharges."
Total Suspended Solids(TSS). Suspended solids include both organic and
inorganic materials. The inorganic compounds include sand, silt, and clay.
The organic fraction includes such materials as grease, oil, tar, and
animal and vegetable waste products. These solids may settle out rapidly,
and bottom deposits are often a mixture of both organic and inorganic
solids. Solids may be suspended in water for a time and then settle to the
bed of the stream or lake. These solids discharged with man's wastes may
be inert, slowly biodegradable materials, or rapidly decomposable
substances. While in suspension, suspended solids increase the turbidity
455
-------
of the water, reduce light penetration, and impair the photosynthetic
activity of aquatic plants.
Supended solids in water interfere with many industrial processes and cause
foaming in boilers and incrustastions on equipment exposed to such water,
especially as the temperature rises. They are undesirable in process water
used in the manufacture of steel, in the textile industry, in laundries, in
dyeing, and in cooling systems.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When they settle to
form sludge deposits on the stream or lake bed, they are often damaging to
the life in the water. Solids, when transformed to sludge deposit, amy 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.
Total suspended solids is a traditional pollutant which is compatible with
a ' well-run POTW. This pollutant with the exception of those components
which are described elsewhere in this section, e.g., heavy metal
components, does not interfere with the operation of a POTW. However,
since a considerable portion of the innocuous TSS may be inseparably bound
to the constituents which do interfere with POTW operation, or produce
unusable sludge, or subsequently dissolve to produce unacceptable POTW
effluent, TSS may be considered a toxic waste hazard.
456
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the treatment techniques currently used or available
to remove or recover wastewater pollutants normally generated by metal
molding and casting processes. Included are discussions of individual
treatment technologies and in-plant technologies.
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Individual recovery and treatment technologies are described which are used
or are suitable for use in treating wastewater discharges from foundries.
The technology descriptions are grouped by primary application under five
headings: Dissolved Inorganics Removal, Solids Removal, Recovery
Techniques, Oil Removal and Cyanide and Phenol Destruction. Each
description includes a functional description and discussions of
application and performance, advantages and limitations, operational
factors of reliability, maintainability, solid waste aspects, and
demonstration status. The treatment processes described include both
technologies presently demonstrated within the foundry manufacturing
category, and technologies demonstrated in treatment of similar wastes in
other industries.
Even though some of the techniques are used in more than one of the
classifications, they are only described once.
DISSOLVED INORGANICS REMOVAL
t
Foundry process wastewater streams characteristically contain significant
levels of toxic metals. Copper, lead, nickel, and zinc and are found in
wastewater streams at substantial concentrations.
In general, these pollutants are removed by chemical precipitation and
clarification or filtration. Most of them may be effectively removed by
precipitation of metal hydroxides or carbonates by reaction with lime,
sodium hydroxide, or sodium carbonate. For some, improved removals are
provided by the use of sodium sulfide, ferrous sulfide, or sodium bisulfide
to precipitate the pollutants as sulfide compounds with exceedingly low
solubilities.
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be chemically
precipitated so that they may be removed by physical means such as
457
-------
sedimentation, filtration, or centrifugation. Several reagents are
commonly used to effect this precipitation.
1) Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may be used to
precipitate many toxics metal ions as metal hydroxides. Lime also may
precipitate phosphates as insoluble calcium phosphate and fluorides as
calcium fluoride.
2) Both soluble sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or sodium sulfide and
insoluble sulfides such as ferrous sulfide may be used to precipitate
many heavy metal ions as insoluble metal sulfides.
3) Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate or both (as is required) may be used to
precipitate cyanide as a ferro or zinc ferricyanide complex.
4) Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals either by direct
precipitation using a carbonate reagent such as calcium carbonate or
by converting hydroxides into carbonates using carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or rapid mix tank,
to a presettling tank, or directly to a clarifier or other settling device.
Because metal hydroxides tend to be colloidal in nature, coagulating agents
may also be added to facilitate settling. After the solids have been
removed, final pH adjustment may be required to reduce the high pH created
by the alkaline treatment chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals from wastewater
is a complex process made up of at least two steps - precipitation of the
unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate. Some 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
and related factors. The effectiveness of this method of removing any
specific metal depends on the fraction of the specific metal in the raw
waste (and hence in the precipitate) and the effectiveness of suspended
solids removal.
Application and Performance
Chemical precipitation is used in foundries for precipitation of dissolved
metals. It can be utilized to permit removal of metal ions such as
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, 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 factors affecting precipitation effectiveness are:
458
-------
1. Maintenance of an alkaline pH throughout the precipitation
reaction and subsequent settling.
2. Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to drive the
precipitation reaction to completion.
3. Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical ions (such as iron
or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and removal of specific
target ions.
4. Effective removal of precipitated solids (see appropriate
technologies discussed under "Solids Removal").
Control of_ pH. Irrespective of the solids removal technology employed,
proper control of pH is absolutely essential for favorable performance of
precipitation-sedimentation technologies. This is clearly illustrated by
solubility curves for selected metals hydroxides and sulfides shown in
Figure VII-1, and by plotting effluent zinc concentrations against pH as
shown in Figure VI1-2. It is partially illustrated by data obtained from 3
consecutive days of sampling at one metal processing plant (47432) as
displayed in Table VII-1.
459
-------
TABLE VII-1
pH Control Effect on Metals Removal
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In Out In Out In Out
pH Range 2.4-3.4 8.5-8.7 1.0-3.0 5.0-6.0 2.0-5.0 6.5-8.1
(mg/1)
TSS 39 8 16 19 16 7
Copper 312 0.22 120 5.12 107 0.66
Zinc 250 0.31 32.5 25.0 43.8 0.66
This treatment system utilizes lime precipitation (pH adjustment) followed
by coagulant addition and sedimentation. Samples were taken before (in)
and after (out) the treatment system. The best treatment or removal of
copper and zinc was achieved on day one when the pH was maintained at a
satisfactory level. The poorest treatment was found on the second day when
the pH slipped to an unacceptably low level and intermediate values were
were achieved on the third day when pH values were less than desirable but
in between the first and second days.
Sodium hydroxide is used by a plant (plant 439) with metal process
wastewater pollutants for pH adjustment and chemical precipitation,
followed by settling (sedimentation and a polishing lagoon) of precipitated
solids. Samples were taken prior to caustic addition and following the
polishing lagoon. Flow through the system is approximately 6,000 gal/hr.
460
-------
TABLE VI1-2
Effectiveness of NaOH for Metals Removal
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In Out Iji Out In Out
pH Range 2.1-2.9 9.0-9.3 2.0-2.4 8.7-9.1 2.0-2.4 8.6-9.1
(mg/1)
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Zn
TSS
0.097
0.063
9.24
1.0
0.11
0.077
.054
0.0
0.018
0.76
0.11
0.06
0.011
0.0
13
0.057
0.078
15.5
1.36
0.12
0.036
0.12
0.005
0.014
0.92
0.13
0.044
0.009
0.0
11
0.068
0.053
9.41
1.45
0.11
0.069
0.19
0.005
0.019
0.95
0.11
0.044
0.011
0.037
11
These data indicate that the system was operated efficiently. Effluent pH
was controlled within the range of 8.6-9.3, and, while raw waste loadings
were not unusually high, most heavy metals were removed to very low
concentrations.
Lime and sodium hydroxide are sometimes used to precipitate metals. Data
developed data from plant 40063, a facility with wastewater similar to
foundry wastewaters, exemplify efficient operation of a chemical
precipitation and settling system. Sampling data from this system, which
consists of the addition of lime and sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment and
chemical precipitation, polyelectrolyte flocculant addition, and
sedimentation. Samples were taken of the raw waste influent to the system
and of the clarifier effluent. Flow through the system is approximately
5,000 gal/hr.
461
-------
TABLE VI1-3
Effectiveness of Lime and NaOH for Metals Removal
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In Out In Out In Out
pH Range 9.2-9.6 8.3-9.8 9.2 7.6-8.1 9.6 7.8-8.2
(mg/1)
Al 37.3 0.35 38.1 0.35 29.9 0.35
Cu 0.65 0.003 0.63 0.003 0.72 0.003
Fe 137 0.49 110 0.57 208 0.58
Mn 175 0.12 205 0.012 245 0.12
Ni 6.86 0.0 5.84 0.0 5.63 0.0
Se 28.6 0.0 30.2 0.0 27.4 0.0
Ti 143 0.0 125 0.0 115 0.0
Zn 18.5 0.027 16.2 0.044 17.0 0.01
TSS 4390 9 3595 13 2805 13
At this plant, effluent TSS levels were below 15 mg/1 on each day, despite
average raw waste TSS concentrations of over 3500 mg/1. Effluent pH was
maintained at approximately 8, lime addition was sufficient to precipitate
the dissolved metal ions, and the flocculant addition and clarifier
retention served to effectively remove the precipitated solids.
Precipitation-Sedimentation Performance
Sampling data was analyzed from over thirty industrial plants successfully
employing chemical precipitation as a waste treatment technology. The
plants included in this analysis all employ pH adjustment and hydroxide
precipitation using lime or caustic, followed by settling (tank, lagoon or
clarifier) for solids removal. Most also add a coagulant or flocculant
prior to solids removal. No sample analysis were included where effluent
TSS levels exceeded 50 mg/1 or the effluent pH fell below 7.0. This was
done to exclude any data which represented clearly inadequate operation of
the treatment system. These data are derived from a variety of industrial
manufacturing operations which have wastewater relatively similar to
foundry process wastewater. Plots were made of the available data for
eight metal pollutants showing effluent concentration vs. raw waste
concentration (Figures VII-3 - VII-11) for each parameter. Table VII-4
462
-------
summarizes data shown in Figures VI1-3 - VII-11, tabulating for each
pollutant of interest to the number of data points, maximum observed value
and average of observed values. Generally accepted design values (GADV)
for these metals are also shown in Table VI1-4.
TABLE VI1-4
Hydroxide Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance
Specific No. data
metal points
Observed Values
Maximum Average
GADV
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
P
Zn
7
29
24
35
20
14
21
28
0.10
0.5
50
00
1,
1
0.13
0.50
00
50
2,
5,
2.00
0.03
0.15
0.30
0.35
0.02
0.15
0.50
1.20
0.30
2
3
0.02
0.2
0,
0,
0.02
0.3
0.2
0.5
A number of other pollutant parameters were considered with regard to the
performance of hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation treatment systems in
removing them from industrial wastewater. Sampling data for most of these
parameters is scarce, so published sources were largely consulted for the
determination of average and 24-hour maximum concentrations. Sources
consulted include text books, periodicals and EPA publications as well as
applicable sampling data.
The available data indicate that the concentrations shown in Table VI1-5
are reliably attainable with hydroxide precipitation and sedimentation.
463
-------
TABLE VII-5
Hydroxide Precipitation-Sedimentation Performance
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS
Parameter Average 24-Hour Maximum
(mg/1)
Fluoride 15 30
Aluminum 0.2 0.55
Antimony 0.05 0.5
Arsenic 0.05 0.5
Beryllium 0.3 1.0
Cobalt 0.07 0.5
Mercury 0.03 0.1
Selenium 0.01 0.1
Titanium 0.01 0.1
Precipitation-Sedimentation-Filtration Performance
Long term data were analyzed from two plants which have well operated
precipitation-sedimentation treatment followed by filtrates. The
wastewaters from both plants contain pollutants from metals processing and
finishing operations (multi-category). Both plants reduce hexavalent
chromium before neutralizing and precipitating metals with lime. A
clarifier is used to remove much of the solids load and a filter used to
"polish" or complete removal of suspended solids. Plant A uses pressure
filtration while Plant B uses a rapid sand filter.
Raw waste data was collected only occasionally at each facility and the raw
waste data is presented as an indication of the nature of the wastewater
treated. Data from plant A was received as a statistical summary and is
presented as received. Raw laboratory data was collected at plant B and
reviewed for spurious points and discrepencies. To eliminate unexplained
spurious points the data was averaged and points falling outside 3 standard
deviations above the mean were purged. (As a matter of information, this
procedure purged 16 days data because of spurious nickel values, 22 for
iron, 1 for zinc and 12 for chrominum, out of a data base of about 1400
points). After purging the data was reanalyzed and is presented below.
464
-------
TABLE VII-6
PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION-FILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Plant A
Parameters No Pts
For 1979-Treated
Cu
Ni
Cr
Zn
Fe
For 1978-Treated
Cu
Ni
Cr
Zn
Fe
Raw Waste
Cu
Ni
Cr
Zn
Fe
Range mq/1
Mean +,
std . dev .
Mean + 2
std. dev.
Wastewater
12
47
47
47
0.
0.
0.
0.
01
08
015
08
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
03
64
13
53
0.
0.
0.
0.
019
22
045
17
+0.
+ 0.
To.
+ 0.
006
13
029
09
0.
0.
0.
0.
03
48
10
35
Wastewater
28
47
47
47
21
5
5
5
5
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
32.
33.
10.
005
10
01
08
26
08
65
0
2
0
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 2.
- 1.
- 0
- 20
- 72
- 32
- 95
055
92
07
35
1
.45
.0
.0
.0
.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
016
20
06
23
49
+0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
+ 0.
010
14
10
34
18
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
04
48
26
91
85
465
-------
TABLE VI1-7
PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION-FILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Plant B
Mean +. Mean + 2
Parameters No Pts. Range mg/1 std. dev. std. dev.
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
Cu 176 0.0 - 0.22 0.024 +0.021 0.07
Ni 175 0.01 - 1.49 0.219 +.0.234 0.69
Cr 175 0.0 - 0.40 0.068 +0.075 0.22
Zn 175 0.01 - 0.66 0.054 +.0.064 0.18
Fe 174 0.01 - 2.40 0.303 +0.398 1.10
TSS 2 1.00-1.00
For 1978-Treated Wastewater
Cu 143 0.0 - 0.23 0.017 +0.020 0.06
Ni 143 0.0 - 1.03 0.147 +0.142 0.43
Cr 144 0.0 - 0.70 0.059 +0.088 0.24
Zn 131 0.0 - 0.24 0.037 +0.034 0.11
Fe 144 0.0 - 1.76 0.200 +0.223 0.47
Total 1974-1979-Treated Wastewater
Cu 1290 0.0 - 0.23 0.011 +0.016 0.04
Ni 1287 0.0 - 1.88 0.184 +0.211 0.60
Cr 1288 0.0 - 0.56 0.038 +.0.055 0.15
Zn 1273 0.0 - 0.66 0.035 +0.045 0.13
Fe 1287 0.0 - 3.15 0.402 +.0.509 1.42
Raw Waste
Cu 3 0.09 - 0.27 0.17
Ni 3 1.61 - 4.89 3.33
Cr 3 2.80 - 9.15 5.90
Zn 2 2.35 - 3.39
Fe 3 3.13 -35.9 22.4
TSS 2 177 - 446
This data are presented to demonstrate the performance of precipitation-
sedimentation-filtration technology (also known as lime and settle with
filter technology) under actual operating conditions and over a long period
of time.
It should be noted that the iron content of the raw waste of both plants is
high. This results in coprecipitation of toxic metals with iron, a process
sometimes called ferrite precipitation. Ferrite precipitation using high-
calcium lime for pH control yields the results shown above. Contact with
466
-------
plant operating personnel indicates that this chemical treatment
combination (sometimes with polymer assisted coagulation) generally
produces better and more consistant metals removal than other combinations
of sacrifical metal ions and alkalis.
Sulfide precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals resulting in
Improved metals removals. Most metal sulfides are less soluable than
hydroxides and the precipitates are frequently more dependably removed from
water. Solubilities for selected metal hydroxide, carbonate and sulfide
precipitates are shown in Table VI1-8. Sulfide precipitation is
particularly effective in removing specific metals such as silver and
mercury. Sampling data from three industrial plants using sulfide
precipitation are presented in Table VI1-9.
TABLE VI1-8
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
OF HEAVY METALS IN PURE WATER
Metal
Cadmium (Cd++)
Chromium (Cr+++0
Cobalt (CC++)
Copper (Cu++)
Iron (Fe++)
Lead (Pb++)
Manganese (Mn++)
Mercury (Hg++)
Nickel '(Ni++)
Silver (Ag+)
Tin (Sn++)
Zinc (An++)
Solubility of metal ion, mq/1
As hydroxide Carbonate As sulfide
6.7 x 10-10
No precipitate
1.0 x 10-"
5.8 x 10-»»
3.4 x 10-s
3.8 x 10-»
2.1 x 10-'
9.0 x 10-20
6.9 x!0-«
7.4 x lO-12
3.8 x 10-»
2.3 x lO-7
2.3 x
8.4 x 10-4
2.2 x 10-»
2.2 x lO-2
8.9 x 10-»
2.1
1.2
3.9 x 10-*
6.9 x 10-'
13.3
1.1 x 10-*
1.1
467
-------
TABLE VI1-9
SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Treatment
pH
(mg/1)
Cr + 6
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
In
5.0-6.8
0.52
39.5
Out
8-9
25.6 <0.014
32.3 <0.04
0.10
<0.07
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
In
Out
7.7
7.38
0.022 <0.020
2.4 <0.1
108 0.6
0.68 <0.1
33.9 <0.1
NaOH, Ferric
Chloride, NaS,
Clarify (1 stage)
In
Out
11.45 <.005
18.35 <.005
0.029 0.003
0.060
0.009
In all cases except iron, effluent concentrations are below 0.1 mg/1 and'in
many cases below 0.01 mg/1 for the three plants studied.
Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants using
sulfide precipitation demonstrate effluent mercury concentrations varying
between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1. As can be seen in Figure VII-1, the
solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower at alkaline pH levels than either
the corresponding hydroxides or other sulfide compounds. This implies that
removal performance for lead and silver sulfides should be comparable to or
better than that shown for the metals listed' in Table VI1-5. Bench scale
tests on several types of metal finishing and manufacturing wastewater
indicate that metals removal to levels of less than 0.05 mg/1 and in some
cases less than 0.01 mg/1 are common in systems using sulfide precipitation
followed by clarification. Some of the bench scale data, particularly in
the case of lead, does not support such low effluent concentrations.
However, lead is consistently removed to very low levels (less than 0.02
mg/1) in systems using hydroxide and carbonate precipitation and
sedimentation.
468
-------
Of particular interest is the ability of sulfide to precipitate hexavalent
chromium (Cr+6) without prior reduction to the tri-valent state as is
required in the hydroxide process. When ferrous sulfide is used as the
precipitant, iron and sulfide act as reducing agents for the hexavalent
chromium according to the reaction:
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 re-
adjustment of pH.
Based on the available data, the minimum reliably attainable effluent
concentrations for sulfide precipitation-sedimentation systems are given in
Table VII-10. These values are used to calculate performance predictions
of sulfide precipitation-sedimentation systems.
TABLE VII-10
SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter Treated Effluent
(mg/1)
Cd 0.01
CrT 0.05
Cu 0.05
Pb 0.01
Hg 0.03
Ni 0.05
Ag 0.05
Zn 0.01
Carbonate precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals, especially
where precipitated metals values are to be recovered. The solubility of
most metal carbonates is intermediate between hydroxide and sulfide
soluabilities and carbonates form easily filtered precipitates.
Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating lead and
antimony. Sodium carbonate has been observed being added at treatment to
improve lead precipitation. The lead hydroxide and lead carbonate
solubility curves displayed in Figure VII-12 explain this phenomena.
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical precipitation has proven to be an effective technique for removing
many pollutants from industrial wastewater. It operates at ambient
conditions and is well suited to automatic control. The use of chemical
precipitation may be limited because of interference of chelating agents,
469
-------
because of the chemical interference possible when mixing wastewaters and
treatment chemicals, or because of the potentially hazardous situation
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
kept well mixed and the addition lines periodically checked to prevent
blocking of the lines, which may result from a buildup of solids. Also,
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 because of
the extremely 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 its trivalent state. In addition, it will precipitate
metals complexed with most complex ing agents. However, care must be taken
to maintain the pH of the solution at approximately 10 in order to prevent
the generation of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. 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. At
very high excess sulfide levels and high pH, soluble mercury-sulfide
compounds may also be formed. Where excess sulfide is present, aeration of
the effluent stream can aid in oxidizing residual sulfide to the less
harmful sodium sulfate (Na2S04). The cost of sulfide precipitants is high
in comparison 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 sludge, than hydroxide precipitation, resulting
in higher disposal and dewatering costs. This is especially true when
ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a polishing treatment after hydroxide
precipitation-sedimentation. This treatment configuration may provide the
better treatment effectiveness of sulfide precipitation while minimizing
the variability caused by changes in raw waste and reducing the amount of
sulfide precipitant required.
Operational Factors
Reliability; The reliability of alkaline chemical precipitation is high,
although proper monitoring, control, and pretreatment to remove interfering
substances is required. Sulfide precipitation systems provide similar
reliability.
470
-------
Maintainability; The major maintenance needs involve periodic upkeep of
monitoring equipment, automatic feeding equipment, mixing equipment, and
other hardware. Removal of accumulated sludge is necessary for efficient
operation of precipitation-sedimentation systems.
Solid Waste Aspects; Solids which precipitate out are removed in a
subsequent treatment step. Ultimately, the solids must be properly
disposed.
Demonstration Status
Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides is a classic waste treatment
technology used by most industrial waste treatment systems. Chemical
precipitation of metals in the carbonate form alone has been found to be
feasible and, is used in commercial application to permit metals recovery
and water reuse. Full scale commercial sulfide precipitation units are in
operation at numerous installations. As noted earlier, sedimentation to
remove precipitates is discussed separately.
Chemical Precipitation System Effectiveness
Data have been presented showing the effectiveness of precipitation-
sedimentation - (lime and settle), precipitation-sedimentation-filtration
(lime, settle and filter) technology and sulfide precipitation-
sedimentation technology. These data are summarized in Table VII-11. In
making this summary the larger of average or design values were selected
from Table VI1-4 as the average performance of lime and settle technology.
In summarizing lime, settle and filter data in Tables VII-6 and 7, the data
were considered as 5 separate data sets and the largest mean and largest
mean plus two standard deviation for each pollutant are used as the average
and maximum respectively. Observed copper values have been replaced by
values calculated from lime and settle data on the basis of measured
precipitate removal because raw waste copper values may have been unduly
low.
471
-------
TABLE VII-11
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
Pollutant
Parameter
114 SB
115 As
117 Be
118 Cd
119 Cr
120 Cu
122 Pb
123 Hg
124 Ni
125 Se
126 Ag
127 Th
128 Zn
Al
Co
F
Fe
Ti
Hydroxide
Precipitation
Sedimentation
Avq.
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.3
0.02
0.03
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.07
15
0.5
0.01
Max.
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.10
0.5
1.5
0.13
0.1
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.55
0.5
30
1.5
0.1
Hydroxide
Precipitation
Sedimentation
Filtration
0.07
0.22
0.02
0.22
0.25
0.5
Max.
0.30
0.70
0.1
0.70
1.0
1.5
Sulfide
Precipitation
Filtration
Avg.
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.01
PEAT ADSORPTION
Peat moss is a complex natural organic material containing lignin and
cellulose as major constituents. These constituents, particularly lignin,
bear polar functional groups, such as alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, acids,
phenolic hydroxides, and ethers, that can be involved in chemical bonding.
Because of the polar nature of the material, its adsorption of dissolved
solids such as transition metals and polar organic molecules is quite high.
These properties have led to the use of peat as an agent for the
purification of industrial wastewater.
472
-------
Peat adsorption is a "polishing" process which can achieve very low
effluent concentrations for several pollutants. If the concentrations of
pollutants are above 10 mg/1, then peat adsorption must be preceded by pH
adjustment for metals precipitation and subsequent clarification.
Pretreatment is also required for chromium wastes using ferric chloride and
sodium sulfide. The wastewater is then pumped into a large metal chamber
called a kier which contains a layer of peat through which the waste stream
passes. The water flows to a second kier for further adsorption. The
wastewater is then ready for discharge. This system may be automated or
manually operated.
Application and Performance
Peat adsorption can be used in foundries for removal of residual dissolved
metals from clarifier effluent. Peat moss may be used to treat wastewaters
containing heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, zinc, copper, iron,
nickel, chromium, and lead, as well as organic matter such as oil,
detergents, and dyes. Peat adsorption is currently used commercially at a
textile plant, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation operation.
The following table contains performance figures obtained from pilot plant
studies. Peat adsorption was preceded by pH adjustment for precipitation
and by clarification.
Table VII-12
Peat Adsorption Performance
Pollutant :iri Out
(mg/1)
Cr+6 35,000.0 0.04
Cu 250.0 0.24
CN 36.0 0.7
Pb 20.0 0.025
Hg 1.0 0.02
Ni 2.5 0.07
Ag 1.0 0.05
Sb 2.5 0.9
Zn 1.5 0.25
In addition, pilot plant studies have shown that chelated metal wastes, as
well as the chelating agents themselves, are removed by contact with peat
moss.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantages of the system include its ability to yield low
pollutant concentrations, its broad scope in terms of the pollutants
473
-------
eliminated, and its capacity to accept wide variations of waste water
composition.
However, the cost of purchasing, storing, and disposing of the peat moss
could limit the use of this system. The necessity for regular replacement
of the peat may lead to high operation and maintenance costs. Also, the pH
adjustment must be altered according to the composition of the waste
stream.
Operational Factors
Reliability; The question of long term reliability is not yet fully
answered. Although the manufacturer reports it to be a highly reliable
system, operating experience is needed to verify the claim.
Maintainability; The peat moss used in this process soon exhausts its
capacity to adsorb pollutants. At that time, the kiers must be opened, the
peat removed, and fresh peat placed inside. Although this procedure is
easily and quickly accomplished, it must be done at regular intervals, or
the system's efficiency drops drastically.
Solid Waste Aspects; After removal from the kier, the spent peat must be
eliminated. If incineration is used, precautions should be taken to insure
that those pollutants removed from the water are not released again in the
combustion process. Presence of sulfides in the spent peat, for example,
will give rise to sulfur dioxide in the fumes from burning. The presence
of significant quantities of toxic heavy metals in foundry wastewater will
in general preclude incineration of peat used in treating these wastes.
Demonstration Status
Only three commercial adsorption systems are currently in use in the United
States at a textile manufacturer, a newsprint facility, and a metal
reclamation firm. No data have been reported showing the use of peat
adsorption in battery manufacturing plants.
SOLIDS REMOVAL
Solids removal from wastewater is heeded both'for sludges formed during the
manufacturing process and for precipitates formed in previous waste
treatment. Dewatering techniques for clarifier underflow (sludge) may also
be regarded as solids removal. (As a point of clarity the term settling is
used to mean any process in which solids are separated from liquid using
the force of gravity, usually following Stokes law in a stagnant or slow
moving containment; sedimentation is used to denote mechanically assisted
settling; filtration is the separation of solids by allowing the liquid to
pass through a media which withholds solids; and clarification is the
removal of solids using any mechanism).
474
-------
Clarification by means of simple settling is the most common technique for
removal of solids. Filtration is another commonly used means of solids
removal. Membrane filtration, which can be used in place of a clarifier,
is a more recently developed technique. Granular bed filtration is
frequently used to further reduce solids concentrations in clarifier
effluent. Skimming, ultrafiltration and flotation, which can also remove
certain solid materials, are discussed under Oil Removal and reverse
osmosis is discussed under Dissolved Inorganics Removal.
Sludge containing precipitated metal salts results from wastewater
clarification. This sludge typically contains two to four percent solids.
It is sometimes directed to a gravity thickener, which doubles the solids
content. The thickened sludge is then either distributed on outdoor sludge
drying beds or is mechanically dewatered. Vacuum filtration is the usual
means of mechanical dewatering, but pressure filtration or centrifugation
are also used.
There are alternatives to handling large quantities of hazardous sludge.
Process chemical recovery, described later in this section, is the soundest
alternative from an environmental standpoint and often makes good economic
sense. This approach can drastically reduce the need for end-of-pipe
treatment and the concommitant formation of sludge. Many establishments,
especially smaller ones, have their sludge removed by a licensed
contractor. Some establishments adjust pH to precipitate metals and then
avoid sludge disposal costs by discharging the wastewater directly to the
sanitary sewer without settling. This practice, which transfers the
problem to the POTW, hardly ever constitutes adequate pretreatment.
Another possibility that has received recent attention is formation of
single-metal sludges by integrated treatment followed by redissolution and
use of the resulting solution in the process, electrolytic recovery of the
metal, or by sale of the contained metal salt as a byproduct.
SETTLING
Settling (sedimentation) is a process which removes solid particles from a
liquid matrix by gravitational force. The operation is effected by
reducing the velocity of the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon
so that gravitational settling can occur. Figure VII-13 shows two typical
sedimentation devices.
Sedimentation is often preceded by chemical precipitation which converts
dissolved pollutants to solid form and by coagulation which enhances
settling by coagulating suspended precipitates into larger, faster settling
particles. Figure VII-13 depicts representative types of sedimentation
units.
If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a tank or
lagoon where it loses velocity and the suspended solids are allowed to
settle out. Long retention times are generally required. Accumulated
475
-------
sludge can be collected either periodically or continuously and either
manually or mechanically. But because simple sedimentation may require an
excessively large catchment, and because high retention times (days as
compared with hours) are usually required to yield high removal
efficiencies, addition of settling aids such as alum or polymeric
flocculants is often economically attractive.
In practice, chemical precipitation often precedes clarification, and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are usually added as
well. Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium aluminate, ferrous
or ferric sulfate, and ferric chloride. Organic polyelectrolytes vary in
structure, but all usually form larger floccules than coagulants used
alone.
Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can be fed into a holding tank
or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into a clarifier for the
same purpose. A clarifier reduces the space requirements, reduces
retention time, and increases the solids removal efficiency. Conventional
clarifiers generally consist of a circular or rectangular tank with a
mechanical sludge collecting device or with a sloping funnel-shaped bottom
designed for sludge collection. In advanced clarifiers inclined plates,
slanted tubes, or a lamellar network may be included within the clarifier
tank in order to increase the effective settling area, increasing clarifier
capacity. A fraction of the sludge stream is often recirculated to the
clarifier inlet, promoting formation of a denser sludge.
Application and Performance
Sedimentation and clarification are used in the foundry category to remove
metals. Sedimentation can be used to remove most suspended solids in a
particular waste stream; thus it is used extensively by many different
industrial waste treatment facilities. Because most metal ion pollutants
are readily converted to solid metal hydroxide precipitates, sedimentation
is of particular use in those industries associated with metal production,
metal finishing, metal working, and any other industry with high
concentrations of metal ions in their wastes. In addition to toxic metals,
suitably precipitated materials effectively removed by settling include
aluminum, iron, manganese, cobalt, antimony, beryllium, molybdenum,
fluoride, and phosphate.
A properly operating sedimentation system is capable of efficient removal
of suspended solids, precipitated metal hydroxides, and metal pollutants
and other impurities from wastewater. The performance of the process
depends on a variety of factors, including the density and particle size of
the solids, the effective charge on the suspended particles, and the types
of chemicals used in pretreatment. It has been found that the site of
flocculant or coagulant addition may significantly influence the
effectiveness of clarification. If the flocculant is subjected to too much
mixing before entering the clarifier, the complexes may be sheared and the
476
-------
settling effectiveness diminished. At the same time, the flocculant must
have sufficient mixing and reaction time in order for effective set-up and
settling to occur. From conversations with plant personnel, it seems that
the line or trough leading into the clarifier is often the most efficient
site for flocculant addition. The performance of simple settling is a
function of the retention time, particle size and density, and the surface
area of the basin.
The data displayed in Table VI1-13
efficiencies in settling systems.
indicate suspended solids removal
TABLE VI1-13
PERFORMANCE OF SAMPLED SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
PLANT ID
01057
09025
11058
12075
19019
33617
40063
44062
46050
SETTLING
DEVICE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In
Out In
Out In
Out
Lagoon 54
Clarifier 1100
Settling Ponds
Clarifier 451
Settling Pond 284
Settling Tank 170
Clarifier &
Lagoon
Clarifier 4390
Clarifier 182
Settling Tank 295
6
9
17
6
1
9
13
10
56
1900
242
50
1662
3595
118
42
6
12
10
1
16
12
14
10
50
1620
502
1298
2805
174
153
5
5
14
4
13
23
8
The mean effluent TSS concentreation obtained by the plants shown in Table
VII-11 is 10.1 gm/1. Influent concentrations averaged 838 mg/1. The
maximum effluent TSS value reported in the sampling data used in Table VII-
11 is 23 mg/1. These plants all use alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate
metal hydroxides, and most add a coagulant or flocculant prior to settling.
Based on these data, a 30 day average of 15 mg/1 TSS and a 24 hour maximum
of 30 mg/1 TSS are considered to be reliably attainable values for
sedimentation technology.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of simple settling is the simplicity of the process
itself - the gravitational settling of solid particulate waste in a holding
tank or lagoon. The major problem with simple settling involves the long
retention times necessary to achieve complete settling, especially if the
specific gravity of the suspended matter is close to that of water. Some
materials cannot be practically removed by simple sedimentation alone.
477
-------
Sedimentation is effective in removing slow settling suspended matter in a
shorter time and in less space than a simple settling system. Also,
effluent quality is often better from a clarifier. The cost of installing
and maintaining a clarifier is, however, substantially greater than the
costs associated with simple settling.
Inclined plate, slant tube, and lamella settlers have even higher removal
efficiencies than conventional clarifiers, and greater capacities per unit
area are possible. Installed costs for these advanced clarification
systems are claimed to be one half the cost of conventional systems of
similar capacity.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Settling can be a highly reliable technology for removing
suspended solids. Sufficient retention time and regular sludge removal are
important factors affecting the reliability of all settling systems.
Proper control of pH adjustment, chemical precipitation and coagulant or
flocculant addition are additional factors affecting settling efficiencies
in systems (frequently clarifiers) where these methods are used.
Those advanced clarifiers using slanted tubes, inclined plates, or a
lamellar network may require pre-screening of the waste in order to
eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially clog the system.
Some installations are especially vulnerable to shock loadings, as by storm
water runoff, but proper system design will prevent this.
Maintainability: When clarifiers are used, the associated system utilized
for chemical pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a
regular basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts is also necessary.
If lagoons are used, little maintenance is required other than periodic
sludge removal.
Demonstration Status
Sedimentation represents the typical method of solids removal and is
employed extensively in industrial waste treatment. The advanced
clarifiers are just beginning to appear in significant numbers in
commercial applications. Sedimentation or clarification is used in many
foundries.
FILTRATION
Filtration is the process of passing wastewater through some type of filter
medium for the purpose of removing solids from the waste stream. Cloth,
paper, plastic, glass fiber and other materials may be used as the filter
medium upon which solids will collect as water passes through to the other
side. Membrane filtration, granular bed filtration, ultrafiltration,
478
-------
pressure filtration, and vacuum filtration are specific filtration
techniques.
Application and Performance
Filtration is a highly versatile technology which is applied to a wide
range of purposes from dewatering highly concentrated sludge streams to
removing residual suspended solids from clarifier effluent. The
capabilities and performance of the technology are governed primarily b/
the design parameters of the specific filtration unit and particularly by
the filter medium chosen.
Advantages and Limitations
Advantages of filtration include simplicity of operation, low capital
costs, and wide applicability to different types of waste streams. Many
filters can be backwashed and reused. This process may require additional
equipment such as pumps, backwash storage tanks, etc. A major disadvantage
is that fouling of the filters can allow large amounts of contaminants to
pass through the filter with the liquid portion.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Reliability should be high assuming proper maintenance and
correct selection of the filter medium to match the nature of the waste
stream.
Maintainabi1ity; Filters must be cleaned or changed regularly, or whenever
solids buildup becomes significant.
Solid Waste Aspects; Solids which are periodically cleaned from the filter
media must be properly disposed.
Demonstration Status
Filtration is in use at a number of foundries as well as in many other
industries. It is a fully proven technology for removing solids from
industrial waste streams. The extent of present practice and proven
capability for wastewater treatment varies for specific filtration
techniques.
MEMBRANE FILTRATION
Membrane filtration is a treatment technology for removing precipitated
metals from a wastewater stream. It must therefore be preceded by those
treatment techniques which will properly prepare the wastewater for solids
removal. Typically, a membrane filtration unit is preceded by pH
adjustment or sulfide addition for precipitation of the metals. These
steps are followed by the addition of a proprietary chemical reagent which
479
-------
causes the precipitate to be non-gelatinous, easily dewatered, and highly
stable. The resulting mixture of pretreated wastewater and reagent is
continuously recirculated through a filter module and back into a
recirculation tank. The filter module contains tubular membranes. While
the reagent-metal hydroxide precipitate mixture flows through the inside of
the tubes, the water and any dissolved salts permeate the membrane. When
the recirculating slurry reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent
solids, it is pumped out of the system as sludge.
Application and Performance
Membrane filtration appears to be applicable to any wastewater or process
water containing metal ions which can be precipitated using hydroxide or
carbonate precipitation. It could function as the primary treatment system
but might find application as a polishing treatment (after precipitation
and settling) to ensure continued compliance with metals limitations.
Membrane filtration systems are being used in a number of industrial
applications, particularly in the metal finishing area. They have also
been used for heavy metals removal in the metal fabrication industry and
the paper industry.
The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less than the
effluent concentrations shown in the following table, regardless of the
influent concentrations. These claims have been largely substantiated by
the analysis of water samples at various plants in various industries.
In the performance predictions for this technology, pollutant
concentrations are reduced to the levels shown below unless lower levels
are present in the influent stream.
Table VII-14
MEMBRANE FILTER EFFLUENT
Specific Manufacturing Plant 19066 Plant 31022
Metal Guarantee In Out Ln Out Predicted
Performance
Al 0.5 — —
Cr, (+6) 0.02 0.46 0.01 5.25 <0.005
Cr (T) 0.03 4.13 0.018 98.4 0.057 0.05
Cu 0.1 18.8 0.043 8.00 0.222 0.20
Fe 0.1 288 0.3 21.1 0.263 0.30
Pb 0.05 0.652 0.01 0.288 0.01 0.05
CN 0.02 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.02
Ni 0.1 9.56 0.017 194 0.352 0.40
Zn 0.1 2.09 0.046 5.00 0.051 0.10
TSS 632 0.1 13.0 8.0 10.0
480
-------
Advantages and Limitations
A major advantage of the membrane filtration system is that installations
can utilize most of the conventional end-of-pipe systems that may already
be in place. Removal efficiencies are claimed to be excellent, even with
sudden variation of pollutant input rates. However, the effectiveness of
the membrane filtration system can be limited by clogging of the filters.
Because a change in the pH of the waste stream greatly intensifies the
clogging problem, the pH must be carefully monitored and controlled.
Clogging can force the shutdown of the system and may interfere with
production. In addition, the utilization of this system may be limited by
its relatively high capital cost.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Membrane filtration has been shown to be a very reliable
system, provided that the pH is strictly controlled. Improper pH can
result in the clogging of the membrane. Also, surges in the flow rate of
the waste stream must be controlled in order to prevent solids from passing
through the filter and into the effluent.
Maintainability; The membrane filters must be regularly monitored, and
cleaned or replaced as necessary. Depending on the composition of the
waste stream and its flow rate, frequent cleaning of the filters may be
required. Flushing with hydrochloric acid for 6-24 hours will usually
suffice. In addition, the routine maintenance of pumps, valves, and other
plumbing is required.
Solid Waste Aspects; When the recirculating reagent-precipitate slurry
reaches 10 to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out of the system. It can
then be disposed of directly or it can-undergo a dewatering process.
Because this sludge contains toxic metals, it must be properly disposed.
Demonstration Status
There are more than 25 membrane filtration systems presently in use on
metal finishing and similar wastewaters. Bench scale and pilot studies are
being run in an attempt to expand the list of pollutants for which this
system is known to be effective.
GRANULAR BED FILTRATION
Filtration occurs in nature as the surface ground waters are cleansed by
sand. Silica sand, anthracite coal, and garnet are common filter media
used in water treatment plants. These are usually supported by gravel.
The media may be used singly or in combination. The multi-media filters
may be arranged to maintain relatively distinct layers by virtue of
balancing the forces of gravity, flow, and bouyancy on the individual
481
-------
particles. This is accomplished by selecting appropriate filter flow rates
(gpm/sq-ft), media grain size, and density.
Granular bed filters may be classified in terms of filtration rate, filter
media, flow pattern, or method of pressurization. Traditional rate
classifications are slow sand, rapid sand, and high rate mixed media. In
the slow sand filter, flux or hydraulic loading is relatively low, and
removal of collected solids to clean the filter is therefore relatively
infrequent. The filter is often cleaned by scraping off the inlet face
(top) of the sand bed. In the higher rate filters, cleaning is frequent
and is accomplished by a periodic backwash, opposite to the direction of
normal flow.
A filter may use a single medium such as sand or diatomaceous earth, but
dual and mixed (multiple) media filters allow higher flow rates and
efficiencies. The dual media filter usually consists of a fine bed of sand
under a coarser bed of anthracite coal. The coarse coal removes most of
the influent solids, while the fine sand performs a polishing function. At
the end of the backwash, the fine sand settles to the bottom because it is
denser than the coal, and the filter is ready for normal operation. The
mixed media filter operates on the same principle, with the finer, denser
media at the bottom and the coarser, less dense media at the top. The
usual arrangement is garnet at the bottom (outlet end) of the bed, sand in
the middle, and anthracite coal at the top. Some mixing of these layers
occurs and is, in fact, desirable.
The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are sometimes
used. Upflow filters are sometimes used, and in a horizontal filter the
flow is horizontal. In a biflow filter, the influent enters both the top
and the bottom and exits laterally. The advantage of an upflow filter is
that with an upflow backwash the particles of a single filter medium are
distributed and maintained in the desired coarse-to-fine (bottom-to-top)
arrangement. The disadvantage is that the bed tends to become fluidized,
which ruins filtration efficiency- The biflow design is an attempt to
overcome this problem.
The classic granular bed filter operates by gravity flow. However,
pressure filters are fairly widely used. They permit higher solids
loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when the filter effluent must
be pressurized for further downstream treatment. In addition, pressure
filter systems are often less costly for low to moderate flow rates.
Figure VII-14 depicts a high rate, dual media, gravity downflow granular
bed filter, with self-stored backwash. Both filtrate and backwash are
piped around the bed in an arrangement that permits gravity upflow of the
backwash, with the stored filtrate serving as backwash. Addition of the
indicated coagulant and polyelectrolyte usually results in a substantial
improvement in filter performance.
482
-------
Auxiliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few inches of
filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as surface wash and is
accomplished by water jets just below the surface of the expanded bed
during the backwash cycle. These jets enhance the scouring action in the
bed by increasing the agitation.
An important feature for successful filtration and backwashing is the
underdrain. This is the support structure for the bed. The underdrain
provides an area for collection of the filtered water without clogging from
either the filtered solids or the media grains. In addition, the
underdrain prevents loss of the media with the water, and during the
backwash cycle it provides even flow distribution over the bed. Failure to
dissipate the velocity head during the filter or backwash cycle will result
in bed upset and the need for major repairs.
Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains. The
simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded under a layer of
coarse gravel and manifolded to a header pipe for effluent removal. Other
approaches to the underdrain system are known as the Leopold and Wheeler
filter bottoms. Both of these incorporate false concrete bottoms with
specific porosity configurations to provide drainage and velocity head
dissipation.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The filter backwash
cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure drop basis with a terminal value
which triggers backwash, or a solids carryover basis from turbidity
monitoring of the outlet stream. All of these schemes have been
successfully used.
In wastewater treatment plants granular bed filters are often employed for
polishing following clarification, sedimentation, or other similar
operations. Granular bed filtration thus has potential application to
nearly all industrial plants. Chemical additives which enhance the
upstream treatment equipment may or may not be compatible with or enhance
the filtration process. Normal operating flow rates for various types of
filters are 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 bed
formed by the granular media can be designed to remove practically all
suspended particles. Even colloidal suspensions (roughly 1 to 100 microns)
are adsorbed on the surface of the media grains as they pass in close
proximity in the narrow bed passages.
483
-------
Properly operating filters following some pretreatment to reduce suspended
solids below 200 mg/1 should produce water with less than 10 mg/1 TSS.
plant 33056 following hydroxide precipitation and settling reduced the
effuent TSS concentrations from 20 mg/1 to 8 mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations
The principal advantages of granular bed filtration are its low initial and
operating costs, reduced land requirements over other methods to achieve
the same level of solids removal, and elimination of chemical additions
which add to the discharge stream. However, the filter may require
pretreatment if the solids level is high (over 100 mg/1). Operator
training must be somewhat extensive due to the controls and periodic
backwashing involved, and backwash must be stored and dewatered for
economical disposal.
Operational Factors
Reliability; The recent improvements in filter technology have
significantly improved filtration reliability- Control systems, improved
designs, and good operating procedures have made filtration a highly
reliable method of water treatment.
Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with either manual or
automatic backwash. In either case, they must be periodically inspected
for media attrition, partial plugging, and leakage. Where backwashing is
not used, collected solids must be removed by shoveling, and filter media
must be at least partially replaced.
Solid Waste Aspects; Filter backwash is generally recycled within the
wastewater treatment system, so that the solids ultimately appear in the
clarifier sludge stream for subsequent dewatering. Alternatively, the
backwash stream may be dewatered directly or, if there is no backwash, the
collected solids may be disposed of in a suitable landfill. In either of
these situations there is a solids disposal problem similar to that of
clarifiers.
Demonstration Status
Deep bed filters are in common use in municipal treatment plants. Their
use in polishing industrial clarifier effluent is increasing, and the
technology is proven and conventional. Deep bed multi-media filters are
used in several foundries.
PRESSURE FILTRATION
Pressure filtration is achieved by pumping the liquid through a filter
material which is impenetrable to the solid phase. The positive pressure
exerted by the feed pumps or other mechanical means provides the pressure
484
-------
differential which is the principal driving force. Figure VII-15
represents the operation of one type of pressure filter.
A typical pressure filtration unit consists of a number of plates or trays
which are held rigidly in a frame to ensure alignment and are pressed
together between a fixed end and a traveling end. On the surface of each
plate is mounted a filter made of cloth or a synthetic fiber. The feed
stream is pumped into the unit and passes through holes in the trays along
the length of the press until the cavities or chambers between the trays
are completely filled. The solids are then entrapped, and a cake begins to
form on the surface of the filter material. The water passes through the
fibers, and the solids are retained.
At the bottom of the trays are drainage ports. The filtrate is collected
and discharged to a common drain. As the filter medium becomes coated with
sludge, the flow of filtrate through the filter drops sharply, indicating
that the capacity of the filter has been exhausted. The unit must then be
cleaned of the sludge. After the cleaning or replacement of the filter
media, the unit is again ready for operation.
Application and Performance
Because dewatering is such a common operation in treatment systems,
pressure filtration is a technique which can be found in many industries
concerned with removing solids from their waste stream.
In a typical pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge detained in
the unit for one to three hours under pressures varying from 5 to 13
atmospheres exhibited final solids content between 25 and 50 percent.
Advantages and Limitations
The pressures which may be applied to a sludge for removal of water by
filter presses that are currently available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres.
As a result, pressure filtration may reduce the amount of chemical
pretreatment required for sludge dewatering sludge, retained in the form of
the filter cake, has a higher percentage of solids than a centrifuge or
vacuum filter yield. Thus, it can be easily accommodated by materials
handling systems.
As a primary solids removal technique, pressure filtration requires less
space than clarification and is well suited to streams with high solids
loadings. The sludge produced may be disposed without further dewatering,
but the amount of sludge is increased by the use of filter precoat
materials (usually diatomaceous earth). Also, cloth pressure filters often
do not achieve as high a degree of effluent clarification as clarifiers or
granular media filters.
485
-------
Two disadvantages associated with pressure filtration in the past have been
the short life of the filter cloths and lack of automation. New synthetic
fibers have largely offset the first of these problems. Also, units with
automatic feeding and pressing cycles are now available.
For larger operations, the relatively high space requirements, as compared
to those of a centrifuge, could be prohibitive in some situations.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Assuming proper pretreatment, design, and control, pressure
filtration is a highly dependable system.
Maintainability; Maintenance consists of periodic cleaning or replacement
of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping, filter pans, and
other parts of the system. If the removal of the sludge cake is not
automated, additional time is required for this operation.
Solid Waste Aspects: Because it is generally drier than other types of
sludges, the filter sludge cake can be handled with relative ease.
Disposal of the accumulated sludge may be accomplished by any of the
accepted procedures such as landfill depending on its chemical composition.
The levels of toxic metals present in sludge from treating foundry
wastewater necessitate proper disposal.
Demonstration Status
Pressure filtration is a commonly used technology that is currently
utilized in a great many commercial applications.
VACUUM FILTRATION
In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewatering by vacuum filtration is
an operation that is generally accomplished on cylindrical drum filters.
These drums have a filter medium which may be cloth made of natural or
synthetic fibers, coil springs, or a wire-mesh fabric. The drum is
suspended above and dips into a vat of sludge. As the drum rotates slowly,
part of its circumference is subject to an internal vacuum that draws
sludge to the filter medium. Water is drawn through the porous filter cake
to a discharge port, and the dewatered sludge, loosened by compressed air,
is scraped from the filter mesh. Because the dewatering of sludge on
vacuum filters is relativley expensive per kilogram of water removed, the
liquid sludge is frequently thickened prior to processing. A vacuum filter
is shown in Figure VII-16.
Application and Performance
Vacuum filters are frequently used both in municipal treatment plants and
in a wide variety of industries. They are most commonly used in larger
486
-------
facilities, which may have a thickener to double the solids content of
clarifier sludge before vacuum filtering.
The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water content of sludge,
so that the solids content increases from about 5 percent to about 30
percent.
Advantages and Limitations
Although the initial cost and area requirement of the vacuum filtration
system are higher than those of a centrifuge, the operating cost is lower,
and no special provisions for sound and vibration protection need be made.
The dewatered sludge from this process is in the form of a moist cake and
can be conveniently handled.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Vacuum filter systems have been proven reliable at many
industrial and municipal treatment facilities. At present, the largest
municipal installation is at the West Southwest waste water treatment plant
of Chicago, Illinois, where 96 large filters were installed in 1925,
functioned approximately 25 years, and then were replaced with larger
units. Original vacuum filters at Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota now have
over 28 years of continuous service, and Chicago has some units with
similar or greater service life.
Maintainabi1ity; Maintenance consists of the cleaning or replacement of
the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping, filter pans, and other
parts of the equipment. Experience in a number of vacuum filter plants
indicates that maintenance consumes approximately 5 to 15 percent of the
total time. If carbonate buildup or other problems are unusually severe,
maintenance time may be as high as 20 percent. For this reason, it is
desirable in the selection of vacuum filters to provide one or more spare
units.
If intermittent operation is to be employed, the filter equipment should be
drained and washed each time it is taken out of service and an allowance
for wash time should be made in the selection of sludge filtering
schedules.
Solid Waste Aspects; Vacuum filters generate a solid cake which is usually
trucked directly to landfill. All of the metals extracted from the plant
wastewater are concentrated in the filter cake as hydroxides, oxides,
sulfides, or other salts.
Demonstration Status
Vacuum filtration has been widely used for many years. It is a fully
proven, conventional technology for sludge dewatering.
487
-------
CENTRIFUGATION
Centrifugation is the application of centrifugal force to separate solids
and liquids in a liquid-solid mixture or to effect concentration of the
solids. The application of centrifugal force is effective because of the
density differential normally found between the insoluble solids and the
liquid in which they are contained. As a waste treatment procedure,
centrifugation is applied to dewatering of sludges. One type of centrifuge
is shown in Figure VII-17.
There are three common types of centrifuges: the disc, basket, and
conveyor type. All three operate by removing solids under the influence of
centrifugal force. The fundamental difference between the three types is
the method by which solids are collected in and discharged from the bowl.
In the disc centrifuge, the sludge feed is distributed between narrow
channels that are present as spaces between stacked conical discs.
Suspended particles are collected and discharged continuously through small
orifices in the bowl wall. The clarified effluent is discharged through an
overflow weir.
A second type of centrifuge which is useful in dewatering sludges is the
basket centrifuge. In this type of centrifuge, sludge feed is introduced
at the bottom of the basket, and solids collect at the bowl wall while
clarified effluent overflows the lip ring at the top. Since the basket
centrifuge does not have provision for continuous discharge of collected
cake, operation requires interruption of the feed for cake discharge for a
minute or two in a 10 to 30 minute overall cycle.
The third type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering is the
conveyor type. Sludge is fed through a stationary feed pipe into a
rotating bowl in which the solids are settled out against the bowl wall by
centrifugal force. From the bowl wall, they are moved by a screw to the
end of the machine, at which point whey are discharged. The liquid
effluent is discharged through ports after passing the length of the bowl
under centrifugal force.
Application And Performance
Virtually all of those industrial waste treatment systems producing sludge
can utilize centrifugation to dewater it. Centrifugation is currently
being used by a wide range of industrial concerns.
The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on the feed
rate, the rotational velocity of the drum, and the sludge composition and
concentration. Assuming proper design and operation, the solids content of
the sludge can be increased to 20-35 percent.
488
-------
Advantages And Limitations
Sludge dewatering centrifuges have minimal space requirements and show a
high degree of effluent clarification. The operation is simple, clean, and
relatively inexpensive. The area required for a centrifuge system
installation is less than that required for a filter system or sludge
drying bed of equal capacity, and the initial cost is lower.
Centrifuges have a high power cost that partially offsets the low initial
cost. Special consideration must also be given to providing sturdy
foundations and soundproofing because of the vibration and noise that
result from centrifuge operation. Adequate electrical power must also be
provided since large motors are required. The major difficulty encountered
in the operation of centrifuges has been the disposal of the concentrate
which is relatively high in suspended, non-settling solids.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Its reliability is high, assuming proper control of factors
such as sludge feed, consistency, and temperature. Pretreatment such as
grit removal and coagulant addition may be necessary. Pretreatment
requirements will vary depending on the composition of the sludge and on
the type of centrifuge employed.
Maintainability; Maintenance consists of periodic lubrication, cleaning,
and inspection. The frequency and degree of inspection required varies
depending on the type of sludge solids being dewatered and the maintenance
service conditions. If the sludge is abrasive, it is recommended that the
first inspection of the rotating assembly be made after approximately 1,000
hours of operation. If the sludge is not abrasive or corrosive, then the
initial inspection might be delayed. Centrifuges not equipped with a
continuous sludge discharge system require periodic shutdowns for manual
sludge cake removal.
Solid Waste Aspects; Sludge dewatered in the centrifugation process may be
disposed of by landfill. The clarified effluent (centrate), if high in
dissolved or suspended solids, may require further treatment prior to
discharge.
Demonstration Status
Centrifugation is currently used in a great many commercial applications to
dewater sludge. Work is underway to improve the efficiency, increase the
capacity, and lower the costs associated with centrifugation.
GRAVITY SLUDGE THICKENING
In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a primary
settling tank or clarifier to a thickening tank. Rakes stir the sludge
489
-------
gently to densify it and to push it to a central collection well. The
supernatant is returned to the primary settling tank. The thickened sludge
that collects on the bottom of the tank is pumped to dewatering equipment
or hauled away. Figure VI1-18 shows the construction of a gravity
thickener.
Application and Performance
Thickeners are generally used in facilities where the sludge is to be
further dewatered by a compact mechanical device such as a vacuum filter or
centrifuge. Doubling the solids content in the thickener substantially
reduces capital and operating cost of the subsequent dewatering device and
also reduces cost for hauling. The process is potentially applicable to
almost any industrial plant.
Organic sludges from sedimentation units of one to two percent solids
concentration can usually be gravity thickened to six to ten percent;
chemical sludges can be thickened to four to six percent.
Advantages and Limitations
The principal advantage of a gravity sludge thickening process is that it
facilitates further sludge dewatering. Other advantages are high
reliability and minimum maintenance requirements.
Limitations of the sludge thickening process are its sensitivity to the
flow rate through the thickener and the sludge removal rate. These rates
must be low enough not to disturb the thickened sludge.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Reliability is high assuming proper design and operation. A
gravity thickener is designed on the basis of square feet per pound of
solids per day, in which the required surface area is related to the solids
entering and leaving the unit. Thickener area requirements are also
expressed in terms of mass loading, grams of solids per square meter per
day (Ibs/sq ft/day).
Maintainability; Twice a year, a thickener must be shut down for
lubrication of the drive mechanisms. Occasionally, water must be pumped
back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.
Solid Waste Aspects; Thickened sludge from a gravity thickening process
will usually require further dewatering prior to disposal, incineration, or
drying. The clear effluent may be recirculated in part, or it may be
subjected to further treatment prior to discharge.
490
-------
Demonstration Status
Gravity sludge thickeners are used throughout industry to reduce water
content to a level where the sludge may be efficiently handled. Further
dewatering is usually practiced to minimize costs of hauling the sludge to
approved landfill areas.
SLUDGE BED DRYING
As a waste treatment procedure, sludge bed drying is employed to reduce the
water content of a variety of sludges to the point where they are amenable
to mechanical collection and removal to landfill. These beds usually
consist of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18 in.) of sand over a 30 cm (12 in.) deep
gravel drain system made up of 3 to 6 mm (1/8 to 1/4 in.) graded gravel
overlying drain tiles. Figure VII-19 shows the construction of a drying
bed.
Drying beds are usually divided into sectional areas approximately 7.5
meters (25 ft) wide x 30 to 60 meters (100 to 200 ft) long. The partitions
may be earth embankments, but more often are made of planks and supporting
grooved posts.
To apply liquid sludge to the sand bed, a closed conduit or a pressure
pipeline with valved outlets at each sand bed section is often employed.
Another method of application is by means of an open channel with
appropriately placed side openings which are controlled by slide gates.
With either type of delivery system, a concrete splash slab should be
provided to receive the falling sludge and prevent erosion of the sand
surface.
Where it is necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout the year
regardless of the weather, sludge beds may be covered with a fiberglass
reinforced plastic or other roof. Covered drying beds permit a greater
volume of sludge drying per year in most climates because of the protection
afforded from rain or snow and because of more efficient control of
temperature. Depending on the climate, a combination of open and enclosed
beds will provide maximum utilization of the sludge bed drying facilities.
Application and Performance
Sludge drying beds are a means of dewatering sludge from clarifiers and
thickeners. They are widely used both in municipal and industrial
treatment facilities.
Dewatering of sludge on sand beds occurs by two mechanisms: filtration of
water through the bed and evaporation of water as a result of radiation and
convection. Filtration is generally complete in one to two days and may
result in solids concentrations as high as 15 to 20 percent. The rate of
filtration depends on the drainability of the sludge.
491
-------
The rate of air drying of sludge is related to temperature, relative
humidity, and air velocity. Evaporation will proceed at a constant rate to
a critical moisture content, then at a falling rate to an equilibrium
moisture content. The average evaporation rate for a sludge is about 75
percent of that from a free water surface.
Advantages and Limitations
The main advantage of sand drying beds over other types of sludge
dewatering is the relatively low cost of construction, operation, and
maintenance.
Its disadvantages are the large area of land required and long drying times
that depend, to a great extent, on climate and weather.
Operational Factors
Reliability: High assuming favorable climactic conditions, proper bed
design and care to avoid excessive or unequal sludge application. If
climatic conditions in a given area are not favorable for adequate drying,
a cover may be necessary.
Maintainability; Maintenance consists basically of periodic removal of the
dried sludge. Sand removed from the drying bed with the sludge must be
replaced and the sand layer resurfaced.
The resurfacing of sludge beds is the major expense item in sludge bed
maintenance, but there are other areas which may require attention.
Underdrains occasionally become clogged and have to be cleaned. Valves or
sludge gates that control the flow of sludge to the beds must be kept
watertight. Provision for drainage of lines in winter should be provided
to prevent damage from freezing. The partitions between beds should be
tight so that sludge will not flow from one compartment to another. The
outer walls or banks around the beds should also be watertight.
Solid Waste Aspects: The full sludge drying bed must either be abandoned
or the collected solids must be removed to a landfill. These solids
contain whatever metals or other materials were settled in the clarifier.
Metals will be present as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.
They have the potential for leaching and contaminating ground water,
whatever the location of the semidried solids. Thus the abandoned bed or
landfill should include provision for runoff control and leachate
monitoring.
Demonstration Status
Sludge beds have been in common use in both municipal and industrial
facilities for many years. However, protection of ground water from
contamination is not always adequate.
492
-------
RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
Recovery of process chemicals is currently used in lead-acid, nickel
cadmium, and silver zinc battery manufacturing plants. Recovery techniques
to be discussed are evaporation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and
insoluble starch xanthate. Insoluble starch xanthate is included under
recovery techniques because it is used for rinse water recovery in its only
observed commercial application. The description is abbreviated because
the technique does not have widespread use. Although settling is an
important technique for materials recovery, it is discussed near the end of
this section, under In-Plant Technology.
EVAPORATION
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from a
solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the remaining solution.
If the resulting water vapor is condensed back to liquid water, the
evaporation-condensation process is called distillation. However, to be
consistent with industry terminology, evaporation is used in this report to
describe both processes. Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are
commonly used in industry today. Specific evaporation techniques are shown
in Figure VII-20 and discussed below.
Atmospheric evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling the liquid.
However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid is sprayed on an evaporation
surface, and air is blown over the surface and subsequently released to the
atmosphere. Thus, evaporation occurs by humidification of the air stream,
similar to a drying process. Equipment for carrying out atmospheric
evaporation is quite similar for most applications. The major element is
generally a packed column with an accumulator bottom. Accumulated
wastewater is pumped from the base of the column, through a heat exchanger,
and back into the top of the column, where it is sprayed into the packing.
At the same time, air drawn upward through the packing by a fan is heated
as it contacts the hot liquid. The liquid partially vaporizes and
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air to the
outside atmosphere. A scrubber is often unnecessary because the packed
column itself acts as a scrubber.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air humidification
principle, but the evaporated water is recovered for reuse by condensation.
These air humidification techniques operate well below the boiling point of
water and can utilize waste process heat to supply the energy required.
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to cause the
liquid to boil at reduced temperature. All of the water vapor is condensed
and, to maintain the vacuum condition, noncondensible gases (air in
particular) are removed by a vacuum pump. Vacuum evaporation may be either
single or double effect. In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are
used, and the water vapor from the first evaporator (which may be heated by
493
-------
steam) is used to supply heat to the second evaporator. As it supplies
heat, the water vapor from the first evaporator condenses. Approximately
equal quantities of wastewater are evaporated in each unit; thus, the
double effect system evaporates twice the amount of water that a single
effect system does, at nearly the same cost in energy but with added
capital cost and complexity. The double effect technique is
thermodynamically possible because the second evaporator is maintained at
lower pressure (higher vacuum) and, therefore, lower evaporation
temperature. 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 be classified as submerged 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 reduce capital cost.
The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an eductor-type pump, which
creates the required vacuum by the flow of the condenser cooling water
through a venturi. Waste water accumulates in the bottom of the vessel,
and it is evaporated by means of submerged steam coils. The resulting
water vapor condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing coils into a
collection trough that carries it out of the vessel. Concentrate is
removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the evaporator,
separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Waste water is "drawn" into the
system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid level is maintained in the
separator. Liquid enters the steam-jacketed evaporator tubes, and part of
it evaporates so that a mixture of vapor and liquid enters the separator.
The design of the separator is such that the liquid is continuously
circulated from the separator to the evaporator. The vapor entering the
separator flows out through a mesh entrainment separator to the condenser,
where it is condensed as it flows down through the condenser tubes. The
condensate, along with any entrained air, is pumped out of the bottom of
the condenser by a liquid ring vacuum pump. The liquid seal provided by
the condensate keeps the vacuum in the system from being broken.
Application and Performance
Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are used in many industrial plants,
mainly for the concentration and recovery of process solutions. Many of
these evaporators also recover water for rinsing. Evaporation has also
been applied to recovery of phosphate metal cleaning solutions.
In theory, evaporation should yield a concentrate and a deionized
condensate. Actually, carry-over has resulted in condensate metal
concentrations as high as 10 mg/1, although the usual level is less than 3
mg/1, pure enough for most final rinses. The condensate may also contain
494
-------
organic brighteners and antifoaming agents. These can be removed with an
activated carbon bed, if necessary. Samples from one plant showed 1,900
mg/1 zinc in the feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the concentrate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the
condensate. Another plant had 416 mg/1 copper in the feed and 21,800 mg/1
in the concentrate. Chromium analysis for that plant indicated 5,060 mg/1
in the feed and 27,500 mg/1 in the concentrate. Evaporators are available
in a range of capacities, typically from 15 to 75 gph, and may be used in
parallel arrangements for processing of higher flow rates.
Advantages and Limitations
Advantages of the evaporation process are that it permits recovery of a
wide variety of process chemicals, and it is often applicable to
concentration or removal of compounds which cannot be accomplished by any
other means. The major disadvantage is that the evaporation process
consumes relatively large amounts of energy for the evaporation of water.
However, the recovery of waste heat from many industrial processes (e.g.,
diesel generators, incinerators, boilers and furnaces) should be considered
as a source of this heat for a totally integrated evaporation system.
Also, in some cases solar 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 maintaining a seed slurry which provides preferential
sites for precipitate deposition. In addition, low temperature differences
in the evaporator will eliminate nucleate boiling and supersaturation
effects. Steam distillable impurities in the process stream are carried
over with the product water and must be handled by pre or post treatment.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Proper maintenance will ensure a high degree of reliability
for the system. Without such attention, rapid fouling or deterioration of
vacuum seals may occur, especially when handling corrosive liquids.
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 be
necessary.
Solid Waste Aspects; With only a few exceptions, the process does not
generate appreciable quantities of solid waste.
495
-------
Demonstration Status
Evaporation is a fully developed, commercially available wastewater
treatment system. It is used extensively to recover plating chemicals in
the electroplating industry and a pilot scale unit has been used in
connection with phosphating of aluminum. Proven performance in silver
recovery indicates that evaporation could be a useful treatment operation
for the photographic industry, as well as for metal finishing.
ION EXCHANGE
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic forces to
charged functional groups on the surface of the ion exchange resin, are
exchanged for ions of similar charge from the solution in which the resin
is immersed. This is classified as a sorption process because the exchange
occurs on the surface of the resin, and the exchanging ion must undergo a
phase transfer from solution phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic
contaminants in a waste stream can be exchanged for the harmless ions of
the resin.
Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the ap-
plication involved, a generalized process description follows. The
wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to remove any
solids, then flows through a cation exchanger which contains the ion
exchange resin. Here, metallic impurities such as copper, iron, and
trivalent chromium are retained. The stream then passes through the anion
exchanger and its associated resin. Hexavalent chromium, for example, is
retained in this stage. If one pass does not reduce the contaminant levels
sufficiently, the stream may then enter another series of exchangers. Many
ion exchange systems are equipped with more than one set of exchangers for
this reason.
The other major portion of the ion exchange process concerns the re-
generation of the resin, which now holds those impurities retained from the
waste stream. An ion exchange unit with in-place regeneration is shown in
Figure VI1-21. Metal ions such as nickel are removed by an acid, cation
exchange resin, which is regenerated with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid,
replacing the metal ion with one or more hydrogen ions. Anions such as
dichromate are removed by a basic, anion exchange resin, which is
regenerated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion with one or more
hydroxyl ions. The three principal methods employed by industry for
regenerating the spent resin are:
A) Replacement Service; A regeneration service replaces the spent resin
with regenerated resin, and regenerates the spent resin at its own
facility. The service then has the problem of treating and disposing
of the spent regenerant.
496
-------
B) In-Place Regeneration; Some establishments may find it less expensive
to do their own regeneration. The spent resin column is shut down for
perhaps an hour, and the spent resin is regenerated. This results in
one or more waste streams which must be treated in an appropriate
manner. Regeneration is performed as the resins require it, usually
every few months.
C) Cyclic Regeneration; In this process, the regeneration of the spent
resins takes place within the ion exchange unit itself in alternating
cycles with the ion removal process. A regeneration frequency of
twice an hour is typical. This very short cycle time permits
operation with a very small quantity of resin and with fairly
concentrated solutions, resulting in a very compact system. Again,
this process varies according to application, but the regeneration
cycle generally begins with caustic being pumped through the anion
exchanger, carrying out hexavalent chromium, for example, as sodium
dichromate. The sodium dichromate stream then passes through a cation
exchanger, converting the sodium dichromate to chromic acid. After
concentration by evaporation or other means, the chromic acid can be
returned to the process line. Meanwhile, the cation exchanger is
regenerated with sulfuric acid, resulting in a waste acid stream
containing the metallic impurities removed earlier. Flushing the
exchangers with water completes the cycle. Thus, the wastewater is
purified and, in this example, chromic acid is recovered. The ion
exchangers, with newly regenerated resin, then enter the ion removal
cycle again.
Application and Performance
The list of pollutants for which the ion exchange system has proven
effective includes aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and
trivalent), copper, cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium,
silver, tin, zinc, and more. Thus, it can be applied to a wide variety of
industrial concerns. Because of the heavy concentrations of metals in
their wastewater, the metal finishing industries utilize ion exchange in
several ways. As an end-of-pipe treatment, ion exchange is certainly
feasible, but its greatest value is in recovery applications. It is
commonly used as an integrated treatment to recover rinse water and process
chemicals. Some electroplating facilities use ion exchange to concentrate
and purify plating baths.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal bearing solutions.
Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and sulfuric acid from
anodizing is commercial. A chromic acid recovery efficiency of 99.5
percent has been demonstrated. Typical data for purification of rinse
water have been reported as shown on the following page. Sampling at one
battery plant characterized influent and effluent streams for an ion
exchange unit on a silver bearing waste. This system was in start-up at
497
-------
the time of sampling, however, and was not found to be operating
effectively.
Table VII-15
Ion Exchange Performance
Parameter
Plant A
Plant B
All Values mg/1
Al
Cd
Cr + 3
Cr + 6
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
S04
Sn
Zn
Prior To
Purifi-
cation
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
1.60
9.10
210.00
1.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.00
0.10
Advantages and Limitations
Ion exchange is a versatile technology applicable to a great many
situations. This flexibility, along with its compact nature and
performance, makes ion exchange a very effective method of waste water
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 concentrations, although low in
volume. These must be further processed for proper disposal.
498
-------
Operational Factors
Reliability; With the exception of occasional clogging or fouling of the
resins, ion exchange has been shown to be a highly dependable technology.
Maintainability; Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves, piping and
other hardware used in the regeneration process is usually encountered.
Solid Waste Aspects; Few, if any, solids accumulate within the ion
exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the regeneration
process. Proper prior treatment and planning can eliminate solid buildup
problems altogether. The brine resulting from regeneration of the ion
exchange resin most usually must be treated to remove metals before
discharge. This can generate solid waste.
Demonstration Status
All of the applications mentioned in this document are available for
commercial use, and industry sources estimate the number of units currently
in the field at well over 120. The research and development in ion
exchange is focusing on improving the quality and efficiency of the resins,
rather than new applications. Work is also being done on a continuous
regeneration process whereby the resins are contained on a fluid-.
transfusible belt. The belt passes through a compartmented tank with ion
exchange, washing, and regeneration sections. The resins are therefore
continually used and regenerated. No such system, however, has been repor-
ted to be beyond the pilot stage.
REVERSE OSMOSIS
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated solution.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure is applied to the
more concentrated solution, forcing the permeate to diffuse through the
membrane and into the more dilute solution. This filtering action produces
a concentrate and a permeate on opposite sides of the membrane. The
concentrate can then be further treated or returned to the original
operation for continued use, while the permeate water can be recycled for
use as clean water. Figure VI1-22 depicts a reverse osmosis system.
As illustrated in Figure VII-23, there are three basic configurations used
in commercially available RO modules: tubular, spiral-wound, and hollow
fiber. All of these operate on the principle described above, the major
difference being their mechanical and structural design characteristics.
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
499
-------
- 55 atm (600-800 psi). The permeate passes through the walls of the tube
and is collected in a manifold while the concentrate is drained off at the
end of the tube. A less widely used tubular RO module uses a straight tube
contained in a housing, under the same operating conditions.
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing sandwiched between two
cellulose acetate membrane sheets and bonded along three edges. The fourth
edge of the composite sheet is attached to a large permeate collector tube.
A spacer screen is then placed on top of the membrane sandwich and the
entire stack is rolled around the centrally located tubular permeate
collector. The rolled up package is inserted into a pipe able to withstand
the high operating pressures employed in this process, up to 55 atm (800
psi) with the spiral-wound module. When the system is operating, the
pressurized product water permeates the membrane and flows through the
backing material to the central collector tube. The concentrate is drained
off at the end of the container pipe and can be reprocessed or sent to
further treatment 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.
500
-------
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented by the addition
of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in order to further reduce the
volume of reverse osmosis concentrate. The evaporated vapor can be
condensed and returned to the last rinse tank or sent on for further
treatment.
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel 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 ratio of 98 percent
is assumed for dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations
The major advantage of reverse osmosis for handling process effluents is
its ability to concentrate dilute solutions for recovery of salts and
chemicals with low power requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or
fusion is required for effecting separations; the main energy requirement
is for a high pressure pump. It requires relatively little floor space for
compact, high capacity units, and it exhibits good recovery and rejection
rates for a number of typical process solutions. A limitation of the
reverse osmosis process for treatment of process effluents is its limited
temperature range for satisfactory operation. For cellulose acetate
systems, the preferred limits are 18 to 30°C (65 to 85°F); higher
temperatures will increase the rate of membrane hydrolysis and reduce
system life, while lower temperatures will result in decreased fluxes with
no damage to the membrane. Another limitation is inability to handle
certain solutions. Strong oxidizing agents, strongly acidic or basic solu-
tions, 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
slightly soluble components in solution or colloids has caused failures,
and fouling of membranes by feed waters with high levels of suspended
solids can be a problem. A final limitation is 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
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
501
-------
an RO system will provide the information needed to insure a successful
application.
Maintainability; Membrane life is estimated to fall between 6 months and 3
years, depending on the use of the system. Down time for flushing or
cleaning is on the order of 2 hours as often as once each week; a
substantial portion of maintenance time must be spent on cleaning any
prefilters installed ahead of the reverse osmosis unit.
Solid Waste Aspects; In a closed loop system utilizing RO there is a
constant recycle of concentrate and a minimal amount of solid waste.
Prefiltration eliminates many solids before they reach the module and helps
keep the buildup to a minimum. These solids require proper disposal.
Demonstration Status
There are presently at least one hundred reverse osmosis waste water
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.
INSOLUBLE STARCH XANTHATE
Insoluble starch xanthate is essentially an ion exchange medium used to
remove dissolved heavy metals from wastewater. The water may then either
be reused (recovery application) or discharged (end-of-pipe application).
In a commercial electroplating operation, starch xanthate is coated on a
filter medium. Rinse water containing dragged out heavy metals is
circulated through the filters and then reused for rinsing. The starch-
heavy metal complex is disposed of and replaced periodically. Laboratory
tests indicate that recovery of metals from the complex is feasible, with
regeneration of the starch xanthate. Besides electroplating, starch
xanthate is potentially applicable to coil coating, porcelain enameling,
battery manufacturing, copper fabrication, and any other industrial plants
where dilute metal wastewater streams are generated. Its present use is
limited to one electroplating plant.
OIL REMOVAL
Use of a mechanical skimming device is the standard technique for
separating oils from industrial wastewater. The source of these oils is
generally cutting fluids, lubricants, and preservative coatings used in
metal fabrication operations. Coalescing is another method which has been
demonstrated for use in oil removal. Ultrafiltration and flotation are
used to achieve especially low oil concentrations or to remove mechanically
502
-------
emulsified oils from wastewater. Carbon adsorption can be used to remove
residual oil and grease which may be present as trace organic compounds.
Oils may also be incidentally removed through other waste treatment
processes such as clarification.
SKIMMING
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will often float 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 non-emulsified oils from raw
waste streams. Common skimming mechanisms include the rotating drum type,
which picks up oil from the surface of the water as it rotates. A doctor
blade scrapes oil from the drum and collects it in a trough for disposal or
reuse. The water portion is allowed to flow under the rotating drum.
Occasionally, an underflow baffle is installed after the drum; this has the
advantage of retaining any floating oil which escapes the drum skimmer.
The belt type skimmer is pulled vertically through the water, collecting
oil which is scraped off from the surface and collected in a drum. Gravity
separators, such as the API type, utilize overflow and underflow baffles to
3kim a floating oil layer from the surface of the wastewater. An overflow-
underflow baffle allows a small amount of wastewater (the oil portion) to
flow over into a trough for disposition or reuse while the majority of the
water flows underneath the baffle. This is followed by an overflow baffle,
which is set at a height relative to the first baffle such that only the
oil bearing portion will flow over the first baffle during normal plant
operation. A diffusion device, such as a vertical slot baffle, aids in
creating a uniform flow through the system and increasing oil removal
efficiency.
Application and Performance
Lubricants for drive mechanisms and other machinery contacted by process
water is a principal source of oil. Skimming is applicable to any waste
stream containing pollutants which float to the surface. It is commonly
used to remove free oil, grease, and soaps. Skimming is often used in
conjunction with air flotation or clarification in order to increase its
effectiveness.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is partly a function of the retention
time of the water in the tank. Larger, more buoyant particles require less
retention time than smaller particles. Thus, the efficiency also depends
on the composition of the waste stream. The retention time required to
allow phase separation and subsequent skimming varies from 1 to 15 minutes,
depending on the wastewater characteristics.
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more suitable for use where
the amount of surface oil flowing through the system is consistently
503
-------
significant. Drum and belt type skimmers are applicable to waste streams
which evidence smaller amounts of floating oil and where surges of floating
oil are not a problem. Using an API separator system in conjunction with a
drum type skimmer would be a very effective method of removing floating
contaminants from non-emulsified oily waste streams. Sampling data shown
below illustrate the capabilities of the technology with both extremely
high and moderate oil influent levels.
Table VII-16
Skimming Performance
Oil & Grease Oil & Grease
mg/1 mg/1
Plant Skimmer Type I_n Out
06058 API 224,669 17.9
06058 Belt 19.4 8.3
Based on data from installations in a variety of manufacturing plants, it
is determined that effluent oil levels may be reliably reduced below 10
mg/1 with moderate influent concentrations. Very high concentrations of
oil such as the 22 percent shown above may require two step treatment to
achieve this level.
Advantages and Limitations
Skimming as a pretreatment is effective in removing naturally floating
waste material. It also improves the performance of subsequent downstream
treatments.
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil, will not float
"naturally" but require additional treatments. Therefore, skimming alone
may not remove all the pollutants capable of being removed by air flotation
or other more sophisticated technologies.
Reliability; Because of its simplicity, skimming is a very reliable
technique.
Maintainability; The skimming mechanism requires periodic lubrication,
adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.
Solid Waste Aspects; The collected layer of debris must be disposed of by
contractor removal, landfill, or incineration. Because relatively large
quantities of water are present in the collected wastes, incineration is
not always a viable disposal method.
504
-------
Demonstration Status
Skimming is a common operation utilized extensively by industrial waste
treatment systems.
COALESCING
The basic principle of coalescence involves the preferential wetting of a
coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate on the medium and then
rise to the surface of the solution as they combine to form larger
particles. The most important requirements for coalescing media are
wettability for oil and large surface area. Monofilament line is sometimes
used as a coalescing medium.
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of gravity oil
separation devices, and some systems may incorporate several coalescing
stages. In general provision of preliminary oil skimming treatment is
desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.
One commercially marketed system for oily waste treatment combines
coalescing with inclined plate separation and filtration. In this system,
the oily wastes flow into an inclined plate settler. This unit consists of
a stack of inclined baffle plates in a cylindrical container with an oil
collection chamber at the top. The oil droplets rise and impinge upon the
undersides of the plates. They then migrate upward to a guide rib which
directs the oil to the oil collection chamber, from which oil is discharged
for reuse or disposal.
The oily water continues on through another cylinder containing replaceable
filter cartridges, which remove suspended particles from the waste. From
there the wastewater enters a final cylinder in which the coalescing
material is housed. As the oily water passes through the many small,
irregular, continuous passages in the coalescing material, the oil droplets
coalesce and rise to an oil collection chamber.
Application and Performance
coalescing is used for treatment of oily wastes which do not separate
readily in simple gravity systems. Effluent concentrations of 10-15 mg/1
oil and grease are attained from raw waste concentrations of 1000 mg/1 or
more using the three stage system described above.
Advantages and Limitations
Coalescing allows removal of oil droplets too finely dispersed for
conventional gravity separation-skimming technology. It also can
significantly reduce the residence times (and therefore separator volumes)
required to achieve separation of oil from some wastes. Because of its
simplicity, coalescing provides generally high reliability and low capital
505
-------
and operating costs. Coalescing is not generally effective in removing
soluble or chemically stabilized emulsified oils. To avoid plugging,
coalescers must be protected by pretreatment from very high concentrations
of free oil and grease and suspended solids. Frequent replacement of
prefilters may be necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are high.
Operational Factors
Reliability - Coalescing is inherently highly reliable since there are no
moving parts, and the coalescing substrate (monofilament, etc.) is inert
in the process and therefore not subject to frequent regeneration or
replacement requirements. Large loads or inadequate pretreatment, however,
may result in plugging or bypass of coalescing stages.
Maintainability - Maintenance requirements are generally limited to
replacement of the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.
Solid Wastes Aspects
No appreciable solid waste is generated by this process.
Demonstration Status
Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in industries generating oily
wastewater.
FLOTATION
Flotation is the process of causing particles such as metal hydroxides or
oil to float to the surface of a tank where they can be ' concentrated and
removed. This is accomplished by releasing gas bubbles which attach to the
solid particles, increasing their buoyancy and causing them to float. In
principle, this process is the opposite of sedimentation. Figure VII-24
shows one type of flotation system.
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater streams that
carry heavy loads of finely divided suspended solids or oil. Solids having
a specific gravity only slightly greater than 1.0, which would require
abnormally long sedimentation times, may be removed in much less time by
flotation.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam, dispersed air,
dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation are the most commonly used
technique. Chemical additives are often used to enhance the performance of
the flotation process.
The principal difference between types of flotation is the method of
generation of the minute gas bubbles (usually air) in a suspension of water
and small particles. The use of chemicals to improve the efficiency may be
506
-------
employed with any of the basic methods. The following paragraphs describe
the different flotation techniques and the method of bubble generation for
each process.
Froth Flotation - Froth flotation is based on the utilization of
differences in the physiochemical properties in various particles.
Wetability and surface properties affect the particles' ability to attach
themselves to gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth flotation, air is
blown through the solution containing flotation reagents. The particles
with water repellant surfaces stick to air bubbles as they rise and are
brought to the surface. A mineralized froth layer, with mineral particles
attached to air bubbles, is formed. Particles of other minerals which are
readily wetted by water do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation - In dispersed air flotation, gas bubbles are
generated by introducing the air by means of mechanical agitation with
impellers or by forcing air through porous media. Dispersed air flotation
is used mainly in the metallurgical industry.
Dissolved Air Flotation - In dissolved air flotation, bubbles are produced
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 type is predominant in the flotation of
flocculated materials and 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. 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 waste water with
air either directly in an aeration tank, or by permitting air to enter on
the suction of a wastewater pump. A partial vacuum is applied, which
causes the dissolved air to come out of solution as minute bubbles. The
bubbles attach to solid particles and rise to the surface to form a scum
blanket, which is normally removed by a skimming mechanism. Grit and other
heavy solids that settle to the bottom are generally raked to a central
sludge pump for removal. A typical vacuum flotation unit consists of a
covered cylindrical tank in which a partial vacuum is maintained. The tank
is equipped with scum and sludge removal mechanisms. The floating material
is continuously swept to the tank periphery, automatically discharged into
a scum trough, and removed from the unit by a pump also under partial
vacuum. Auxilliary equipment includes an aeration tank for saturating the
wastewater with air, a tank with a short retention time for removal of
large
507
-------
Application and Performance
The primary variables for flotation design are pressure, feed solids
concentration, and retention period. The effluent suspended solids
decrease, and the concentration of solids in the float increases with
increasing retention period. When the flotation process is used primarily
for clarification, a retention period of 20 to 30 minutes is adequte for
separation and concentration.
Advantages and Limitations
Some advantages of the flotation process are the high levels of solids
separation achieved in many applications, the relatively low energy
requirements, and the air flow adjustment capability to meet the
requirements of treating different waste types. 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
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.
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.
Solid Waste Aspects; Chemicals are commonly used to aid the flotation
process. These chemicals, for the most part, function to create a surface
or a structure that can easily adsorb or entrap air bubbles. Inorganic
chemicals, such as the aluminum and ferric salts and activated silica, can
be used to bind the particulate matter together and, in so doing, create a
structure that can entrap air bubbles. Various organic chemicals can be
used to change the nature of either the air-liquid interface or the solid-
liquid interface, or both. These compounds usually collect on the inter-
face to bring about the desired changes. The added chemicals plus the
particles in solution combine to form a large volume of sludge which must
be further treated or properly disposed.
Demonstration Status
Flotation is a fully developed process and is readily available for the
treatment of a wide variety of industrial waste streams.
ULTRAFILTRATION
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a process which uses semipermeable polymeric
membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal materials suspended in a
508
-------
liquid phase by pressurizing the liquid so that it permeates the membrane.
The membrane of an ultrafilter forms a molecular screen which retains
molecular particles based on their differences in size, shape, and chemical
structure. The membrane permits passage of solvents and lower molecular
weight molecules. At present, an ultrafilter is capable of removing
materials with molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 and
particles of comparable or larger sizes.
In an ultrafiltration process, the feed solution is pumped through a
tubular membrane unit. Water and some low molecular weight materials pass
through the membrane under the applied pressure of 10 to 100 psig.
Emulsified oil droplets and suspended particles are retained, concentrated,
and removed continuously. In contrast to ordinary filtration, retained
materials are washed off the membrane filter rather than held by it.
Figure 7-25 represents the ultrafiltration process.
Application and Performance
Ultraf iltration has potential application to battery manufacturing plants
for separation of oils and residual solids from a variety of waste streams.
In treating battery manufacturing wastewater its greatest applicability
would be as polishing treatment for removal of residual precipitated metals
after chemical precipitation and clarification. Successful commercial use,
however, has been primarily for separation of emulsified oils from
wastewater. Over one hundred such units are now in operation in the United
States, treating emulsified oils from a variety of industrial processes.
Currently operating units have capacities of from a few hundred gallons a
week to 50,000 gallons per day. Concentration of oily emulsions to 60
percent oil or more are possible. Oil concentrates of 40 percent or more
are generally suitable for incineration, and the permeate can be treated
further and in some cases recycled back to the process. In this way, it is
possible to eliminate contractor removal costs for oil from some oily waste
streams.
The following test data indicate ultrafiltration performance (note that UF
is not intended to remove dissolved solids):
Table VII-17
Ultrifiltration Performance
Parameter Feed (mg/1) Permeate (mg/1)
Oil (freon extractable) 1230 4
COD 8920 148
TSS 1380 13
Total Solids 2900 296
509
-------
The removal percentages shown are typical, but they can be influenced by pH
and other conditions.
The permeate or effluent from the ultrafiltration unit is normally of a
quality that can be reused in industrial applications or discharged
directly. The concentrate from the ultrafiltration unit can be disposed of
as any oily or solid waste.
Advantages and Limitations
Ultrafiltration is sometimes an attractive alternative to chemical
treatment because of lower capital equipment, installation, and operating
costs, very high oil and suspended solids removal and little required
pretreatment. It places a positive barrier between pollutants and effluent
which reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant discharge due to
operator error or upset in settling and skimming systems. Alkaline values
in alkaline cleaning solutions, can be recovered and reused in process.
A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process effluents is its
narrow temperature range (18 to 30 Degrees C) for satisfactory operation.
Membrane life is decreased with higher temperatures, but flux increases at
elevated temperatures. Therefore, surface area requirements are a function
of temperature and become a tradeoff between initial costs and replacement
costs for the membrane. In addition, it is unable to handle certain solu-
tions. Strong oxidizing agents, solvents, and other organic compounds can
cause dissolution of 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
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.
Maintainability; A limited amount of regular maintenance is required for
the pumping system. In addition, membranes must be periodically changed.
Maintenance associated with membrane plugging can be reduced by selection
of a membrane with optimum physical characteristics and sufficient velocity
of the waste stream. 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.
510
-------
Solid Waste Aspectst Ultrafiltration is used primarily for recovery of
^blids and liquids. It therefore eliminates solid waste problems when the
solids (e.g., paint solids) can be recycled to the process. Otherwise, the
stream containing solids must be treated by end-of-pipe equipment. In the
most probable applications within the battery manufacturing category,
solids removed in the ultrafilter would be hydroxides or sulfides of metals
which may have recovery value.
Demonstration Status
The ultrafiltration process is well developed and commercially available
for treatment of wastewater or recovery of certain high' molecular weight
liquid and solid contaminants.
CARBON ADSORPTION
The use of activated carbon for removal of dissolved organics from water
and wastewater has long since been demonstrated to be feasible. In fact,
it is one of the most efficient organic removal processes available. This
process is reversible, thus allowing activated carbon to be regenerated and
reused by the application of heat and steam or solvent. Activated carbon
has also been shown to be an effective adsorbent for many toxic metals
including mercury. Regeneration of carbon which has adsorbed significant
metals, however, may be difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon that has
been specially treated to give high adsorption capacities. Typical raw
materials include coal, wood, coconut shells, petroleum base residues and
char from sewage sludge pyrolysis. A carefully controlled process of
dehydration, carbonization, and oxidation yields a product which is called
activated carbon. This material has a high capacity for adsorption due
primarily to the large surface area available for adsorption, 500-1500
square meters/gram, resulting from a large number of internal pores. Pore
sizes generally range from 10-100 angstroms in radius.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the process of
adsorption, or the attraction and accumulation of one substance on the
surface of another. Activated carbon preferentially adsorbs organic
compounds and, because of this selectivity, is particularly effective in
removing organic compounds from aqueous solution.
Carbon adsorption requires pretreatment to remove excess suspended solids,
oils, and greases. Suspended solids in the influent should be less than 50
rog/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; at 50 mg/1
suspended solids one backwash will suffice. Oil and grease should be less
than about 10 mg/1. A high level of dissolved inorganic material in the
influent may cause problems with thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling
511
-------
and loss of activity) unless appropriate preventive steps are taken. Such
steps might include pH control, softening, or the use of an acid wash on
the carbon prior to reactivation.
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular form. An
adsorption column packed with granular activated carbon is shown in Figure
VI1-26. Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit weight and may have
slightly higher adsorption capacity but it is more difficult to handle and
to regenerate.
Application and Performance
Carbon adsorption is used to remove mercury from wastewaters. The removal
rate is influenced by the mercury level in the influent to the adsorption
unit. Removal levels found at three manufacturing facilities are:
Table VII-18
ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE (MERCURY)
Mercury levels - mg/1
Plant In Out
A 28.0 0.9
B ' 0.36 0.015
C 0.008 0.0005
In the aggregate these data indicate that very low effluent levels could be
attained from any raw waste by use of multiple adsorption stages. This is
characteristic of adsorption processes.
Isotherm tests have indicated that activated carbon is very effective in
adsorbing 65 percent of the organic toxic pollutants and reasonably
effective for another 22 percent. It was reasonably effective on 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene. Table VII-19
summarizes the treatability effectiveness for most of the organic toxic
pollutants by activated carbon as compiled by EPA. Table VII-20 summarizes
classes of organic compounds together with examples of organics that are
readily adsorbed on carbon.
Advantages and Limitations
The major benefits of carbon treatment include applicability to a wide
variety of organics, and high removal efficiency. Inorganics such as
cyanide, chromium, and mercury are also removed effectively. Variations in
concentration and flow rate are well tolerated. The system is compact, and
recovery of adsorbed materials is sometimes practical. However,
destruction of adsorbed compounds often occurs during thermal regeneration.
If carbon cannot be thermally desorbed, it must be disposed of along with
any adsorbed pollutants. When thermal regeneration is utilized, capital
512
-------
and operating costs are relatively high. Cost surveys show that thermal
regeneration is generally economical when carbon usage exceeds about 1,000
Ib/day. Carbon cannot remove low molecular weight or highly soluble
organics. It also has a low tolerance for suspended solids, which must be
removed to at least 50 mg/1 in the influent water.
Operational Factors
Reliability; This system should be very reliable assuming upstream
protection and proper operation and maintenance procedures.
Maintainability; This system requires periodic regeneration or replacement
of spent carbon and is dependent upon raw waste load and process
efficiency.
Solid Waste Aspects; Solid waste from this process is contaminated
activated carbon that requires disposal. If the carbon undergoes
regeneration, the solid waste problem is reduced because of much less
frequent replacement.
Demonstration Status
Carbon adsorption systems have been demonstrated to be practical and
economical for the reduction of COD, BOD and related parameters 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 chemicals from aqueous wastes.
Carbon adsorption must be considered a viable and economic process for
organic waste streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of refractory or
toxic organics. Its applicability for removal of inorganics such as metals
has also been demonstrated.
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
Cyanide in a solution usually includes both free or simple cyanides and
complexed cyanides. Cyanides amenable to chlorination are free and lightly
cpmplexed cyanides which can be oxidized by chlorine to cyanates or carbon
dioxide and nitrogen gases. Complexed cyanides are cyanides which have
formed complexes with metals such as iron, zinc, cadmium or copper.
Simple cyanides may be destroyed by chlorine, ozone, ozone with ultraviolet
radiation, hydrogen peroxide or electrolytic oxidation as alternatives to
alkaline chlorination. Oxidation by ozone in the presence of ultraviolet
radiation has been shown to destroy almost all cyanides. Cyanide complexes
can sometimes be precipitated through chemical precipitation, but that
process does not destroy the cyanide.
513
-------
OXIDATION BY CHLORINE
Chlorine as an oxidizing agent is primarily used in industrial waste
treatment to oxidize cyanide. Chlorine can be utilized in either the
elemental or hypochlorite forms. This classic procedure can be illustrated
by the following two step chemical reaction:
1. C12 + NaCN + 2NaOH = NaCNO + 2NaCl + H20
2. 3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCNO = 2NaHC03 + N2 + 6NaCl + 2H20
The reaction presented as equation (2) for the oxidation of cyanate is the
final step in the oxidation of cyanide. A complete system for the alkaline
chlorination of cyanide is shown in Figure VI1-27.
The cyanide waste flow is treated by the alkaline chlorination process for
oxidation of cyanides to carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The equipment often
consists of an equalization tank followed by two reaction tanks, although
the reaction can be carried out in a single tank. Each tank has an
electronic recorder-controller to maintain required conditions with respect
to pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). In the first reaction tank,
conditions are adjusted to oxidize cyanides to cyanates. To effect the
reaction, chlorine is metered to the reaction tank as required to maintain
the ORP in the range of 350 to 400 millivolts, and 50 percent aqueous
caustic soda is added to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10. In the second
reaction tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize cyanate to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The desirable ORP and pH for this reaction are 600
millivolts and a pH of 8.0. Each of the reaction tanks is equipped with a
propeller agitator designed to provide approximately one turnover per
minute. Treatment by the batch process is accomplished by using two tanks,
one for collection of water over a specified time period, and one tank for
the treatment of an accumulated batch. If dumps of concentrated wastes are
frequent, another tank may be required to equalize the flow to the
treatment tank. When the holding tank is full, the liquid is transferred
to the reaction tank for treatment. After treatment, the supernatant is
discharged and the sludges are collected for removal and ultimate disposal.
Application and Performance
The oxidation of cyanide waste by chlorine is a classic process and is
found in most industrial plants using cyanide. This process is capable of
achieving effluent levels that are nondetectable. The process is
potentially applicable to battery facilities where cyanide is a component
in cell wash formulations.
514
-------
Advantages and Limitations
Some advantages of chlorine oxidation for handling process effluents are
operation at ambient temperature, suitability for automatic control, and
low cost. Some disadvantages of chlorine oxidation for destruction of
cyanides are that careful pH control must be maintained, chemical
interference is possible in the treatment of mixed wastes, and a
potentially hazardous situation exists when chlorine gas is stored and
handled.
Operational Factors
Reliability; High, assuming proper monitoring and control, and proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability; Maintenance consists of periodic removal of sludge and
recalibration of instruments.
Solid Waste Aspects; There is no solid waste problem associated with
chlorine oxidation.
Demonstration Status
The oxidation of cyanide wastes by chlorine is a widely used process in
plants using cyanide in cleaning and metal processing baths.
OXIDATION BY OZONE
Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately ten times
more soluble than oxygen on a weight basis in water. Ozone may be produced
by several methods, but the silent electrical discharge method is
predominant in the field. The silent electrical discharge process produces
ozone by passing oxygen or air between electrodes separated by an
insulating material. A complete ozonation system is represented in Figure
VII-28.
Application and Performance
Ozonation has been applied commercially for oxidation of cyanides, phenolic
chemicals, and organo-metal complexes. It has also been studied in the
laboratory for applicability to photographic waste waters with good
results. Ozone is used in industrial waste treatment, primarily to oxidize
cyanide to cyanate and to oxidize phenols and dyes to a variety of
colorless nontoxic products.
Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below;
CN- + 03 = CNO- + 02
515
-------
Continued exposure to ozone will convert the cyanate formed to carbon
dioxide and ammonia if the reaction is allowed to proceed; however, this is
not economically practical.
Ozone oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0 pounds ozone per
pound of CN- and complete oxidation requires 4.6 to 5.0 pounds ozone per
pound of CN-. Zinc, copper, and nickel cyanides are easily destroyed, to a
nondetectable level, but cobalt and iron cyanides are more resistant to
ozone treatment.
Advantages and Limitations
Some advantages of ozone oxidation for handling process effluents are that
it is well suited to automatic control, on-site generation eliminates
treatment chemical procurement and storage problems, reaction products are
not chlorinated organics, and no dissolved solids added in the treatment
step. Ozone in the presence of activated carbon, ultraviolet, and other
promoters shows promise of reducing reaction time and improving ozone
utilization. Some limitations of the process are high capital expense,
possible chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and an
energy requirement of 25 kwh/kg of ozone generated. Cyanide is not
economically oxidized beyond the cyanate form.
Operational Factors
Reliability; High, assuming proper monitoring and control and proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability; Maintenance consists of periodic removal of sludge, and
periodic renewal of filters and desiccators required for the input of clean
dry air, with filter life a function of input concentrations of detrimental
constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects; Pretreatment to eliminate substances which will
interfere with the process may be necessary. Dewatering of sludge
generated in the ozone oxidation process or in an "in line" process may be
desirable prior to disposal.
Demonstration Status
There are two ozone units presently in operation for cyanide destruction.
There are currently orders for several industrial ozonation cyanide
treatment systems pending.
OXIDATION BY OZONE WITH UV RADIATION
One of the modifications of the ozonation process is the simultaneous
application of ultraviolet light and ozone for the treatment of wastewater,
including treatment of halogenated organics. The combined action of these
516
-------
two forms produces reactions by photolysis, photosensitization,
hydroxylation, oxygenation and oxidation. The process is unique because
several reactions and reaction species are active simultaneously.
Ozonation is facilitated by ultraviolet absorption because both the ozone
and the reactant molecules are raised to a higher energy state so that they
react more rapidly. In addition, free radicals for use in the reaction are
readily hydrolyzed by the water present. The energy and reaction
intermediates created by the introduction of both ultraviolet and ozone
greatly reduce the amount of ozone required compared with a system that
utilizes ozone alone. Figure VII-29 shows a three-stage UV-ozone system.
A system to treat mixed cyanides requires pretreatment that involves
chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification, equalization, and pH
adjustment.
Application and Performance
The ozone-UV radiation process was developed primarily for cyanide
treatment in the electroplating and color photo-processing areas. It has
been successfully applied to mixed cyanides and organics from organic
chemicals manufacturing processes. The process is particularly useful for
treatment of complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide, copper cyanide and
nickel cyanide, which are resistant to ozone alone.
Ozone combined with UV radiation is a relatively new technology. There are
four units currently in operation and all four are applied to treating
cyanide bearing waste.
Ozone-UV treatment could be used in battery plants to destroy cyanide
present in waste streams from some cell wash operations.
OXIDATION BY HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
The hydrogen peroxide oxidation treatment process removes both the cyanide
and metals in cyanide containing wastewaters. In this process, cyanide
bearing waters are heated to 49 - 54°C (120 - 130°F) and the pH is adjusted
to 10.5 - 11.8. Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde) is added, while the
tank is vigorously agitated. After 2-5 minutes, a proprietary peroxygen
compound (41 percent hydrogen peroxide with a catalyst and additives) is
added. After an hour of mixing, the reaction is complete. The cyanide is
converted to cyanate and the metals are precipitated as oxides or
hydroxides. The metals are then removed from solution by either settling
or filtration.
The main equipment required for this process are two holding tanks equipped
with heaters and air spargers or mechanical stirrers. These tanks may be
used in a batch or continuous fashion with one tank being used for
treatment while the other is being filled. A settling tank or a filter is
needed to concentrate the precipitate.
517
-------
Application and Performance
The hydrogen peroxide oxidation process is applicable to cyanidebearing
wastewaters, especially those containing metal-cyanide complexes. In terms
of waste reduction performance, this process is capable of reducing total
cyanide to less than 0.1 mg/1 and the zinc or cadmium to less than 1.0
mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations
Chemical costs are similar to those for alkaline chlorination using
chlorine and lower than those for treatment with hypochlorite. All free
cyanide reacts and is completely oxidized to the less toxic cyanate state.
In addition, metals precipitate and settle quickly, and they may be
recoverable in many instances. However, the process requires energy
expenditures to heat the wastewater prior to treatment.
Demonstration Status
This treatment process was introduced in 1971 and is being used in several
facilities. No battery manufacturing plants use oxidation by hydrogen
peroxide.
CYANIDE PRECIPITATION
Cyanide precipitation, although a method for treating cyanide in
wastewaters, is not a method of destroying cyanide. The cyanide is
retained in the sludge that is formed. It is reported that when exposed to
sunlight the cyanide complexes can break down and form cyanide. For this
reason the sludge from this treatment method must be disposed of
cautiously.
Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the addition
of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate. In the presence of iron, cyanide will
from extremely stable cyanide complexes with the addition of zinc sulfate
or ferrous sulfate, zinc ferrocyandie or ferro and ferrocyanide complexes
are formed.
To insure sufficient removal of the cyanide the pH must be kept at 9.0 and
an appropriate retention time maintained. A study has shown that the
formation of the complex is very dependent on pH. At pH's of 8 and 10 the
residual cyanide concentration were measured to be twice the concentration
of the same reaction carried out at a pH of 9. Removal efficiencies are
also very dependent on the retention time allowed for the formation of the
complexes. The formation of the complex is rather slow. Depending upon
the excess amount of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate added. At least a 30
minute retention time should be allowed for the formation of the cyanide
complex before continuing on to the clarification stage.
518
-------
One experiment showed, with an initial concentration of 10 mg/1 of cyanide,
that (98 percent) of the cyanide was complexed ten minutes after the
addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the theoretical amount necessary.
Interference from other metal ions, such as cadmium, might result in the
need for longer retention times.
Data from three metal processing plants are presented in Table VII-21
TABLE VII-21
Concentration of Total Cyanide (mg/1)
Method
FeS04
FeS04
ZnS04
In
2.57
2.42
3.28
0.14
0.16
0.46
0.12
Out
0.024
0.015
0.032
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.06
0.07
33056
12052
Mean
The concentrations are those of the stream entering and leaving the treat-
ment system. Plant 1057 allowed a 27 minute retention time for the
formation of the complex. The retention time for the other plants is not
known. The data suggests that over a wide range of cyanide concentration
in the raw waste, the concentration of cyanide can be reduced in the
effluent stream to under 0.15 mg/1.
Application and Performance
Cyanide precipitation can be used when cyanide destruction is not feasible
because of the presence of cyanide complexes which are difficult to
destroy. Effluent concentrations of cyanide to well below 0.15 mg/1 are
possible.
Advantages and Limitations
Cyanide precipitation is an inexpensive method of treating cyanide.
Problems may occur when metal ions interfere with the formation of the
complexes.
Demonstration Status; Cyanide precipitation is used in at least six coil
coating plants.
PHENOL DESTRUCTION
Phenol, also called hydroxybenzene and carbolic acid, is a clear, colorless
hygroscopic, diliquescent, crystalline solid at room temperature. It is
519
-------
very soluable in water (67 gm/1 at 16°C) and can be dissolved in benzene,
oils, and petroleum solids. Its formula is C6H5OH. It is prealent in
coking operations, refinery applications, steel mills and foundries.
BIO-OXIDATION
Phenol when treated biologically serves as an energy as well as source of
carbon for synthesis of cell mass. End products in the aerobic reaction
are carbon dioxide, water, and biological cells. The organisms that can
oxidize phenol are abundant in nature and can be found in natural waters
and in the soil. These organisms will develop in the wastewater provided
that the necessary neutrients for growth are present and provided that
environmetnal conditions are favorable.
Application and Performance
The destruction of phenol by bio-oxidation is not a new process. The
process can occur in any biological treatment plant. It is reported that
the process is capable of achieving effluent levels in properly operated
biological treatment plants to 1 mg/1. Such effluent concentrations are
reported under conditions with hydraulic retention times of 1.5 to greater
than 2.5 hours with mixed liquor suspended solids of 2000 mg/1 - 3000 mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations
Most critical to successfull phenol oxidation is the control of shock loads
to the biological treatment process. Numerous studies have shown that
phenol concentrations in excess of 500 mg/1 can result in marked decreases
in efficiency. Adaptation of the biological process to phenol will
attenuate the effects of shock loads, but very high concentrations over
extended periods of time will almost always be detrimental to the process'.
Operational Factors
Reliability; Good, depending upon the operational characteristics of the
biological treatment process.
Maintainability; Maintenance is identical to that associated with the
proper up keep of any biological treatment process.
Solid Waste Aspects; Same as those associated with any biological treatment
process.
Demonstration Status
There are accounts in the literature of successful bio-oxidation of
phenols. Successful oxidation of phenols from coke plant wastes has been
demonstrated through the use of an activated sludge system. Trickling
520
-------
filters have also demonstrated 99.9 percent removal efficiency with phenol
feed concentrations of 280 mg/1.
OXIDATION BY CHLORIANTION
With chlorine treatment a residual chlorine must be maintained, as well as
controlling the pH between a range of 7.0 and 8.3 to prevent the formation
of chlorophenols.
Application and Performance
Clarified phenol effluent sampes from a series of foundry studies were
chlorinated at four levels (1.2, 12.0, 24.0 and 36.0 mg/1) and chlorine
control maintained for twenty minutes prior to analysis for residual phenol
and chlorine concentrations. The wastewater had a phenol concentration of
123 ppb after pretreatment to remove suspended solids. Results of the
tests indicate that the recommended chlorine dosage for removal of phenols
would be at a ratio of approximately 100 chlorine to one of phenol.
Advantages and Limitations
There are several shortcomings in using the chlorination method for phenol
removal. First is the sophistication of correct chlorine dosage and the
need for careful pH control. If the effluent is underchlorinated,
dangerous and more toxic chlorophenols are generated. This may be the
result of flow and initial phenol concentration fluctuations. Secondly is
the handling and storage problem associated with chlorine.
Operational Factors
Reliability; High, assuming proper monitoring and control.
Maintainabi1ity; Maintence consists of periodic inspection of the chlorine
feed equipment and recalibration of instruments.
Solid Waste Aspects;
chlorine oxidation.
Demonstration Status:
There is no solid waste problem associated with
The oxidation of phenol wastes by chlorine has been studied under carefully
controlled conditions. Phenol oxidation by chlorine has found only limited
use in the plants engaged in metal molding and casting.
OXIDATION BY POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
Potassium permanganate (KMn04) is a powerful oxidizing chemical used to
destroy phenolic compounds. It is fed in dry form, and is not corrosive.
It keeps indefinitely when stored in a cool dry, and dark environment.
521
-------
Although it presents no health hazard in its handling, there is some fire
hazsrd which can be controlled with the addition of water.
Application and Performance
Potassium permanganate cleaves the aromatic ring structure of phenol to
produce a straight chain aliphatic molecule. The aliphatic is then further
oxidized to C02 and water. Under actual test conditions on a foundry
wastewater with a flow magnitude of 6.6 MGD having an initial phenol con-
centration of 123 >-g/l, potassium permanganate was added at concentrations
of 1.5 and 10 mg/1. After a contact time of 20 minutes, the waste was
analyzed for residual phenols. A dosage of 10 mg/1 or a ratio of 80.1
permanganate to phenol was required to remove the phenol.
A retention time from one to three hours is sufficient to insure complete
oxidation of the phenol. The initial reaction takes place almost
immediately, and almost 90 percent of the phenol is oxidized in the first
ten minutes. The higher the pH up to a value of about 9.5 the factor the
reaction time.
Advantages and Limitations
During the oxidation process, an unsoluable compound of manganese dioxide
(Mn02) is formed. This inert product exhibits certain sorptive properties
which often render it beneficial to the coagulationand sedimentation of low
turbidity waters.
Operational Factors
Reliability; High, assuming proper feed.
Maintainability; Maintenance of chemical feed equipment nan mixing is
required.
Solid Waste Aspects; Increased solid waste volume is negligable.
Demonstration Status
The use of potassium permanganate to oxidize phenolic compounds has been
demonstrated in foundries, refineries, and other industrial plants.
OXIDATION BY OZONE
Application and Performance
Test work on the treatment of phenol bearing foundry process wastewaters
has been undertaken. The phenol concentration in the raw waste after
pretreatment for suspended solids removal was 110 ppb. Results indicate
that after a contact time of 5 minutes the minimum dosage of 1.24 mg/1 of
522
-------
ozone was not sufficient for complete destruction of phenol, although an 87
percent reduction was affected. Only at concentrations at 5.32 mg/1 and
above was phenol completely oxidized. An ozone to phenol ratio of
approximately 50:1 would be required for complete oxidation of the phenols.
Advantages and Limitations
Some advantages of ozone oxidation for handling process effluents are that
it is well suited to automatic control, on-site generation eliminates
treatment chemical procurement and storage problems, reaction products are
not chlorinated organics, and no dissolved solids added in the treatment
step. Ozone in the presence of activated carbon, ultraviolet, and other
promoters shows promise of reducing reaction time and improving ozone
utilization. Some limitations of the process are high capital expense,
possible chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and an
energy requirement of 25 kwh/kg of ozone generated.
Operational Factors
Maintainabi1ity; Maintenance consists of periodic removal of sludge, and
periodic renewal of filters and desiccators required for the input of clean
dry air, with filter life a function of input concentrations of detrimental
constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects; Pretreatment to eliminate substances which will
interfere with the process may be necessary. Dewatering of sludge
generated in the ozone oxidation process or in an "in line" process may be
desirable prior to disposal.
Demonstration Status
The use of ozone for oxidation of phenolic compounds has been investigated
through the treatment of foundry process wastewaters. However, no long
term treatment by ozonation has been identified.
523
-------
10
2345
FIGURE VII-1
COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH
524
-------
tn
ro
c
o
•H
4J
U
C
o
U
Ł
w
JJ
•3H
1!
lil
I
W
7 8 9
Minimum Effluent pH
10
11
12
FIGURE VII-2
EFFLUENT ZINC CONCENTRATION vs. MINIMUM EFFLUENT pH
-------
Maximum
en
ro
cr>
^
X
0)
o
•H
re
c
-------
en
l\5
--j
10
5
I
c
o
•H
4-1
10
X4
4-1
« 1. 0
0
c
o
u
Chromium Treated Effluent
. 0
0
OH- •"
i
.1
1
0
>
C
o
i
<
1
Av
U
u
0
ei
*
:ac
laximun
e
O
}
o
1
c
1
1.0 ° 10
1
.
>
100
1000
Chromium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)
(Number of observations=29)
FIGURE VII-4
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
CHROMIDM
-------
en
r\3
03
d Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
0 M
• • h-
t— 0 C
Ol
4J
fl)
4)
M
H
M
01
a
a
o
u
.01
0
CU
.1
9
ppfi
O^,
L.
O
•
xl
0
Q
Average
B
1.0
Maximum
„
y
10
"
1C
Copper Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)
FIGURE VII-5
(Number of observations»23)
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
COPPER
-------
en
ro
10
J.U
i-l
CP
e
c
o
Ł1.0
in
i4
4-1
C
Ł
>
(
f™
rt^
o
0 0
A
B **
1
)
ft
i
0
<
' A
i
n
*
M
C
aae
avj^
ax:
mi
0
JIT
0
> i
o
0
b
1.0 10 100
Iron Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)
1000
(Number of observations=38)
FIGURE VII-6
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
IRON
-------
tn
oo
O
1.0* . .
•H
cn
E
C
ntratic
o
•
M
0>
c
o
u
4-1
c
0
Avei
• •• a
•age
i
I
1a
•
X
im
urn
<
0.1 1.0 10
Lead Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)
100
(Number of observations=36)
FIGURE VII-7
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
LEAD
-------
en
CO
J. . iy
.
•H
\
o>
e
c
0
•r4
4J
10
1^
4J
Si o. 1
U
c
o
4J
C
01
3
iH
M-l
U-l
Manganese Treated E
O •
0 0
Ol-1 M
1
.1 *'
>
?
^
o
U
<
A'
1.0
trerage
imu
10
O
o
>
100
1000
Manganese Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)
(Number of observations-20)
FIGURE VII-8
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
MANGANESE
-------
un
CO
FNJ
iU
l-l
tn
e
c
o
••H
(0
ii i.o
c
Cl
c
o
u
c
a
i-H
H-l
U
no
01
u
0
•H
Z
.01
0.
o
0
A
1 1
M
yet ay e
axi
nun
0
\
ft
.0
: o
o
3
10 1(
Nickel Raw Wsste Concentration (mg/1)
(Number of observations=14)
FIGURE VII-9
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
NICKEL
-------
en
co
CO
^ AW
r-t
\
C
o
•H
Phosphorus Treated Effluent Concentrat
0 »-
. •
*-•- °
o
0
•
i
f
V
»i
j
•a
Max in
o
0 0
o
ge
w
i 0°
mm
o
0
o
0
o
^
0
.0 10
1C
Phosphorus Raw Waste Concentration (rag/1)
(Number of observations=21)
FIGURE VII-10
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
PHOSPHORUS
-------
en
OJ
Zinc Treated Effluent Concentration img/1)
• 0 1-
o • • *
O (_. 1— ' O (
1
x
<
f '
o
o
1
o
o
o
u
o.
o
Average
o
o
0
Ma
(
xi
O
0
mu
t
m
1 1.0 10
o
100
1000
Zinc Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)
(Number of observations-28)
FIGURE VII-11
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
ZINC
-------
Soda^ ash and
caustic soda ^
10.5
FIGURE VII-12
LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
535
-------
Sedimentation Basin
Inltt Zone ,
Inltt Liquid
Baffles To Maintain
"Quiescent Conditions
Settled Particles Collected
And Periodically Removed
Circular Ctarifier
Settling Partftle;Traj*ctoVy,
\f
Outlet Zone
Outlet Liquid
Belt-Type Solids Collection Mechanism
Inlet Liquid
Circular Baffle
Annular Overflow Weir
Outlet Liquid
Settling Zone'
Revolving Collection
Mechanism
Settling Particles
Settled Particles "T Collected And Periodically Removed
L Sludge Orawoff
FIGURE 7-13
REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
536
-------
INFLUCNT
WATER LEVEL
STORED
BACKWASH
WATER
IT-»FILTER—
-BACKWASH'*'
THREE WAY VALVC
FILTER \ FILTER
COMPARTMENT\ MEDIA
• COLLECTION CHAMBER
DRAIN
FIGURE VII-14
GRANULAR BED FILTRATION EXAMPLE
537
-------
PERFORATED
BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE
INLET
SLUDGE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
PLATES AND FRAMES ARE PRESSED
TOGETHER DURING FILTRATION
CYCLE
RECTANGULAR
METAL PLATE
FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
RECTANGULAR FRAME
FIGURE VII-15
PRESSURE FILTRATION
538
-------
FABRIC OR WIRE
FILTER MEDIA
STRETCHED OVER
REVOLVING DRUM
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
ROLLER
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
SOLIDS COLLECTION
HOPPER
V
INLET LIQUID
TO BE
FILTERED
TROUGH
FILTERED LIQUID
FIGURE VII-16
VACUUM FILTRATION
539
-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE
• BOWL DRIVE
DRYING
f
CYCLOCEAR
SLUDGE
DISCHARGE
LIQUID
OUTLET
SLUDGE
INLET
CONVEYOR
BOWL
RING
IMPELLER
FIGURE VII-17
CENTRIFUGATION
540
-------
CONDUIT
TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
CONDUIT TO
OVERLOAD
ALARM
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
EFFLUENT PIPE
EFFLUENT CHANNEL
PLAN
INFLUENT
CENTER COLUMN
CENTER CAGE
WEIR
STILTS
CENTER SCRAPER
SQUEEGEE
SLUDGE PIPE
FIGURE VI1-18
GRAVITY THICKENING
541
-------
A
1 t
pi b-
w
n
|.
I 'i 1
1 1
• .
1,
|.
U
' II 1
ll
Jl^
6-IN VITRIFI
i^^ «
Tr
M
il
i
1
"1
II
H
J4_
ED PIPE LAID ^
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
1 "
' II
II
ll
II
1 ]]
SPLASH BOX
\ M r~
^=-^--^(L^-
II
H
U
U
1
1
• 1
ll
• I .6-m. r
1 |^B=X==^J 1.
'f
9 !•
5 1
U i |
t w 1
1 1- ll
0 Z '
w 5 |l
- Z 1 '
H IL 1
in " 1
« * |l
n44^
._- -
1
'1
1
1
1
1
1
|l
LANGED)!
r7 SHEAR GATE, j— |
0 ii y
1 ^ i 4]
.,
!i
• i
i [
I *
Ii
I
i.
M
n
ii
!' [
M
.--ij,
!?
1 1
1 1
' i
\
1
i
1
1 (
i j
ol
•=• M" -^^^ -^1 1
A
J
6-1N. Cl PIPE
PLAN
6-IN. FINE SAND
3-1 N. COARSE-SAND
3-1 N. FINE GRAVEL
3-1 N. MEDIUM GRAVEL
3 TO 6 IN. COARSE GRAVEL
•2-IN. PLANK
WALK
PIPE COLUMN FOR
GLASS-OVER
3-1 N. MEDIUM GRAVEL
6-IN. UNDERORAIN LAID
WITH OPEN JOINTS
SECTION A-A
FIGURE VII-19
SLUDGE DRYING BED
542
-------
EXHAUST
PACKED TOKtR
EVAPORATOR
CONDENSATE —
HASTEWATER-
CONCENTRATE^-
'CONCENTRATE
ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
VACUUM LINE
VACUUM
PUMP
\\x\\\\\\\
COOLING
WATER
-STEAM
STEAM
COMPENSATE
STEAN
HASTE
HATER
FEED
EVAPORATOR-
STEAM
STEAM
CONDENSATE
WASTEHATER
HOT VAPOR
VAPOR-LIQUID
MIXTURE
CONDENSER
SEPARATOR
"
V
X
!
!
i
I
i
i
!
t
w
r
/
i
/
t
~t
w
i,
\
\
IQUID
RETUP
/
/
1
rngg
Wi
N
HATER VAPOR
^~1
SB
2Z3
. , p
r^
VACUUM PU
___ r
1
1
HP
IL
COOLING
HATER
J.
.CONDENSATE
m
.CONCENTRATE
CLIMBING FILM EVAPORATOR
VAPOR
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
CONDENSER
CONOENSATE
CONDENSATE
COOLING
HATER
VACUUM PUMP
wEXHAUST
ACCUMULATOR
CONDEIISATE
»> FOR
REUSE
CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE
SUBBCBCCD 1U1!E EVAPORATOR
DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATOR
FIGURE VI1-20
TYPES OF EWFORATICN EQUIPMENT
-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
DISSOLVED METALS ^__
OR OTHER |ON»
+*
/T
REGCNCRANT'
SOLUTION
• OIVERTER VALVE
—OISTR IBUTOR
••SUPPORT
REGENERANT TO REUSE.
TREATMENT. OR DISPOSAL.
OIVERTER VALVE
METAL-FREE WATER
FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
FIGURE VII-21
ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
544
-------
MACROMOLCCULKS
A NO
SOLIDS
MEMBRANE
PS I
WATER
MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION.
IN TUBULAR. HOLLOW FIBER,
OR" SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION-
PERMEATE (WATER)
. •
FEED
CONCENTRATE
(SALTS)
•O SALTS OR SQUIDS
• WATER MOLECULES
FIGURE VI1-22
SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
545
-------
SPIRAL MEMBRANE MODULI
form* Support Tutoi
froduci Wrar tomcra Ftoo
»\
, Irickali
— *«* X
1 FitdFlow/A
VI \O 3 oX 0 «O • 0 0° »V • . "•
(I) y°n»J\»n011«0«»QaOj^g
^fJ _"" I ._"_"".T_-
Product Wrar
TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
Cone«ntr«»
CONCENTRATE
SNAPPING OUTLET
EPOXY
OPEN ENDS Tiior
Of FIURS TUR j
POROUS
BACK-UP DISC
•ff RING SEAL
FEED
END PLATE
SNAP RING
^T. . 5.S5S^SSS^S^
FIBW
SHELL
V RING SEAL
POROUS FEED END PLATE
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE
PERMEATE
HOLLOW FIBER MODULI
FIGURE VII-23
REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS
546
-------
OILY WATER
INFLUENT
WATER
DISCHARGE
MOTOR
DRIVEN
RAKE
OVERFLOW
SHUTOFF
VALVE
AIR IN
BACK PRESS
VALVE
TO SLUDGE
TANK **
EXCESS
AIR OUT
LEVEL
CONTROLLER
FIGURE VII-24
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
547
-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
MACROMOLECULES
I • \ •
J.P-10-50 PSI *•. • % a*
T V •. •-•
MEMBRANE
*
WATER SALTS
•MEMBRANE
PERMEATE
O*
u
L°"o°* O?- ?! .• °' °* /•! 'CON^EI
CONCENTRATE
O'o.O
0
• . •! •
O OIL PARTICLES •DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-
MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORGANICS
FIGURE VII-25
SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
548
-------
WASTE WATER
INFLUENT
DISTRIBUTOR
WASH WATER
REPLACEMENT CARBON
SURFACE WASH
MANIFOLD
BACKWASH
CARBON REMOVAL PORT
•^-TREATED WATER
SUPPORT PLATE
FIGURE VI1-26
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
549
-------
RAW WASTE
PH
CONTROLLER
CAUSTIC
SODA
cn
on
O
PH
CONTROLLER
REACTION TANK
TREATED
WASTE
FIGURE V-27
TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATION
-------
TABLE VII-19
TREATABILITY RATING OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
UTILIZING CARBON ADSORPTION
Priority Pollutait
Pjting
Priority
»Benoval toting
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
1".
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33t
34.
35.
35.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
aeenaphthene
acrsioin
acrylor.itrile
benzene
benzidine
carbon tetrachlonde
(tetracMrrjmt thine)
l,J,4-trieh;orotwnzene
l,l,:-trichlorc*t-'-.ane
I,l,2,:-tet:acn2oroet.v.ane
fcisC-c*>::>r?e>_1ylleth(»r
2-cr.loroethyl vinyl ether
(mixed)
2-chloronap^.^halene
2,4,6-tncMorophenol
parachJ^orota cresol
chloroform itrict^oronethane)
2-cMorcohenol
1.2-dic!-.:orob8-zene
1,3-dichlorober.zene
1.4-dicMoroberizene
1,1-trans-dichleroethylene
2.4-JicMorophenol
l,2-dict-.:oroprcoane
1. J-dichlcropropylene
(1,3,-dichloroprooene)
2.4-?t.'ioxy)mei.v-.ane
methyZcne chloride
(diehloromeihane)
methyl cS-.loride 'ehloromethane)
methyl broude ( bromonethane )
bronoform (tribrororae
dichlorobromcme thane
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
M
M
H
L
n
L
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
L
L
t
H
H
49.
SO.
SI.
52.
S3.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
trichlorofluorvwu-.ane
dichlorodidjcronw^ane
cti2oradibrc«ui>>tKane
hexac-Morobutadiene
hexjc?i!orocyclap?ntadiene
isoptorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-niuophenol
4-nitrop>ml
2,<-iir.itrophenol
4,C-J:Urr>2al.'u<>c«n«
iJibenzo (a,h) anthracene)
indeno (1,2,3-od) ?>Tene
(2,3-o-phenylene p>Tene)
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
tricMoroethylene
vinyl chloride
(chloroethylene)
KB-1242 (Arocilor 1242)
KB-1254 (Axochlor 1254)
FCE-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1332 (Arodilor 1232)
FCB-1246 'Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlcr 1260)
fCB-1016 (Arodilot :016)
* NOTE; Explanation of tenoval RAtingc
Category H (high removal)
adsorbs at levels > 100 1119/9 carbon at C. • 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels 7 100 mg/g carton at Cj < 1.0 mg/1
Category M ,'noderate renoval)
adsorbs at levels > 100 109/9 carbon at C. • 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels T 130 ng/g carbon at Cf < 1.0 mg/1
Category L (low renoval)
adsorbs at levels < IOC mj/g carbon at C. > 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels < 10 ng/g carbon at C( < 1.0 mg/1
Cf • final concentrations of priority pollutant at equilibria
551
-------
TABLE VII-20
CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON CARBON
)rganic Chemical Class
\romatic Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear Aromatics
Chlorinated Aroraatics
Phenolics
Chorinated Phenolics
*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic and
Branch Chain hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Aliphatic hydrocarbons
*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Acids
*High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Amines
and Aromatic Amines
*High Molecular Weight Ketones, Esters,
Ethers & Alcohols
Surfactants
Soluble Organic Dyes
Examples of Chemical Class
benzene, toluene, xylene
naphthalene, anthracene
biphenyls
chlorobenzene, polychlorinated
biphenyls, aldrin, endrin,
toxaphene, DDT
phenol, cresol, resorcenol
and polyphenyls
trichlorophenol, pentachloro-
phenol
gasoline, kerosine
carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
tar acids, benzoic acid
aniline, toluene diamine
hydroquinone, polyethylene
glycol
alkyl benzene sulfonates
melkylene blue, Indigo carmine
* High Molecular Weight includes compounds in the broad range of from
4 to 20 carbon atoms
552
-------
1
cot
n D-
XU
IIM
4TROI.S
r..»m n
UL
n r
oe
_Mta
vv
OZOf*
NCR^
^^^L
^*™j
d
1BHBH
•~*
If
kT
D
•^
^
->
•^H
^^
3R
"V%i
J
"\«M
I
71
OZONE
(EACTION
"TANK
'
•
mm
i
2
— (
-b^
p
TREATED
WASTE
MAW WASTE •
FIGURE VII-28
TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
553
-------
MIXER <-v
WASTEWATER
FEED
TANK
r
a-
SE
ft
T
S
1
TREAT!
V,
1
m
t-
RST 0
•AGE 5
3
M
h
:OND §
ICE 3
3
HIRD (J
TAGE j
3
KD
PUMP
iD WATEF
6
n
u]
J
I
n
l
c
3
C
TT
[
CXHAUST
GAS
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
PH MONITORINC
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
— PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
PH MONITORING
OZONE
OZO
GEN
FIGURE VII-29
UV-OZO NATION
554
-------
SECTION VIII
COSTS, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
This section reviews the incremental costs incurred in applying the various
levels of treatment technologies to model plants. The preferred method of
determining the total water pollution control costs would be to cost each
plant with a process wastewater source. However, due to the large number
of plants, the development of model plants was considered to be the only
practicable method of determining industry-wide costs. These model plants
are based on data furnished by plants within the foundry point source
category and the other sources of data outlined in Sections III and V of
this document. Also included in this section are the energy requirements,
nonwater quality aspects and the techniques, magnitude, and costs of each
level of treatment technology for the model plants. The water pollution
control costs for the plants visited are also presented.
In order to properly evaluate the treatment models and costs presented
herein, it must be noted that a substantial amount of the technology
identified as BPT and BAT is currently in use and also that there is a
large variety of possible treatment method combinations or permutations.
In order to assess the economic impact of the various treatment schemes on
the foundry industry, a cost evaluation was performed. Table VIII-1
illustrates how the following factors were used to determine the total cost
of compliance for the foundry category.
The estimated numbers of wet foundries determined to be using
particular processes are in Tables VII1-2 through VI11-11.
The percentage of plants, based on the plant data, requiring the
treatment component as presented in Tables VII1-12 through VII1-28.
The cost of the model treatment component as presented in Tables VIII-
29 through VII1-81.
The projected costs of implementing the various treatment technologies
throughout the industry, based on these factors, are presented in Tables
VIII-82 through VIII-99.
SAMPLED PLANT COSTS
The water pollution control costs for the plants visited during the study
are presented in Tables VI11-100 through VII1-104. The treatment systems,
effluent loads, and pollutant reduction abilities were described in Section
VII. These costs are based on company supplied information and are
converted to July, 1978 dollars. Standard cost of capital and depreciation
percentages were used to provide a basis of comparison for these costs.
555
-------
CONTROL AND TREATMENT COMPONENTS
The treatment components assembled into the treatment technologies to treat
foundry process wastewaters are presented in Tables VII1-105 through VIII-
34. In addition to listing the treatment methods available, these tables
also describe for each method:
1. Resulting effluent levels for pollutant parameters
2. Status and reliability
3. Problems and limitations
4. Implementation time
5. Land requirements
6. Environmental impacts other than water
7. Solid waste generation
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES
BPT and BAT costs associated with the separate stages of treatment
technology including investment, capital depreciation, operation and
maintenance, energy and power, sludge disposal, and chemical purchases are
presented on water treatment cost Tables VI11-35 through VI11-93. Columns
on cost tables are identified by letter corresponding to the appropriate
treatment technology identified in Tables VIII-18 through VIII-34.
Model costs were determined from the model treatment technologies. The
factors considered in the development of the best practicable control
technology (BPT) and the best achievable technology (BAT) are discussed in
Sections IX and X, respectively. However, in the costing of the model
technologies for both BPT and BAT, two major items must be determined for
costing purposes. These items are: the selection of specific treatment
components; and the flow rate of process wastewater passing through the
treatment components. The costs were developed in the following manner:
The initial step in the costing process, after determination of the
equipment hardware, was to determine the BPT treatment model flow. This
determination expressed in liters per kkg or gallons per ton was made
through the use of the best process wastewater flow rates of the plants in
each subcategory and subcategory segment. The use of the production
related parameter, i.e. tons of metal poured,-or tons of sand, as discussed
in Section IV, as an integral part of the flow analysis accounted for
differences in the actual production levels from plant to plant and placed
the flow of all the plants on a normalized basis for comparison and
analysis. In addition, for the purposes of costing, the process wastewater
flow through the treatment system was equated to the flow rate through the
process. This flow has been previously referred to as the applied flow.
For those processes where the process wastewater is recycled prior to
treatment, the model flows for those processes are higher than the actual
process wastewater flow from the processes.
556
-------
The best flow rates used in determining the model flows were based on the
flow rates of plants which have demonstrated conservative water use in the
metal molding and casting manufacturing processes. The model flow rate,
the actual number itself, was derived by determining the average of the
best applied water flow rates in the data. The best applied water flow
rates were identified by ranking all the plant applied flow data from
lowest flow per unit of production to highest flow per unit of production
and analyzing the resulting distribution.
For some subcategory segments, a distinct partioning of the data occurred
with a clustering of plants with lower flow rates as compared to plants
with higher flow rates. The plants with the lower flow rates were compared
to the other plants in the segment to identify any fundamental differences
between the two groups of plants. No information indicated relevant
differences between plants. Therefore, the plants with the lower flow
rates were defined as the best plants compared to the other plants in the
subcategory segment. The flow rates of the best plants were then averaged
to determine the average of the best plants. This average flow rate is the
model flow rate.
For those subcategory segments in which a distinct partioning of the flow
rate data did not occur, the median of the distribution of applied flows
was identified and all plants with flow rates lower than the median value
were defined as the best plants. The flow rates of the best plants were
then averaged to determine the average of the best plants. This average
flow rate for these subcategory segments is the model flow rate.
As a result of these calculations, a model normalized flow was determined
and is expressed in either liter/kkg or gal/ton of metal poured or sand
handled. However, the actual sizing of the treatment equipment was based
on a flow rate expressed in gallons per unit time, i.e. gallons per minute.
Therefore, an additional step in the development of model costs was
necessary.
The flow rate expressed in liter/kkg or gal/ton requires a conversion
factor to convert the production normalized flow rate into an expression
more appropriate for costing purposes. Standard practice when designing
treatment equipment and determining the cost of the equipment is to
determine the flow through the equipment as a function of time. This
conversion to more suitable units requires information about the production
rate data of the plants used to develop the treatment model.
The production data in terms of the weight of metal poured or the weight of
sand handled was examined in light of the desire to make the model plants
represent as closely as possible the real plant population. It was
realized that plants with larger production levels and more employees have
greater volumes of process wastewater than plants with less production and
fewer employees (though on a production normalized basis, the gallons per
ton of process wastewater may be nearly the same for a large plant as a
557
-------
small plant) and therefore larger plants incur greater treatment costs.
With this realization, a method of adjusting the model cost to reflect this
condition was sought.
A method that would smoothly interface with the way in which the economic
impact analysis of treatment costs was performed would also be highly
desirable. In addition, a method that was intrinsic to the way in which
the plant survey framework was designed would provide consistency to the
technical findings.
Using the four employee groups as a method for partioning the production
data satisfies these concerns. The production data was therefore grouped
by the four employee groups for each subcategory segment and then averaged.
This then became the "average" size plant evaluated for costing purposes.
In a limited few instances where only a few "wet" plants were identified in
a subcategory segment, production data of plants in an employee group were
averaged with the production data of plants in the neighboring employee
group to ascertain a meaningful average. Therefore, there may be as many
as four or as few as one model cost for each segment.
The treatment model size, based on flow expressed in gallons per minute,
was determined through the multiplication of the flow (expressed in gallons
per ton) by production (expressed in tons per shift, where the length of
the shift has been converted into minutes). Now the cost of the treatment
model could be assessed.
As previously indicated, treatment costs, both capitol and operating costs,
increase with increasing volume of process wastewater requiring treatment,
all other factors being equal. Therefore, on first consideration it would
appear that plants with flow rates greater than the average of the best
plants would incur costs greater than the model costs. This may be true,
but not necessarily true. As previously indicated, the process wastewater
flow through the treatment system was equated to the applied flow through
the manufacturing process. For many processes, the process wastewater is
extensively recycled back to the process prior to any treatment. The
process wastewater flow which exits the recycle loop as blowdown or
overflow and flows to the treatment system is less than the applied flow
through the process. The size and cost of the treatment system would
therefore be less since the treatment system treats less process
wastewater.
In addition, it is assumed that a company will implement the most cost
effective treatment equipment and equipment size to effect the least
reduction in profit. Therefore, before the installation of the treatment
equipment a profit conscience company would attempt to optimize the water
usage within the plant and therefore the volume of process wastewater to
reduce the size and therefore the cost of the treatment system.
558
-------
Total annual costs in dollars were developed by adding to the total
operating costs (including all chemicals, maintenance, labor, energy and
power) the capital recovery costs. Capital recovery costs consist of the
depreciation and interest charges based on a ten year straight line
depreciation and on a 7 percent interest rate, respectively.
The capital recovery factor (CRF) is normally used in industry to help
allocate the initial investment and the interest (i) to the annual
operating cost of a facility. The CRF is equal to i times the nth power of
the quantity 1 + i, the product of which is divided by the nth power of the
quantity 1 + i, less 1. The CRF is multiplied by the initial investment to
obtain the capital recovery cost. 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 be the total annual capital recovery (ACR) minus the annual
depreciation. That is, ACR - p/10 = annual cost of capital.
Construction costs are dependent upon many different variable conditions
and in order to determine definite costs, the following parameters were
established as the basis of estimates. In addition, the cost estimates as
developed reflect average costs based on standard construction practices.
a. The treatment facilities are contained within a "battery limit" site
location and are erected on a "green field" site. Certain site
clearance costs such as existing plant equipment relocation, etc., are
not included in cost estimates.
b. Equipment costs are based on specific water rates. A change in water
flow rates will affect costs.
c. The treatment facilities are located in reasonable proximity of the
foundry 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.
d. Sales and use taxes or freight charges are not included in cost
estimates.
e. Land acquisition costs are not included in cost estimates.
f. Expansion of existing supporting utilities such as sewage, river water
pumping stations, and increased boiler capacity are not included in
cost estimates.
g. Potable water, fire lines and sewage lines to service treatment
facilities are not included in cost estimates.
559
-------
h. Limited instrumentation has been included for pH, but no automatic
samplers, temperature indicators, flow meters, recorders, etc., are
included in cost estimates.
i. The site conditions are based on:
1. No hardpan or rock excavation, blasting, etc.
2. No pilings or spread footing foundations for poor soil
conditions.
3. No well pointing.
4. No dams, channels, or site drainage required.
5. No cut and fill or grading of site.
6. No seeding or planting of grasses and only minor site grubbing
and small shrubs clearance; no tree removal.
k. Controls buildings are prefabricated buildings, not brick or block
type.
1. No painting, pipe insulation, and steam or electric heat tracing are
included.
m. No special guardrails, buildings, lab test facilities, signs, or docks
are included.
Other factors that affect costs but cannot be evaluated with certainty:
a. Geographic location
b. Metropolitan or rural areas
c. Labor rates, local union rules, regulations, and restrictions
d. Local taxes and surcharges
e. Type of contract
f. Weather conditions or season
g. Transportation of men, materials and equipment
h. Building code requirements
j. Safety requirements
560
-------
K. General business conditions
The cost estimates do reflect an on-site "Battery Limit" treatment plant
with electrical substation and equipment for powering the facilities, all
necessary pumps, treatment plant interconnecting feed lines, chemical
treatment facilities foundations, structural steel, and 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 guage chain
link fence with three strand barb wire and one truck gate was included for
fencing in treatment facilities area.
The cost estimates also include a 15 percent contingency, 10 percent
contractor's overhead and profit, and engineering fees of 15 percent.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER
CASTING PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
QUALITY IMPACT - ALUMINUM FOUNDRY INVESTMENT
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 1.8 kkg/day (2 ton/day) plant,
the total energy required will be 3.9 kw (5.25 hp) or 14.4 kwh/kkg (13
kwh/ton) of metal poured. The cost of this energy will be $164 per
year.
Nonwater Quality Aspects
a.
b.
Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for
operations has no impact on air quality.
investment casting
Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Solids removal amounts to approximately 68.9 Ibs of dry solids
per day or 34.4 Ibs of solids per ton of metal poured. Assuming
a clarifier underflow with a 5 percent solids concentration, this
equates to 1,380 Ibs of wet sludge per day or 689 Ibs of wet
sludge per ton of metal poured. Using the vacuum filter outlined
in the treatment model to dewater the sludge to 25 percent
solids, the production of filter cake would amount to 276 Ibs per
day or 138 Ibs of filter cake per ton of metal poured. The
filter cake or wet sludge can be disposed of via an approved
landfill.
561
-------
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - ALUMINUM FOUNDRY INVESTMENT
CASTING PROCESS
1. Additional Energy Requirements
a. Treatment Alternate No. 1: Additional power consuming equipment
will be needed to upgrade the treatment system from the BPT level
to this BAT Alternate. For the 1.8 kkg/day (2 ton/day) facility
outlined in the model, the additional energy needed will be 12 kw
(2 hp) or 6.7 kwh/kkg (6 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The cost of
this additional power will be $75 per year.
b. Treatment Alternate No. 2: Additional power consuming equipment
will be needed to upgrade the treatment system from the BPT level
to this BAT Alternate. For the 1.8 kkg/day (2 ton/day) facility
outlined in the model, the additional energy needed will be 3.4
kw (4.5 hp) or 14.1 kwh/kkg (13.6 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The
cost of this additional power will be $168 per year.
c. Treatment Alternate No. 3: Additional power consuming equipment
will be required to upgrade the BPT treatment system to the level
of this BAT Alternative. For the 1.8 kkg/day (2 tons/day) model
facility, the additional energy needed will be 4.9, kw (6.5 hg)
or 21.8 kwh/kkg (19.6 kwh/ton) of metal poured. This additional
power will cost $243 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as BPT.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: No additional sludges generated by all of
the BAT technologies.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT ALUMINUM FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE
SCRUBBER PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 98 kkg/day (108 ton/day) plant,
the total energy required will be 24.57 kw (33 hp) or 175.16 kwh/kkg
(157.64 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The cost of this energy will be
$1,976 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for melting furnace
scrubber operations has no impact on air quality.
562
-------
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids and the oils and greases removed in
various treatment process stages. Solids removal amounts to
approximately 22 Ibs of dry solids per day or 0.2 Ibs of solids
per ton of metal poured. Assuming a clarifier underflow with a 5
percent solids concentration, this equates to 440 Ibs of wet
sludge per day or 4 Ibs of wet sludge per ton of metal poured.
Using the vacuum filter outlined in the model to dewater the
sludge to 25 percent solids, the production of filter cake would
be 88 Ibs per day or 0.8 Ibs of filter cake per ton of metal
poured. The filter cake or wet sludge can be disposed of via an
approved landfill.
Based on skimming from the emulsion breaking treatment step a
waste with 10 percent oils and greases, approximately 1 gallon
per day or 0.01 gallons per ton of metal poured of oil would
require disposal. This waste could either be hauled away by an
outside contractor or incinerated.
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT z ALUMINUM FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE
SCRUBBER PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with
advanced treatment technologies are discussed below for melting furnace
scrubber operations.
1. Additional Energy Requirements
a. Treatment Alternative No. 1: Improvement of the process waste-
water treatment system from BPT to the Alternative No. 1 BAT
would involve no energy related costs.
b. Treatment Alternate No. 2: Additional power consuming equipment
will be needed to upgrade the treatment system from the BPT level
to this BAT Alternate. For the 98 kkg/day (108 ton/day) plant
outlined in the model, the additional energy needed will be 0.75
kw (1 hp) or 0.18 kwh/kkg (0.17 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The
cost of this additional power will be $112 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as BPT
b. Solid Waste Disposal: No additional solids or oils and greases
are generated in either BAT Alternative.
563
-------
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CASTING
PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment for the two employee group models.
ENERGY AND POWER REQUIREMENTS
Model Production
Emp.
Group kkq/day ton/day kw hp kwh/kkq kwh/ton $/Year
<50 5.4 6 0.74 1 3.29 2.96 $112
>50 57.1 63 1.12 1-1/2 0.471 0.427 $168
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for casting quench
operations has no impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids and the oils and greases removed in
treatment process stages.
Dry Solids
<50 employees 0.17 Ibs/ton of metal poured 1.0 Ib/day
>50 employees 0.17 Ibs/ton of metal poured 11 Ibs/day
Based on removing from the oil skimmer a waste with 50 percent
oils and greases, approximately 0.17 gallons of oil per ton of
metal poured would require disposal. The total amounts of oil
requiring disposal each day follow:
<50 employees 1 gal/day
>50 employees 11 gal/day
This waste could either be hauled away by an outside contractor
or incinerated.
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT z ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH
PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with the
advanced treatment technology are identical to the BPT technology.
564
-------
ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - ALUMINUM FOUNDRY DIE CASTING
PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 108.8 kkg/day (120 ton/day)
plant, the total energy required will be 30.37 kw (40.5 hp) or 3.225
kwh/kkg (2.924 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The cost of this energy will
be $2,183 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for die casting
operations has no impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids and the oils and greases removed in
various treatment process stages. Solids removal amounts to
approximately 800 Ibs of dry solids per day or 6.7 Ibs of solids
per ton of metal poured. Assuming a clarifier underflow with a 5
percent solids concentration, this corresponds to 8 tons of wet
sludge per day or 133 Ibs of wet sludge per ton of metal poured.
Using the vacuum filter outlined in the model to dewater the
sludge to 25 percent solids, the production of filter cake would
be 1.6 tons per day or 27 Ibs of filter cake per ton of metal
poured. The filter cake or wet sludge can be disposed of via an
approved landfill.
Based on skimming from the separator a waste with 50 percent oils
and greases, approximately 74 gallons per day or 0.61 gallons of
oil per ton of metal poured would require disposal. This waste
could either be hauled away by an outside contractor or
incinerated.
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - ALUMINUM FOUNDRY DIE CASTING
PROCESS
1. Additional Energy Requirements
a. Treatment Alternative No. 1: Additional power consuming
equipment will be required to upgrade the BPT treatment system to
the level of this BAT Alternative. For the 108.8 kkg/day (120
ton/day) model facility the additional energy needed will be 3.7,
kw (5 hp) or 0.82 kwh/kkg (0.74 kwh/ton) of metal poured. This
additional power will cost $559 per year.
b. Treatment Alternate No. 2: Additional power consuming equipment
will be needed to upgrade the treatment system from the BPT level
565
-------
to this BAT Alternate. For the 108.8 kkg/day (120 ton/day)
facility outlined in the model, the additional energy needed will
be 1.5 kw (2 hp) or 0.33 kwh/kkg (0.30 kwh/ton) of metal poured.
The cost of this additional power will be $224 per year.
c. Treatment Alternative No. 3: Additional power consuming
equipment will be required to upgrade the BPT treatment system to
the level of this BAT Alternative. For the 108.8 kkg/day (120
ton/day) model facility the additional energy needed will be 5.2
kw (7 hp) or 1.15 kwh/kkg (1.04 kwh/ton-) of metal poured. This
additional power will cost $783 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as BPT
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The additional sludges and oils generated
by all of the BAT technologies are negligible in comparison to
BPT and can be disposed of in a similar manner to BPT.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT ALUMINUM FOUNDRY DIE LUBE PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 120.6 kkg/day (133 ton/day)
facility, the total energy required will be 5.45 kw (7.25 hp) or 0.362
kwh/kkg (0.328 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The cost of this energy will
be $270 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for die lube operations
has no impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids and the oils and greases removed in
various treatment process stages. Solids removal amounts to
approximately 5.1 Ibs of dry solids per day or 0.038 Ibs of
solids per ton of metal poured. Using the proper filter outlined
in the model to dewater the concentrate to 10 percent solids, the
production of filter cake would be 51 Ibs per day or 0.38 Ibs of
filter cake per ton of metal poured. The filter cake can be
disposed of via an approved landfill.
Oil removal amounts vary depending on the extent of maintenance
to prevent contamination of the die lube wastes with tramp oil
wastes from other sources. Prudent maintenance practices would
yield negligible amounts of skim oil.
566
-------
BAT,, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - ALUMINUM FOUNDRY DIE LUBE PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT is
identical to BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - COPPER FOUNDRY DUST COLLECTION
JBBER PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 332.9 kkg/day (367 ton/day)
facility, the total energy required will be 5.2 kw (7 hp) or 0.375
kwh/kkg (0.340 kwh/ton) of sand handled. The cost of this energy will
be $784 per year/
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: i'he BPT treatment system for dust collection
operations has nc impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Solids removal amounts to approximately 220 Ibs of dry solids per
day or 0.61 Ibs of solids per ton of sand handled. Assuming a
dragout with a 25 percent solids concentration, this corresponds
to 890 Ibs of sludge per day or 2.4 Ibs of wet sludge per ton of
sand handled.
BAT. ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - COPPER FOUNDRY DUST COLLECTION
SCRUBBER PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - COPPER FOUNDRY MOLD COOLING AND
CASTING QUENCH PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 26.3 kkg/day (29 ton/day)
facility, the total energy required will be 5.25 kw (7 hp) or 4.79
kwh/kkg (4.34 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The cost of this energy will
be $783 per year.
567
-------
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for mold cooling and
casting quench operations has no impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Solids removal amounts to approximately 2.8 Ibs of dry solids per
day or 0.095 Ibs of solids per ton of metal poured.
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - COPPER FOUNDRY MOLD COOLING AND
CASTING QUENCH PROCESS
1. Additional Energy Requirements
a. Treatment Alternative No. 1: Improvement of the process
wastewater treatment system from the BPT standard to the
Alternative No. 1 BAT standard would involve no energy related
costs. BAT Alternative No. 1 involves no incremental cost. This
alternative proposes only the tightening of the recycle rate from
99 to 100 percent (BPT Step C).
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as BPT
b. Solid Waste Disposal: No additional solids are generated.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - COPPER CONTINUOUS CASTING PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. The energy and costs requirements for the two employee
group models are:
Model Production
Emp.
Group kkq/dav ton/day kw hp kwh/kkq kwh/ton $/Year
<50 154 170 93.6 125 14.59 13.21 $13,928
Ł50 476 525 224 300 11.29 10.24 $33,556
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for continuous casting
operations has no impact on air quality.
568
-------
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Only minimal amounts of solids are
collected and these solids, which are collected separate from the
treatment process and contain copper and copper alloys, can be
reused in the casting process.
BAT,. ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - COPPER CONTINUOUS CASTING PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to the BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY
COLLECTION SCRUBBER PROCESS
IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY DUST
1.
Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment.
Model Production
(Based on Sand Handled)
Metal and
Employee Group
Ductile Iron
<50
5€-249
>250
Gray Iron
10-49
50-249
>250
Malleable Iron
<250
>250
Steel
<250
>250
2. Nonwater
kkq/day
42.6
619
2,993
150
691
3,891
562
3,537
331
1,074
tons/day
47
683
3,300
165
762
4,290
620
3,900
365
1,184
kw
2.95
5.2
29.8
2.95
11.2
44.8
9.7
44.8
5.2
11.2
Quality Aspects
hp kwh/kkq kwh/ton Cost/Year
4
7
40
4
15
60
13
60
7
15
0.554
0.202
0.239
0.315
0.259
0.276
0.276
0.304
0.377
0.250
0.502
0.183
0.217
0.286
0.235
0.251
0.250
0.276
0.342
0.227
$149
$783
$4,475
$299
$1,119
$6,711
$970
$6,711
$783
$1,678
a.
b.
Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for
operations has no impact on air quality.
dust collection
Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
The dragout sludge is assumed to consist of 25 percent solids.
569
-------
All solids amounts are based on the removal of 13.3 Ibs of dry
solids per ton of sand handled (53 Ibs of dragout sludge per
ton).
Metal and
Employee Group
Ductile Iron
<50
50-249
>250
Gray Iron
<50
50-249
>250
Malleable Iron
<250
>250
Steel
<250
>250
Ibs/day of dry
Solids
625
9,080
43,900
2,190
10,100
57,000
8,210
51,800
4,860
15,700
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT
COLLECTION SCRUBBER PROCESS
Ibs/day of dragout
Sludge
2,500
36,300
176,000
8,760
40,400
228,000
32,800
207,000
19,400
62,800
- IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY DUST
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY MELTING
FURNACE SCRUBBER PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. The energy and cost requirements for the various foundries
follow.
Metal and
Employee
Group
Ductile Iron
<250
>250
Gray Iron
10-49
50-249
>250
Model Production
(Based on metal poured)
kkg/day tons/day
165
1,741
10
100
925
182
1,920
11
110
1,020
kw
59.3
123
18.25
34.3
94.4
kwh/kkq kwh/ton Cost/Year
79.5
175.5
2.68
1.59
24.5 13.37
46 5.07
126.5 2.28
2.43
1.44
12.15
4.61
2.07
$2,759
$17,310
$835
$3,170
$13,185
570
-------
Malleable Iron
<250 111
>250 278
122
307
34.3
58.9
46
79
4.57
3.15
4.16
2.86
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a.
Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for melting
scrubber operations has no impact on air quality.
$3,170
$5,482
furnace
Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Approximately 19.8 Ibs of dry solids are removed per each ton of
metal poured, and based on the clarifier underflow sludge
containing 5 percent solids, about 395 Ibs of wet sludge is
generated for each ton of metal poured. Using a vacuum filter to
dewater the wet sludge to 25 percent solids, about 79.1 Ibs of
filter cake are generated for each ton of metal poured.
Metal and
Employee Group
Ductile Iron
<250
>250
Gray Iron
10-49
50-249
>250
Malleable Iron
<250
>250
Dry Solids
tons/day
1.80
19.0
0.110
1.08
10.1
1.21
3.04
5 percent Sludge
tons/day
36.0
379
2.18
21.8
202
24.1
60.7
tons/day
7.2
75.9
0.435
4.35
40.3
4.82
12.1
Filter Cake
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL MELTING FURNACE
SCRUBBER PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY SLAG
QUENCHING PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment.
571
-------
Metal and
Employee
Group
Ductile Iron
<250
>250
Gray Iron
<250
>250
Model Production
(Based on metal poured)
kkq/day tons/day
209
1,778
93.4
916
Malleable Iron
<250 74.4
>250 354
230
1,960
103
1,010
82
390
kw
20.5
55.9
5.2
29.9
4.45
14.9
hp kwh/kkq kwh/ton Cost/Year
27.5
75
7
40
6
20
0.785
0.755
0.891
0.783
0.957
0.673
0.713
0.684
0.808
0.710
0.868
0.611
$1,026
$8,389
$522
$4,475
$448
$1,492
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system
operations has no impact on air quality.
for slag quenching
Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Approximately 0.14 Ibs of dry solids are generated per each ton
of metal poured and, based on a dragout with 25 percent solids,
about 0.56 Ibs of dragout sludge are generated for each ton of
metal poured.
Metal and
Employee Group
Ductile Iron
<250
>250
Gray Iron
<250
>250
Malleable Iron
<250
>250
Ibs/day of dry
Solids
31
265
14
137
11
53
Ibs/day of dragout
Sludge
124
1,060
56
548
44
212
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT -
QUENCHING PROCESS
IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY SLAG
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology.
572
-------
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY CASTING
QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment.
Metal and Model Production
Employee (Based on metal poured)
Group kkg/day tons/day kw
Ductile Iron
<250
>250
Gray Iron
<25-
>250
257
726
626
716
283
800
690
789
24.6
24.6
20.9
24.6
33
33
28
33
kwh/kkq
0.766
0.813
0.801
0.825
kwh/ton
0.695
0.738
0.727
0.748
Cost/Year
$1,230
$3,691
$3,132
$3,691
Malleable Iron
>250 201 222 11.5 15.5 0.915 0.829 $1,156
Steel
<250 122 135 7.45 10 1.47 1.32 $1,119
>250 188 207 8.95 12 1.14 1.04 $1,342
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for casting quench and
mold cooling operations has no impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Approximately 3.7 Ibs of dry solids are generated per ton of
metal poured and, based on a dragout containing 25 percent solids
about 15 Ibs of dragout sludge is generated for each ton of metal
poured.
Metal and Dry Solids Dragout Solids
Employee Group Ibs/day Ibs/day
Ductile Iron
<250 1,050 4,200
Ł250 2,980 11,900
Gray iron
<250 2,560 10,200
Ł250 2,930 11,700
573
-------
Malleable Iron
>250 820 3,280
Steel
<250 490 1,970
>250 760 3,050
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY MOLD
COOLING AND CASTING QUENCH PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY SAND
WASHING PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment.
Metal and Model Production
Employee (Based on sand washed)
Group k kg/day tons/day kw np kwh/kkg kwh/ton Cost/Year
Gray Iron
>250 1079 1190 190.65 255.5 3.28 2.53 $18,803
Steel
>250 379 418 52.20 70 3.21 2.91 $7,848
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for sand washing
operations has no impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Approximately 1.55 Ibs of dry solids are generated per each ton
of sand washed, and based on 5 percent solids in the clarifier
underflow, about 31.1 Ibs of wet sludge are generated for each
ton of sand washed. Using a vacuum filter to dewater the sludge
to 25 percent solids, about 621 Ibs of filter cake are generated
for each ton of sand washed.
574
-------
Metal and Dry Solids Wet Sludge Filter Cake
Employee Group tons/day tons/day tons/day
Gray Iron
>250 0.926 18.5 3.70
Steel
>250 0.324 6.49 1.30
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES AND
WASHING PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY GRINDING
SCRUBBER PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
No. 1: Power consuming equipment will be required. For the 0.45
kkg/day (0.5 ton/day) model facility the energy needed will be
0.75 kw (1 hp) or 13.3 kwh/kkg (12 kwh/ton) of metal poured.
This power will cost $37 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for grinding scrubber
operations has no impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Solids removal amounts to approximately 0.033 Ibs of dry solids
per day or 0.067 Ibs of solids per ton of metal poured.
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY GRINDING
SCRUBBER PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology-
No. 1: Power consuming equipment will be required. For the 0.45
kkg/day (0.5 ton/day) model facility the energy needed will be
0.75 kw (1 hp) or 13.3 kwh/kkg (12 kwh/ton) of metal poured.
This power will cost $37 per year.
BPTL ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY DUST COLLECTION
PROCESS
575
-------
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 91 kkg/day (100 ton/day)
facility, the total energy required will be 1.87 kw (2.5 hp) or 0.164
kwh/kkg (0.150 kwh/ton) of sand handled. The cost of this energy will
be $94 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for dust collection
operations has little if any impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids removed in the treatment process.
Solids removal amounts to approximately 0.1 Ibs of dry solids per
day or 0.001 Ibs of solids per ton of sand handled.
BAT, ENERGY AND* NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY DUST COLLECTION
SCRUBBER PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY
PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
IMPACT - ZINC FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH
Power consuming equipment will be necessary to achieve the BPT level
of treatment for the three employee group sizes under consideration.
Total power required and the costs are:
hp
1
1.75
1
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for casting quench
operations has no impact on air quality.
Metal and Model Production
Employee (Based on metal poured)
Group kkq/dav tons/dav kw
<50
50-249
>250
2. Nonwater
10.
66.
33.
Qual
9
2
6
ity
12
73
37
Aspects
0.
1.
0.
74
31
74
kwh/kkg
1.63
0.475
0.529
kwh/ton
1.48
0.431
0.48
Cost/Year
$112
$196
$112
576
-------
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids and the oils and greases removed in
various treatment process stages. Approximately 0.001 Ibs of dry
solids and 0.004 gallons of oil are generated for each ton of
metal poured. The daily amounts of dry solids and oils and
greases generated are:
Employee Dry Solids Oils and Greases
Group Ibs/dav qal/dav
<50 0.019 0.0056
50-249 0.10 0.031
Ł250 0.051 0.015
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY - ZINC FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with BAT
are identical to BPT technology.
BPT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - ZINC FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE
SCRUBBER PROCESS
1. Energy Requirements
Power consuming equipment will be needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. For the average model size 79.8 kkg/day (88 ton/day)
facility, the total energy required will be 32.25 kw (43 hp) or 4.96
kwh/kkg (4.5 kwh/ton) of metal poured. The cost of this energy will
be $2,461 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: The BPT treatment system for melting furnace
scrubber operations has little if any impact on air quality.
b. Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generation by the BPT level of
treatment includes the solids and the oils and greases removed in
various treatment process stages. Solids removal amounts to
approximately 850 Ibs dry solids per day or 9.7 Ibs of solids per
ton of metal poured. Assuming a clarifier underflow with a 5
percent solids concentration, this corresponds to 8.5 tons of wet
sludge per day or 194 Ibs of wet sludge per ton of metal poured.
Using the vacuum filter outlined in the model to dewater the
sludge to 25 percent solids, the production of filter cake would
be 1.7 tons per day or 38.8 Ibs of filter cake per ton of metal
poured. The filter cake can be easily disposed of at an approved
landfill.
577
-------
Based on skimming from the emulsion breaking step a waste with 50
percent oils and greases, approximately 85 gallons per day or
0.97 gallons of oil per ton of metal poured would require
disposal. This waste could either be hauled away by an outside
contractor or incinerated.
BAT, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT - ZINC FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE
SCRUBBER PROCESS
The energy requirements and nonwater quality aspects associated with
advanced treatment technologies are discussed below for melting furnace
scrubber operations.
1. Additional Energy Requirements
a. Treatment Alternative No. 1: Improvement of the wastewater
treatment system from the BPT standard to the Alternative No. 1
BAT standard would involve no energy related costs. Actually BAT
Alternative No. 1 would involve no costs at all, inasmuch as this
alternative proposes only the tightening of the recycle rate to
100 percent in currently existing scrubber equipment.
b. Treatment Alternative No. 2: Additional power consuming
equipment will be needed to upgrade the treatment system from the
BPT level to this BAT Alternate. For the 79.8 kkg/day (88
ton/day) facility outlined in the model, the additional energy
needed will be 1.5 kw (2 hp) or 0.451 kwh/kkg (0.409 kwh/ton) of
metal poured. The cost of this additional power will be $224 per
year.
c. Treatment Alternative No. 3: Additional power consuming
equipment will be required to upgrade the BPT treatment system to
the level of this BAT Alternative. For the 79.8 kkg/day (88
ton/day) model facility the additional energy needed will be 4.05
kw (5.5 hp) or 1.22 kwh/kkg (1.10 kwh/ton) of metal poured. This
additional power will cost $616 per year.
2. Nonwater Quality Aspects
a. Air Pollution: Same as BPT
b. Solid Waste Disposal: The additional sludges and oils generated
by all of the BAT technologies are negligible in comparison to
BPT and can be disposed of in a manner similar to BPT.
578
-------
TABLE VIII-1
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING INDUSTRY WIDE
TREATMENT COSTS FOR EACH PROCESS
Number of wet foun- Percentage of plants The cost of
dries employing the\/ requiring the model \, the treatment
particular process /\ treatment component X component ;
being considered under consi-
deration
Cost of the
particular
; treatment
step to the
foundry
industry
The costs of the various treatment stages are then added together for each model,
579
-------
TABLE VI11-2
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
Employee Group
Investment Casting
Process
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Melting Furnace
Scrubber Process
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Casting Quench
Process
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Die Casting Process
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Die Lube Process
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Process
0
44
6
0
0
3
17
4
9
35
22
8
0
4
32
4
0
0
5
12
580
-------
TABLE VI11-3
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
COPPER
Statistically
Determined
Number of
•Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Dust Collection
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 9
50 to 249 32
More than 250 0
Mold Cooling and
Casting Quench
Less than 10 9
10 to 49 5
50 to 249 11
More than 250 16
581
-------
TABLE VI11-4
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
COPPER
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Continuous Casting Process
Less than 10 1
10 to 49 6
50 to 249 2
More than 250 3
582
-------
TABLE VI11-5
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION PROCESS
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Ductile Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 10
50 to 249 5
More than 250 12
Gray Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 46
50 to 249 218
More than 250 84
Malleable Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 34
More than 250 20
Steel
Less than 10 1
10 to 49 16
50 to 249 49
More than 250 37
583
-------
TABLE VI11-6
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Ductile Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 9
More than 250 9
Gray Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 112
50 to 249 253
More than 250 71
Malleable Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 2
More than 250 4
584
-------
TABLE VI11-7
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
SLAG QUENCHING PROCESS
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Ductile Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 4
More than 250 9
Gray Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 19
50 to 249 141
More than 250 47
Malleable Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 5
More than 250 4
585
-------
TABLE VI11-8
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING PROCESS
Employee Group
Ductile Iron
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Gray Iron
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Malleable Iron
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Steel
Less than 10
10 to 49
50 to 249
More than 250
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Process
0
0
3
6
0
0
22
17
0
0
0
2
0
11
34
65
586
-------
TABLE VI11-9
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
SAND WASHING PROCESS
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Gray Iron
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 0
More than 250 6
Steel
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 0
More than 250 9
587
-------
TABLE VI11-10
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRIES
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Dust Collection Process
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 1
50 to 249 5
More than 250 0
Grinding Scrubbers
Less than 10 1
10 to 49 1
50 to 249 5
More than 250 0
588
-------
TABLE VI11-11
FOUNDRY SURVEY, MODEL AND STATISTICAL DATA
ZINC FOUNDRIES
Statistically
Determined
Number of
Wet Foundries
Using the
Employee Group Process
Casting Quench Process
Less than 10 9
10 to 49 35
50 to 249 32
More than 250 14
Melting Furnace Scrubbers
Less than 10 0
10 to 49 0
50 to 249 11
More than 250 1
589
-------
TABLE VIII-12
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Aluminum Foundry Investment Casting
Operations
Model Treatment Component
A
B
C
BAT Alternative No. 1
D
BAT Alternative No. 2
E
BAT Alternative No. 3
E
D
Percentage of DCP Respondents
_ Requiring the Step
67
33
67
100
100
100
100
590
-------
TABLE VIII- 13
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Aluminum Foundry Melting Furnace
Scrubber Operations
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
A 0
B 40
C 80
D 100
E 80
F 80
G 100
H 80
I 80
BAT Alternative No. 1
100
BAT Alternative No. 2
J 100
591
-------
TABLE VIII-14
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Aluminum Foundry Casting
Quench Operations
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
<50 employees
A 50
B 67
C 67
>50 employees
A 67
B 83
C 100
592
-------
TABLE VIII-15
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Aluminum Foundry Die Casting
Operations
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
A 62
B 62
C 62
D 88
E 75
F 38
G 88
H 88
I 75
BAT Alternative No. 1
J 100
BAT Alternative No. 2
K 100
BAT Alternative No. 3
K 100
J 100
593
-------
TABLE VIII-16
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Aluminum Foundry Die
Lube Operations
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
A 25
B 75
C 75
D 75
E 75
594
-------
TABLE VIII- 17
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Copper Foundry
Dust Collection Operations
T
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
A 0
B 33
595
-------
TABLE VIII- 18'
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Copper Foundry
Mold Cooling and Casting Quench
Operations
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
A 43
B 86
C 86
BAT Alternative No. 1
100
596
-------
TABLE VI I I -19
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
_ DCP RESPONDENTS _
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Copper Continuous
vCastlng Process
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component _ Requiring the Step
<50 employees
A*
A^
>50 employees
*
87
67
80
80
597
-------
TABLE VIII- 20
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Ferrous Foundry Dust Collection
Operations
Model Treatment Component
Ductile Iron
A
B
Gray Iron
A
B
Percentage of DC? Respondents
Requiring the Step
<50* 50 to 249* >250*
000
67 40 58
002
100 39 45
Malleable Iron
A
B
Steel
A
B
<250'
17
50
0
29
>250'
10
70
''employees
598
-------
TABLE VIII-21
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Ferrous Foundry Melting Furnace
Scrubber Operations
Percentage of DC? Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
10-49* 50-24S* >25C*
Gray Iron
A 43 26 4C
B 043
C 57 22 23
D 100 100 97
E 57 35 50
<250* >250*
Ductile Iron
A 0 56
B 00
C 25 33
D 75 78
E 75 56
Malleable Iron
A 0 67
B 00
C 0 33
D 100 100
E 0 67
*employees
599
-------
TABLE VIII- 22
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Ferrous Foundry Slag Quenching
Operations
Model Treatment Comoonent
Ductile Iron
A
B
Gray Iron
A
B
Malleable Iron
A
B
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Recuirina the Steo
<250*
25
25
80
52
50
75
>250*
11
78
11
71
50
50
*employees
600
-------
TABLE VIII- 23
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Ferrous Foundry Casting Quenching
and Mold Cooling Operations
Model Treatment Component
Ductile Iron
A
B
C
Gray Iron
A
B
C
Malleable Iron
A
B
C
Steel
A
B
C
Percentage of DC? Respondents
Requiring the Step
<250*
0
100
100
50
75
75
33
33
67
17
50
67
0
80
100
0
100
100
56
69
75
*employees
601
-------
TABLE VI11-24
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment components
listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Ferrous Foundry Sand Washing
Process
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
Gray Iron Steel
A 00
B 83 67
C 83 100
D 83 100
E 50 67
F 50 67
G 67 100
H 83 100
602
-------
TABLE VI11-25
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment components
listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Magnesium Foundry Grinding
Scrubber Process
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
A 50
B 50
603
-------
TABLE VIII- 26
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Magnesium Foundry Dust
Collectors
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
A 100
B 100
604
-------
TABLE VIII- 27
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Zinc Foundry Casting Quench
••;-'• Operations
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Model Treatment Component Requiring the Step
<50* 50 to 249* >250*
A 83 67 40
B 100 100 40
C 83 78 40
•employees
605
-------
TABLE VIII- 28
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SURVEYED
DCP RESPONDENTS
Following are the percentages of plants requiring the treatment com-
ponents listed in the model cost tables.
Foundry and Process: Zinc Foundry Melting Furnace
Scrubber Operations
Model Treatment Component
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
BAT Alternative No. 1
Percentage of DCP Respondents
Requiring the Step
20
20
20
40
80
20
20
60
BAT Alternative No. 2
I
BAT Alternative No. 3
J
K
L
80
80
80
80
606
-------
TABLE VIII- 29
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry
: Investment Casting
Model: Size - TPDj_ 2
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 1
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Chemical Cost
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
B
v-u
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids,
mg/1
Oil & Grease,
mg/1
Aluminum
mg/1
PH
15
1.6
42
81
40
15
1.6
10
0.2
10
0.2
Total
163
nee
Raw
Waste
Load
6450
710
1.79
4.15
1.45
0.06
0.10
-
7.55
6450
—
3.48
8.10
2.84
0.08
—
-
14.50
6450
70
1.70
3.95
1.38
0.05
—
0.04
7.12
6450
70
6.97
16.20
5.67
0.19
0.10
0.04
29.17
6-9 7.5 -10.0 7'5' 10'° 7.5 -10.0
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
607
-------
TABLE VIII-30
BAT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry Model: Size - TPD: 2
: Investment Casting Oper. Days/Yr. : 250
Turns/Day: 1
Alternate Alternate Alternate
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
C&TT Step _D_ Total E) Total E D Total
Investment $ x 1(T3 33 33 84 84 84 33 117
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital 1.42 1.42 3.60 3.60 3.60 1.42 5.02
Depreciation 3.29 3.29 8.37 8.37 8.37 3.29 11.66
Operation & Maintenance 1.15 1.15 2.93 2.93 2.93 1.15 4.08
Energy & Power U) 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.25
TOTAL 5.94 5.94 15.07 15.07 15.07 5.94 21.01
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids,
mg/1
Oil & Grease,
mg/1
Aluminum,
mg/1
pH
» ' f A ^ V f» •**•*-* —. 1 1 V*.A.».IA
BPT
Waste
Load
6450 0
70 0
10 o
0.2 o
6-9
6450
10
5
0.1
7.5- 10
6450
10
5
0.1
7.5- 10
0
0
0
0
-
608
-------
o
VD
TABLE VIII-31
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS,
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power '
Chemical Cost
Oil Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Susp. Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
P"
'oundry Model: Size - TPD:
rnace Scrubbers
:e
Raw
Waste
Load
1936
40
10
6-8
A
46
1.97
4.57
1.60
-
-
—
8.14
1936
40
10
6-8
B C
46 32
1.97 1.37
4.58 3.19
1.60 1.12
0.56 0.11
0.29
— —
8.71 6.08
•*~i
96 96
-
10
5-8 7
D
31
1.34
3.11
1.09
0.17
0.07
—
5.78
96
-
5
. 5-10 7.
108
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
E
32
1.38
3.20
1.12
0.11
0.09
-
5.90
96
-
5
«5-10 7
F
111
4.79
11.13
3.90
0.63
—
0.02
20.47
96
30
5
. q- 1 o
G H
42 9
1.80 0.37
4.19 0.87
1.47 0.31
0.19 0.06
- -
0.18
7.65 1.79
96 96
-
10%
7 . i- 1 n -
I
56
2.40
5.59
1.96
0.15
-
—
10.10
96
10
5
Total
405
17.39
40.43
14.17
1.98
0.45
0.20
74.62
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE VIII-32
BAT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry Model: Size - TPD: 108
: Melting Furnace Oper. Days/Yr.: 25C
Scrubbers Turns/Day: 3
Alternate =2
C&TT Stec Alternate gl
Investment $ x 10~3 0 16
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital - 0.69 0.69
Depreciation - 1.61 1.61
Oneration & Maintenance - 0-56 0.56
Energy & Power* ' - 0.11 0.11
TOTAL 0 2.97 2.97
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton 96
Susp. Solids, 10
mg/i
Oil & Grease, 5
rag/I
pH 6-9
^ 'Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
610
-------
TABLE VIII-33
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry
: Casting Quench
<50 employees
C&TT Step A
Investment $ x 10~
8
Model Size - TPD: 6
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
B C Total
4 ' 14
26
Annual Cost $ x 10~
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maint
Energy & Power (D
Oil Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Susp. Solids,
mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Aluminum, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
pH
•
Raw
Waste
Load
292
140
700
0.8
4
5.5-8.5
0.35
0.81
0.28
-
—
1.44
292
70
700
0.7
4
5.5-8.5
0.19 0.59
0.44 1.38
0.15 0.48
0.06 0.06
0.02
0.86 2.51
292 0
70
400
0.7
4
5.5-8.5 -
1.13
2.63
0.91
0.12
0.02
4.81
-
—
-
-
-
_
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
611
-------
TABLE VIII-34
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry
: Casting Quench
>50 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10~
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maint.
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
Oil Disposal
TOTAL
Raw
Effluent Waste
Quality Load
Flow, gal/ton 292
Susp. Solids, 140
mg/1
Oil & Grease, 700
mg/1
Aluminum, mg/1 0.8
Phenols, mg/1 4
A
21
0.89
2.08
0.73
-
0.01
-
3.71
292
70
700
0.7
4
Model Size -
Oper. Days/Yr
TPD:
. : 2
Turns/Day: 3
B
5
0.19
0.45
0.16
0.06
-
0.19
1.05
292
70
400
0.7
4
C Total
19 4
0.82 1
1.91 4
0.67 1
0.11 0
0
0
3.51 8
0
— —
_ _
-
_ _
5
.90
.44
.56
.17
.01
.19
.27
63
PH
5.5-8.5 5.5-8.5 5.5-8.5 -
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted
612
-------
en
i—>
co
TABLE VIII-35
BPT MODIJL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Die Casting
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power * '
Chemical Cost
Oil Disposal
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Susp. Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
PH
^•'Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
Foundry
mj
A
41
1.74
4.05
ce 1.42
0.17
3.06
-
-
.10.44
Raw
Waste
Load
871 871
470
400 400
6.5-8.0 3-4
Model: Size
- TPD
: 120
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
B
45
1.94
4.51
1.58
0.11
0.58
-
-
8.72
871
-
400
3-4
C
48
2.07
4.82
1.69
0.06
-
1.30
-
9.94
871
-
50
3-4
D
43
1.84
4.28
1.50
0.28
0.77
—
-
8.67
871
-
50
7-5-10
E
28
1.22
2.84
0.99
0.11
0.81
—
-
5.97
871
-
50
7-5-10 7.
F
99
4.27
0.99
3.48
0.22
-
—
8.96
871
30
20
5-10
G
95
4.09
9.51
3.33
0.78
-
—
0.50
18.21
871
30
20
7-5-10 7-
H
89
3.83
8.91
3.12
0.22
-
—
0.01
16.09
871
10
10
5-10
I
44
1.89
4.39
1.54
0.22
-
—
-
8.04
131
10
10
7.5-10
Total
532
22.89
44.30
18.65
2.17
5.22
1.30
0.51
95.04
-------
TABLE VI11-36
BAT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/73 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Aluminum Foundry
: Die Casting
Model Size - TPD: 120
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
Alternate 42
CSTT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation S, Maint.
Energy & Power(D
Carbon Regeneration
TOTAL
Alternate 41
J Total
12 12
0.51 0.51
1.18 1.13
0.41 0.41
0.56 0.56
2.66 2.66 311.76 311.76 311.76
K
301
12.93
30.08
10.53
0.22
258.00
Total
301
12.93
30.08
10.53
0.22
285.01
Alternate 43
K
301
12.93
30.08
10.53
0.22
253.00
J
12
0.51
1.18
0.41
0.56
-
Total
313
13.44
31.26
10.94
0.7S
2 58. CO
.66 314.42
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended
Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease
mg/1
DH
Raw
Waste
Load
131
10
10
6-9
131
10
131
1C
7.5 -10.0
7.5- 10.0 -
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
614
-------
TABLE VIII-37
BPT MODEL .COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Aluminum foundry
: Die Lube
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10~
Annual Cost $ x 10"
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power l '
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Susp. Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1^ '
Ammonia, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
pH
Raw
Waste
Load
23
1700
8500
22
2
66
3.3
5.9
1.6
6-9
A
25
1.08
2.52
0.88
4.48
23
1700
8500
22
2
66
3.3
5.9
1.6
7.5- 10
Model: Size - TPD: 133
Oper Days/Yr . : 250
Turns/Day: 1
B
9
0.38
0.88
0.31
0.02
1.59
23
1700
8500
22
2
66
3.3
5.9
1.6
7.5- 10
C
50
2.15
5.00
1.75
0.09
8.99
23
1500
8500
22
2
66
3.3
5.3
1.5
7.5- 10
D
32
1.37
3.18
1.11
0.01
5.67
23
1500
8500
22
2
66
3.3
5.3
1.5
7.5-10
E Total
45 161
1.95 6.93
4.53 16.11
1.59 5.64
0.15 0.27
8.22 28.95
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1)
(2)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
This system relies on BMP to insure that no contamination
from other oil and grease sources occurs.
615
-------
TABLE VIII-38
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Copper & Copper
Alloy Foundry
Dust Collection
Model: Size - TPD: 367
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10~J
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power ^ '
Sludge Disposal
A
47
2.03
4.72
1.65
0.56
0.14
B
^•••B
32
1.36
3.17
1.11
0.22
—
3.39
7.89
2.76
0.78
0.14
Total
Raw
Effluent Waste
Quality Load
Flow, gal/ton 206
Copper, mg/1 70
Lead, mg/1 17
Manganese, mg/1 0.5
Phenols, mg/1 1.3
Suspended Solids,
mg/1 390
Oil and Grease,
mg/1 10
Zinc 80
pH 6-9
9.10
5.86
14.96
206
7
1.7
0.4
0.2
40
5
8
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
616
-------
TABLE VIII-39
BPT MODE!, COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Copper & Copper Alloy
Foundry
: Quenching Operations
Model: Size-TPD: 29
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
N-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
A
43
1.86
4.34
1.52
B
23
0.97
2.25
0.79
0.67
C
23
1.00
2.33
0.82
0.11
Total
89
3.83
8.92
3.13
0.73
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Copper, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
7.72 4.68
Raw
Waste
Load
1,134 1,134 1,134
0.1 0.1 0.1
30 20 20
10 10 10
6-9 7.5- 10 7-5-10
4.26 16.66
11
0.1
20
10
1.5- 10
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
617
-------
TABLE VI11-40
BAT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Copper & Copper Alloy Model: Size - TPD: 29
Foundry Opej . Days/Yr.: 250
: Quenching Operations Turns/Day: 3
Alternate
C&TT Step No. 1
Investment $ x 10 0
Annual Cost $ x 10~3
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power1 '
Total 0
BPT
Effluent Waste
Quality Load
Flow, gal/ton 11
Copper, rag/1 0.1
Suspended Solids,
mg/1 20
Oil and Grease,
mg/1 10
pH 6-9
^ 'Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
618
-------
TABLE VI11-41
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Copper & Copper Alloy Model: Size - TPD: 170
Foundry Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
: Continuous Casting Turns/Day: 3
Operations
<50 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
-3
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power '
A"1"
192
8.26
19.21
6.72
2.80
A
238
10.24
23.81
8.33
11.19
Total
430
18.50
43.02
15.05
13.99
Total
36.99
53.57 90.56
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, gm/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
6,982
7
3
0.6
14
150
20
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted
619
-------
TABLE VIII-42
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Copper & Copper Alloy Model: Size - TPD: 525
Foundry Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Continuous Casting Turns/Day: 3
Operations
>50 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
356
15.30
35. 57
12.45
8.39
425
18.28
42.52
14.88
25.17
Total
781
33.58
78.09
27.33
33.56
'Total
71.71 100.85 172.56
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted
620
-------
TABLE VIII-43
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Ductile Iron
Dust Collection
<50 employees
Model: Size - TPD: 47
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: i
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
x 10
-3
Annual Cost $
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power( '
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia(N), mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
1.02
2.36
0.83
0.11
0.39
4.71
140
24
0.90
0.35
50 '
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
0.81
1.88
0.66
0.04
3.39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
1.83
4.24
1.49
0.15
0.39
8.10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
621
-------
TABLE VIII-44
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous
: Ductile
: Dust Col
Foundry
Iron
lection
Model:
Size - TPD:
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
50-249 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10~
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power ( '
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flew, gal/ton
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
A
57
2.44
5.67
1.99
0.56
5.68
16.34
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B Total
29 86
1.26 3.70
2.94 8.61
1.03 3.02
0.22 0.78
5.68
5.45 21.79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ _
683
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
622
-------
TABLE VIII-45
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Ductile Iron
: Dust Collection
Model: Size -
Oper. Days/Yr.:
Turns/Day: 3
TPD:
250
>250 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power * '
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (N), mg/1
Copper , mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
A
220
9.44
21.96
7.68
3.36
27.43
69.87
140
24
0.90
0...35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B
55
2.38
5.54
1.94
1.12
10.98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
Total
275
11.82
27.50
9.62
4.48
27.43
80.85
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,300
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
623
-------
TABLE VIII-46
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Gray
: Dust
: 10-4
C&TT-STEP
Iron
Collection
9 Employees
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
-3
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (N^, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids,
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
)
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
1 0.35
340
8.5
55
mg/1 12,900
35
4.5
6-9
Model:
Oper .
: Size-TPD: 1
Days/Yr.
: I
Turns/day : 1
A
31
1.35
3.14
1.10
0.22
1.37
7.18
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B
22
0.95
2.20
0.77
0. 08
— — —
4. 00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total
53
2.30
5.34
1.87
0.3C
1.37
11.18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
624
-------
TABLE VIII-47
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Gray Iron
Dust Collection
50-249 Employees
CSTT-STE?
Investment $ x 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
ry
on
ees
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
Model: Size-TPD: 762
Oper. Days/Yr. : 250
Turns/day : 2
A
83
3.55
8.26
2.89
0.75
6.31
21.76
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B
36
1.54
3.57
1.25
0.37
---
6.73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total
119
5.09
11.83
4.14
1.12
6.31
28.49
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted
625
-------
TABLE VIII-48
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Gray Iron
: Dust Collection
Model: Size-TPD: 4290
Oper. Days/Yr. : 250
Turns/day : 3
: >250 Employees
C&TT-STEP
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~3
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Copper , mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
A
270
11.60
26.98
9.44
5.03
35.63
88.68
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B
71
3.07
7.13
2.50
1.68
— — —
14.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total
341
14.67
34.11
11.94
6.71
35.63
103.06
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
626
-------
TABLE VIII-49
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Malleable Iron
: Dust Collection
<250 employees
Model: Size - TPD: §20
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 2
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power * '
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia(N), mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
pH
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
3.27
7.60
2.66
0.75
5.13
19.41
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
1.51
3.52
1.23
0.22
6.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
4.
11
3.
0.
5.
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
78
.12
89
97
13
.89
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
627
-------
TABLE VIII-50
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Malleable Iron
: Dust Collection
>250
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10~
Annual Cost $ x 10~
Capital
Depreciation
employees
3
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power ( '
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
Suspended Solids, mg/1 12,900
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
35
4.5
6-9
Model:
Size -
Oper. Days/Yr.:
Turns/Day: 3
A
257
11.06
25.73
9.01
5.03
32.38
83.21
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B
71
3.04
7.07
2.48
1.68
14.27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
TPD:
250
Total
328
14.10
32.80
11.49
6.71
32.38
97.48
.
—
—
_
_
—
—
-
-
_
_
2,900
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
628
-------
TABLE VIII-51
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
- Steel
! Dust Collection
Model:
Oper .
Size -
Days/Yr.
TPD:
* 250
Turns/Day: 3
<250 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power* '
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
A
40
1.70
3.95
1.38
0.56
3.04
10.63
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B
23
1.00
2.32
0.81
0.22
4.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total
63
2.70
6.27
2.19
0.78
3.04
14.98
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
365
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted,
629
-------
TABLE VII1-52
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Steel
: Dust Collection
: >250 Employees
C&TT-STEP
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~3
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Cyanide-Total, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenol, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
140
24
0.90
0.35
340
8.5
55
12,900
35
4.5
6-9
Model: Size-TPD: 1
Oper. Days/Yr. : 2~
Turns/day : I
A
86
3.68
8.55
2.99
1.12
9.81
26.15
140
24
0.90
0.35
50
8.0
55
1,500
30
4.0
6-9
B
36
1.54
3.57
1.25
0.56
6.92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total
122
5.22
12.12
4. 24
1.68
9.81
33.07
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1184
are all power unless otherwise noted.
630
-------
TABLE VIII-53
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Ductile Iron
: Melting Furnace Scrubber
: <250 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power * '
Sludge Disposal
Chemical Cost
Total
Raw
Effluent Waste
Quality Load
Flow, gal/ton 1300
Ammonia (as N) , 1.0
rag/1
Antimony, mg/1 0.3
Cadmium, mg/1 0.3
Copper, mg/1 3.3
Fluoride, mg/1 18
Iron, mg/1 210
Lead, mg/1 60
Manganese, mg/1 100
Phenols, mg/1 0.7
Susp. Solids, 1850
mg/1
Oil & Grease, 25
Zinc, mg/1 150
PH 4-8
A
101
4.33
10*07
3.52
0.13
2.19
20.24
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
-
25
150
6-9
B
290
12.46
28.98
10.14
0.56
52.14
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
10
10
3
5
0.6
100
20
10
6-9
Model: Size •
Oper. Days/Yr,
Turns/Day: 1
C
42
1.81
4.21
1.47
0.08
1.80
9.37
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
D
212
9.17
21.20
7.42
1.44
2.26
41.49
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
• TPD: 182
, : 250
E Total
84 729
3.60 31.37
8.36 72.82
2.93 25.48
0.56 2.77
2.26
3.99
15.45 138.69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
631
-------
5/15/79
E v:;i-54
BPT MODEL COST DATA: 3ASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategery: Ferrous Foundry
Ductile Iron
: Melting Furnace Sc
: >250 employees
CSTT Steo A
Investment S x 10 1S8
Annual Cost S x 10
Capital 8.09
Depreciation 18.32
Ooeration & Ma'atenance 5.59
Energy i Power li' 1.17
Sludge disposal
Chemical Cost 22.75
To t a 1 57.42
Raw
Effluent Waste
Quality Load
Flow, gal/ton 1300 1300
Ammonia (as S') . 1.0 1.0
mg/1
Antimony, mg/1 0.3 0.3
Cadmium, mg/1 0.3 0.3
Copper, mg/1 3.3 3,3
Fluoride, mg/1 18 18
Iron, ng/1 21C 210
Lead, mg/1 60 60
Manganese, mg/1 100 100
Phenols, ng/1 0.7 0.7
Susp. Solids, 1850
ag/1
Oil i Grease, 25 25
mg/1
Zinc, mg/1 150 150
pH 4-8 6-9
rubber
B
493
21.43
49.34
17.44
2.24
-
-
90 . 95
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
10
10
3
5
0.6
100
20
10
6-9
Model
Oper .
Turns
_c_
54
2.31
5.33
1.38
0.23
-
13.90
23.75
13CC
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
: Size -
Days/Yr.
/Day: 3
D
373
16.04
37.31
i:.oe
3.03
23.59
-
93.13
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
s
2
3
0.5
75
20
6
5-9
TPD: 1
: 25C
r
135
7.93
13. 45
6.46
5.59
-
-
33.43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
^
0
0
0
_
32C
Total
1,253
55 . E
125. 0
t 0 • 1
i:.:
23.59
41.65
1 • -. f 3
_
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
—
-
_
(1>Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
632
-------
VIII-55
.BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry Model: Size •
: Gray Iron Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
: Melting Furnace Scrubber Turns/Day: 1
: 10-49 employees
CSTT Steo ABC D
Investment S x 10
~3
43
75
25
90
- TPD: 11
S Total
24 237
Annual Cost S x 10"3
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power u'
Sludge Disposal
Chemical Cost
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (as N) ,
mg/1
Antimony, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Suss. Solids,
mg/1
Oil & Grease,
mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH
(
Raw
Haste
Load
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
1850
25
150
4-3
1.86
4.33
1.52
0.04
-
0.13
7.88
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
.
25
150
6-9
3.24
7.54
2.64
0.19
-
-
13.61
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
10
10
3
5
0.6
100
20
10
6-9
1.09
2.53
0.89
0.04
-
0.11
4.66
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
1C
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
3.33
9.02
3.16
0.54
0.14
-
16.74
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
• 2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
1.03 ll.;o
2.29 25.31
* 0.84 9.05
0.04 0.35
D.l-i
o.:4
4.30 47.19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o . ,
0
C
0
0
-
are all power unless otherwise noted.
533
-------
TABLE VIII-56
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Gray Iron
: Melting Furnace Scrubber
: 50-249 employees
C&TT Step A B
Investment 5 x 10
-3
66
162
Model: Size •
Oper. Days/Yr
Turns/Day: 2
C D
30
146
- TPD: 110
.: 250
E Total
54
453
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy i Power '
Sludge Disposal
Chemical Cost
Total
Effluent
Cuality
Flow, gal/ton
A.Tunonia(as N) ,
mg/1
Antimony, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, xg/l
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Susp. Solids,
mg/1
Oil & Grease,
mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH
Raw
Haste
Load
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
1850
25
150
4-8
3.04
6.64
2.32
0.11
-
1.31
13.42
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
_
25
150
6-9
6.95
16.15
5.65
0.75
-
-
29.50
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
10
10
3
5
0.6
100
20
10
6-9
1.29
3.01
1.05
0.11
-
1.08
6.54
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
6.27
14.53
5.10
1.33
1.36
-
29.14
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
2.33
5.41
1.39
0.37
-
-
10.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
19.33
45.73
16.31
3.1'
1.36
2.39
33.60
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
634
-------
TABLE VIII-57
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Gray Iron
: Melting Furnace Scrubber
Model: Size •
Oper. Days/Yr,
Turns/Day: 3
- TPD: 1020
.: 250
: >25C employees
CiTT Step
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~3
Capital
Depreciation
Operation t Maintenance
Energy & Power l '
Sludge Disposal
Chemical Cost
Total
Raw
Effluent Haste
Quality Load
Flow, gal/ton 1300
Ammonia (as N) , 1.0
•9/1
Antimony, mg/1 0.3
Cadmium, mg/1 0.3
Copper, mg/1 3.3
Fluoride, mg/1 18
Iron, mg/1 210
Lead, mg/1 60
Manganese, mg/1 100
Phenols, mg/1 0.7
Susp. Solids, 1850
mg/1
Oil & Grease, 25
mg/1
Zinc, mg/1 150
pH 4-8
A
135
5.81
13.50
4.73
0.62
-
12.03
36.69
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
-
25
150
6-9
B
424
18.24
42.42
14.85
2.24
-
-
77.75
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
10
10
3
5
0.6
100
20
10
6-9
C
41
1.77
4.12
1.44
0.22
-
9.90
17.45
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
D
323
14.32
33. 31
11 . 66
6.75
12.53
73.57
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
E Total
146 - 1,079
6.26 46-40
14.55 1C7.SO
5.09 37.77
3.36 i3.19
12.62
21.93
29.26 239.3:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 •
0
0
0
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
635
-------
TABLE VIII-58
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Malleable Iron
: Melting Furnace Scrubber
: <250 employees
CiTT Step A B
Investment ? x 10
-3
69
169
Model: Size -
Oper. Days/Yr,
Turns/Day: 2
C D
30
146
- TPD: 122
,: 250
E Total
62
476
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Sludge Disposal
Chemical Cost
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Anunonia (as N) ,
rag /I
Antimony, mg/1
Cadmium, ng/1
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Susp. Solids,
mg/1
Oil & Grease,
nig /I
Zinc, mg/1
PH
Raw
Waste
Load
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
1850
25
150
4-8
2.96
6.89
2.41
0.11
-
3.63
16.00
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
13
210
60
100
0.7
_
25
150
6-9
7.25
16.86
5.90
0.75
-
-
30.76
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
10
10
3
5
0.6
100
20
10
6-9
1.29
3.00
1.05
0.11
-
1.17
6.62
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
3
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
6.28
14.60
5.11
1.83
1.51
-
29.33
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
2.63
6.24
2.18
0.37
-
—
11.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
20.46
47.59
16.55
3.17
1.51
4.80
9-1.13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
636
-------
TABLE VIII-59
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Malleable Iron
: Melting Furnace Scrubber
: >250 employees
CiTT Step A B
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Ma
Energy & Power
10-3
menance
100
4.29
9.97
3.49
0.22
268
11.54
26.84
9.39
1.12
Model: Size -
Oper. Days/Vr.
Turns/Day: 2
C D
42
1.81
4.21
1.47
0.15
Sludge Disposal ...
Chemical Cost
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (as N) ,
mg/1
Antimony, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Susp. Solids,
mg/1
Oil t Grease,
mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH
Raw
Haste
Load
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
1850
25
150
4-8
3.63
21.60
1300
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.3
18
210
60
100
0.7
1850
25
150
6-9
-
48.89
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
10
10
3
5
0.6
100
20
10
6-9
3.02
10.66
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
212
9.12
21.20
7.42
2.87
3.30
-
44.41
1300
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
10
5
2
3
0.6
75
20
6
6-9
• TPD: 307
: 250
E Total
82
3.51
8.15
2.85
1.12
-
-
15.63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
704
30.27
70.37
24.62
5.48
3.80
141.19
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
637
-------
TABLE VIII-60
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Ductile Iron
Slag Quench
<250 Employees
Model: Size-TPD: 230
Oper. Days/Yr. : 757
Turns/day : 1
C & TT STEP
Investment $ 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreci at ion
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
41
5.58
12.98
4. 54
0.75
0.02
1.74
4. 05
1.42
0.28
—
7.32
17.03
5.96
1.03
0.02
TOTAL
23.87
7.49
31.36
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Arnraonia(as N) , mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH
360
0. 6
30
3
0.2
0.3
0.2
30
15
2.5
3
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
638
-------
TABLE VIII-61
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Ductile Iron
Slag Quench
>250 Employees
Model: Size-TPD:
Oper. Days/Yr. :
Turns/day ;
1960
C & TT STEP
Investment $ 10
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
B
12.88
29.95
10.48
6.71
0.17
77
3.29
7.65
2.68
1.68
16.17
37.60
13.16
8.39
0.17
TOTAL
Raw
Effluent Waste
Quality Load
Flow, gal/ton 360
Arunonia(as N) , mg/1 0.6
Fluoride/ mg/1 40
Iron, mg/1 10
Lead, mg/1 0.7
Manganese, mg/1 0.9
Phenols, mg/1 0.2
Suspended Solids, mg/1 75
Oil and Grease, mg/1 18
Sulfide, mg/1 2.5
Zinc, mg/1 3.3
pH 6-9
60.19
15.30
75.49
360
0.6
30
3
0.2
0.3
0.2
30
15
2.5
3
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted
639
-------
TABLE VIII-62
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Gray Iron
Slag Quench
<250 Employees
Model: Size-TPD: 103
Oper. Days/Yr. :
Turns/day :
C & TT STEP
B
-3
Investment $ 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
42
1.82
4.24
1.48
0.37
0.01
23
1.00
2.32
0.81
0.15
2.82
6.56
2.29
0.52
0.01
TOTAL
7.92
4.28
12.20
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia(as N) , mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH
360
0.6
30
3
0.2
0.3
0.2
30
15
2.5
3
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted,
640
-------
TABLE VIII-63
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Gray Iron
Slag Quench
>250 Employees
Model: Size-TPD:
Oper. Days/Yr. :
Turns/day
1010
T5TT
C & TT STEP
' •?• _ .j
Investment $ 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~3
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
B
7.31
17.01
5.95
3.36
0.09
48
2.05
4.77
1.67
1.12
9.36
21.78
7.62
4.48
0.09
TOTAL
33.72
9.61
43.33
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (as N) , mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH
360
0.6
30
3
0.2
0.3
0.2
30
15
2.5
3
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted,
641
-------
TABLE VIII-64
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Malleable Iron
Slag Quench
<250 Employees
Model: Size-TPD:
Oper. Days/Yr. :
Turns/day :
82
2TO
C & TT STEP
-3
Investment $ 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
24
1,
2,
,04
,41
0.84
0.37
0.01
16
0.68
1.57
0.55
0.08
1
3,
1
0,
72
98
39
45
0.01
TOTAL
4.67
2.88
7.55
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia(as N) , mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
pH
360
0.6
30
3
0.2
0.3
0.2
30
15
2.5
3
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted
642
-------
TABLE VIII-65
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Malleable Iron
Slag Quench
>250 Employees
Model: Size-TPD: 390
Oper. Days/Yr. : 2TD"
Turns/day : 2
C & :-TT STEP
Investment $ 10
B
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
97
4.15
9.65
3.38
1-.12
0.03
37
1.59
3.70
1.30
0.37
— —
5.74
13.35
4.68
1.49
0.03
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia (as N) , mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH
18.33
6.96
25.29
Raw
Waste
Load
360
0.6
40
10
0.7
0.9
0.2
75
18
2.5
3.3
6-9
360
0.6
30
3
0.2
0.3
0.2
30
15
2.5
3
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted
643
-------
TABLE VIII-66
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Ductile Iron
Casting Quench and
Mold Cooling
<250 Employees
Model: Size - TPD
Oper Days./Yr
Turns/Day
2S3
2TO
C&TT STEP
Investment $ x 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quali ty
Flew, gal/ton
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
A
89
3.81
8.86
3.10
0.56
0. 66
B
51
2.20
5.11
1.79
0. 49
-
C
43
1.87
4.34
1.52
0.19
-
Total
183
7.88
13.31
6.41
1.24
0.66
16.99
9.59
7. 92
Raw
Waste
Load
217
15
17
2200
10
6-9
217
I
1
150
5
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.50
644
-------
TABLE VIII-67
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Ductile Iron
Casting Quench and
Mold Cooling
>250 Employees
Model:
C&TT .STEP
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~3
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
87
3.75
8.71
3.05
1.68
1.86
19.05
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
Size
ays./Yr
Day
B
50
2.14
4.98
1.74
1.45
10.31
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
- TPD:
•
•
•
•
C
43
1.87
4.34
1.52
0.56
8.29
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
750
T~
Total
180
7.76
18.03
6.31
3.69
1.36
37.65
-
-
-
-
—
645
-------
TABLE VIII-68
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Gray Iron
Casting Quench and
Mold Cooling
<250 Employees
Model: Size - TPD: 690
Oper Days./Yr : 250
Turns/Day : 3
C&TT STEP
Investment $ x 10
B
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
83
3.55
8.25
2.89
1.12
1.60
17.41
48
2.06
4. 78
1.67
1.45
9.96
41
1.78
4.13
1.45
0.56
7.92
Raw
Waste
Load
217
15
17
2200
10
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.39
17.16
6.01
3.13
1.60
35.29
646
-------
TABLE VIII-69
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Gray Iron
Casting Quench and
Mold Cooling
>250 Employees
Model: Size - TPD: 789
Oper Days./Yr :
Turns/Day :
C&TT STEP
Investment $ x 10
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
A
86
3.71
8.62
3.02
1.68
1.83
B
50
2.15
5.01
1.75
1.45
—
C
43
1.85
4.30
1.51
0.56
-
Total
179
7.71
17.93
6.28
3.69
1.83
18.86
10.36 8.22
Raw
Waste
Load
217
15
17
2200
10
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.44
647
-------
TABLE VIII-70
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Malleable Iron
Casting Quench and
Mold Cooling
>250 Employees
Model: Size - TPD: 222
Oper Days./Yr : 75~0~
Turns/Day :
CaTT STEP
Investment $ x 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10"
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
A
52
2.25
5.22
1.83
0.37
0. 51
B
37
1.58
3.67
1.29
0. 63
-
C
32
1.39
3.23
1.13
0.15
-
Total
121
5.22
12.12
4.25
1.15
0.51
10.18
7.17
5.90
Raw
Waste
Load
217
15
17
2200
10
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
217
1
^
1
150
5
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.25
648
-------
TABLE VII1-71
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Steel
Casting Quench and
Mold Cooling
<250 Employees
Model: Size - TPD: 135
Oper Days./Yr : 2TG~
Turns/Day :
C&TT STEP
Investment $ x 10
B
Annual Cost $ x 10~
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Fluoride, mc/l
Iron, rag/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
26
5.33
30
5.92
28
5.03
Raw
Waste
Load
217
15
17
2200
10
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
84
1.13
2.63
0.92
0.34
0.31
1.27
2.95
1.03
0.67
-
1.19
2.76
0.97
0.11
-
3.59
8.34
2.92
1.12
0.31
16.23
649
-------
TABLE VIII- 72
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory:
Ferrous Foundry
Steel
Casting Quench and
Mold Cooling
>250 Employees
Model: Size - TPD: 207
Oper Days./Yr : T5T
Turns/Day : 3
C&TT STEP
-•3
Investment $ x 10 ~
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Fluoride, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
oH
A
36
1.54
3.57
1.25
0.56
0.48
B
34
1.43
3.32
1.16
0.67
-
C
30
1.29
2.99
1.05
0.11
-
Total
100
4.26
9.88
3.46
1.34
0.43
7.40
6.58
5.44
Raw
Waste
Load
217
15
17
2200
10
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
217
1
1
150
5
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
19.42
650
-------
TABLE VIII-73
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Gray Iron
: Sand Washing
: >250 employees
C&TT Step
0
Investment S x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Ma
Energy & Power
Sludge Disposal
Chemical Cost
Model: Size - TPD: 1,190
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 2
vIJ
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
AmmoniaCas N), mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, rag/1
Nickel, mg/1 v
Phenols, mg/1^
Susp. Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
PH
mce
Raw
Waste
Load
1,120
5
0.2
160
0.65
3
0.3
1.3
9,600
35
6-9
A
651
28.00
65.12
22.79
11.19
-
127.10
1,120
5
0.2
25
0.6
3
0.3
1.3
1,600
30
6-9
B
103
4.44
10.32
3.61
2.98
-
21.35
112
5
0.2
25
0.6
3
0.3
1.3
1,600
30
6-9
C
98
4.22
9.82
3.44
0.86
0.25
18.59
112
5
0.2
25
0.6
3
0.3
1.3
-
30
7.5-10
D
92
3.94
9.17
3.21
0.82
9.63
26.77
112
5
0.2
25
0.6
-
0.3
0.2
-
30
7.5-10
E
136
5.86
13.63
4.77
0.75
-
25.01
112
5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
35
10
7.5-10
F
39
1.67
3.89
1.36
0.08
0.99
7.99
112
5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
35
10
7.5-10
G
111
4.79
11.13
3.90
1.76
1.16
22.74
112
5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
35
10
7.5-10
JL
41
1.74
4.05
1.42
0.37
-
-
7.58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
TOTAL
1271
54.66
127.13
44.5
18.81
1.16
10.87
257.13
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
651
-------
TABLE VIII-74
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Ferrous Foundry
: Steel
: Sand Washing
: >250 employees
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Sludge Disposal
Chemical Cost
Total
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
AmmoniaCas N), mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Manganese, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Susp. Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
pH
Model: Size - TPD: 418
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
ice
Raw
Waste
Load
1,120
5
0.2
160
0.65
3
0.3
1.3
9,600
35
6-9
A
251
10.78
25.07
8.78
3.36
-
-
47.99
1,120
5
0.2
25
0.6
3
0.3
1.3
1,600
30
6-9
B
56
2.41
5.60
1.96
1.12
—
-
11.09
112
5
0.2
25
0.6
3
0.3
1.3
1,600
30
6-9
C
60
2.58
6.00
2.10
0.34
—
0.08
11.10
112
5
0.2
25
0.6
3
0.3
1.3
30
7.5-10
D
53
2.27
5.28
1.85
0.39
-
3.15
12.94
112
5
0.2
25
0.6
0.3
0.2
30
7.5-10
E
70
3.00
6.98
2.44
0.56
-
-
12.98
112
5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
35
10
7.5-10
F
31
1.35
3.13
1.10
0.11
-
0.36
6.05
112
5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
35
10
7.5-10
G
80
3.45
8.03
2.81
1.6
0.41
-
16.32
112
5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
35
10
7.5-10
H
25
1.05
2.45
0.86
0.11
™
4.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
™
TOTAL
626
26.89
62.54
21.9
7.61
-
—
122.94
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
652
-------
TABLE VIII-75
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Magnesium Foundry
: Grinding Scrubbers
Model: Size-TPD: .5
Oper. Days/Yr. : 250
Turns/Day : 1
C & TT - STEP
Investment $ x 10
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
TOTAL
B
^^^^•M
15
Total
24
0.38
0.89
0.31
1.58
0.65
1.50
0.53
0.04
2. 72
1.03
2.39
0.84
0.04
43
Effluent Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/i
pH
1600
105
5
95
6-10
0
0
0
0
653
-------
TABLE VIII-76
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS - 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Magnesium Foundry
: Dust Collection
Model: Size-TPD: 100
Oper. Days/Yr : 250
Turns/Day : 1
C&TT - STEP
Investment $ x 10 -
Annual Cost $ x 10*
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
17
16
Total
33
0.72
1.67
0.59
0.08
0.71
1.64
0.57
0.02
1.43
3.31
1.16
0.10
TOTAL
Effluent Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Magnesium, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil and Grease, mg/1
PH
3.06
2.94
6.00
Raw
Waste
Load
22
1
1.2
1.1
30
10
6-9
22
1
1.2
1.1
25
10
6-9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
654
-------
TABLE VIII-77
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLALRS
Subcategory: Zinc Foundry
: Casting Quench
Operations
<50 Employees
Model: Size - TPD: 12
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operations & Maint.
Energy & Power * '
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Susp. Solids, gm/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
pH
Raw
Waste
Load
38
40
30
130
6-6
_A
4
0.18
0.41
0.14
—
0.73
38
35
30
130
6-8
_B
4
0.18
0.41
0.14
0.06
0.79
38
35
20
130
6-9
_C
12
0.50
1.15
0.40
0.06
2.11
0
-
-
-
_
Total
20
0.86
1.97
0.68
0.12
3.68
-
-
-
-
_
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
655
-------
TABLE VI11-78
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Zinc Foundry
: Casting Quench
Operations
: 50-249 Employees
C&TT Steo
Investment $ x 10
-3
,-3
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power * '
TOTAL
Effluent
Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Susp. Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
pH
Model: Size - TPD: 73
Oper. Days/Yr.: 250
Turns/Day: 3
Raw
Waste
Load
38
40
30
130
6-8
A_
10
0.41
0.95
0.33
—
1.69
38
35
30
130
6-8
B_
5
0.19
0.45
0.16
0.08
0.88
38
35
20
130
6-8
C_
15
0.63
1.47
0.52
0.11
2.73
0
-
-
-
_
Total
30
1.23
2.87
1.01
0.19
5.30
-
-
-
-
mm
(1)
Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
656
-------
TABLE VIII-79
BPT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory; zinc Foundry
: Casting Quench
Operations
>250 Employees
Model: Size - TPD:
Oper. Days/Yr. :
Turns/Day :
37
C & TT - STEP
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciaiton
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
TOTAL
13
Total
23
0.26
0.60
0.21
—
1.07
0.18
0.41
0.14
0.06
0.79
0.56
1.31
0.46
0.06
2.39
1.00
2.32
0.81
0.12
4.25
Effluent Quality
Flow, Gal/ton
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
PH '
Raw
Waste
Load
38
40
30
130
6-8
38
35
30
130
6-8
38
35
20
130
6-8
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
657
-------
TABLE VII1-80
BPT MODEL COSTS DATA; BASIS; 7/1/78 DOLLARS
C & TT - STEP
-3
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10~
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power (1)
Chemical Cost
Oil Disposal
Sludge Disposal
TOTAL
Effluent Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Oil & Grease, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
pli
itegory: Zinc Foundry
: Melting Furnace
Scrubber Operations
Raw
Waste
Load
755
400
700
20
85
4.5-6
A
36
1.55
3.61
1.26
0.22
1.93
-
—
8.57
755
-
700
20
85
3
B
42
1.79
4.16
1.46
0.11
0.36
-
—
7.88
755
-
700
20
85
3
C
43
1.83
4.26
1.49
0.11
-
1.51
—
9.20
755
-
50
20
>50
3
D
43
1.87
4.34
1.52
0.45
0.48
-
—
8.66
755
-
50
20
>50
7-5-10
Model: Size-TPD: 88
Oper. Days/Yr. : 250
Turns/Day
E
46
1.96
4.56
1.60
0.45
70.00
-
—
78.57
755
-
50
20
5
7.5-10
F
27
1.17
2.71
0.95
0.11
0.50
-
—
5.44
755
-
50
20
5
7.5-10
: 2
G
86
3.71
8.63
3.02
0.22
—
-
—
15.58
755
30
20
5
5
7.5-10
H
121
5.18
12.05
4.22
0.78
—
-
0.53
22.76
755
30
20
5
5
7-5-10
Total
444
19.06
44.32
15.52
2.45
73.27
1.51
0.53
156.66
—
_
—
—
-
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE VI11-81
BAT MODEL COST DATA; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Zinc Foundry
: Melting Furnace
Scrubber Operations
Model: Size - Tl'D: 86
Oper. Days/Yr : 250
Turns/day : 3
tn
<Ł>
-3
-3
C k TT - Step
Investment $ x JO
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy fc Power (1)
Chemical Cost
Ccirbon Regeneration
TOTAL
(2)Credit-BPT Potassium
Permanganate
Alternate II
Effluent Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids
•9/1
Oil t Grease, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
pll
BPT
Effluent
Wasteload
755
30
20
5
5
7-9
Alternate 12
I Total
Alternate 13
37
1
3,
1.
57
66
28
0.22
6.73
37
1.
3.
1,
57
66
28
0.22
6.73
J
22
0.94
2.18
0.76
0.17
6.53
-
10.58
K
137
5.89
13.70
4.80
0.34
-
-
24.73
L
261
11.24
26.13
9.15
0.11
-
216.00
262.63
Total
420
18.07
42.01
14.71
0.62
6.53
216.00
297.94
- 70.00
227.94
755(3) 755(4)
20
>50
10
50
0.1
>50
755
10
5
0.1
0.1
7.5 -10.0 7-5 -10.0 7.5 -10.0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2) Addition of potassium petnidiujcinate utilized in BPT no longer required with addition of
stups >I,K, L.
("») HPT eflluent wautcload for Alternate No. 3 reflects the values at its point ot addition
prior to UPT steps (i and II.
(4) f-:l imindl. ion of (xjta.'isi um (terinanganate feed in (BPT step !•:) from BPT results in phenol
IcvuJ which is higher than th.it of Itl'T effluent.
-------
TABLE VII1-82
PROJECTED 1NDUSTKY VIDE COST OK TREATMENT TECMNOIXHJY IMI'LEHENTATION
ALUMINUM EOUNDRY INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
Eap loyee
Croiij>
CTl
CTi
O
Number of Wet
Koundriea Using
This Process Treatment Step
50 BPT Treatment
A
B
C
Percent of
nCP Respondent*
Requiring the
Treatment Component
67
33
67
Treatment
Comp line nt
Cost
$42,00(1
$81,000
$40,000
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Cojfta
$ 7,550
$14,500
$ 7,120
Total
Capital
Costa
$1,407,000
$1,337,000
$1,340,000
Total
Inve titment
Costs
$252,900
$239,300
$238,500
BAT Alternative No. 1
0 100
HAT Alternul ive No. 2
E
BAT AI to mat ivc No. 3
E
I)
100
100
100
Total Cost of BPT
$4,084,000
$33,000 $5,940
Total Cost of HAT Alt. 1 $1,650,000
$B;,OOO $15,070
Total Cost of BAT Alt. ? $'.,2(10,000
$«4,000
$11,000
$15,070
$ 5,940
$ 4,200,000
$1^650,000
$730,700
$297,000
Total Cost of HAT All. 3 $5,850,000
$ 753,500
$297,000
$1,050,000
-------
TABLE VII1-83
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY MKI.TINC FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
Employee
Croup
Number of Wet
Foundries tiling
Thia Process
Treatment Step
Percent of
DCP Respondent*
Requiring the
Treatment Component
Treatment
Component
Investment
Coat
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Costa
Total
Capital
Costs
Total
Investment
Coats
24
01
BPT Treatment s
A 0
B 40
C 80
D 100
E 80
F 80
G 100
II 80
I 80
HAT Alternative No. I
100
BAT Alternative No. 2
J 100
$ 46,000
$ 46,000
$ 32,000
$ 31,000
$ 32,000
$111,000
$ 42,000
$ 9,000
$ 56,000
$ 8,140
$ 8,710
$ 6,080
$ 5,780
$ 5,900
$20,470
$ 7,650
$ 1,790
$10,100
0
$ 441,600
$ 614,400
$ 744,000
$ 614,400
$2,131,000
$1,008,000
$ 172,800
$1,075,000
$6,801,000
Total Cost of BPT
0 0
Total Cost of BAT Alt. I
$16,000 $2,970
Total Cost of BAT Alt. 2 $384,000
0
$ 83,600
$ 116,700
$1,387,000
$ 113,300
$ 393,000
$ 183,600
$ 34,400
l_!?li?2°.
$2,506,000
$71,300
-------
TABLE VII1-84
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECIINOljOCY IMPLEMENTATION
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH OPERATIONS
Employee
liroup
Number of Wet
Foundrie* Using
T)ii§ Process
Treatment Step
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requi r i ng the
Treatment Component
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
Treatment
Component
Annual
Costs
Total
Capital
Coat a
Total
Investment
Coats
<50
44
>50
30
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
50
67
67
67
83
100
$ 8,000
$ 4,000
$14,000
$1,440
$ 860
52,510
Total Coat of BPT
$21,000
$ 5,000
$19,000
$3,710
$1,050
$3,510
$176,000
$117,900
$412,700
$706,600
$422,100
$124,500
$570,000
$31,700
$25,400
$74,000
$131,100
$ 74,600
$ 26,100
$105,SOO
Total Coat of RPT
$1,117,000
$206,000
-------
TABLE VII1-85
PROJECTED INDUSTRY HIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
ALUMINIM FOUNDRY DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
en
Employee
Croup
Number of Wet
Foundries tiling
This Process
Treatment Step
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
D
E
F
C
II
I
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring the
Treatment Component
62
62
62
88
75
38
88
88
75
Treatment
Component
Investment
Coat
$41,000
$45,000
$48,000
$41,000
$28,000
$99,000
$93,000
$89,000
$44 ,000
Trea tment
Component
Anouk f
Costa
$10,440
$8,720
$9,940
$8,670
$5,970
$8,960
$18,210
$16,090
$8,040
BAT Alternative No. 1
J 100
BAT Altnalive No. 2
K 100
BAT Alternative No. 1
K 100
J 100
Total Coat of BPT
$12,000 $2,660
Total Cost of BAT Alt. 1
$301,000 $311,760
Total Coat of BAT Alt. 2
$301.000
$12,000
$311,760
$2,660
Total Coat of BAT Alt. 1
Total
Capital
Coat a
$1,017,000
$1,116,000
$1,190.000
$1,514,000
$840,000
$1,505,000
$3,344,000
$3,133,000
$1,320,000
$14,980,000
$480,000
$12,040,000
$12.O40,OOO
1_ ^Ot°j?2
$12,^20.000
Total
Investment
Coats
$258,900
$216,300
$246,500
$305,200
$179.100
$136,200
$641,000
$566,400
$241,200
$2,791,000
$IO6,4OO
$12,470,000
$12,470,000
$ I IN,, 400
-------
TABLE VIII-86
Employee
Croup
en
Humber of Vet
Foundries Using
This Process
17
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
ALUMINUM KHINDRY DIE LUBE OPERATIONS
Treatment Step
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring the
Treatment Component
Treatment
Coop one nt
Investment
Cost
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
D
E
25
75
75
75
75
Treatment
Component
Annual
Costs
Total
Capital
Coata
Total
Investment
Costs
$25,000
$9,000
$50,000
$12,000
$45,000
$4,480
$1,590
$8,990
$5,670
$8,220
$106,200
$114,800
$637,500
$408.000
$573,800
$19,000
$20,300
$114,600
$72,300
$104^800
Total Cost of BPT
$1.840,000
$331,000
-------
TABLE VII1-87
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OP TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
COI'PEH AND COPPER AI.I.OY FOUNDRY DUST COLLECTION OPERATIONS
Employee
Croup
Number of Wet
Foundries Using
Tliis Process
41
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring the
Treatment Step Treatment Component
BPT Treatment
A 0
B 33
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
$47,000
$32,000
Treatment
Component
Annual
Coats
$9,100
$5,860
Total
Capital
Costa
0
$433,000
Total
Investment
Coats
0
$79,300
Total Cost of BPT
$433,000
$79,300
-------
TABLE VII1-88
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OK TREATMENT TECIINOIflCY IMPLEMENTATION
COPPER AND COPPER AI.I.OY FOUNDRY MOLD COOL1NC AND CASTING O.UKNCM OPERATIONS
Employee
Croup
Number of Wet
Foundries Uaing
This Process
Treatment Step
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
BAT Treatment
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring the
Treatment Component
43
86
86
Treatment
Component
Investment
Coat
$43,000
$21,000
$23,000
Treatment
Component
Annna I
Costs
$7,720
$4,680
$4,260
100
Total Coat of BPT
0 0
Total Coat of BAT
Total
Capital
Costa
$758,100
$811,000
$811,000
$2,380,000
Total
Investment
Costs
$136,100
$165,000
$150.200
$451, )HO
-------
TABLE VII1-89
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNO I jOCY IMPLEMENTATION
COPPER. AND COPPER AI.I.OY CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATIONS
Employee
Croup
<50
>50
Percent of
Number of Wet DCP Respondents
Foundries Uaing Requiring the
Thia Proccsa Treatment Step Treatment Component
8 BPT Treatment
A1 87
A2 67
5 A1 80
A2 80
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
$192,000
$238,000
Total
$356,000
$425,000
Total
Treatment
Component
Annual
Costa
$36,990
$53,570
Coat of BPT
$71,710
$100.850
Coat of BPT
Total
Capital
Coata
$1,336,000
$1,276,000
$2,612,000
$1,424,000
$1,700,000
$3,124,000
Total
Investment
Coata
$257,500
$287,100
$544,600
$286,800
$403,400
$690,200
-------
TABLE VHI-90
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOI.OCY IMI'I.EMENTATION
FERROUS FOUNDRY WIST COLLECTION OPERATIONS
Percent of
Number of Wet DCP Respondents
Employee Foundries Using Requiring the
Group This Process Treatment Step Treatment Component
cr>
CO Ductile Iron BPT Treatment
<50 10 A 0
B 67
50 to 249 5 A 0
B 40
>250 12 A 0
H 58
Gray Irop.
<50 46 A 0
B 100
Treatment
Component
Investment
Coat
$24,000
$19,000
Total
$57,000
$29,000
Total
$220,000
$55,000
Total
$31,000
$22,000
Total
Treatment
Component
Annual
Costs
$4,710
$3,390
Cost of BPT
$16,340
$5,450
Cost of BPT
$69,870
$10,980
Cost of BPT
$7,180
$4,000
Cost of BPT
Total
Capital
Costs
0
$127,300
$127,300
0
$58,000
$58,000
0
$382,800
$382,800
0
$^012,000
$1,012,000
Total
Investment
Costs
0
$22,700
$22,700
0
$10,900
$10,900
0
$76,400
$76,400
0
$184,000
$ 1 84 , 000
-------
vO
TABLE VII1-90
Projected Industry Wide Cost of Treatment Technology Implements!ion
Ferrous Foundry Dust Collection Operations - Page 2
Number of Met
Employee Foundries Using
Croup This Process Treatment Step
Cray Iron (Cant.)
50 to 249 218 A
B
>250 84 A
B
Malleable Iron BPT Treatment
<250 34 A
B
>250 20 A
B
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring I lie
Treatment Component
0
39
2
45
17
50
0
44
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
$83,000
$36,000
Total
$270,000
$71,000
Total
$76,000
$15,000
Total
$257,000
$71,000
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Costs
$21,760
$6,730
Cost of BPT
$88,680
$14,380
Cost of BPT
$19,410
$6,480
Cost of BPT
$83,210
$14,270
Total
Capital
Costs
0
$3,061,000
$3,061,000
$453,600
$2,684,000
$3,138,000
$439,300
$595,000
$1,034,000
0
$624,800
Total
Investment
Costs
0
$572,200
$572,200
$149,000
$543,600
$692,600
$112,200
$110,200
$222,400
0
Total Cost of BPT
$624,800
$125,600
-------
TABLE VIII-90 ,
Projected Industry Wide Coat of Treatment Technology Implementation
Ferrouu Foundry Dust Collection Operationa - Page 3
Ol
—1
O
Employee
Croup
Steel
<250
>250
Number of Wet
Foundriea Uaing
Tlii a Process
66
37
Treatnent Step
Percent of
DCP Respondenta
Requiring the
Treatment Component
0
29
10
70
Treatnent
Component
Investment
Coat
$40,000
$23,000
Total
$86,000
$36,000
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Costa
$10,630
$4,350
Coat of RPT
$26,150
$6,920
Total
Capital
Coata
0
$440,200
$440,200
$318,200
$932,400
Total
Investment
Costs
0
$83,300
$83,300
$96,800
$179,200
Total Cost of BPT
$1,251,000
$276,000
-------
TABLE VIII-91
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
FERROUS FOUNDRY HFI.TINC FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
Nunber of Net
Foundries Using
Tlii* Protect
Ductile Iron
<250
>250
Cray Iron
1(1 to 149
112
Treatment Step
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
A
R
C
D
E
Percent of
DCP Respondent*
Requiring the
Treatment Component
0
0
25
75
75
56
0
33
78
56
43
0
57
100
57
Treatment
Component
Inveatnent
Cost
$101,000
$290,000
$42,000
212,000
$84,000
Total
$180,000
$498,000
$54,000
371,000
$185,000
Total
$41,000
$75,000
$25,000
$90,000
$24,000
Tre a latent
Component
Annul 1
Coats
$20,240
$52,140
$9,170
$41,490
$15,450
Coat of BPT
$57,420
$90,950
$28,750
$98 , 1 30
$18,410
Cost of BPT
$7,880
$11,611)
$4,660
$16,740
$4 , 300
Total
Capital
Costs
$1,998,000
$947,500
0
$160,400
$2,618,000
$932,400
$4,658,000
$2,071,000
0
$1,596,000
$10,080.000
$1,532 LOOO
Total
Investment
Costs
0
a
$21,100
$280,100
$104,300
$405,500
$289,400
0
$85,400
$688.900
$193,7110
$1,257,000
. 4'.''.•*' If'
$379,500
O
$297,500
$1,875.000
«74,500
Total Coat of DPT
$15,279,000
$2,a?b,OOO
-------
TABLE VII1-91
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TtCHNOI/M^ IMPLEMENTATION
FERROUS FOUNDRY MEI.TINU FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
PACE 2
Number of Wet
Employee Foundries Using
Croup Ttii s Process
—1
ro
Cray Iron (Cont.)
50 to 749
253
>250
71
Ms I leiihje.Jrg>|.
<250
Treatment Step
BPT Treatnent
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
Percent of
nCP Reapondents
Requiring I lie
Treatment Component
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Costs
Total
Capital
Coats
Total
Investment
Costs
26
4
22
100
35
40
3
23
97
50
0
0
0
100
0
$66,000
$162,000
$30.000
$146,000
$54,000
$11,420
$29,500
$6,540
$29,140
$10,0(10
$1.341,000
$1,639,000
$1,670,000
$36,940,000
$4 , 782,000
$882,800
$298,500
$364,000
$7,372,000
$885,500
Total Cost of BPT
Total Cost of BPT
$49,370,000
$33,520,000
$9,803,000
$135,000
$424,000
$4 1 , 000
$333,000
$146,000
$36,690
$77,750
$17,450
$78,670
$29,260
$3,834,000
$903,100
$669 , 500
$22,930,000
$5,183,000
$1,042,000
$165,600
$285,000
$5,418,000
$1,034,000
$7,950,000
$69,000
$169,000
$30,000
$146,000
$62,000
$16,000
$30,760
$6,620
$29,330
$11 ,470
0
0
0
$292,000
0
0
0
0
$58 , 700
0
Total Cost of HIT
$292,000
$58,700
-------
TABLE VIII-91 f
nOJBCTED INMISTHV WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOtOCY IMPLEMENTATION
FERROUS FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OFKRATIONS
FACE 3
Employee
Croup
Number of Wet.
Foundries Using
This Process
—I
CO
Malleable Iron (Coot.)
>250
Treatment Step
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
D
E
Percent of
KP Respondent*
Requiring the
Treatment Component
Treatment
CoMponent
Investment
Coat
Treatment
CoMponent
Annua 1
Cost*
Total
Capital
Coat a
Total
Investment
Costa
67
0
33
100
67
$100,000
$268,000
$42,000
$212,000
$82,000
921,600
$48,890
$10,660
$44,410
$15,630
$268,000
0
$55,400
$848,000
$219,800
$57,900
$14,100
$177,600
$41,900
Total Coat of BPT
$1,391,000
$291,500
-------
TABLE VII1-92
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE LOST OK TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
KEHROUS KOUNDRY SIAC ljUENCIIINC OPERATIONS
Percent of Treatment
Number of Wet DCP Respondents Component
Employee Foundries lining Requiring the Investment
Croup This Process Treatment Step Treatment Component Coat
Ductile Iron BPT Treatment
CTi
~~i <250 A A 25 $130,000
** B 25 $41,000
Total
>250 9 A II $300,000
B 78 $77,000
Total
Cray 1 r on
<250 160 A 80 $'.2,000
8 53 $23,000
Total
>250 47 A II $170,000
B 71 $48,000
Total
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Costa
$23,870
$7,490
Cost of BPT
$60,190
$15,300
Cost of BPT
$7,920
$4,280
Cost of BPT
$33,720
$9,6 10
Cost of BPT
Total
Capital
Costs
$130,000
$41,000
$171,000
$297,000
$540,500
$837,500
$5,376,000
$1,950,000
$7,326,000
$878,900
$1,602,000
$2,481,000
Total
Investment
Costs
$23,900
$7,500
$31 ,400
$59,600
$107,400
$167,000
$1,014,000
$362,90(1
$1,377,000
SUA,300
$*V/rt , 700
$495,000
-------
5/30/79
TABLE VIII-92
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TKCIINOIjOCY IMPLEMENTATION
FERROUS FOUNDRY SIAU QUENCHING OPERATIONS - PACE 2
Number of Wet
Employee Foundries Using
Croup This Process Treatment Step
SI Malleable Iron
tn
<250 5 A
B
>250 4 A
B
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring the
Treatment Component
50
75
50
50
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
$24,000
$16,000
Total
$97,000
$17,000
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Coat a
$4,670
$2 ,880
Coat of BPT
$18,330
$6,960
Total
Capital
Coat a
$60,000
$60,000
$120,000
$194,000
$ 74,000
Total
Investment
Costs
$11,700
$10,800
$22,500
$36,700
$11,900
Total Coat of BPT
$268,000
$50,600
-------
TABLE VII1-93
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
KKKROUS FOUNDRY CASTING QUENCH AND HOLD COOLING OPERATIONS
O1
—I
CT>
Employee
Croup
Ductile Iron
<250
>250
Number of Wet
Foundries Using
Tlii* Process
Treatment Step
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
of
indent*
ig the
lomponent
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
Treatment
Component
Annual
Costs
Total
Capital
Costs
Total
Investment
Costs
0
100
100
17
50
67
$89,000
$51,000
$43,000
$16,990
$9,590
$7,920
Total Cost of BPT
$87,000
$50,000
$43,000
$19,050
$10,310
$8,290
Total Cost of BPT
0
$153,000
$129,000
$282,000
$88,700
$150,000
$172,900
$411,600
0
$28,800
^23^800
$52,600
$19,400
$30,900
$33,JOO
$83,600
Cray Iron
<250
>250
22
17
50
75
75
0
80
100
$83,000
$48,000
$41,000
$17,410
$9,960
$7,920
Total Cost of BPT
$86,000
$50,000
$4 3,000
$I8,H60
$10,360
$8,220
$913,000
$792,000
$676^,500
$2,282,000
$680,000
$731,000
$191,500
$164,300
$486,500
$140,900
$I3'»,700
Total COB! of BPT
$1,411,000
$280,600
-------
TABLE VIII-93
Projected Industry Hide Coit Of Treatment Technology Implements!ion
Ferroua Foundry Casting Quench and Hold Cooling Operations
Page J
Employee
Croup
Number of Wet
Foundries Using
Hi is Process
Treatment Step
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring the
Treatment Component
Treatsient
Component
Investsient
Cost
Treatsient
Component
Annual
Costs
Total
Capital
Costa
Total
Investsient
Costs
Malleable Iron
>250
Steel
<250
>250
45
65
BPT Treatsient (Cont.)
A 0
B 100
C 100
A 33
B 33
C 67
A 56
B 69
C 75
952,000
$3/,000
$32,000
$10,180
$7,170
$5,900
Total Cost of BPT
$26,000
$30,000
$28,000
$5,330
$5,920
$5,030
Totsl Cost of BPT
$36,000
$34,000
$30,000
$7,400
$6,580
$5,440
$138,000
$386,100
$445,500
$844,200
$1,676,000
$26,100
$79,200
$87,900
$151,700
$318,800
$1,310,000 $269,400
$1,525,000 $295,100
$1,462,000 --', M *.' f'
Total Cost of BPT
$4,297,000
$829,700
-------
TABLE VIII-94
I'KOJtcrCD INDUSTRY WIDK COST OK TKEATMLNT Tt&IINOUOCY IMPLEMENTATION
KtKHIMIS KHINIIHY SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
Employee
Ci oiin
Number of Wet
Foundrie* Using
Thi» Proceta Treatment Step
CTl
~J
00
Cray Iron
HPT Treatment
A
b
C
D
E
K
C
II
0
8)
83
81
50
SO
67
81
Treatment
Component
Inveslnent
Cost
$651,000
$103,000
$98,000
$92,000
$116,000
$39,000
$111,000
$4 1 , 000
Total Coat
Treatment
Component
Annual
Costa
$127,100
$21,350
$18,590
$26,770
$25,010
$7,990
$22,740
$7,580
of BHT
0
$512,900
$488,000
$458,200
$408,000
$117,000
$446,200
$204,200
$2,6J*.200
0
$106,100
$92,600
$113,300
$75,000
$24,000
$91,400
$27,700
$550.300
-------
TABLE VIII-94
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
FERROUS FOUNDRY SAND WASHING OPERATIONS - PAGE TUO
Employee
-------
TABLE VII1-95
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY GRINDING SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
00
O
Member of Wet
Foundries Using
This Process
Treatment Step
Percent of
DCP Respondents
Requiring the
Treatment Component
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Costs
Tot si
Cspitsl
Costs
Total
Investment
Costa
DPT Treatment
A
8
50
50
$ 9,000
$15,000
$1,580
$2,720
Total Cost of HPT:
$84,000
$15.050
-------
TABLE VIII-96
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TECIINOljOCY IMPLEMENTATION
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY DUST COLLECTOR OPERATIONS
tT>
00
NuHber of Met
Foundr i es Us i ng
Thi a Process
Treatment Step
Percent of
DCP Respondent*
Requiring the
Treatment Component
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
Treatswnt
Component
Annna 1
Cours
Total
Capital
Coat a
Total
Investment
Costs
BPT Treatment
A
B
100
100
$17,000
$16,000
$3,060
$2,940
$102,000
$ 96.000
$18,360
$17.640
Total Coat of DPT:
$198,000
$36,OOO
-------
TABLE VII1-97
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OF TREATMENT TKCHNOl.O(,"Y IMPLEMENTATION
Z|NC FOUNDRY CASTING (jUENCH OPERATIONS
Percent of
Number of Wet I)CP Respondents
_ Employee Foundries Using Requiring the
CO Croup This Process Treatment Step Treatment Component
po '
'250 44 BPT Treatment
A 81
B 100
C 83
50 to 249 32 A 67
B 100
C 78
>250 14 A 40
II 40
C 40
Treatment
Component
Investment
Cost
$4 , 000
$4 , 000
$12,000
Total
$10,000
$5,000
$15,000
Total
$6,000
$4,000
$13, 000
Treatment
Component
Annual
Cost s
$730
$790
$2,110
Cost of BPT
$1,690
$880
$2,730
Cost of BPT
$1,0/0
$790
$2, 190
Total
Capital
Costa
$146,100
$176,000
$483,200
$760,300
$214,400
$160,000
$374j400
$748,800
$33,600
$22,400
$/2,800
Total
Investment
Costs
$26,700 ,
$34,800
$92,800
$154,300
$36,200
$28,200
$68,100
$132,500
$^600
$4,400
$13, 400
Total Cost of HPT
$128,800
$23,400
-------
TABLE VIII-98
PROJECTED INDUSTRY WIDE COST OP TREATMENT TKCIINOIjOCY IMPLEMENTATION
ZINC FIHINDKY MELTING KURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
01
00
CO
HOMher of Wet
Foundries Uiing
Thin Process
12
Treatment Step
BPT Treatment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
BAT Alternative No. 1
BAT Alternative No. 2
BAT Alternative No. 3
J
K
I
Percent of
DCP Respondent!
Requiring the
Treatment Component
20
20
20
40
80
20
20
60
Treatment
Component
Inveitnent
Coat
$16,000
$42,000
$43,000
$43,000
$46,000
$27,000
$86,000
$121,000
Treatment
Component
Annua 1
Costs
$8, 570
$7,880
$9,200
$8,660
$78,370
$5,440
$15,580
$22,760
80
80
80
80
Total Colt of BPT
0 0
Total Coat of BAT Alt. I
$37,000 $6,730
Total Coat of BAT Alt. 2
$220,000 $IO,5HO
$137,000 $24,730
$261,000 $192,630
Total
Capital
Costs
$86,400
$100,800
$103,200
$206,400
$441,600
$64,800
$206,400
$871,200
$2,081,000
$355,200
$211,200
$1,315.000
$2,506,000
Total
Investment
Coats
$20,600
$18,900
$22,100
$41,600
$754,300
$13,100
$37,400
$163,900
$1,072,000
$64,600
$101,600
$2J7,400
SJ^HVJ.OOO
Total Coat of BAT Alt. 3
$4,012,000
$2, IHB.OOO
-------
TABLE VII1-99
TKMATMKNT COST 01-' PLANTS VISITED
ALUMINUM FOUNDKIKS
01
CO
-fc.
Plant:
Initial Investment (7/78 $)
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Chemical Costs
Other
Total
Tons
$/Ton
.708, ">
1,138,524
48,957
113,852
55,000
9,056
108,214
335,079
102,511
3.27
120*40
492,054
21,158
49,205
79,154
3,302
48,710
1,290
202,879
32,195
6.30
4704(3)
103,200
4,437
10,320
11 ,700
375
1,500
56,732
430
131.93
20147
280,570
12,064
28,057
55,100
800
96,021
46,208
2.08
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Melting scrubber, die casting and casting quench processes
Mold cooling and die casting process wastewaters
Ceramic backup, hydroblast and dust collection process wastewaters
Primarily hauling of chemical wastes
-------
TABLE VIII-100
TREATMENT COSTS OK PLANTS VTSITED COPPEK CASTING
Process
Plant
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
' Capital
Depreciation
Ope r . & Ma i n .
f*l • i
Chemical
Other
en
00
01 Total
Tons
Cost /Ton
NOTE :
*'*»... - ..i- .. on*
Mold Cool ing or
Casting Quench
4736
1,659
72
166
747
2,433
3,971
28,200
0.141
17 A- C ft. 1
Continuous Casting
6809
181,333
7,883
18,333
18,802
7,742
61,608
160,986
0.383
Dust
19872
7,522(I)
325
755
1,250
250
15,830
8,100
1.952
Col lection
9094
45,100
1,932
4,510
16.204
57«»0
28,386
6,129
4.63
-------
TABLE VI II-101
TKKATMKNT COSTS OF 1'I.ANTS VISITKO
(UY PROCESS)
FROM AND STEEI, FOUNDRIES
en
Process:
Plant:
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
(1978 dollars)
Capital
Deprec iat ion
Oper. & Maint.
Elec. & Power
Chemicals
Other
Total
(1978 dollars)
Tons Metal
$/Ton
Sand Ri
20009
Stee 1
56,130(2)
2,414
5,613
55,168
971
-
—
64,166
72,341
0.89
•claim
15520
Cray Iron
632,940
27,216
63,294
141,447
14,314
-
26,762
273,033
166,578
1.64
Me
15520
Gray Iron
665,618
28,621
66,562
498,123
29,040
4,400
252,465
879,21 1
166,578
5.28
1 1 i ng Scrubber
7170
Cray Iron
12,400(1)
533
1,240
2,500
23
1 , 000
32
5,326
960
5.55
6956° >
(56%)
Cray Iron
445,982
19,177
44,598
130,008
2,800
19,768
89,000
303,349
102,200
2.97
Dust
6956° >
(18%)
Cray Iron
143,351
6,164
14,335
41,788
900
6,354
28,800
98,341
102,200
0.96
Coll .
7929
Cray Iron
78,929
3,394
7,893
2,560
4,021
-
1,880
19,748
52,500
0.38
Slag Q.
6956(1)
(26%)
Cray Iron
207,063
8,904
20,706
60,361
1,300
9,178
41,600
142,049
102,200
1.39
Cast Q.
15654
Steel
10,545
453
1,055
-
-
-
—
1,508
54,933
0.03
(2)
Estimated from total cost of cupola scrubber system
Does not include dust collection waste treatment costs; as these wastes are discharged untreated to a PO'IV.
-------
TABLE VIII-102
TREATMENT COST OF PLANTS VISITED - MAGNESIUM
Plant 8146 Dust Collecting Grinding Scrubbers
Initial Investment 12,400(1) 6,200(1)
Annual Costs
Capital 532 268
Depreciation 1,240 620
Oper- & Maint. 3,320 1,555
Elec. & Power 2,200 1,220
Chemical
Other 442 222
Total 7,734 3,885
$/Tor.
NOTE:
This represents 20% of the total cost of the dust scrubbers and dust
collectors. It is estimated that the 20% represents the cost of the
water reservoir, valves, piping, etc., portion of the dust collectors.
687
-------
co
co
TABLE VIII-103
TREATMENT COSTS OF PUNTS VISITED - ZINC FOUNDRIES
Process
Plant
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Capita 1
Depreciat ion
Oper. & Ma int.
Energy & Power
Chemical
Other
Total
Ton s
$/Ton
^'BwMMA^A^I **•% W a *» •• «• f* f
Casting Quench
4622 10308
14,000 257,830
602 11,086
1,400 25,782
14,690^ ' 26,568
800
16,540
-
16,692 80,776
5,367 8,954
$3.11 $9.02
t-ni-al flrtu 1-hY-rtiioh ufl a (• oufl f- f>r nlfli
18139
1 W I J J
3,544(1)
147
343
617
16
1,123
23,346
0.048
it:
Melting Furnace
Scrubber
18139
(1)
463,504V '
19,931
46,350
83,295
2,160
«.« w
151,730
23,346
6.50
(2)l'rimcTri ly the cost of contractor removal.
-------
TABLE VIII-104
FIKIMIIRT OPERATIONS
cntrrHni. AND TMRATMRNT
KID AMIMIHIIM r'OMNhHIKS
PRfTTRS Investment Caatinu Operations
Treatment and/or
Control Hethnds
F:Mf»|ttyiMl
A. Polymer addition -
to increase the
set t liability of
lite waste-water
sol itls by etihancin*
floe f 01 mat i 011 .
llscit in cuiijuiictitH
with step n.
b. Clariflcr - to
provide aolids
settling aivl re-
moval capaiji 11 1 y .
C. Vacuum filter-to
rli-w.il.pr l ho sludr solids
•lisfHis.il must be
provi.lml.
Solid Want'
Grneratlon
and Primary
Constituent*
Sol itls rcminred
In step n.
flanerttes M.« Ibs of
dry solijs per day or
14.4 Ibs or dry solids
per ton f*f met^l
p*Bir«il. Ba**e»
solids filler cake.
276 II.s of filter <-dki-
would bi» uenft €it*-d
each day 1 1 IB Ilis per
IKII of metal poured).
CD
<Ł>
-------
TABLE VIII-104
rOUNDRT OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TRRATHP.NT TECIMOI/K!'
FOR ALUMINUM FIJI INI >H I KS
INVK-'iTHENT CASTING OPERATIONS
Tri*.)t-«ent And/or
Control Hetho. Rvirycle tan* puiqis
to recycle flll
b.idl lo process.
BAT Alternate No. 2
E. nitration - pru-
snliris removal.
Hie backwash is re-
turned to the floe
tank.
BAT Alternate No. 1
E anH D CoMilned
Result ln-9
rMiiBiinuM O
Snap. Solids O
ol 1 arr-1 ^I*»-IHC 0
1*" __
Status ami
RelUhlllty
itse«l In a variety of
foiiinlry ami olh«»r l»-
a|'pl irat Ittun.
Used In a variety of
s a a. I attr
REFER TO STEPS E AMI) D
Problem And
Limitation*
terioMr*ved in
fltt*|> R.
B/tdtwash would result
(1.21 ]bs |H»r t
-------
TABLE VIII-105
FOUNDRY
COUTH"!. AND TRRWMKWT TBCIMOI/VItt
' KM ALUMINUM FlKINIIIIIKS
f.iqe 1
PROCESS _HEUlna..Tiini*uB-5cniUiec
Treatment *nd/or
Control Hethocls
i:mpl»v*M|
A. Settling tank
provides primary
solids removal.
B. Recycle Pumps -
rccycle 9T»t of
appl led raw waste
f|i«*.
C- MUM addition -
used in conjunct io
with steps l>, E,
and F fur oil and
gi ease r emova I .
D. Lime addltoin-
for |ifl control -
usf*! In conjunct Id
with slp|H? E and
F.
E. Polymei Addltlon-
pr> 1 ywcr add i 1 1 on I
ust.fl to provide
ei ihanced f I oc f o rm
1 It »n and thus
Improve wante
settling
characteristics.
Result lnract Ice In
imliislri.il waste
treatment a|nj<| icat ions
Middy n.Med In a
variety of Indus 1 1 la I
'.iste t ri-.it mr-iit
i|>pl 1 rj.il Ions.
Problems *fHt
Limitations
Periodic clcanlncj
and RO! Ids removal
i c<|iii tetl.
Maintenance required
fot proper pimp
operation - cannot
let pumps rim dry.
Care must he used in
handling. Adds
significant amounts
of dissolved solids.
Proper maintenance
Is required to kocp
1 IMC feed system
funct lonjng
prM|t>rly.
Care must be taken
to Insure propni
feed riite a IK! |>ropei
•mint inn m-ikeup.
Implementa-
tion Time
1 month
1 month
2 months
1 month
1 month
Lan.1-
Requlte-
ments
15' ic JO1
r>* x 1O'
No additional
land required.
Jo additional
land required.
lo .iddlt ional
Kind re«|ulrveri must have
[>n»|tf r disi>r»*d 1 imp
must be provided.
Sludge removed
in str*p F must
ii.iv«> pro|*er
IU|H>sal.
Solid Waste
Generation
ami Primary
Constituent*
HinlM^I solids
rcrtmwal -
tiif r*»i|Uf»nt pnriodlc
(onc-«> ot fwlcf* per
year) sol Ids renirval
required.
Hone
Included with oil
removal In step F.
Included In ntt-p F.
Included in step F.
-------
TABLE VIII-105
rnutniRT OPERATIONR
CONTROL AND TRKnTWWT
K>R MJIMINIIH FOUNimiRS
rHOTKSS -.-Me>t-'_"3 Furnace_Scrutitx-r
1
Tr«*al*wMil *iwl/or
Control Methods
rwHoy.-.l
r. Batch Treatnciit-
to juovirle |>n>|«r
.111.1 Sfcl I IilH|
fur wjste trpat-
•H'llt
Reiiullln^ effluent
Levels fur Critical
Const 1 tuerits
fa/1
Stisp. Solids )U
I'll 6-9
Status and
Dell Ability
Widely usnil In thio
attfl in a wiJe variety
wastp tieatnenl'
.i|ipl ii-at ioris .
Problem *nt
Limitation*
Sufficient time must
he allowed for profit
set tllrKj.
iMplenentA-
tlon Tine
12 months
Land-
Re<]iilrc-
•wnti
2()' x 40'
Envlroimental
lni|>act Oth»r
Ttian Water
Proper dinpusal
f>ir 6«:un and
no lids must be
provided.
Solid Hacre
Generation
and Trimary
Constituent 9
(leneratrs
.ipproxlimtoly O.Z
Ibs of tmlitls |»er
ton of not.al inured
ur about 22 His/day.
Assuming a wet
sludui- with St
sol Ms, al«.ul 44O
Iba of wet sludge
is generated per
lay or aliout 4 Ibs
>er ton of m*.rtr«l
oured.
f iwtal poured) of
ikim Is removed
•ach d.iy .
ro
-------
TABLE VIII-105
FttllMWY OKMkTiaNS
. AND TWWWRMT TKCIMOI/1CV
FUR ALUMINUM FIIUNUKIKS
Paqe 3
rROTTSS H*1 * '"9
Scrubber
Treatment and/or
Control Methods
G. Vacuum Filter-
.lewat«rsj the
sludge removed
in step F. Filtrat
is recycled to
batch treatment
t.ink .
II. Scum Tank -
receives and holds
the skim removed
in step F.
I. Filter-provides
arid i 1 f 01 vi I
sus|>eiid»d solids
removal .
Resulting Effluent
Lewis for Critical
Constituents
Same as F
Susp.Solids
Oil t Grease lot
1*
Susp.Solids lo
oil i Grease 5
I'll 6-9
Status and
Reliability
Widely used In this
and in a variety of
other Industrial
wastewater treatment
applications.
liewaters the sludge
lo 2*>\ sol Ills.
Use of holding tank
for various wastes is
rif >p lied widely.
Used in a variety of
similar industrial
waste treatment
applications.
Problems and
Limitations
Regular maintenance
Is a necessity.
Periodic media re-
placement Is
necessary.
Regular removal of
scum is required.
Hydraulic surges
must be controlled.
Upsets must "be
avoidiil removal In
itcp F.
iollds (1.7 Ins/
lay of dry sol Ids
>r O.016 Ibs of
Iry sol ids per ton
>f metal |
-------
TABLE VIII-105
FOUNDRY OPEKJVTJOWS
CONTNOr, ANO TREIVrMEHT TRCIWOUXIIT
FOR AUIM1NIPH FLHINlWIKS
_HsUL
Treatment and/or
Cont I o 1 Me t hod^
BAT-Mtern*te No.l
Tighten recycle rate
step to UK)*.
nAT Alternate No. 2
J, Recycle effluent
of PPT step I
Po| 5 for Crl t leal
Const 1 tiioiiti
mg/l
Oi 1 L (iceasn 0
pll
Susp. Sol Ids O
Oil t Grease O
Status and
Reliability
Practiced in this and
similar applt cdtion^ .
Tractit-cd In A wide
variety of industrial
nppl i cat ions.
LlmltAtlonn
Same as BPT step
Same as BPT step
H.
Implementa-
tion Time
f*one-e'|ulp-
•>r rr;pld( r-
m,-nt of
"Ki sting
pumps {Stop
2 months
Lan«l-
Requl re-
NOfM'
u:;c from BI'T
IS' K 20'
Envlroitmeiital
Impart Other
Titan Water
Minimal to
Minimal to none.
Solid Waste
Generation
ami Primary
Same as BPT atep
A-
Solids removed
In step F.
-------
TABLE VIII-106
rOUNUNT
CdNTHOI. ANII TRKJVTMKHT TRCIMOIJJCY
I'-ilH AUIMINtlM
Pa<|e I
PROCESS —lSs.t-!na..ft««reh
Treatment and/or
Control Methods
l:mfi|o.yi>t|
A. Set.tllnq Tank -
provides primary
solids removal
H. 01 1 Skimmer - to
remove float Inq
olio ami qrcases
from surface of
wastowater.
C. Recycle Pumps -
recycle loot of al
wantewattrs back
to procesu
Result Inq effluent
Levels fur Critical
Const It lie ntn
"a/A
5u. Sullds 10
Oil t Crease 4OO
MinlniM D.I
Phenols 4
HI 5.5-U.5
Susp. Sol liljl U
Oil 1 Crease 0
Aluminum O
Phenol 9 O
|.
|n?r iodlcal ly.
Surface turbulence
rondel H the skimmer
ini-frt-ctlve.
SkimmliH| modlin
must be properly
maintained.
Carelessness re-
sulting In con-
tamination of quencl
waters with other
wastes would de-
grade <|uonch water
. quality aw! |*>:lf;lbll
nuqate I(IO% rei:yf7le
Implemcnts-
tlon Time
2 months
1 month
1 month
Uml-
Requl re-
ments
10* * H>'
No additional
land is re-
<|il I red .
5' x 51
Environmental
Imfiact Other
Than Water
Proper disposal
of sol ids must
lie provided.
Skim must re-
ceive |>ro|ier
disiiosal .
Hone
Solid Waste
Generation
•nd Primary
Constituent!!
Generates 0. 17 Ilin of
dry solids ff.r t50 em|». 1.0 Ibs/day
<50 e»p. 11 ibs/day
Rased on a skim with
SOV iii 1 and urft*?>*!
0. 17 qal p*:r ton of
metal |HMired must
be removed.
<5O em|i. l.o qal/day
>50 emp. 11 qal/day
Hone
en
-------
TABLE VII1-107
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL Mill TREATMENT TRTIMOUKY
KIR ANIMINIJH
I'lc Casting Ojieralions
Treatment and/or
Contiol Methods
A. Alum Addition-use*
in conjunction
with steps B and
r fui oil and
qtcdse removal.
D. Sulftiric Acid
Add 1 1 ion- us ed In
conjunction with
Steps A .11 id C
for oil ,»nd grease
trmuval .
C. Inclined plate
provide necessary
oTHtdi t ions for the
desired ol 1 and
qi ease
sfparat Ion.
Resulting Effluent
levels for Critical
•a/1
Susp. Sol ids
Oi 1 t r.rease 4OO
|HI 1-4
Susp. Sullds
Oi] t Grease 4OO
pit 1-4
Susp. Solids
Status and
Reliability
Used by seveial plant:.
(inployinq this
process as well as in
a vnrlety of other
waste t real ment
operations.
Used by several plant-:
employ i nq this process
and in a vat iety of
other appliral 1 on«* .
tlsed in thin and
A vnriHty of
i natal lat Ions.
Problems ami
limitations
Adds siqnl f leant
amounts of
suspended solids.
Care must be used
in handling either
liquid or powder.
Rxtreme care must be
used In the handllnq
and storage of this
acid. The pll is be in-
lowei ed only to be
raised lit a sub-
squent step.
Periodic cleaninq
may |M» rc*|ul red. I f
skim Is allowed to
rol lect trw.t much,
effectiveness of
unit Is deqraded.
Hydraulic overloads
must be avoided to
ma Inta in
effectiveness.
tlon Time
2 months
2 months
1 2 months
ments
No additional
land required.
No additional
'
20' x 50'
Environment A 1
Impact other
Than Hater
Tro|>er dis|M>nal
of skim removed
in step r must
be prtivfdfd.
Proper disposal
in step c must
Ventinq must be
provided to avoid
{•ersonnel contact
wj th fumes.
Proper dl **p**sa 1
of ui ly skim
must be provided.
Solid Haste
Generation
and Primary
Cr»n*tltu*»»l 9
Included with
oil removal in
step C.
Included with
step C.
Based on a skim
with 5d% nil and
qrease, about 74
qal. of skim is
qenerate^l each day
(0. 61 qal per ton
of motal poured)
for contractor
CTl
-------
TABLE VIII-107
FOUNDRY (M'KIATIUNS
CUNTROI. AND TRKATHKNT TKCIMOMKiY
KIK KI.IIHINIIH I MINIUM KS
Page 2
Die Casting Operatlona
Treatment and/or
Control hetlioda
Cmployd
D. Lime Addl t lon-llse ivj | via
sell liiit|.
Result Inq Effluent
Levels for Critical
Const 1 tuant s
•Hj/1
Susp. Solids
nil t Grease SO
pll h-9
Susp. Solids
Oil t Grease SO
I'll I,-')
Susp. Solids 311
'ill 1 Groasr 2O
Stilus and
Rellal.lllty
l.ime addition for pll
ad iustmeiit is very
common in Humorous
waste treatment
operations.
widely practiced In
this and a wide
variety of otlier
waste treatment
appl ic.it ions.
Very widely us~l In
this and other process
operations, oil level
In i-ffliu nl of this
step is only possihle
when 4ir.cd In
conjunction with si «.-p*.
A thioii'ih h.
Problem* *n4
Limitations
Proper malntfMiani:e
Is required to keep
pll control and lime
feed systems
operating.
Proper feed rale mus
lie maintained.
Slud<|e cannot he
.illowixi to acrunulat'
llydr.iul ic: overload
results In |e provided.
Solid Made
Generation
ami Primary
Included with
•teji F sol ids
remova 1 .
Included with
itep F solids
Approximately BSf,
Ihs of dry solid;!
are q**iw»ratr*l ea'-h
flay (6.7 llis por
ton of netrfl
|*oui ctl ) . AsaiMi ii'|
a wot. slixlqt- with
S% so| his alHMil H
tuns of wet slmfi|*>
(1 11 U.n. | — r Ion (if
*|iMH»r,»l r-l i-a^h tl*iy.
CT)
-------
TABLE VIII-107
OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TRKNVHKNT TEOBIOI/KJY
TOR ALUMINUM FOIINIMtl KS
Die Ctistinq (>I» dr;water the
sliidu»l>s to return
HS% of trr.it ed
«f f luent 1 u
1'KM.CSH.
R<»9Ulttn<] F-fflm-nt
Level? fur Critical
CotIRt 1 ttK»nt3
SO KM' rtG t
my/I
Susp. Sol Ids 1 0
Ot I fc f. tease 1U
I'll ft-9
S.iip. 54>llds 10
Oil fc Crease IU
pM f,-9
Strttiis and
Reliability
widely iiRt^l in thiu
and In numonnjq oth^r
t real input ajf»l t < at iotc.
IN'w.itrrs 'iln.l.i^ lo
?'j\ solids.
Used in a variety
1 1 na tm«Mtt rf| <|>l i r j 1 1 on;.
Reryrlen a |«>rtion
of treated effluent
l»,irk to |'r'»«-e;;S|
Iviqrd on prar-t i<-r> 1 n
|irric-«-!>« rtu dcfineil
by BIT.
Problems and
(.Imitations
Rt*(ju Jar na J n te nance
1 i a must.
Plant upsets reRiilt
l>lm|ulnnth9
6 months
1 month
Lainl-
Requl re-
•wnt^
I IK ludcd wl i.h
step K.
10' K JO*
10* X IS'
Environmental
Impact Other
Ttian Water
Pro|.*-i di S|N>;;a 1
is r fpiired.
Pn»per dispoKal
soltdr. Is
required.
Minimal to
noun.
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Comt Itnonti
rvt 2St si.l ids
vaciiiHM filter would
IpwatMr the Rtop F
sludge to about \ .ft
ttms of filter cake
er day (27 |bs |H-r
Mm of mcl-i 1
•ournd.
Generates about IH
?a<;h day er ton of metd I
tuirrd) whlc-h ^10
emoved from tlie
•ol Ids removed In
itep F.
CD
<Ł>
00
-------
TABLE VIII-107
rcmmiiiY
CUNTROL AND TRffiTMKnT TRfnMOUJUY
I'aqf. 4
._
PROCESS
Die Casting Operations - fur aluminum foundries
TriMlment and/or
t»nl nil Hethods
Kmpl.iyd
BAT Alternate Mo. 1
•T. Tighten Recycle
of step 1 to 1OO«
RAT Altern.it>> No. 2
R. Activated Carbon
Filter-to provide
additional oil and
(jrease removal ami
revival of
urqanic priority
inllutants to
low levels.
BAT Alternate No. 3
Cimltl nation of steps
1 dIHl J
Resulting Rfflwnt
Levels fur Critical
C.'*>n!itltUf*iir**
•a/V
Susp. Solids II
Oil 4 GredRe U
pll
Susp. Soli.ls 10
Oil i Grease 5
HI *.-•»
Refer to Steps K am
Status and
Reliability
rracticnil in suvpral
waste treatment
ipplirat itiiis.
Transferred tech-
lloloqy frfim otlif>r
industrial
a|i|il icatioiiB.
.1
Problmui and
Limitation*
Same as In Si
Maintenance reqiliri>d
Periodic remf carbon rv<|iilred.
Im>lementa-
tlon Tin*
.,> t
6 months
L>ml-
Reqnlrc-
menH
20' x 40'
environmental
Impact Otlier
Than Hater
Enerqy consumed
during carbon
[exoneration.
SolM Haste
Generation
and Primary
Conntltwnt*
Minimal to no
effect. Solids
removed at strp F.
ID
VO
-------
TABLE VII1-108
FOUNDRY OTBKTlTKlNS
CllNTROI. N«> TRKIVTHFIMT TKCIMOI/lttY
KIM AMIMINIIM KOIIHMRIUS
Treatment and /or
Contiol Met hot Is
A. Ik) Ming Tank -
to provide waste
holding < lcmenta-
tlon Tlnm
1 month
1 month
3 months
L*n*1-
Rcqul re-
ments
15' x IS1
Hone-
mounted above
holding tank.
IO' ic in1
Environmental
Impact; Otti#»r
Tlian Water
oily skim
B reipilres pioppr
Pro|iT disposal
of skimmed oi Is
must be provided.
I'roper sol Ids
'11 sp^sa 1 must
he fitovidnd.
So '.Id Ha«t«
Generat loti
and Primary
Constituents
Minimal. Mould )*p
removed dur 1 n*j
infrequent
•leanlnqs.
Ifnimal - the
.kl miter in used to
emove tramp oils
fhich m,iy
*«>r irxllca 1 ly
irciVHiilate.
Sol Ids i emoveil
In nlep n.
o
o
-------
TABLE VIII-108
FfKIIIURV OPERATIONS
L1JNTROI. AND TRFftTHKHT TRriMOI/ICV
rXIH AMIMINIIH r'OUNIiflltiS
I**!* 2
rROTESS »te Lube Operations
Treatment and/or
Control HeHiod*
D. Paper Filter-to
dcwater the
inncfittrate blow-
thmn of tlie
cyclonic sepaiator.
E. Hnryi:lt! tank and
pumps - recycle
lull* of
waMlt;watei s.
Result ln<| Effluent
Levels for Crlt leal
Const llnnntn
Same as step h.
•a/A
Susp. Solids U
Oil t Crease O
Ammonia O
Lead O
Phenols U
Sulfide 0
Fluoride U
Zinc O
pll
Status and
Reliability
tlscd In this ami a
wide variety of other
w.iste treatment
a|'pl leal ions.
Used in this process
and In a very wide
array of other
waste treatment
operat lonu.
Problems and
Limitations
Paper filter must he
replaced as it is
used only once. Now
filter media must
be always excised to
permit solids
removal .
Recycle tank may
requite |sal.
None
Solid Haste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
AHTOKU-ately
5.1 II* of dry
Aollcfla am
qeneraterf ear h
day (O.O19 Ibs
f*«t tun of M-tal
(«)tiretl) . Based
«m d*>-faterin«i
to 1O% solids
in riltored
•tater i a I , about
SI Ibs of filler
cake are qcnrralod
each ilay (O. }R
Ihs |*cr ton of
•etal IKJUI ed) .
So] Ids ri'Mwetl
In step O.
-------
TABLE VIIl-109
rOUNIIRT OPKKKTIflNS
CCJNTKOI, KHU TRKTirntRNT
FOB Cnri'KH ANII COI'PKR RLI.OY F'XINIIKIES
TROT-ESS —I1!!?
Ihlsl Collection
Tn-dtwnl ami/or
Control Methods
i:i«|.|..y.-J
ft. Sett Inq tan with
a nratjont
vide- sol ids
sot* 1 Imj and
i cmoval .
B. Roryi In 1'itfnps to
provide 1%
r i-r-yi:|o of a 1 1
process WrisLe-
W.tlLTH.
Result Inq refluent
Levels for Critical
CuMSt ItlHMlt*)
n-l/1
1 . sil 1 7
M'dM 1 . '
Hantliinosp 0.4
Phnnol s 0 . 7
Sus|>. Sr.l Iris 41)
Oil i Creo-so 5
Zinc II
I'll *!-")
Copier 0
l^ad 1)
Hantjaneoe (>
Phenols n
Susp. Si>l itlfi 0
Oil t. Cri^Bo 0
Zinc II
I'll
Status nnil
Rel lability
vat itly of otlicr
f oiiinlr y tin si' rol 1 or-
t (on o|wjr.*t ions.
Uscxl in this and in
a wi'Jc v,u id y of
other foniMlry dust
collection ofw»rfH JIJHS
Prohl^KKi ami
Limitation*
. >1 li s t.annr t be
w(x) to ncciiinii~
•It .-r L-asoil setllr-
ahl 1 fly of waste-
wat ci will r esul t .
lua(|«»it ( liqhts
rnipilrt* i*ft i(xltc
ind 1 nfen.inc^1 and/oi
r c|'l t\\ ''nw-iit .
R^qular ma 1 nlenance
must ht- provldf-rl
1 o kt:i'i> r ucycle
|>uni|>r, opei dl inq
pi u|^"t 1 y .
Implementa-
tion Time
1 noil I hs
2 months
Lan-l-
Requl re-
merits
1 r> * x 2 't *
S' K 5'
Erw 1 roiimont* 1
Iwfact OUier
tlian Water
|M'r 'llKP"Jlfll
ttf so 1 iil-i i s
'"'" "
rropt'i *) 1 n(v>s |'i uv idf.l .
Sotlrf H«ftte
f>nerat Ion
and rrlnwry
Const! turn* 9
h|j(>i'on ima t •• 1 y 72O Mis
of ilry snl 1 >ls arr;
(O.6I II. s )--i ton of
H-iixl haitdlfl) . Imr- t<>
natnrf of sol ids.
dsniiiii(> ilr.ninnr is 2^*
aUuit H9() Ihs of
ilr.j<)(Mit is qonriatc-l
i-^r h day (2.4 Ihn
[•or toil of S'Hid
handled) .
Sol Ids are » niwivt-d
In ^tcp A.
—I
o
ro
-------
TABLE VIII-110
OPERATIONS
fXWTROI. AND TREKTMKHT TKCIMt)|/x;V
C()ITl:n AM) COPPER AI.U'Y KOIINIiKII ::
Page I
PROCESS
vi .si*! >'Ll!l icrit inns.
Widrly iist?>l In thifl
riiKl otlinr founrlry
-i^l iikliistiiAl pro-
.if'l'l l« .if lon-5.
SAHK AS
rroblfHua «n«t
Limit At Ion*
rurirnlic clcAnlnt|
rn'|nireil.
Roqular maintenance
and |K>rl(fJii: cti»an-
Rcijular malntenanrr
rpt|tiirrd as well as
IH'iioillc clraiilnq.
rrpsa upset results
in miRp. sol Ids
ovo r 1 oad .
STRP C.
tlart nrh«*r
Titan Uat«*r
l'r«i|icr sol Ms
disposal must
lie rt:rfiilrcd.
Al(|.irlile may
l»c» nr>c<»ssary.
I'l 't\H>T SO| ||Misal must
l*e piovidnd
si>l ids.
Noun
S/VMK AS
Sol 1*1 waste
Generation
ami Primary
ConatituontA
Infiutfin^nt pt*rifjillc
Brvlidff removal is r*--
qulretl. Stil l«la
about 2. H lbfi/-My t*r
O.O9S HM |M*r ton of
m**tal |MHifffHl.
Sol ids riH»>Vfx| lit
Step A.
Solids arc removed in
Step A.
-------
TABLE VI11-111
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CIJUTROI, AND TRKIVTHKirr TKf MNOUXIY
!IR CIM I'KR ANI> COI'I'KR M.I/1Y KKINI'HIKS
Cunt inuous
t ions
Treatment and/or
Control Mvlliods
i:m|.|«>y.M|
1 2
A and A . Heat
exchanger and
ciK»l Jnq tr»wer -
to provide cooling
of the cast iivj
waters with zero
di schartje. Thi 3
sysff** mlnlwl 7.(.'s
losses of proc-ess
cooling water by
eva|M>rat (on, blow-
d«jwii( vtc. Tlir- re-
fore , on 1 v IHMI-
r-unt'act' r»o1 lii'i
wdtt»r would need
\ o \ff I>1 own rlowii
(r««n cool ln<| tow*-r.
Remitting Fffl«M>nl
U*VR|S fur Critical
Const 1 tuptits
m-j/J
Co|>|jer O
Fluor iite (1
r^aH —
1*11 —
St.itus And
Re] tab! llty
Used in two >l ant s
in this i|i on >. llf.il
fxchdinjor s ft nt/oi
coollnq tow<* s ate
wi'l«* 1 v ii sod it v.ir I'Jti
iti'lust.r ial op|>l i<:a-
aro widely tist"! with
this |>r r< tL'cr oijprvit 1 on *
this would Include
(MTltnlir r]o.ininlement4-
tlon Tl*m
ft iminl ha
Laif]-
Requl re-
•M>nl s
40' x 4O'
Envl rotimental
Impact other
Th.in Water
AJq.nrhles May
lxk r e<|n 1 red
iir imari ly of |Mrtl~
al l
-------
TABLE VIII-112
POIINIHIV OPBRHTIOHS
CUMTW1I. ANI> TRRHTHKirr
MIR
nmnaw f2!t-5sy~»«« .
Tri-ativnt and/or
<:ontrol Methods
Resettling Tank with
Dratfout to provide
primaiy soli-Is
removal .
Result Ing Effluent
Levels fur Critical
Constituents
"VI
Ammonia I*
Copper I). 9
Cyanide O. 35
(run 50
Manganese fl . O
Phenol 5%
Susp.Solids ISO"
Oil 4 Grease Ju
Sulfide 4.0
pll f,-9
Status and
He II ability
Mldoly used In tills
prin-psn and in a
number t»f oilier
foundry and Industrial
so 1 1 ds i vmova 1
a|i>l l<:at ions.
Problems and
Limitations
Pf-rlfiiflc cleaning
rcqulrp tulINC x
«•
Envlrnnsiental
Infiact Other
Than Hater
P,o,«-r dl,,w»al
of solids
required.
Solid M»t»e
Oneratlun
and Prlvary
Const 1 tu**nt *•
GenKrates
arrroxlm.il.ely 1 1. i
Ibs of dry solids
l>er ton of sand
handled. Assuming
?St solids In drag-
nnt, about 51 ll« of
<:|iiilne per tern of
*:and hanilled.
lln/day of solids
V-tjl IITY K\
Xictjle
• SOemp". 625 2'MHI
r>O-249 9IIHO 16. IIH)
•ml*-
•7SO 41,'inn I7A.UIHI
>-m|..
sn.i^.. 21 9O B760
>l>-249 lll.llHI .111,4110
IJll
2Sll R.2ln 32.RIHI
f.n SI .mm 207. mm
-------
TABLE VII1-112
FIMINDRY OPERATIONS
COIITROI, ANII TREftTHKMT TECIMOIMIY
h'OH hF.RROUS HHINIHUKS
USt <\>l Ifrllon
Ti«'atB*>nt ami/or
runt t ill Metlt'Hls
A. (cunt i nue<1)
B. Recycle Piimps-
tu recycle loot
of a 1 I pror-fis
w.is t ****** tot s .
Result Imj Kf f litf»nt
Levels fur Critical
Coll9t 1 tlHHltf
"9/1
Annonia 0
Copper O
ryanide I)
I ton O
Hanqanest* 0
Phono Is I)
Susp.SoJtds (>
Oil L Grease O
Sulflde 0
Status and
Rellabl llty
Used in a number of
pi 'lilts employ i nq
this pr-w f"~-s, as wet 1
as in a var lr;ty of
other foninlr i^s
Hiul 1 niinritr i «:s .
Problems and
Limitations
H**gul ar paint «;nancc
is necessat y to
insure recycle
i>l>erat ions .
tlon Time
1 nrmtti
T.an-1-
Rer|ti| re-
nents
|0' x H*'
Rr»vl rnnmcnta I
Impact Otli*»r
Than Ha tor
None
Solid Haste
ami Primary
Const ItiifiiM
iteel
• 25O 4,nr,o 19,4iH»
emp.
>25O lr', 7OO f.2,H(X)
iol Ids removed In
;tcp A.
o
(Ti
-------
TABLE VIII-113
rcxmttRY
. AND TRCIVTHKNT TECIMni/XIY
rnuiiDHies
Mcltinii Ftirnaco Sci itlthri s
Treat Bent and/or
Control MetliixUj
A. Canst ir Aildit iiin-
fol |4I adjustment
and control . Used
in conjunct iuii
with strp B.
H. ( l.irif ii-t-t.i
ItOVlde Sfll Ills
suit 1 ini| and
fW.V.ll
c.J| .il.il Hy.
Result lnq Ffflitunt
Lewis for Critical
Constituents
my /I
Ammonia l.O
Antimony O.I
Cailmium O. J
Cop|»er 3.3
fluoride 11)
1 (on 2 1 0
l««d f>(>
ManqanKSe loo
Phenols 0.7
Susp.Solids
Oil t Crease 25
Zinc ISO
AMBcin la l.O
AnttBnny O.2
Cadmiun 0.1
Copfier 11. 3
Fluutide 10
Iron IO
l.ead 3
Hanqanose S
Phenols O.6
Sus|i. Sol Ills 10O
Oil t Grease 2'l
7.1 lie 10
I'll 0-9
Stfltua and
Reliability
UstMl in a nninlM>r uf
l>l. nits with this
I'lixrKS as well as In
.1 variety cif utlitT
foundry ntpl t in*i
furnace scrulilier
o|>i;riit Ions. Alno ust^l
in a wltlo variety of
other Industrial
wast*' t reatmiMit
appl tat t i OIIK .
Used In a nnmlier of
plants with this
[•rocess as well as in
similar foiindty
n|>erat Ions whlrh
cast other mvtals.
Vory widely used In
f(iiii»Jry anil Indusl.c la)
w.ist.e trvatmeiit
a|i|i|ic:.it ions.
Probleiis awl
1.1ml tal loin
pll cunt rol and
caustlr feed sy a turns
must receive reqular
maintenance. C.iustlr
is more cx|M>nslve
than lime but It
(irovldi'S more
alkalinity, extreme
caution must be used
In lirindl iiHj.lleat
miint be provided as
M>% i:ail!itic "freez.es
.it about SS'K.
Reqular maintenance
must be priiviileil.
So 1 i ds cannot be
allowed to accumulati
to such an extent as
to affect effluent
>|ii.il ity or
mechan 1 r:a 1
over Inad. Periodic
i.leaiiimi nay lie
required. Hydraulic
overload wmild
result In |>fior
solids rcmjval.
tion Time
2 months
IS months
Lan.1-
Requlrc-
ments
Included with
step B.
llfi to 7O' x
IOO1
environmental
l«|iact Other
Tlian Water
Proper ili!i|«»sal
of solids rc-
nvived In step II
must be provided.
Vent Ing mu.it he
provided to avoid
personnel
ex|>osiire to any
stionq caiistln
liws.
Proper dis| are
qencrated for
each ton of
metal poured.
-------
TABLE VIII-113
FUIHIIRV OPERATIONS
CIMTROI. MID TREIVTMKNT
FOR KEHKOIir, FIXINIIRIKS
rnrrr.ss **?**•* "9 runmii st-rubix^rs
Treatment, and/or
Coiittol Hetli'xls
B. (OjiitiniH.'tl)
Resulting Eff lix-nt
Levels for Critical
Const 1 tuent s
Status am)
DP liability
P rob IBM and
Limitations
tlon Time
Lan.1-
Reqtllrff-
ments
Fnvlronmental
Impact Othor
Tli.in Hater
Solid Kant*
Onpratlon
and Primary
CoiiqtttiH-iit^
fetal l>ry Ulu>l^n
>u<:tlle
'2525(lemp. Ifl. 7 174
10-49 O.lon 7. 11
•mp.
•0-249 1.07 ZI.S
mp.
V50 9.95 199
la H
2SO 1.19 .M.ll
-mp.
fin ».no S9.<»
o
co
-------
TABLE VII1-113
rranmRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREnTMRNT TRCIMDIXKIV
HIM FKKROir; foiiHl>Fm:r;
Treatment and/or
Control Methods
C. Polymer ndilttion-
Increascs solids
removal liy
elllianrlnq floe
formation. Solids
are removed In
step B and are in
addition to the
solids Indicated
In step H. Used
in conjunct if in
with step B.
Result I ntj Rf fluent
Levels for Crll leal
C'niistltu»nl s
twj/l
Ammonia l.O
Antimony 0.2
Cadmium 0.1
Cup|>ei (1.2
fluoride 1(1
lion S
Lead 2
Hanq.inrse S
Phenols CI.G
Susp.iiollds T>
Oil t Gre.ise 21)
Zinc r,
(ill • f.-1)
t
Status and
Reliability
Hi .lely usi>d n 1 his
process ami n other
similar fount iy
opeialloiis. Mt;o vi*ry
widely used n other
foundry and lulustrial
waste trtMtmciit
>ippl irjt ions .
Problnn anil
Limitations
Pel iodlf clranlnq
aivl reqular
inHinli'liance of feed
.•iyslvn must ho
provided, c.ire must
li*» taken in polymer
solution mkeup.
tlon Tim
1 mmth
Lan-l-
Reqiil re-
Men ts
Incliidffd In
step B.
Impact otln-r
Tlian Water
Crfjfier dlsfmsal
of BO lids must
be provided.
Solid Waste
Generation
•nd PrtiMry
Const 1* iH*iit.s
Icneral pa an
Hlditlonal u. 27
Ibs of dry sol Ids
•cr ton of metal
^lured. Based on a
. lud-je wltli S%
solids, an additional
..4 Ibs of Mildqe
ire qeneratrnl for
•ach Inn of nn^tal
oured.
ilia _pcr daj^
Vtal lii^ Slud-je
XILtllO
2Sllemp. 4*1. ] 'Illr,
2SO,.m|-. 57O III. 40O
»-4'> 2."»ll S1.f>
.11-249 79. n 111.
•2*jllfm|>. 27ft 5S20
Ml 1
7*inr«i|<. 13 f,f,(l
25O c«|i. H 1 . 2 1 t,l,O
-------
TABLE VII1-113
FOUNDRY OPKRftTlrMS
cnNTHOI. AND TRBftTMKNT TECIVIOISXiY
P.iqe 4
M»'ltilHj Fut nacp Situhhers
Trt'Almonl .in«l/or
Control Hi*lli'wls
Li. V.ji.utun 1- i ] LIT -
LK-WiiLci s thi- sIu'Kn
K>N»jve h.
Filtr.ilf is
fUtllMtfil tO
tKMitr.il i zat if HI tank.
Pesul t Inq Ef f luonl.
Levels for Critical
Const 1 tueiit s
Saw* au 5,1 c|» r.
Status ami
RnllabllUy
Wj.li-ly I,S«M| in this
dtiJ s iml Idr o|"-i .it i , >n;
of ot hf r found l Mrs .
Also, vnry wiil«>ly
iiKp<) i n f oiiti'lr y
i 1 wasl e
t r edl mot it
.il'l'l i' a* Ions.
rrot>Inm Arxl
l.linttatlotis
RtMjnlrir mo inl rn.nu e
is HPt-c-ssaiy.
tlon Time
^ months
l,an-l-
Requt rc-
•wntu
U|> (o 10' X
So'
Env 1 rr>n*M?ntfl t
|m( irt oMi-r
Tlt^n Wal*>r
Pr«»('et so 1 i'1-i
ill K|n*>rrtJ Ion of nlxMit
7'»-J Jhs of f 1 Her
fflkw pf-r ton of
mr-tal .
Tons nf cake jx;r rtay
Hi^td_l Tons
Ductile
• 2'i(l. 4.H2
-------
TABLE VIII-113
COHTWIL Mm TWATMBHT
MlR IERROUS rOONDRIES
"e't|'»9 Furnaca Si-ruLbetB
To-atmnit and/or
Control Nethuds
r*|>ltiyi*i]
B. Rui-ycle Tank and
Pu»t>s - recycles
all waste%Mt«ra
bairli tu |iioco!«a.
Re*ullln<) Efflm-nt
Lewis fur Critical
ConatltiRiits
19/1
(••onla O
l\ntl«nny O
raitaiiun u
:o|.|>er O
•^luoriiie O
lion O
.r*l n
ImqaneKn O
•henuls U
!usp. Solids O
>il and Gtease O
tine O
•II
Status and
Reliability
Widely us.-d In tills
|>rtM:ess as wt*ll as
otlicr fonralry aeltlnq
operations.
Prabl«M ami
Limitation*
Perio'llc rleanlnq
•lay he requited.
Treatawnt |>rucea>
u|>»ct vould result
In excess discharge
of solids which
•light acciMiilate In
recycle tank.
Rinjular PUM|>
maintenance is
netrnssary to insure
rucyclo ofveral Ions.
l«pl«Mntl-
tlon Tim
1 win tli
Lawl-
Requlre-
•ents
ll|> to 2(1' m 2(1
Environmental
iMf-act iHlMr
Tlian Hater
None
Solid "ante
Gnwraklon
and PrllMry
C"n^tl t wilts
Sol !•!• are rnriveil
In •tp|> B.
-------
TABLE VIII-114
FrUINIIRY OrEKRTlONS
CONTROt. AND TRFJYTMKMT TECIBIt)U)OY
KOR KERR(HIS FCHINPRIKS
Treatment ami/or
Cont rol Methods
A. S«-t t 1 In-) Tank with
Pr.iif-mt - prov i«|p-~
pi Im.iry sol id:;
r.-iw.v.il
H. Pf-cryclc Pumps -
t-» ptovldc ifcyrlo
of inn* of nr.N,f>sB
Wast '_'Wjt_ •'! .S
Result In-] effluent
l.t*vo]9 for Critical
Const 1 t'lenti
my/1
Amnonla O.f>
Fluor i<1o in
Iron 1
l^ad 0.2
M.ini|aiM>se . 1
Phenols 0.2
Stir.p. Sol ids 30
Oi 1 fc Crease IS
Siilf Me 2.5
Z i nc 3
pH f>- 9
AMmmla 0
Fluoridp O
Iron (
LP.T! f)
M iii<|,itn>sH 0
IMu- no Is ft
Simp. Sol ids O
Oil fi, fir ease O
SulM .lo- l>
7. i iir 0
Status and
Reliability
Ih-.rd in a number of
pi ant s employ f nq
Mi i s pr o< oss , and in
f% varjoty of other
fomidi y and (rvhis-
tr ial waste tri^«t -
mo nt appl icut ions .
H[dt*1y used in plants
with thin prfwfsi and
1 n a wide vai let y of
ot hf.-r f otindry and
inilnst i i ii \ w.lut e
1 roatmrnt appl icat Ion
Problem* and
Limitation!
Periodic cleaning
is r<;«|u i red. [)ra<)oni
f 1 iqht s re'iuirc
per iodic repair
ainl/or rppl accmont .
Mn^u 1 ar ma i nt **naiir-e
is imrcsnary to
Insurt- pi uper
i pcycl o o[>er at ion .
tlon Ttntf*
3 months
1 month
Laifl-
Reqnl re-
wwnts
Up to 40'xOO*
6* x f>'
Envl roiim«*ntal
Impact Otlipr
Tli-in Hater
Pro|N?r d lspos.il
of sol Ids must
bt: prov iilf^d.
Duct.
flia^
M..I 1
None
Solid Haat«
G^noral Ion
and Primary
Const itucMil n
("-onnrates .ibout 0. 14
Ibs of dry soliila por
t«»n of BM.'tn 1 |*otii rd .
Raised on a dta'jout
sludge with 2S* solid-;
about O.Ob Ibs of
sltidqe 1 •; O1-'1'^*' *it ed
for ea<-h ton of moral
pouted .
Ib/day of solids:
Metal Dry f.ludrj
'"o 1Z' 7M !«?...
^2SO rmp. 14 Sf,
>2SO cmp. 1 17 r,4H
<250 omp. 1 1 41
>2r.O nnp. 1 ) 212
Soll'l«* i^mnvc.l in
KI.I-II A.
-------
TABLE VIII-115
OPBKnTHMS
CONTROL null TREIrTHKNT TKCIMOI/XiY
FOH PKHHOIIS FOUNDRIES
Paqo 1
rROTFSS casting ijjueiu:h an.l Hold Cool Iny Derations
TKratment and/or
Contml Met lux Is
A. R«>tt 1 ittq Tank
vttli ririKinut -
l>rnvii|<>s primary
!inti
Fluoride 1
Iron 1
Susp. Solids 150
pll f.-9
Status and
Reliability
Widely ii sod In this
process and in a wide
of other foundry
treatment rtppl li-at lun
Problems and
Limitations
Pptlo>llc clcanlmi
rp<|iilrrd. Ur«v|out
flitlhts nay re-
pair or M;pt.iccinnnt .
{•pleMenta-
tlon Tim
) Months
Lan-l-
Rcqnlre-
•enls
IS1 x 10-
envlroiwental
1 M| •art otli^r
Tlian Hater
Pro|^>r solids
dis|*»sal ro^pjircu
Duut.
Cray
Noll.
Steel
Solid Haste
General ICHI
and Primary
Constituents
O*nt>r^it-rfi a|if*rfixi-
•alrly 1.7 Ibn of dry
pol ids per ton of
•et .1 1 |mir nd . Hdfi'f*!
on drarjout wl th 25%
solids. al.oiit 15 His
Of lliaqi'llt K«»l i'lfi |MT
ton tif m>tal |Mnrr<.tl.
Ibs/day of solids:
Hetal Dfjf_ K\
•250 H»p. 1050 4,200
•2511 tMp. 2WO 11.9011
250 t*V- 2S6O 10,2011
2SO n>|i. 2910 11.7OO
-25O rt^i. H20 J.2NO
250 n«|.. 4'X) 1.97H
-250 n»p. 7r.O 3.0SO
-------
TABLE VIII-115
OTKKJITIOMS
l-ONTROO. AND TREHTHKHT TECltlOUlGY
COR KtBJ'lHIS FIJUNDK IKS
Pa<|e 2
Cast 1119 y)iiciK:li and Mold OH>| tug O|'erat inns __
TroAtmmtt ami/or
Control Netli<>i)3
B. Cool Inq Tower -
to prov tHo heat.
removal capcthi] it y
C, Recycle Pumps -
to tecycle IOO%
of al 1 wast e-
wat r>r s Kick to
Result Inq Effluent
Levels for Critical
Constituent *5
Same as Step A
Fluor Me 0
1 TOM (J
Susp. Sol ids (I
Oi 1 1 lir unse 0
Statua am)
Reliability
Usi'J in a number oF
appl icat ions with
this pror<;ns as wi-1 1
oi|M;r tonn.lry OIL!
industrial -J| pi ica-
tiont.
Usi-d in a number of
appl icat ions In this
and ot her f ountli y
and i itoJustr i.il
prfM-osses.
Limitations
ami m.i int.enance
requiretl.
Regular maintenance
i s nece ssar y t o
a:-.Biire ptpr re-
cyule opei at lon.t.
Inplenenta-
tlon Time
6 months
1 month
Lan-1-
Requl r*»-
20f x 30*
r»f x 5'
Environmental
Impart Other
of sol ids i|en-
t-ratfd In Step A
must be prov liifl
A 1 <|ac i <1r* may IK*
rp'jn 1 1 «M .
None
SolM Maste
Generation
am) Primary
Constituents
Sol ills are removed i n
Step A
Sol ids removetl in
iJtcp A.
*-*
-------
TABLE VI11-116
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TRKHTHBMT TECIINONIT.Y
KOK PKHKOIIS KKINOHIKS
Paqe t
Sand Hashing Ojvrat ions
Tri-atWHit and/or
Control He t hods
K«|.|MV<|
A. liraqnut tank -
provides primary
solids rvnov.il
for entire waste
flow
6. Recycle Pumps -
recycles 'Mi» of
V'lstewalet s flow
to pr«ici'Hs.
C. Line Addition - to
provide |>fl ail-
just HMHit fintl con-
tn>l. llsivl In
ccl. Hi auout
flinhls may rci|ulr>>
ficricxllc repaii
and/or rcplar-emeni .
Halntenance
lequired on a re*
(|ular basis to
maintain recycle
ami pi event treat-
ment system over-
load.
Maintenance Is re-
quired tu assure
pll cont rol and
1 ime feed systems
arc f nnft loninu.
ptO|>erly. Control
of |rll Is necessary
to maintain the
df>slrt>d leVfl of
phenol neslriiftion.
Implementa-
tion Time
1 months
1 month
1 month
Lan.l-
Requlre-
mentl
Up to 2O'xf>O1
51 x 10'
Included
with Step E.
Environmental
Impact other
Tlian HatT
None
None
Uust collection
wh 1 1 e mi 1 oad incj
|iowtlrrf.Ml lime
must lie provided
Solid Waste
Geiwratlun
•nd Primary
Constituent*
Solids can be returned
to Band wash 1 IK} ami
rcclamat ion fi|«ral ion.
SollrlH renovod In
Step A.
Inrludfd in Stop E.
—I
I—'
U1
-------
TABLE VII1-116
FOUNDRY OPFRATIONS
COdTHOI, HMD TRKIWMF.NT TECinlol/»iY
I OR FKKIIntlS r< HINDI'I Ł51
Treatment and/or
Control Metno»ls
D. Potassium Pemwn-
<)ll ai«l icai-lion.
tint; conl tol .
Usi.fl In «:onj"m-'-
r, E, ,111.) F.
F. ClarifliT -
ptov lnr. Sol |,ls
OiJ I f ii ease 3T(
pit 7.5-9
Ammon ia 5
Chromium u. 1
Iron 0.5
l,e ad 0.4
Manroi.-ess and in a
very wide variety
of other f oimjt y
treatment appl ira-
t ions .
Problems »rH
Limitations
As this chemical is
a strong oxidizing
•igent , caution must
be enerclzed In
stor ago and handl -
liu|. The leact Ion
i.s pll und time de-
(H?inle.nt . Feed
routine maintenance
Periodic cleaning
required. tlydrauli.
overload would re-
sult in |ioor sol ids
sludge accumulation
results in reduced
and mechanical
over lna
-------
TABLE VIII-116
POUMMiV OPERATIONS
COHTROL AND TRBnTMtnT TW.'IWOUJIJY
FOR FRHHflUS FCDIMIRIKS
Page 1
PRfTTSS Sai»l washing derations
Treatment and/or
Control Hethods
KmpltiyfMl
F. Polymer Addition -
to provide qreatcr
degree of solids
settleablllty
by enchaiiclnq flor
format ion. Used
in coniuiu-t Ion
with Steps C, D.
ami R.
<;. Vacuum Filter -
dewatcr tlie sludge
removed In step E.
The filtrate is
recycled to the
reaction tank.
Result Inq Effluent
Levels fur Critical
Constituent's
m.J/1
Same as Step E.
Same as Stfp E.
Status and
Reliability
Widely used in this
and othel foundry
and Industrial waste
treatment applica-
tions.
Widely used in this
and a nianber of
other foundry and
industrial waste
treatment applica-
tions.
Problems and
Limitations
Feed system
requires regular
cleaning and main-
tenance, fare must
be used in maklnq
up solution. Pro|ier
feud ratu must |M»
maintained.
Koqular maintenance
aii>i media replace-
ment are necessary.
Implementa-
tion Time
1 month
2 months
Land-
Requlre-
•anrs
Included with
Step E.
15'« 20'
environmental
Impact Other
Tlian Hater
Proper disposal
of solids remove*
In Step E is
Pro|«r solids
disfosal must
be provided.
Solid Halt*
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Included with Step e.
Based on sludqe de-
watering to obtain a
filter cake with 2S»
solids. alM>ut 6.21 Ibs
of filter cake are
generated for each
ton of sand liandled.
Tills would yield
1.70 tons f.f filler
rake fi>r flay foi steel
foundr ies.
-------
TABLE VIII-116
FOUNDRY OPEHJVTJItlE
CIIHTHOI, AND TRKIVTHFKT TECINOIO;Y
FOR FERKIIIIS rutlNIIIUKr.
Paije
PRfX-ESS
Saml Washing O|H*rat ions
Tn-atmHiit ami/or
Omlrol HotlKxH
I-MI.I..V-.1
M. Recycle Tank and
Pimps - to lerycli-
luit-k t«j prm-css
RPSUP in-) err iiHMit
[Aivels for Critical
Const i ti»*Mit 3
IB.J/1
Amnon 1 ft *>
I'lir um i um 0
lrf-T>J II
Haiiqonesc 0
Ni'-ko] (I
Plti-nnls 4!
.Susp. fki Ilils 0
Oil & Gruase 0
pH
Status and
Reliability
Usrrt In ^ vari«'ty of
f oumli y .iinl iii-lu.s-
apL'l icat ioi»R -
Problens tnd
l,lmUntlort«
Treatment prfw:eafl
iiftftct m iqhf dc[iosl t
Pel iuilic cleaning
an>l m^ 1 tit cnanco
nr e t rqti { t dl .
Implementa-
tion Tim
I month
Latvl-
R«qiilre*
net its
15' x IV
Environmental
Impart utli*-r
Tli'in Hat *»r
None
Solid Waate
Genorat l«m
amJ Primary
Const 1 tu^iits
Sol Ids rpmoviNl In
Strp K.
co
-------
TABLE VIII-117
FfHIHIlHY OPERATIONS
CUNTIUlL ANU TRK/VTHKHT TKCIKOI/XiY
H1H MAflNRUIIIM rolllliMIKS
PROCESS —^iJndiim
Trfatnrnt and/or
Control Methods
lw(.l.,y.l
A. Sett. ling - to pro-
viilo |>i imry
SO I Ills TtHHIV4|.
H. Recycle |iunp^ - to
recycle a\ 1 |»rt>-
ct-ss wastewatet s
RrsuHlnii rf fluent
Lewis fur Critical
COIIStlllieilt!!
nwj/]
N.i(|nlar maintenance
Is a mist.
lM|ilenenta-
tlon Timn
1 nonlli
1 nnntli
Lawl-
Requlre-
Ments
1O1 « 1O'
S1 x 5'
EnvlroiKM-ntal
(•pact Otrwr
Titan Water
Pnt|>or r^lids
«llf:|msal is re-
«riiir i»l .
Hone
Soil* Haste
Generation
and Primary
Constltunnts
Onerat»s O.OH Ib* of
«lry sol iiln each 'toy
((I.O67 Ibs |<*'r t'iri of
•etal |>MireH| Hlilcli
would be re«nv
-------
TABLE VIII-118
FOUNDRY
COHTKOl. AND TflEATMEMT TECIMOLOGV
FOR HA'THESIIIM FOUNDHIKS
Haqe I
PROCTSS
Tri'ttmtmt and/or
Control Methods
Kmp|..y.-,l
A. Settling tank
with a draqout
mechanism - try
provide primary
sol ids removal.
B. Recycle Pumps -
to recycle ail
process waste-
wateis btick to
|>rfx:es3.
Result Inq Effluent
Levels for Critical
Const 1 tiH?nts
•KJ/1
Haqneslm 1
Fluoride 1.2
Phenols 1.1
Susp. Solids 2S
nil ( Grease 1O
V» f,-9
Haqneslin O
Fluoride 0
Phenols O
Susp. Solids O
Oil 1 r.reaso O
HI
Status and
Reliability
Used In a wide
variety of foundry
dust collection
systcra-
t ions.
Problmn nnd
Limitation!
Reqular maintenance
Iti required. Drag-
nut fli(|hta requiro
|H?rlodtc repair
and/or rcplacciiicnt.
Tcriuiilc cleaning
nay he nocessary.
Regular maintenance
IR required.
Implementa-
tion Time
3 months
1 Months
Lan-l-
Requl re-
ments
10' x 15'
5' x 5'
Environmental
Impact Other
Tlian Hater
rrt>|M>r !>ollds
disfosal must
be provide*!.
None
Solid Mate
Oneratlfrfi
and Primary
Constituent*
Minimal. Infrequent
removal is only
called for. Konerates
n.l Ins of dry solids
per day (O.OOI Ibs
|>et ton of sand
handledl.
Solids removed In
Step A.
ro
o
-------
TABLE VIII-119
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TRKATMKNT IKIINOUIRV
FOR 7INC FUIINDRIKS
CASTING QUENCII
-J
ro
Trnal.ncnt and/or Control
Hoi l,o,ls ix.loyr.1
A. Settling tank * |>rnvtrinary suttllni] uf
Hie raw waste load
B. Surface skiixlnq - removes
surface of wastewatur
C. Recycle pun|is - recycle
all waters OH qpt hack t<
process)
Rump |>ad
Knvl rtinmontal
ImfMct Other
Than Water
Solidi disi-cmal.
However, i f RHP in
followed, sol Ids
cles of zinc which
cou Id 1 >e me 1 ted
again as scrap.
|i|s|>o
-------
TABLE VIII-120
ro
ro
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBDRRS
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECIIHOI^GY
FDR ZINC FOUNDRIES
Paue 1
Treare'e and rise to
surfdce where they arc
skimmed. Used in conjunc-
tion with stops f and B.
Resulting Ef-
fluent levels
for Crlt leal
Const 1 tiii-n( s
Phenols BS
SS
OtG 7OO
7,lnc 20
pll 3
SS
O«3 7OO
Zinc 2O
pll )
Phenols >SO
SS
OIG 50
Zinc 20
pll 3
Status nnil
Reliability
Used by several of
these operations tn
addition to a wide
array of other oil
repiova 1 a|>|i 1 1 CM -
tions.
these operations In
addition to* be Ing
widely practiced in
similar oil removal
appl i cat Ions.
Used by several of
these oj^ rations In
ad
-------
TABLE VIII-120
FOIINIlRY OPERATlOtlS
CONTROL AND TRKATMKNT TKCIIMOIflGY
FOR ZINC FOIINDRIKS
Pane 2
NKI.TING FURNACE SCMIDDGRS
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed
D. Lime addition - for pll
adjustment. Used in con-
junction with step E.
K. Potassium permanganate
addition - for phenol
destruction. Used In
conjunction with step D.
The pll must Ite controlled
in tins range to provide
satisfactory phenol
destruction.
F. Polymer adoption - poly me
is added to waste stream
as it enters the clarlfle
cente r we 1 1 . Po I ymi; r
addition enhances floe
formation.
Remitting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
!3/A
Phenols >SO
SS
oic SO .
Zinc 2O
HI 7-9
Phenols 5
SS
OiG W
Zinc 20
pH 7-9
Phenols 5
SS
otG SO
7.lnc 20
pll 7-'J
Status and
Hel lability
I. Imp addition for
pll adjustment is a
very Cf*mmn practice
In Industrial appli-
cations.
Industrial applica-
tions have demon-
strated the capa-
bilities of this
ty|*e of system.
Widely practiced In
this as well as in
many other Indus-
tries.
Problems and
Limitations
Proper maintenano
ia required In kri
the pH control of
limp feed fimctini
inn properly.
Caution must be
exercised In
storage and han-
dling as this
chemical is a
strong oxldlzlnq
agent. Reaction
Is pll dependent
and mtist |H» main-
tained between pll
8 and 9.
Care must lie takei
to maintain pro|x-i
feed rate.
fm|t|ff*m"nt'i-
tlon Time
2 months
P
-
2 months
1 month
Land
Meinilre-
ment H
IS'xlO'
Included
with step
O
No addi-
tional
land re-
quired
Rnvl roimtcnl a 1
Impact Other
Than UYit.er
Oust collection
while unloading
jiowdcred 1 ime must
|M> provided.
Any dust whi le
loading must he con-
tained.
Sludge removed in
steps G and II must
lie properly dis-
posed.
Solid Waste
Generation
and Primary
Constituents
Included with step G
and II solids removal
Included with steps
G and H solids re-
moval.
Included .
-------
TABLE VII1-120
-J
ro
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TF.CIINOI/XIY
TON ZINC FOUNDRIES
Paqe 3
MELTIHn FURNACE SCRUDUERS
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Employed
G. Clarification - to provide
solids removal by settling
and phenol destruction
accomplished in previous
Steps)
II. Vacuum filter dewaters the
The filtrate la recycled
to the neutralization
tank.
BAT ALTERNATE 1 1 - No equt|>m<
Tighten scruMwr system to a
achieve complete recycle
(zero discharge).
Resulting Ef-
fluent levels
for Critical
Constituents
Phenols 5
SS 3O
OfcG 20
Zinc 5
pll 7-9
Same as G
it is needed.
Phenols O
SS 0
OS,G 0
Zinc 0
pll
Status and
Hel Inbl 1 1 ty
Widely practiced In
thin and In many
appl Icat Ions .
widely practiced In
variety of other
Industries . Dewatei
to 20% dry solids
In filter cake can
reasonah ly he ex-
pected.
Pract Iced in this
group and in a
number of oilier
si ml lar instal la-
lions.
Problems and
l.lmi tatlons
Hydraulic overload
results in poor
Sludge cannot be
allowed to accumu-
late to an exces-
sive amount. Level
of oil removal only
possible when used
with steps A. B, C,
O and F.
Hcqul res regular
form properly.
Crude pll control
needed , however till A
Is currently being
•ra<-t Icrd.
Implementa-
tion Time
IS months
2 months
None -
equl pntrnt in
use
Land
It.fiulre-
menln
50'x50'
Included
wl th G
None -
In use
Envl rottmental
Impact other
Than Water
Pro|»er sludge dis-
posal must be pro-
vided.
Proper sludge dis-
posal is reqtil rod.
Minimal to none -
If current practic
aro followed.
Solid Wante
(Jeitorat Ion
ai»d Trimviry
Constitui-rita
Generates approxi-
mately 9.7 Ibs of
•olldfl p*»r ton of
cine poured or
about B50 Iba/day.
Assuming wet sludge
with S\ solids,
about 194 Ibs of wet
stud'je is generated
per ton of metal
poured or fl.5 tons
of wet sludge |>er
day.
At 25% solids con-
centrations, the
vacuum filter would
dewater the above
sludges to about
3B.H Ihi uf cake
!>er ton of metal
poured or 1.7 tons
of filter cake per
day.
Refer to current
practices.
-------
TABLE VIII-120
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND THMTHKNT TBCIIf»>Uin»
FOR ZINC FOUNDRIES
PROCKSS:
HELTINR FURNACE SCRIIBKERS
ro
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Kmploynd
BAT - ALTERNATE 12
Includes all of BIT (steps A
thnjuqhll) in addition toi
1. Recycle tank and pumps -
to provide return of HPT
effluent to meltlini fur-
nace scruhlier system.
DAT - ALTERNATE 11
Includes KPT steps A.B.C.D,
F.G and II In addition to:
J. Sulfide addition - added
In conjunction with neu-
tralization to enhance
mi-tals precipitation I'-sp.
7.1m.).
Result Inq Kf-
f 1 uent l« ve 1 s
for Crlt lc.il
Const 1 t wilts
IWJ/1
Phenols 0
SS O
OSG O
Zinc O
pll
Pheno 1 9 > SO
SS
(UG SO
Zinc 2>l
pll 7-0
Status and
K.-l lability
Returns a tleatcd
water as mnltlnq
furnace scruhlier
makeup. Refers to
a nimiber of foundry
O|M» rat ions which
practice either
1O01 recycle in the
scrubber system or
only very crude
treatment prior to
recycle.
Practiced In simi-
lar Industrial
applications for
nwlals precipita-
tion.
Problems and
Limitations
Recycle tank would
need to be cleaned
l»eriodlcally and
more frequently In
the event of pro-
cess upsets.
Handling and odor
control must IN?
carefully piacticed
Tmplmenl.a-
tlon Time
1 month
1 monl h
Land
He«|iilro-
•"••"''
lo'xio1
Ho addi-
tional
l.ind
required
KnvlroiMrntal
Impact oilier
Than Mater
Solids which may
accumulate In lank
slum Id be dis|msed
of proper ly .
Requires projw-r
sllldqe HiflpoHfll
flflor control is
im|K)l taut .
Solid Haste
Ceimration
and Primary
Conntltuents
,
Sludqe r
-------
TABLE VIII-120
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
roNTmn. AND TRI:ATMI:HT WHNOI/ICY
FOR 7.IMC- FOIINDR1KS
MIll.TING IIIRNACE ECRIJHBF.R.S
Treatment and/or Control
Methods Kmployod
K. Filter - provide addi-
tional suspended solids
removal prioi to activate*:
car lion f 1 1 Lrat Ion. Back-
wash returned to neutrali-
zation tank.
I.. Activated carbon filter
Provide* for phenol
removal by adsorption
on carbon.
Resulting Kf-
f luont I,OVP 1 a
for Cr It If ill
Const i t ti'-nta
tTKJ/l
Phenols >SO
SS 10
OfiG 5
Zinc 0.1
pit 7-'J
Phenols 0. 1
SS 10
OtG 5
Zinc 0.1
pM 7-9
Status «nd
P. -I int.) Illy
Used in a wide
ranq** of simi lar
Indnstri al appl 1 ca-
tions.
Trans for red tech-
nology f rom othnr
industrial appl 1 ca-
tions.
Problem* and
Limitation^
Surges mist be con-
trolled and plant
upsets must be
avoided to prevent
fouling and plug-
g 1 nq .
Maintenance re-
<|uired and (*erioHlc
ii-moval and retjen-
eration of carbon
Is needed.
Implement.!-
lion Timo
6 montlis
6 months
Iwi nd
Pe.pii re-
RK'lll ft
20'x20l
20'x40'
F.nvl rnnmontal
Imf>act Ot her
Than Hater
Disposal of filter
backwash sol Ids,
Energy Is consumed
during carbon re-
generation.
Solid Haate
r,oiier«tlofi
and 1 rlmary
Constituents
r>ne rates about 11
Iba of dry solids
per day, nbout 0.13
Ibs p*r ton of metal
l«oured, which would
IHS removed from the
system via G and II.
Minimal effect -
su 1 i ds removed 1 n
steps G, n, and K.
-------
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
INTRODUCTION
Effluent limitations required by the Act and based on the degree of
effluent reduction attainable through application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT) have not been proposed nor
promulgated by EPA for the Metal Molding & Casting Category. As a
consequence, national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES)
permits have been issued on a plant by plant basis. Such permits have been
issued by states with approved NPDES permit programs or by EPA through its
regional offices.
Though the July 1, 1977 date for achievement of effluent limitations
through the application of BPT technology has passed, the BPT technology
described in this section is reflective of the technology installed and in
use by metal molding and casting plants before and during calendar year
1976. In fact, many plants had BPT technology installed several years
prior to 1976. Therefore, the BPT technology identified herein is
representative of what would have constituted BPT technology if effluent
limitations had been previously promulgated.
In that BPT technology forms the foundation for toxic pollutant control
through the application of best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) the development of BPT technology is necessary as a
technical prerequisite for BAT. And as such, BPT technology is an integral
part of the BAT treatment train.
In addition, BPT provides a floor which may not be exceeded by an exception
granted under the provisions of sections 301(c) and (g) of the Act.
Section 301(c) allows the Administrator to modify the requirements of BAT
under subsection (b)(2)(A) with respect to any point source for which a
permit application is filed after July 1, 1977 upon a showing by the owner
or operator of such point source satisfactory to the Administrator that
such modified requirements will represent the maximum use of technology
within the economic capability of the owner or operator, and will result in
reasonable further progress toward the elimination of the discharge of
pollutants. Section 301(g) allows the Administrator to modify the
requirements of BAT under subsection (b)(2)(A) with respect to the
discharge of pollutants other than conventional pollutants, toxic
pollutants, and the thermal component of discharges from any point source
upon showing by the owner or operator of such point source satisfactory to
the Administrator that: (1) such modified requirements will result at a
minimum in compliance with the requirements of BPT, (2) such modified
requirements will not result in any additional requirements on any other
727
-------
point or nonpoint source, and (3) such modification will not interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of water quality.
The BPT technology is generally based upon the average of the best existing
performance by plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within
each subcategory. This average, however, is not based upon a broad range
of plants but rather upon performance levels achieved by exemplary plants.
In subcategories where present control and treatment practices are
uniformly inadequate, a higher level of control may be required, if the
technology to achieve the higher levels can be practicably applied. BPT
emphasizes not only treatment facilities at the end of the manufacturing
process (end-of-pipe), but includes control technologies within the process
itself, if such in plant control technologies are considered to be normal
practice by plants within the point source category.
FACTORS CONSIDERED
In the development of BPT, consideration must be given to:
1. The manufacturing processes employed.
2. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
3. Nonwater quality environmental impact (Including energy requirements).
4. The total cost of application of technology in relation the effluent
reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.
5. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of control
techniques.
These factors have been considered and their consideration enumerated
throughout this document. The subcategorization of the metal molding and
casting category inherently considered the manufacturing processes employed
and the size and age of equipment and facilities involved. Section IV
presented the details of this consideration. The nonwater quality
environment impacts, including energy requirements and the consideration of
the total cost of application of technology -in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits to be achieved from the application of BPT were detailed
in Section VIII. Specific engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques have been considered and these
considerations are narrated within the description of the approach to BPT
development.
APPROACH TO BPT DEVELOPMENT
The BPT technology level represents the average of the best existing
performance of plants of various sizes, ages, processes or other common
728
-------
characteristics. For a proper determination of the best performance of
plants to be made, only plants of similar characteristics are compared.
Therefore, appropriate subcategorization, through consideration of the
factors enumerated in Section IV, assures that plants grouped into a
subcategory or subcategory process segment are sufficiently similar in
various characteristics, e.g., type of metal cast, process employed, etc.,
that a reasonable comparison of plants and their performances can be made.
Before presentation of the subcategory by subcategory rationale used in the
determination of the average of the best performances of plants in a
subcategory, an overview of the approach taken in the development of BPT
explains many of the elements of the approach common to all subcategories.
Plant performances were evaluated in light of the treatment technologies
installed, process wastewater flow, and effluent levels achieved by the
technologies. The evaluation was based on the plant survey data, raw and
treated process wastewater sampling data, and the other sources of
information as identified in sections III, V, and VII. The plants which
have demonstrated exemplary performance through reduced effluent flow and
superior pollutant removal through the application of exemplary . treatment
technology provides the supporting basis for BPT level of treatment. Many
of these plants were sampled because of their exemplary performance.
The initial step in the development of BPT was a review of the wide variety
of technologies available for removal of pollutants associated with foundry
process wastewaters. Each technology was evaluated in terms of the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through its application to plants within a
subcategory. The analytical data developed from the sampling program and
other analytical data from other categories with process wastewaters
similar in characteristics to foundry process wastewaters was used
extensively in analyzing the effluent levels various technologies can
achieve. As a result of comparing the capabilities of various
technologies, plants were identified with technologies installed that
demonstrated exemplary performance. These plants helped establish the
basis for determining an appropriate BPT level of treatment. In most
cases, BPT treatment is identical to the technologies installed at these
best plants in the subcategory. In a few instances, BPT technology was
transferred from another subcategory or category. Such technology
transfers are detailed subcategory by subcategory where appropriate.
After identification of BPT treatment technology, consideration was given
to the determination of an appropriate BPT effluent flow. Again, the
plants within each subcategory were compared using the plant survey data
and sampling data. This comparison of plants, one with another, was used
to identify to what extent effluent flow can be reduced. This comparison
of plants involved several activities after which conclusions were reached
concerning BPT treatment model flow, recycle flow and effluent flow.
729
-------
Initially, the BPT treatment model flow, the volume of process wastewater
through the treatment system, was determined. The use of the production
normalizing parameters, i.e., tons of metal poured, and tons of sand as
discussed in Section IV, as an integral part of the flow analysis accounted
for differences in the actual production levels from plant to plant and
placed the flow information of all plants within the subcategory on a
production normalized basis for comparison and analysis. The best flow
rates used in determining the BPT model flows are based on the production
normalized flow rates of plants which have demonstrated conservative water
use in the metal molding and casting processes as identified in Section IV.
In some instances, for the purposes of analysis, the process wastewater
flow through the treatment system was equated with the applied water flow
through the manufacturing process. For those processes where the process
water is recycled prior to treatment, i.e., internal recycle of dust
collection scrubbers, the BPT treatment model flows for those processes are
higher than the actual process wastewater flow from the process. In
effect, for those processes the size of the treatment system is overstated.
The BPT model flow rate for each subcategory, the actual number itself, was
derived by determining the average of the best applied water flow rates as
identified in the plant survey data and sampling data. The best applied
water flow rates were identified by ranking all the plant applied flow data
from lowest to highest production normalized flow and analyzing the
resulting distribution.
For some subcategories, a distinct partioning of the flow data occurred
with a clustering of plants with lower flow rates as compared to the flow
rates of other plants. The plants with the lower flow rates were
considered for determining the BPT model flow as the best plants. However,
the -whole body of survey data from these best plants was compared to the
survey data from the other plants to determine any fundamental differences
as to why these plants have lower water use than other plants. No
fundamental technological differences were identified. What did become
apparent after visits to plants and after numerous phone calls to other
plants was the implement ion of a water management policy by many plants.
Many of these plants have reduced their water use to save money. The flow
rates of the best plants were then averaged to determine the average of the
best plants for sizing the BPT model flow and costing the BPT model.
For those subcategory process segments in which a distinct partioning of
the flow rate data did not occur, the median of the distribution of the
flow rate data was identified and all plants with production normalized
flow rates lower than the median value were defined as the best plants.
The flow rates of the best plants were then averaged to determine the
average of the best plants for a subcategory. This analysis led to the
sizing of the BPT treatment models whose costs were detailed in Section
VIII.
730
-------
The next step in the approach to the development of BPT was the
determination of an appropriate effluent load. Noting that the effluent
load is expressed in mass of pollutant per unit of production, as expressed
by the production normalizing parameter, the development of a BPT effluent
load requires the coupling of an exemplary effluent pollutant concentration
with an exemplary effluent flow.
For some subcategories, many plants have achieved a level of performance
that eliminates the discharge of process wastewater pollutants. This is
achieved through treatment identical in many cases to the BPT treatment
model and 100 percent recycle of treated process wastewater. The survey
information provided by these plants was examined and compared to other
plants not achieving as high a level of performance to ascertain any
fundamental technical differences that would prevent a plant from achieving
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Many plants which have not
implemented 100 percent recycle are similar in the type of metal cast,
manufacturing process employed, air pollution control devices, products
produced, and other aspects to those plants which have implemented 100
percent recycle of process wastewater. In attempting to identify factors
that would prevent a plant from achieving no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants, the engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control technology, particularly 100 percent recycle, were
examined.
By far, the largest volume of process wastewater is from air pollution
control equipment, i.e. scrubbers. The recycled scrubber process
wastewater does not come into intimate contact with the casting. The
quality of the casting surface can not be affected by the process
wastewater. In those processes where the casting does intimately contact
the process wastewater, casting quench for example, the duration of contact
with the process wastewater and the effects of water contaminents on the
surface of the castings are minimal. Many plants repeatedly quench
castings in the same old stagnate quench solution.
The effects of total dissolved solids concentration within the recycle
system on the manufacturing processes and air pollution control equipment
was considered. The concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS)
increases and decreases repeatedly depending upon various conditions within
the recycle system. The concentration of TDS increases; through the
addition of dissolved solids in the makeup water added to the system,
through the addition of chemicals to the system, through changes in
pollutant solubilities brought on by changes in pH and temperature of the
process wastewater. The concentration of TDS decreases when the dissolved
solids percipitate out of solution or form suspended solids, or when sludge
is removed from the treatment system. The water removed with the sludge
carries dissolved solids away from the recycle system.
The percipitates formed, when the solubility limits of the dissolved solids
are exceeded, settle out and add to the volume of sludge. Some of the
731
-------
percipitates may form scale within pipes and inhibit flow. However, the
scale formed is continuously eroded away by the larger particulate matter
characteristicly found in the foundry process wastewater. This particulate
matter may take the form of metallic oxides from melting furnances,
granular slag from slag quenching, sand grains from dust collection and
sand washing processes or other large abrasive matter such as metal clips
resulting from the process.
During plant visits, and phone calls to many plants, inquiries were made to
identify operating and maintenance problems, and the solutions implemented
to overcome the problems encountered by plants with high recycle rates,
particularly plants operating with 100 percent recycle of process
wastewater. Information from plants operating under conditions of high TDS
or other conditions conducive to fouling and scaling of pipes, pumps, air
pollution control equipment, etc. (entrainment in air pollution control
equipment of bentonite dusts from sand molding operations, and the
concentration of dissolved solids in extensive recycle systems using makeup
water with high calcium hardness and alkalinity) indicates that through
periodic maintenance, maintaining a proper water balance within the recycle
system and properly operating a well designed treatment system, i.e.,
controlling pH within recommended limits, adding biocides where needed,
etc., fouling and scaling conditions are manageable plant operating
problems, and within the scope of routine maintenance activity.
The analytical water chemistry test data indicates that many plants
operating at 100 percent recycle are operating under severe fouling or
scaling conditions, and these plants continue to operate and have operated
for many years with 100 percent recycle of process wastewater.
Foundries with recycle rates less than 100 percent also may operate under
conditions favorable to fouling and scaling. Information from plants which
had at one time operated at less than 100 percent recycle, i.e., discharged
a process wastewater blowdown, and have since closed the loop and
implemented 100 percent recycle of process wastewater indicates that for a
short transition period after the elimination of the discharge operational
problems were encountered. But the problems were either eliminated or
corrective actions taken to control them shortly after closing the loop.
The following problems were encountered after transition to 100 percent
recycle. The elimination of the blowdown directly affects the volume of
water recirculating within the recycle system. Water usage in effect
becomes unbalanced and steps must be taken to readjust the various flows
within the system. This is accomplished through changes in valve settings,
float or level sensitive switches, and pumping sequences. Many of these
adjustments can be anticipated and steps taken before closing the loop to
reduce upsets in the water balance. In some instances, a balance tank is
installed to collect water which surges in the system as pumps are started
or stopped. This water is later returned to the recirculatory system.
732
-------
One of the more noticeable problems encountered after the transition to 100
percent recycle is the accumulation of excessive sludge or mud in the
settling tanks. As previously indicated, the purpose of the settling
tanks, clarifiers, etc. is to allow for the removal of solids within the
system. Solids removed may be in the form of suspended solids which during
a period of quiescence settle out or in the form of dissolved solids which
precipitate and settle. However, some plants after closing the loop
experienced more than normal amounts of sludge collecting in the settling
tanks or noticed an above normal amount of solids remaining in suspension
within the process wastewater. These conditions were overcome through
adjustments in pH, water balance, and with the addition of settling aids
such as polymers. After transition to 100 percent recycle, more careful
attention to these operating conditions was generally necessary but this
did not require a prohibitive amount of additional labor. These problems
were demonstrated to be manageable problems by the plants involved.
After consideration of these various engineering aspects and determining
what plants are capable of doing in resolving these potential problems, no
technical reasons could be identified which would prohibit a plant from
recycling 100 percent of the process wastewater either at the BPT level of
treatment, or as discussed in Section X at the BAT level of treatment.
Therefore, with no fundamental differences determined, plants with 100
percent recycle were naturally considered the best performers and the
average of the best performance of these plants produced a conclusion that
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants was an appropriate BPT
treatment level for some subcategories.
For those subcategories in which the levels of performance of plants was
not as eminent as those which have achieved the elimination of process
wastewater discharge, the exemplary effluent flows and exemplary effluent
pollutant concentrations were examined to determine the least, i.e., the
best, effluent loads. The exemplary performance of the best plants is
generally achieved through treatment and extensive recycle of process
wastewater. Extensive recycle of process wastewater results in significant
effluent flow reductions. Therefore, review of the degree of recycle
achieved by plants helped to quantify the best effluent flows. In
addition, since the effluent load is a product of flow times pollutant
concentration, analytical test data was extensively used in determining the
best pollutant effluent levels achievable. Since the evaluation of
effluent loads is affected by the particular parameters of the subcategory,
the details of how the best loads were determined are explained for each
subcategory.
733
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF BPT
Aluminum Casting
Plants within the Aluminum Casting Subcategory employ a variety of
manufacturing processes. Comparison among these processes identify enough
dissimilarities between processes, water usage, and the types of pollutants
generated to warrent further grouping of plants into process segments.
These segments are:
Investment Casting Die Casting
Melting Furnace Scrubbers Die Lubricants
Casting Quench
No plant was found to employ all of these manufacturing processes. At
most, no more than two or three of these processes are likely to exist at
any plant. For some plants, only investment casting is performed. With
other plants, only casting quench exists. Due to the difference in the
processes, water usage, and resulting pollutants and difference in the
various process combinations which exist within a plant, it would be
impracticle to develop and implement a BPT treatment level designed for
treatment of combined waste streams from all these various processes.
Therefore, in determining the BPT level of treatment, the plant data was
arrayed by process segment so appropriate technical comparisons among
similar processes could be made. From these comparisons, the average of
the best performances of plants was determined for each process segment.
However, this approach to BPT development does not prohibit a plant with
several of these processes from cotreating the combined process
wastewaters. In fact, this approach provides the permit writer with the
appropriate building blocks in determining the discharge requirements for a
plant cotreating any combination of process wastewaters applicable under
the Aluminum Casting Subcategory. Each process effluent level acts as a
block unto which other appropriate process effluent levels are added to
determine the total allowable effluent.
Investment Casting Process:
Only one plant was identified with any, degree of treatment technology
installed. The treatment provided by the other two plants performing this
method of aluminum casting is uniformly inadequate in light of the
pollutants originating from this procsss. Therefore the BPT treatment
level is based on; (1) the performance of plant 4704 which achieves for all
pollutant parameters the degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of BPT technology and (2) the design effluent levels of
well operated commercially available clarifiers with polymer addition
treating other process wastewaters similar in characteristics to investment
casting process wastewaters. These design parameters are well below the
effluent pollutant concentrations achieved by plant 4704.
734
-------
Comparison of the plant data indicates that plants 6389 and 4704 have the
best effluent flows of the three plants. In addition, plant 4704 produces
the largest yearly production but uses the least amount of water. Plant
5206 was not considered an exemplary plant due to the large volume of
process wastewater produced and the minimal treatment provided. The
average effluent flow is therefore based on the average of the effluent
flows of plants 6389 and 4704. The BPT treatment effluent concentrations
are based on the performance of plant 4704 and transfer of treatment
technology. Sampling data from plant 4704 indicates the presence of the 4
toxic organic pollutants, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane
methyl chloride and trichloroethylene in addition to copper and zinc in the
raw and treated process wastewaters. The approach taken in the development
of BPT treatment for this process segment does not provide for removal of
these organic toxic pollutants, though incidental removal, as indicated by
the sampling data does occur. The control of these organic toxic
pollutants remaining in the BPT effluent is considered under BAT level of
treatment.
1. Treatment Scheme
Process wastewaters drain to a treatment facility in which the process
wastewaters are treated in a clarifier. Polymer is added to the process
wastewaters prior to clarification in order to enhance floe formation. The
clarifier overflow is discharged while the underflow is dewatered using a
vacuum filter. Filter cake is disposed via landfill and the filtrate is
returned to the mix tank. Figure IX-1 presents a flow schematic of the BPT
treatment. Table IX-1 summarizes the BPT effluent levels, control and
treatment technologies, and the estimated costs per production unit.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Flow 26,850 1/kkg (6,450 gal/ton)
mq/1 k/kkq(lbs/1000 Ibs)
Suspended Solids' 80 2.15
Oil & Grease 10 0.269
Aluminum 0.2 0.005
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Flow:
This effluent flow rate is deemed practical, as it is the average of the
best plants. Plant 4704 achieves this level of effluent flow.
735
-------
Suspended Solids: Effluent Level - 80 mg/1
This effluent level represents both the observed and expected performance
capability of flocculation and clarification equipment and is based on
sampled plant performance in addition to being similar to that achieved in
many industrial process wastewater treatment systems. On the basis of
demonstrated treatment system capabilities associated with the application
of this BPT technology, this proposed effluent level is considered to be
reasonable and practicable.
Oil and Grease: Effluent Level - 10 mg/1
The effluent oil and grease concentration reflects the ability of the
sampled plant and of other process wastewater treatment systems to entrap
the oil and grease in the solids removed via flocculation and
clarification. Plant 4704 achieves this level of pollutant reduction and
based on expected and observed oil and grease removal capabilities, this
proposed level is considered to be reasonable and practicable.
Aluminum: Effluent Level - 0.2 mg/1
This level is based on the flocculation and clarification performance
capabilities demonstrated in the sampled facility and in a wide variety of
industrial process wastewater treatment systems.
pH: Effluent Level - 7.5-10.0
This effluent level reflects the operating condition observed and expected
in this particular process. Plant 4704 maintains an effluent pH within
this pH range, and on this basis and on the basis knowledge of the
operating pH conditions of this process, it is considered practical and
reasonable.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
Scrubbers are used in aluminum melting furnances when scrap is contaminated
to the degree that during the melting process smoke and fumes are given off
and require removal of pollutants. Comparison of the five plant survey
respondents indicates the use of scrubber packages which have internal
recycle systems (internal holding tanks) at three of the five plants.
These three plants achieved 95 percent recycle or better. The other two
plants have central treatment systems with recycle or reuse of the process
wastewater.
This comparison of plants illustrates the superior performance by plants
with 95 percent recycle or greater. However, with the variability of
contamination of scrap which may be melted, additional treatment beyond
settling and recycle is warrented. Since the scrap is contaminated by
736
-------
dirty oil, greases, cuttling fluids, etc., at a minimum BPT must provide
effective oil and grease removal capability. Plant 17089 demonstrates
exemplary performance in both the removal of oil and grease but also in the
treatment of suspended solids. Therefore, the selection of BPT treatment
technology was based on the performance of this plant together with the
performance data associated with the technology for solids removal detailed
in Section VII.
The sampling data from plants 17089 and 18139 indicates the presence of
ammonia, cyanide, phenol, copper, and zinc in the raw and treated process
wastewaters. However, since BPT treatment is not specifically designed for
removal of these pollutants, though incidential removal does occur, the
control of these pollutants is considered under BAT.
1. Treatment Scheme
This scheme involves the batch treatment of the blow-down of a recycle loop
with a 95 percent recycle rate. This recycle loop includes a settling
tank. The process wastewater overflows from the recycle loop, undergoes
emulsion breaking, neutralization, and clarification treatment. The oil
and grease scum is collected for contractor disposal. The sludge is
dewatered using a vacuum filter with the filter cake being disposed at a
landfill. The batch treatment effluent is filtered prior to discharge.
Figure IX-2 presents a flow schematic of the BPT treatment. Table IX-2
summarizes the BPT effluent levels, control and treatment technologies, and
the estimated costs per unit or production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Flow 400 1/kkg (96 gal/ton)
mq/1 kq/kkq(lb/1000 Ibs)
Suspended Solids 10 0.004
Oil & Grease 10 0.004
pH 7.5-10
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow was established by averaging the applied flows of the
best plants, the three with the lowest flows and then applying a 95 percent
recycle rate from the primary settling tank. The settling tank provides
more extensive settling (3 to 9 times increased retention time) than that
provided by the internal settling tank integrated into the scrubber
equipment packages. Greater settling capacity has been designed into the
BPT model than that required by those plants achieving 95 percent recycle.
737
-------
With plants 20114, 0206 and 22121 achieving recycle rates of 95 percent or
more and plant 20114 achieving an effluent flow of 258 1/kkg, an effluent
flow of 400 1/kkg is believed to be reasonable, practicable and achievable.
Suspended Solids: Effluent Level - 10 mg/1
This effluent suspended solids concentration reflects the performance
capabilities of the neutralization, flocculation, clarification and
filtration operations. This level of suspended solids removal is
demonstrated consistently in sampled facilities and in a wide variety of
similar industrial process wastewater treatment clarification and
filtration applications as detailed in Section VII. Analytical test data
from plants 17089 and 18139 show effluent concentrations below 10 mg/1. On
the basis of demonstrated treatment system capabilities associated with the
application of this BPT technology, this effluent level is considered to be
reasonable, practicable and achievable.
Oil and Grease: Effluent Level - 10 mg/1
The effluent oil and grease concentration reflects primarily the per-
formance abilities demonstrated in sampled facilities and in a number of
industrial process wastewater treatment applications employing emulsion
breaking, neutralization, clarification, or filtration operations. Oils
and greases are removed both as scum from the emulsion breaking step and
entrained in the solids generated in the neutralization and flocculation
stages and removed via clarification and filtration. Analytical test data
from plants 17089 and 18139 show effluent concentrations below 10 mg/1.
Based on the demonstrated performance abilities in sampled facilities and
in similar industrial applications, the proposed oil and grease effluent
level is considered to be reasonable, practicable and achievable.
pH: Effluent Level - 7.5 - 10 pH units
This effluent level reflects operating conditions necessary for proper
waste neutralization and is common in emulsion breaking systems to achieve
proper waste neutralization, flocculation and clarification.
Casting Quench Process:
Most plants provide little or no treatment for aluminum casting quench
process wastewater. The pollutant materials and concentration levels found
in these quench solutions at plants 10308, 17089, and 18139 require some
form of control. Therefore, treatment information from outside the
Aluminum Casting Subcategory was examined to determine an appropriate
transfer of treatment technology. The zinc casting quench data provided
sufficient technical justification to apply the zinc casting quench BPT
treatment technology to the treatment of aluminum casting quench process
738
-------
wastewaters. Both aluminum and zinc casting quenches contain oils and
metal particulate resulting from the die casting process. Therefore, the
zinc casting quench BPT technology, specifically designed to treat oil and
grease and metal pollutants and to enable the recycle of 100 percent of the
quench water is an appropriate technology for transfer to this process
segment.
After consideration of the engineering aspects of transferring this
technology, there is no indication that the performance of the technology
in treating aluminum casting quenches would be substantially inferior to
the performance achieved in treating zinc casting quenches.
The BPT level treatment is based on the two aluminum casting plants, plants
4809 and 26767 and on the 3 zinc casting plants, plants 5947, 10475 and
1334 which have achieved 100 percent recycle of casting quench process
wastewater. No fundamental differences among plants have been identified
that indicate that those plants which have not achieved 100 percent recycle
can not do so.
1. Treatment Scheme
This is a complete (100 percent) recycle system. Treatment involves
primary settling in a settling tank and oil removal using a skimmer.
Settled solids can be removed periodically by either manual or mechanical
methods. Solids may then be delivered to an approved landfill or reused as
scrap. Figure IX-3 presents a flow schematic of the BPT treatment. Table
IX-3 summarizes the BPT effluent levels, control and treatment
technologies, and estimated costs per unit of production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
3. Supporting Basis
Plant survey responses from 12 plants with aluminum casting quench
operations are summarized in Table V-5. The recycle rate was established
on the basis of the average of the best plants. The best plants employ 100
percent recycle of process wastewater. Plants 4809 and 26767 have achieved
100 percent recycle of,aluminum casting quench process wastewater. In
addition, two others have recycle rates of over 90 percent. The BPT
treatment model flow was established by averaging the six lowest applied
flow rates.
Die Casting Process:
With the amounts of oil and grease and organic toxic pollutants found in
the raw process wastewater during sampling at plants 17089, 12040 and 20147
739
-------
exemplary treatment technology at a minimum would be that which provides
some form of oil and grease removal. Therefore, the BPT treatment focuses
on the removal of this oil and grease through emulsion breaking and
skimming. Three out of the eight surveyed plants are exempilary in this
regard. The additional technologies, settling and filtration comprising
the BPT train are modeled after the technology installed at plant 17089 and
the settling and filtration technology listed in Section VII. However, as
indicated in the data, several toxic organic pollutants remain in the BPT
treated effluent and must be addressed by BAT.
Two plants have demonstrated exemplary effluent flow reduction through the
use of extensive recycle of treated process wastewater. Plant 17089 has
achieved a 79 percent recycle rate after extensive treatment while plant
14401 has achieved a recycle rate of 90 percent after minimal treatment.
An average of these two recycle rates results in an achievable recycle rate
of 85 percent as demonstrated by plant 14401. Through application of the
treatment technologies installed at plants, 11665, 12040, 13562 and 17089,
and implementation of the 85 percent recycle rate, a maximum degree of
effluent reduction and toxic pollutant control is . achieved through the
application of BPT technology-
1. Treatment Scheme
BPT technology treats process wastewater from various sources which have
been collected in a common container. These sources include: die surface
cooling sprays, hydraulic fluid leakage, splash over from casting quench
tanks, and leakage from non contact cooling water systems (hydraulic fluid
heat exchangers). The treatment involves several component process
wastewater treatment stages. In the first stage, oils and greases are
removed via emulsion breaking with the oil skim being hauled away by a con-
tractor. In the next stage the process wastewater undergoes neutralization
and clarification. Lime is added for pH control and polymer is added to
promote floe formulation. Clarifier underflow is dewatered via a vacuum
filter and the filter cake is disposed of at a landfill. The final
treatment stage involves the filtration of the clarifier discharge.
Eighty-five percent of the filtrate process wastewater is recycled back to
the process, while 15 percent is discharged. Figure IX-4 presents a flow
schematic of the BPT treatment scheme. Table IX-4 summarizes the BPT
effluent, control and treatment technologies, and estimated costs per unit
of production.
740
-------
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Flow 545 1/kkg (131 gal/ton)
mq/1 kq/kkq(lbs/1000 Ibs)
Suspended solids 10 0.005
Oil & Grease 10 0.005
pH 7.5-10
3. Supporting Basis
The BPT model flow rate was established by averaging the six of the eight
applied flows indicated in the plant survey data. These flows were
markedly less than the other plant flows. The model recycle rate of 85
percent is based on the average of the two highest recycle rates (79
percent and 90 percent) noted in the plant survey data.
The recycle rate and flow rate are considered to be reasonable, practicable
and achievable.
Suspended Solids: Effluent Level 10 mg/1
This effluent level reflects the observed and expected performance
capabilities of neutralization, flocculation, and clarification waste
treatment processes. "This level of suspended solids removal is demon-
strated in a wide variety of industrial process wastewater treatment appli-
cations as detailed in Section VII. Plants 17089 and 12040 have achieved
effluent concentrations below the BPT effluent level for suspended solids.
On the basis of demonstrated treatment system capabilities associated with
the application of this BPT technology, this proposed effluent level is
considered to be reasonable, practicable and achievable.
Oil and Grease: Effluent Level - 10 mg/1
The oil and grease effluent concentration reflects the performance ability
observed during the sampling program and noted as being accomplished at a
number of industrial applications utilizing emulsion breaking,
neutralization and flocculation and clarification methods of process
wastewater treatment. Plant 17089 has achieved an effluent level
equivalent to the BPT effluent level for oil and grease. Plant 12040
exceeds the BPT effluent level for oil and grease by 2 mg/1.
Based on expected treatment capabilities and the sampling observations this
BPT effluent level is considered to be reasonable, practicable and
achievable.
741
-------
PH
Effluent Level - 7.5 - 10.0
This effluent pH level reflects the control limits necessary for neutral-
ization and clarification components of the BPT treatment model. Plants
17089 and 12040 achieve this level of pH control.
Die Lube Process:
The separate collection of die lubercants, e.g. mold release agents for
recovery or disposal occurs at 4 plants. These die lubercants contain
substantial amounts of various organic toxic pollutants, particularly
phenols, as shown by the sampling data from plant 20147. In addition, the
data indicates that the presence of toxic pollutants found in the die
casting process wastewater previously discussed is in part due to the die
lubercants dripping from the die molds into a common sump which collects
other process wastewaters. Plants which collect and segregate the die
lubercants substantially reduce the pollutant concentretion in the die
casting process wastewater, but are confronted with the treatment or
disposal of the die lubercants separately collected.
These die lubercants are oily in nature and, at a minimum, BPT treatment
should provide for oil and grease removal. Three of the 4 plants with
treatment provide equipment for oil and grease removal but each plant
approaches the treatment differently. One plant uses ultrafiltration with
contract hauling and discharge. Another plant uses* biological treatment
but only 7 percent of the total flow through the treatment system is from
casting processes. The remaining plant uses commercially available
technology to recover and reuse the die lubercants. Therefore, comparisons
between dissimilar technologies are difficult in developing an average of
the best plants. For this process segment, the development of BPT
technology requires a different approach.
A wide gamut of treatment technologies, including those installed at the
plants in the survey data, were examined. The technology that would
fulfill the requirements of BPT had to be demonstrated, commercially
available and practicable. In addition, the examination of technologies
included consideration of the specific factors to be taken into account in
determining the control measures and practices to be applied to point
sources within the category. These factors were detailed in Section IV.
After review of the various technologies available, it was concluded that
the most appropriate BPT technology would be one of the 3 demonstrated
technologies treating die lubercant process wastewaters. The presence of
numerous toxic organic pollutants and the concentrations at which they were
found in the raw waste of plant 20147 pointed out the desirability of a
highly effective BPT level of treatment. Additionally considered was the
total cost of application of the BPT technology in relation to the effluent
742
-------
reduction benefits to be achieved by such application. A technology that
would provide an economic incentive would be advantageous. As an outcome
to this evaluation, the BPT technology selected for treatment of die
lubercant process wastewater is indentical to the recovery technology
demonstrated by plant 20147. Application of this technology not only
elimates the discharge of toxic organic pollutants but based on the cost
data from plant 20147 considerably reduces the amount of new die lubercant
purchased.
1. Treatment Scheme
This is a complete (100 percent recycle) system. Die lube process
wastewater drains to a holding tank with an oil skimmer mounted above the
tank to remove surface oils and greases. The die lube wastes are pumped
from the holding tank to a cyclone separator in which the wastes undergo
inertial solids separation by processing on a batch basis. The cyclone
concentrate is processed through a paper filter with the filtrate being
returned to the cyclone. The paper filter media and the solids deposited
on the filter media are contract removed. The cyclone separator effluent
is delivered to a storage tank from where it is recycled. Figure IX-5
presents a flow schematic of the BPT treatment. Table IX-5 summarizes the
BPT effluent levels, control and treatment technologies and the estimated
costs per unit of production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
The information contained in the plant survey responses which indicated the
use of die lube operations is summarized in Table V-7. The BPT model flow
was established by averaging the lowest three of the four indicated applied
flows. The complete recycle system and the zero discharge flow are based
upon the practices observed at plant 20147. This plant was visited as part
of the sampling program. The BPT treatment level for this process is
deemed reasonable, practicable and achievable on the basis of information
obtained during the sampling program. Plant 20147 achieves this BPT
effluent level.
'Copper Casting
Plants within the Copper Casting Subcategory employ a variety of
manufacturing processes. Comparisons among these processes identify enough
dissimilarities between processes, water usage and types of pollutants
generated to warrent further grouping of plants into process segments.
These segments are: Dust Collection Scrubbers, Molding Cooling and Casting
Quench, Continuous Casting.
743
-------
No plant was found to employ all of these manufacturing processes. Most
frequently only one of these processes exists at a plant. Therefore, in
determining the BPT level of performance, the plant data was arrayed by
process segment so appropriate technical comparisons among similar
processes could be made. From these comparisons, the average of the best
performances of plants was determined for each process segment.
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
Four of the six surveyed plants indicate the use of 100 percent recycle
systems on their dust collection operations. These 4 plants exhibit
superior performance and are considered the best plants. Although three of
these four systems are internal recycle systems, (with internal settling
tanks) the design of BPT treatment model provides additional settling
equipment beyond that required by those plants achieving 100 percent
internal recycle.
1. Treatment Scheme
Process wastewater discharges from dust collecting operations drain into a
settling tank equipped with a dragout mechanism for continuous solids
removal. Recycle pumps return all settled process wastewaters to the dust
collectors. Figure IX-6 presents a flow schematic for the BPT treatment
scheme. Table IX-6 summarizes the BPT effluent control and treatment
technologies and costs per unit of sand handled.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow was based on an average of the best (lowest) applied
flows.
Mold Cooling and Casting Quench Process:
Plants engaged in mold cooling and the quenching of castings provide
minimal treatment of these process wastewaters. Settling is provided by
the majority of the plants, but recycle is only employed by two plants.
These plants are considered exemplary in the reduction of effluent flow
through the use of extensive recycle.
With only minimal treatment provided by these plants, the BPT level of
treatment therefore is minimal, consisting of recycle and settling. To
744
-------
dissipate the heat added to the process wastewater through extensive
recycle, a cooling tower has been added to the BPT treatment train. The
BPT model flow is based on the comparison and evaluation of the applied
flow data of the plants surveyed. '
The effluent concentrations are based on the performance of plant 4736 and
in the engineered design of the BPT treatment model settling capacity.
1. Treatment Scheme
Process wastewaters from these processes drain to a settling tank. The
settled waters are pumped to a cooling tower and collect in the cold well
from where 99 percent of the process wastewater is recycled to the mold
cooling or casting quench operations. Overflow from the cold well is
discharged. Figure IX-7 presents a flow schematic for the BPT treatment.
Table IX-7 summarizes the BPT effluent levels, control and treatment
technologies, and estimated costs per unit of production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Flow 46 1/kkg (11 gal/ton)
mq/1 kq/kkq(lbs/1000 Ibs)
Suspended Solids 25 0.0001
Oil & Grease 10 0.0005
Copper 1.1 0.00005
Zinc 3.5 0.00015
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow was established by averaging the applied flows of the
four best plants, i.e., the five surveyed plants, which furnished flow data
listed in Table V-7. The effluent flow of 11 gal/ton is based on a process
wastewater recycle rate of 99 percent. Two plants 16446 and 4736 have
recycle rates greater than the BPT model, 99.5 percent and 100 percent,
respectively. The effluent flow rate of plant 16446 exceeds the BPT model
effluent flow due to an applied flow rate 11.5 times as great as the next
nearest applied flow rate indicated in the plant data. This high applied
flow rate is not considered exempilary and was not included in determining
the BPT model flow. However, the high recycle rate at this plant does
demonstrate the feasibility of extensive recycle for this process. Plant
4736 achieves the BPT model effluent flow.
745
-------
Suspended Solids: Effluent Level - 25 mg/1
This effluent concentration is deemed to be practicable and reasonable on
the basis of the low suspended solids load and on the treatment system
capabilities observed during the sampling program and expected from this
treatment process based on engineering design of the settling tank. Plant
4763 achieves this level of suspended solids.
Oil and Grease: Effluent Level - 10 mg/1
This effluent level reflects the low oil and grease raw waste load noted
during the sampling program. Plant 4763 achieves this level of oil and
grease.
Copper: Effluent Level - 1.1 mg/1
This effluent concentration reflects the concentrations noted during the
sampling program. Plant 4763 achieves this level of copper.
Zinc: Effluent Level - 3.5 mg/1
This effluent concentration reflects the concentrations noted during the
sampling program. Plant 4763 achieves this level of zinc.
PH
Effluent Level - 7.5 - 10.0 pH units
This effluent pH range reflects the range of pH's observed during the
sampling program. Plant 4763 achieves pH levels within this pH range.
Continuous Casting Process:
As previously indicated in Section V, three forms of continuous casting
activitity; direct chill casting, continuous casting wheel and continuous
wire bar casting are included under the evaluation of the continuous
casting process. Comparison of these three forms of continuous casting
leads to the conclusion that the differences between them are not
sufficient to warrent separate analysis for each. Generally, the castings
produced by continuous casting processes are significantly larger in
physical size and weight than the castings produced by other methods, i.e.
sand casting, and large volumes of water are required to quench the
casting.
Both non-contact and process wastewater are generally used in the
continuous casting process. Many plants have recognized advantages in
segratating process wastewater fron non-contact cooling water due to
reduced treatment costs, and have implemented water management practices
746
-------
which have eliminated all process wastewater. However, many plants
continue to mix non-contact cooling water with process wastewater.
As noted in the plant summary data in Section V, many plants have
implemented extensive process wastewater recycle systems. With 7 out of
twelve plants practicing 100 percent recycle of process wastewater, the
average of the best performances of these 7 plants leads directly to a BPT
treatment level of 100 percent recycle of process wastewater.
The process of quenching the casting adds a large amount of heat to the
recycled process wastewater. This heat must be dissipated. A cooling
tower is most frequently used to remove this heat. However, a cooling
tower on the process wastewater recycle system, through evaporation of
large amounts of process wastewater, would lead to rapid buildup of
dissolved solids within the recirculation system which might require
additional maintenance to control potential scaling and fouling problems.
In consideration of this, BPT treatment has been designed to reduce this
maintenance to a minimum by the use of a heat exchanger and cooling tower
combination to cool the heated process wastewater. BPT treatment,
therefore, is identical in concept to three of the seven 100 percent
recycle plants.
1. Treatment Scheme
Continuous casting process wastewaters drain to a holding tank. The
process wastewater is then pumped through a heat exchanger and back to the
casting process. A cooling tower removes the heat transfered across the
heat exchanger. Figure IX-8 presents a flow schematic for the BPT
treatment. Table IX-8 summarizes the BPT effluent levels, control and
treatment technologies, and costs per unit or production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow was established by averaging the indicated flows of nine
of the 12 plants listed on the summary Table V-10. Of the twelve plants,
seven practice 100 percent recycle of process wastewater. Another four
plants employ systems with recycle rates of 90 percent or greater. Of the
seven plants with 100 percent recycle operations, four plants operate
direct chill casting process, two plants operate continuous casting wheels,
and one plant operates a wire bar caster. Three plants use the treatment
system depicted in the BPT model. This treatment system elimates the
blowdown of process wastewater. Plants 40013, 40007, 40006, 40150, 40038,
747
-------
40250 and 40056 have achieved iOO percent recycle of continuous casting
process wastewater.
Iron and Steed Casting
Plants within the Iron and Steel Casting Subcategory employ a variety of
manufacturing processes. Comparisons among these processes highlight
enough dissimilarities between processes, water usage and types of
pollutants generated to warrent further grouping of plants into process
segments. These segments are:
Dust Collection Scrubbers Mold Cooling and Casting Quench
Melting Furnace Scrubbers Sand Washing
Slag Quenching
No plant was found to employ all of these manufacturing processes. Only a
few of the larger plants employ as many as four of these processes.
Combinations of two or three processes most commonly occur. Due to the
differences in the processes, water usage, and resulting pollutants and in
the differences of various process combination which exist within a plant,
it would be impracticle to develop and implement a BPT treatment level
designed for treatment of combined waste streams from various processes.
Therefore, in determining the BPT level of treatment, the plant data was
arrayed by process segment so appropriate technical comparisons among
similar processes could be made. From these comparisons, the average of
the best performances of plants was determined for each process segment.
However, this approach to BPT development does* not prohibit a plant with
several of these processes from cotreating the combined process
wastewaters. In fact, many plants do treat combined process wastewaters
and extensively recycle the treated process wastewater back to the
processes.
As the plant summary data tables in Section V show, many plants have
implemented 100 percent recycle of process wastewater. For all the process
segments, the average of the best performances of plants leads to the
conclusion that no discharge of process wastewater pollutants is a
demonstrated, practicle and widely practiced level of treatment.
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
Comparisons of the 140 plants casting ferrous metals in the survey data
using dust collection scrubbers indicate that 72 of these plants use
settling and 100 percent recycle of process wastewater to eliminate the
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. In addition 5 of the 8 plants
sampled employ 100 percent recycle of process wastewater. Plants which
have eliminated the discharge of process wastewater pollutants are similar
in products produced, manufacturing processes, air pollution control
748
-------
sources and equipment to plants which continue to discharge. No
fundamental differences between plants have been identified. The BPT model
depicts an external settling and recycle system, although many plants use
internal 100 percent recycle systems with limited settling capacity. The
BPT model provides additional solids removal capability beyond what is
required by many plants presently practicing 100 percent recycle.
1. Treatment Scheme
Dust collector process wastewater discharges drain to a dragout tank in
which the solids are allowed to settle out and are continuously removed for
disposal. Recycle pumps return all process wastewaters from the dragout
tanks to the dust collectors. This is a 100 percent recycle system.
Figure IX-9 presents the flow schematic for the BPT treatment. Tables IX-9
summarizes the BPT effluent control and treatment technologies, and costs
per ton of sand handled.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow rate was established by averaging the best (the lowest)
of the applied flows as indicated in the Summary Table V-ll. Plants with
100 percent recycle systems are identified on Table V-ll.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process
The use of a 100 percent recycle system as the appropriate level of BPT
treatment was established on the basis of the practices of; 1) a majority
(10 of 16) of the plants sampled, 2) a majority (41 of 78) of the plants
survey respondents which indicated the use of 100 percent recycle of
melting furnace scrubber process wastewater, 3) on the basis of confirming
communications with state and regional environmental authorities, and 4) a
phone survey of plants with treatment systems designed by engineering firms
which upon request will design a 100 percent recycle treatment system.
Twenty-four out of 32 plants contacted by phone operated melting furnace
scrubbers with 100 percent recycle of process wastewater.
Those plants with 100 percent recycle systems which were sampled are
fundamentally the same in products produced, manufacturing processes, and
air pollution control sources and equipment, as those foundries which do
not recycle 100 percent. No information indicates that size, age, or the
engineering aspects of application of control technques would prevent the
749
-------
achievement of 100 percent recycle by plants which have not already done
so.
1. Treatment Scheme
The melting furnace scrubber process wastewaters drain to a treatment
system which employs pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide as the first step
in treatment. The process wastewaters then overflow from the mix tank to a
clarifier in which solids settleability is enhanced via polymer addition.
The clarifier underflow is dewatered by using a vacuum filter, with the
resulting filter cake being disposed at an approved landfill. The
clarifier effluent is completely recycled to the melting furnace scrubbers.
This is a 100 percent recycle system. Figure IX-10 presents the flow
schematic for this BPT treatment. Table IX-10 summarizes the BPT effluent
control and treatment technologies and costs per ton of metal poured.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow rate was established by averaging the best (the lowest)
of flows as indicated in the Summary Table V-12. Plants with 100 percent
recycle systems are identified on Table V-12.
Slag Quenching Process:
Comparisons of the 46 of the survey respondents with the slag quenching
process indicate that 16 of these plants recycle 100 percent of the slag
quenching process wastewater. In addition 3 of the 6 plants sampled
recycle 100 percent of the process wastewater. The BPT treatment model is
indentical in technology to the plants which have eliminated the discharge
of process wastewater pollutants. The quality of water required to quench
slag and sluce it to a drag tank for solids removal is minimum. Therefore,
the complete recycle of this process wastewater is practicle, and is
currently practiced by many plants, and can be implemented by other plants
which have not yet done so. Based on observations made at the sampled
plants, and review of the survey data, no fundamental differences were
ascertained between plants that recycle 100 percent of the slag quench
process wastewater and those that don't.
1. Treatment Scheme
Slag quench process wastewaters drain to a "dragout tank" in which the
solids are allowed to settle and then are continuously removed for
disposal. Recycle pumps return all process wastewaters to the slag quench
750
-------
process. This is a 100 percent recycle system. Figure IX-11 presents the
flow schematic for this BPT treatment. Table IX-11 summarizes the BPT
effluent control and treatment technologies and costs per unit of
production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow rate was established by averaging the best (lowest) of
the flows on the summary Tables V-13. Plants with 100 percent recycle
systems are identified on Table V-13.
Casting Quench & Mold Cooling Process:
Ten of forty-three plants have indicated the practicality of recycling 100
percent of the mold cooling and casting quench process wastewaters. One of
the 2 plants sampled recycles all process wastewater. The comparisons of
these plants leads to the conclusion that the best performance of these
plants is demonstrated by those plants which have achieved no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. All plants were compared with one another
to identify any fundamental differences between plants such as products
produced and manufacturing processes. No fundamental differences were
identified.
The BPT model provides solids removal equipment similar to that installed
at plants which provide treatment. A cooling tower is included as part of
the BPT level of treatment to remove the heat added to the recycle system.
1. Treatment Scheme
Process wastewaters drain to a settling tank which is equipped with a
dragout mechanism to remove settled solids which are then removed for
disposal. A process wastewater sidestream is pumped from the settling tank
to a cooling tower and is returned to the settling tank. Recycle pumps
then return all process wastewaters to the mold cooling or casting quench
operations. Figure IX-12 presents the flow schematic for this BPT
treatment. Table IX-12 summarizes the BPT effluent control and treatment
technologies and costs per unit of production.
751
-------
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow rate was established by avaraging the best (lowest) of
applied flows indicated on the Summary Table V-14.
Plants with 100 percent recycle systems are identified on Table V-14.
Sand Washing Process
Comparisons of the nine foundries in the plant survey data employing sand
washing as a means to reclaim and reuse sand, show that two plants have
demonstrated superior performance through the application of treatment
technology and 100 percent recycle of treated sand washing process
wastewater. Further examination of the sampling and plant survey data was
performed to determine the appropriateness of establishing a BPT level of
treatment based on the performance of these two plants.
Five of the six plants sampled provide recycle of sand washing process
wastewater after settling. These 5 plants and nearly all of the 9 plants
in the survey data have the basic BPT settling equipment in place. Sampled
plant 51115 which achieves 100 percent recycle is indentical in treatment
function to the BPT treatment. In addition plant 1381 achieves the BPT
level of treatment. Furthermore, many of the surveyed plants that do
discharge sandwashing process wastewater provide treatment similar to BPT.
These plants treat and extensively recycle of the treated process
wastewater before discharge.
For some of these plants which extensively recycle, plant 15520, for
example, no discharge of process wastewater pollutants could be easily
achieved through the elimination of the overflow or blowdown from the
recycle system, i.e., close the valve or plug the pipe. For other plants,
increased solids removal may be needed through addition of polymers or
other treatment chemicals, as provided in the BPT treatment model. For
some plants, more careful operation of the existing treatment system may be
all that is required when the discharge is eliminated. Many plants have
the equipment in place that reduces the pollutant concentration to a level
sufficient for recycle back to the sand washing processes, providing of
course, that the equipment is operated properly and has the capacity
required for the hydraulic load. Comparison of the BPT treatment train
with the treatment equipment used by the two plants which have achieved no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants points out that the BPT
752
-------
treatment train provides additional equipment beyond that which is
demonstrated as necessary for achievement of 100 percent recycle.
Another consideration was made in determining the appropriateness of the
BPT level of treatment. The total cost of application of BPT technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved by such
application was weighed. Cost data received from plant 51115 shows that no
large expenditure in capitol was required and an operating cost reduction
after implementation of 100 percent recycle was realized. A maximum
benefit through the elimination of the discharge of process wastewater
pollutants was achieved at a reduction in cost. An additional cost
reduction is realized since monitoring costs are eliminated when process
wastewater pollutants are no longer discharged.
1. Treatment Scheme
Sand washing process wastewaters drain to a settling tank equipped with a
dragout mechanism for continuous solids removal and from which 90 percent
of all process wastewaters are recycled back to the sand washing operation.
The settling tank overflow (10 percent of the applied flow) is pumped to a
mix tank where lime is added for pH adjustment. The wastewater in the mix
tank overlows into the clarifier where polymer is added to enhance floe
formation. The clarifier underflow is dewatered using a vacuum filter with
the filter cake being landfilled. The clarifier effluent is recycled back
to the sand washing process. This is a 100 percent recycle system. Figure
IX-13 illustrates the BPT treatment scheme. Table IX-13 summarizes the BPT
effluent, control and treatment technologies and costs per unit of sand
washed.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow was determined by averaging the best (the lowest) of
flows of flows indicated on the summary Table V-15.
The plant survey information indicated that nine foundries employed sand
washing operations and that one of these nine plants, plant 1381, provided
for the recycle of 100 percent of their sand washing process wastewaters.
Plant 51115 was identified through personal contacts and subsequently
sampled. The application of the recycle system to the effluent of the
primary settling operation was based on the plant survey data, plant visit
observations, and analytical data which indicated that the effluent of this
primary settling operation would be of adequate recycle quality. More
753
-------
costly treatment facilities are not needed. The solids from this primary
settling operation could also be used again in the sand reclamation
process, as no treatment chemicals are added up to that point. The
overflow, 10 percent of the total applied flow, of the primary settling
tank undergoes further treatment prior to recycle.
Plants 5115 and 1351 achieve the BPT effluent levels through the use of 100
percent recycle of sand washing process wastewater.
Magnesium Casting
Plants within the magnesium casting subcategory employ two manufacturing
processes which result in a process wastewater. Comparisons among these
two processes highlight enough dissimilarities between processes and water
use, to warrent further grouping of plants into process segments. These
segments are:
Grinding Scrubbers
Dust Collection Scrubbers
Both or either one of these processes may be operated at a plant. If a
plant performs any grinding on the casting to remove unwanted material from
the casting surface or to impact a desired surface characteristic, a
scrubber used to control the magnesium dust produced from the grinding is
required. Dry type dust collectors such as bag houses are prohibited due
to the explosive nature of the dry magnesium dust. Dust collection
scrubbers or baghouses are used to clean dust arising from shake out, core
and mold making activities, and other sand handling activities. Dusts from
sand handling activities may be performed either thru wet or dry methods.
Since these processes are present in a plant either jointly or singularly
it would be inappropriate to develop and implement a BPT treatment level
designed to treat combined wastestreams when the combination may not occur
at a plant. Therefore, BPT level of treatment was developed for each
separate process. However, this approach does not prohibit a plant with
both of these processes from cotreating the combined process wastewaters.
This approach provides the permit writer with the means to write a permit
for magnesium casting plants with one or both of these processes.
The scrubbers used for cleaning emissions from both the grinding and dust
collection operations are similar in design and function. Both scrubbers
provide internal settling of process wastewater prior to recycle or
discharge.
754
-------
Grinding Scrubber Process:
Scrubbers used to clean magnesium dusts are similar in design and function
as those scrubbers used in dust collection associated with the casting of
ferrous metals. The survey data indicates that the majority of the dust
collection scrubbers at ferrous foundries are operated at 100 percent
recycle of process wastewater. Consideration was therefore given to the
appropriateness of transferring the BPT treatment technology from the
ferrous dust collection process segment to the magnesium grinding scrubber
segment.
The mechanisms of dust cleaning, the removal of airborne particulates
through the use of water, is the same for both processes. Particle size of
the particulates in the sand dust and in the magnesium dust are in close
proximity. The magnesium and other particulate present in the grinding
scrubber are likely to settle faster than the particulate present in the
ferrous casting dust collection scrubber process wastewater, given the same
particle size and geometries of the settling chamber, and flow. Possible
inhibition to settling caused by the chemical and physical inferences
associated with the presence of process chemicals characteristic of ferrous
casting dust collection process wastewaters, i.e., sand binders, clays,
etc., is not possible. These chemicals are not present in the magnesium
grinding scrubber process wastewater and therefore cannot inhibit settling.
After consideration of the similarities between the two porcesses and waste
characteristics, i.e. particle size, transfer of BPT technology is
feasible, practicle and no discharge of process wastewater pollutants is
appropriate.
1*. Treatment Scheme
Grinding dust from magnesium castings exhibits flammable properties when
dispersed in the atmosphere, therefore, scrubbers are used to collect the
magnesium dusts and eliminate these hazards. The process wastewaters from
the scrubber drain to a settling tank, and are completely recycled back to
the scrubber. The solids which accumulate in this tank are periodically
removed. Figure IX-14 depicts this treatment scheme. Table IX-14
summarized the BPT effluent control and treatment technology and costs per
unit production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
The BPT model flow is based on the process wastewater flow demonstrated
during the sampling program conducted at plant 8146.
755
-------
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
Plant 8146 is the only magnesium casting plant in the survey data
identified with a dust collection scrubber. The scrubber process
wastewater is settled and partially recycled internally. However, the
internal recycle overflow is not treated before discharge. The internal
settling provided within the scrubber equipment package is inadequate to
remove pollutants, particularly, zinc which was found in the effluent from
plant 8146. The approach taken in the development of BPT treatment for
magnesium dust scrubbers is identical to that transfer technology approach
taken in the development of BPT treatment for control of magnesium grinding
scrubber process wastewater pollutants. The same considerations and
evaluations made for grinding scrubber BPT transfer were made for this
process segment. The BPT treatment technology for magnesium dust
collection scrubbers was transferred from the technology in use and
demonstrated to control process wastewater pollutants from ferrous foundry
dust collection scrubbers.
1. Treatment Scheme
Dust collections wastewaters drain to a settling tank equipped with a
dragout conveyor to remove solids. Pumps recycle all process wastewaters
back to the dust collectors. Refer to Figure IX-15 for a treatment scheme
flow diagram. Table IX-15 summarizes the BPT effluent levels, control and
treatment technology and costs per unit of sand handled.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
3. Supporting Basis
The BPT model flow is based on the flow observed during the sampling visit
conducted at plant 8146.
Zinc Casting
Plants within the Zinc Casting Subcategory employ two manufacturing
processes which result in a process wastewater. Comparisons between these
two processes reveal enough dissimilarities between processes and water use
to warrent further grouping of plants into process segments. These
segments are:
Melting Furnace Scrubber
Casting Quench
Both or either one of these processes may be operated at a plant. Since
these processes are present in a plant either singularly or jointly it
756
-------
would be inappropriate to develop and implement a BPT treatment level
designed to treat combined waste streams when the conbination may not occur
at a plant. Therefore, BPT level of treatment was developed for each
separate process. However, this approach does not prohibit a plant with
both of these processes from cotreating the combined process wastewaters.
This approach to BPT development provides the permit writer with the means
to write a permit for zinc casting plants with one or both of these
processes.
Casting Quench Process:
Generally, the survey data indicates that plants which provide extensive
treatment, jointly treat zinc casting quench process wastewaters with
nonmetal molding and casting process wastewaters. The toxic pollutant
materials and concentration levels found in the quench solutions at plants
10308, 18139, 4622 and 12040 require some form of control other than
dilution with other process wastewaters.
The oil and grease levels found at the sampled plants require at a minimum
for BPT treatment some form of oil and grease removal. The toxic metal
pollutants found in the casting quench process wastewaters are in
particulate form and settle rapidly. The plants in the survey data were
compared one with another and three plants emerged as exhibiting superior
performance. These plants recycle 100 percent of the zinc casting quench
process wastewater. In addition, two other plants, 6606 and 9105 do not
continuously discharge. Plant 6606 discharge casting quench process
wastewater once per month and plant 9105 discharges only once per year.
However, neither plant provides oil removal treatment. In a number of
plants, quench processes discharges only occur as a result of splashing,
leakage and carry over as the castings are removed.
The quenching process is uniform from plant to plant. The oil and grease
found in the quench tank requires removal. Many plants periodically
discharge to remove this oil. Providing oil and grease removal equipment
as designed into the BPT level of treatment removes this need to discharge.
Therefore, based on the average of those best performances and on the
design of the BPT treatment model no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants is an appropriate BPT level of treatment.
1. Treatment Scheme
Complete (100 percent) recycle system. Treatment involves primary solids
removal in a settling tank and oil removal using a skimmer. Settled solids
can be removed periodically by either manual or mechanical methods and then
allowed to drain on-site in a designated area. Solids may then be
delivered to a sanitary landfill or reused as scrap. Refer to Figure IX-16
for this treatment scheme's flow diagram. Table IX-16 sumamrizes the BPT
757
-------
effluent levels, control and treatment technologies, and the estimated
costs per unit of production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable water.
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
In order to provide a measure of prudent water management (i.e., care in
maintenance, leak prevention, water conservation, etc.), the BPT model flow
for casting quench operations was determined by averaging the lowest 6 of
the 13 plants survey responses with available flow information. All six of
the plants used for the flow average have applied flows of less than 100
gpt while the remaining plants have flows in excess of 500 gpt. It should
be noted that the 6 plants used for the average applied flow cover all
employee groups and also include one of the highest and also one of the
lowest production operations. Refer to Table V-17 in Section V.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
Extensive internal recycle of melting furnace scrubber process wastewater
is the norm of operation for zinc casting plants required to use air
pollution control devices on zinc melting furnaces. The scrubber equipment
package provides sufficient settling to enable high internal recycle rates.
Most scrubber blowdown flows are uncontrolled overflows.
Plants within this process segment were compared one with another to
determine those plants with the best performance. General practice for
these best plants involves extensive internal recycle followed by rigorous
treatment. Emulsion breaking, skimming, settling and discharge are
performed by these plants.
Review of the plant data and engineering information furnished by scrubber
manufacturers lead to the selection of 95 percent internal recycle as an
appropriate value. The equipment used by plants treating this process
wastewater and the effluent concentrations 'achieved by this technology as
exhibited by the sampling data and by the know design values established by
equipment manufacturers provides an adequate basis for BPT level of
treatment when potassium permanganate is added for phenol destruction.
The treatment equipment installed at the surveyed plants is not designed
for the treatment of phenol. Toxic phenols are present in the raw and
treated process wastewater from plant 18139 and are expected to be present
in the process wastewater due to the burning of oily phenol bearing
contaminents associated with zinc scrap. The concentrations of these
758
-------
phenols are dependent on the type of oils and the degree of contamination
of the scrap. With the level of phenols present in the process wastewater
BPT, at a minimum, should provide some form of phenol removal. Therefore,
after consideration of the various phenol treatment methods available, as
discussed in Section VII, potasium permanganate appeared most appropriate
for phenol control for this process segment. The use of potassium
permangante for phenol destruction allows maximum flexibility in the
treatment of phenol. The amount of potassium permanganate added to the
treatment system can be easily increased or decreased depending upon the
fluctuations in phenol raw waste levels.
1. Treatment Scheme
This scheme involves the treatment of the discharge of a melting furnace
scrubber system with an internal recycle rate of 95 percent. The treatment
includes emulsion breaking, neutralization in conjunction with potassium
permanganate feed for phenol destruction, and clarification. The oils and
greases are collected in a scum tank and hauled away. The clarifier
underflow (sludge) is concentrated using a vacuum filter with the filter
cake being landfilled. The clarifier effluent is discharged. Figure IX-17
depicts the treatment scheme for this process. Table IX-17 summarizes the
BPT effluent limitation control and treatment technologies, and the
estimated costs per unit of production.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Flow 3,140 1/kkg (755 GPT)
mg/1 kg/kkg (lbs/100 Ibs)
Phenols 5 0.016
Suspended Solids 30 0.094
Oil and Grease 20 0.063
Zinc 5 0.016
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Flow
Information in the five plant survey responses which indicated the use of
melting furnace scrubbers provided usable flow information on only two
scrubber systems. The average of two applied flows is 15,000 gallons per
ton. All of the plants surveyed indicated that the process wastewater
discharge from each melting operation was simply the blowdown or overflow
from a scrubbing equipment package as supplied by a manufacturer. This
scrubber package provides sufficient wastewater treatment and handling
capabilities to enable extensive process wastewater recycle. For the
purpose of BPT model development, the average internal (within the scrubber
759
-------
equipment package) recycle rate was determined to be 95 percent. This rate
is based on an average of three plants with the highest recycle rates.
These plants have recycle rates of 100 percent, 98 percent, and 90 percent.
The recycle rate of at least 95 percent was obtained by evaluating the
information available in light of equipment capabilities, engineering
experience, and current industry operational practices. With the use of an
internal recycle rate of 95 percent and a discharge rate of 5 percent, the
resulting discharge flow is 755 gal/ton of metal poured.
Information indicates that three of the four plants with process wastewater
discharges already have discharges flows below this level and that the
remaining plant's flow is only slightly greater.
Suspended Solids: Effluent Level - 30 mg/1
This effluent suspended solids concentration reflects the performance
capabilities of the neutralization, flocculation and clarification
treatment operations. This level of suspended solids removal is
demontrated in a wide variety of similar industrial wastewater treatment
clarification applications. On the basis of demonstrated and observed
treatment system capabilities associated with the application of this BPT
technology, this proposed effluent level is reasonable, practicable and
achievable.
Oil and Grease: Effluent Level - 20 mg/1
The effluent oil and grease concentration reflects primarily the per-
formance abilities demonstrated in a number of industrial waste treatment
application employing emulsion breaking, neutralization and clarification.
Oils and greases are removed both as skim from the emulsion breaking step
and are also entrained in the solids generated in the neutralization and
flocculation stages. Additional support for this effluent level is
presented in the performance of the casting quench waste treatment
operations observed in the analytical data of plant 10308. Based on the
performance abilities demonstrated in Plant 10308 and in similar industrial
applications the proposed oil and grease effluent level is considered to be
reasonable and practicable.
Phenols: Effluent Level - 5 mg/1
Based on a review of existing treatment equipment in all plant survey
responses plants with zinc melting furnace scurbbers are uniformly
inadequate with respect to phenol. None of the treatment operations
provide for phenol destruction. In order to reduce the effluent phenol
concentration, technology commonly practiced in other foundry subcategories
and other industries must be transferred to this process. The technology
in this case involves potassium permanganate addition during waste
neutralization. The effluent concentration of 5 mg/1 is readily
760
-------
achievable, in other plants with process wastewater similar to the process
wastewater from zinc melting furnace scrubbers.
Zinc: Effluent Level - 5 mg/1
The effluent zinc concentration is based both on neutralization, flpc-
culation and clarification performance capabilities demonstrated in a wide
variety of plants, with zinc and other metals as process wastewater
pollutants. Specific details of the achievement of this zinc effluent
level are presented in Section VII.
PH
Effluent Level - 7.5 - 10.0
This pH effluent level reflects operating conditions necessary for proper
waste neutralization, but in particular is necessary for satisfactory
phenol destruction performance in the BPT treatment system.
761
-------
INVESTMENT
CASTING
OPERATION
01
ro
SUSR SOLIDS
OIL 8 GREASE
ALUMINUM
PH
2OOO mg/l
4O mo/I
4.4 mg/l
6.5 - 8.5
FLOW- 26.850 l/kkg (645O gol/lon)
FILTRATE
SUSR SOLIDS 8O mg/l
OIL & GREASE IO mg/l
ALUMINUM 0.2 mg/l
pH 7.5- 10
FLOW- 26,850 l/kkg
• (6450 go I/Ion)
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
INVESTMENT CASTING
BPT MODEL
I \ F
IGURE
-------
TABLE IX-1
HPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM - INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkgCl)
Ob/100U Ib)
mg/l(2)
Control and
Treatment Techno logy(3)
Estimated(4)
Total Cost
$7toli
Aluminum
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
PH
Flow
0.005
2.15
0.269
26,850 1/kkg
0.2
80
10
7.5 - 10
(6450 gal/ton)
Polymer addition for
floe formation, clar-
ification. Vacuum
filtration of clarifier
sludge.
$64.82
$58.34
CTl
(1) kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Milligrams/liter arc based on the pollutant Ibs/ton value observed in the samples applied to the model
flow rate of 6450 gal/ton.
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible combinations and
permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated total costs
shown .ire only i nc remen t a_l required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
SUSR SOLIDS 35 mg/l
OIL a GREASE IO mg/l
pH 6-8
FLOW'8060 l/kkg (1936 gal/loii)
766O l/kkg (I84O gal/ton)
cr>
SUSR SOLIDS IO mg/l
OIL B GREASE 10 mg/l
PH 7:5-10
FLOW-4OO l/kkg (96 gal/Ion)
SOLIDS
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER
OPERATIONS
BPT MODEL
FIGURE K
-------
TABLE IX-2
Bl'T - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM - MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkg(l)
(lb/1000 Ib)
mg/l(2)
Control and
Treatment Technology(3)
Estimated(4)
Total Cost
$/kkg $/ton
en
en
Suspended Solids
Oi 1 & Crease
PH
Flow
0.004
0.002
400 1/kkg
10
10
7.5- 10
(96 gal/ton)
Settling and recycle
with a portion of the
flow treated prior to
discharge. Treatment
consists of an alum
emulsion break,
pll adjustment witli
lime, polymer addition,
clarification and
fi1tration.
$3.05
$2.76
(1) kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Milligrams/liter are based on the pollutant Ibs/ton value observed in the samples applied to the model
flow rate of 96 gal/ton.
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible combinations and
permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs' may Vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required Lo accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
01
a*
l/kkg (292 gal/Ion)
CASTING
QUENCH
OPERATIONS
| 1 OIL SKIMMER
l_jr— -
PHENOLS 4 mg/l *
SUSR SOLIDS 140 mg/l SETT
OIL ft GREASE TOO mg/l TA
ALUMINUM O.6 mg/l
pH 5.5 - 8.5
^
LING >^<
FLOW-I2I6 |Ahg(292 gal/Ion)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDl'STRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH
BPT MODEL
K-3
-------
TABLE IX-3
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM - CASTING QUENCH OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkgTl)
(lb/1000 Ib)
mg/1
Control and
Treatment Technology(2)
KstimatedO)
Total Cost
$/kkg
$/ton
Aluminum
Pheno1s
Suspended Solids
Oi1 & Grease
pit
Flow
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Recycle of all waste-
waters through a
settling tank with
an oil skimmer to
remove surface oils
and greases.
<50 Erop.
$3.56 $3.21
>50 Eiap.
$0.579 $0.525
(1) kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible combinations and
permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control ami treatment devisod. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
CTl
OO
SUSR SOLIDS 470 mg/l
OIL 8 GREASE 400 mg/l
pH 6.5 - 8.O
FLOW-3626 t/kkg(87l gal/ton)
SCUM
TANK
SOLIDS
3081 l/kkg (74O gol/lon)
SUSR SOLIDS 10 mg/l
OIL 8 GREASE 10 mg/l
pH 7.5-10
FLOW* 545 l/kkg(131 gal/Ion) I
DISCHARGE
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
DIE CASTING OPERATION
BPT MODEL
I I I
FIGURE JX-4
-------
TABLE IX-4
BI'T - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM - DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
BPT Effluent Level
Critical
Parameters
kg/kkg(l)
(lb/1000 Ib)
mg/l(2)
Control and
Treatment Technology(_3
Estimated(4)
Total Cost
kkg $/ton
—i
-------
96 l/khg (23 gal/Ion)
NH3 (as N) 22 mg/1
LEAD 2 mg/l
PHENOLS 66 mg/l
SUSP. SOLIDS I74O mg/l
OIL a GREASE 85OO mg/l
SULFIDE 3.3 mg/l
FLUORIDE 5.9 mg/l
ZINC IJ6 mg/l
pH 6r9
FLOW-96 l/kkg(23 gal/Ion)
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
DIE LUBES
BPT MODEL
I I
IGURE
-------
TABLE 1X-5
BFT - AFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM - DIE LUBE OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkgU)
(lb/1000 Ib)
mg/1
Control and
Treatment Technology(2)
EstimatedO)
Total Cost
kkg $/ton
Aninonia (As N)
Lead
Phenols
Suspended Solids
Oi 1 & Crease
SulfiJe
Fluoride
Zinc
pH
Flow
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Recycle of all wastes
from a holding tank,
through a cyclone
separator and paper
filter, to a storage
tank, and then back
to the process.
$0.960
$0.871
(1) kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible combinations and
permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated total'Costs
shown are only incremental required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
838 l/kkg (306 gal/Ion)
DUST
COLLECTORS
FLOW= 858 l/kkg (306 gal/Ion)
COPPER
LEAD
MANGANESE
PHENOLS
SUSP. SOLIDS
OIL 8 GREASE
ZINC
PH
70 mg/l
17 mg/l
0.3 mg/l
1.3 mg/l
390 mg/l
IO mg/l
80 mg/l
7.5-10
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUS1RV STUDY
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
BPT MODEL
FIGURE JK-6
-------
TABLE IX-6
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY - DUST COLLECTION OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkg(i)
(lb/1000 Ib)
mg/1
Control and
Treatment Technology(2)
EstimatedO)
Total Cost
kkg $/ton
-j
->j
oo
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Phenols
Suspended Solids
Oi 1 & Grease
Zinc
PH
Flow
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Complete recycle
through a dragont
tank.
$0.180
§0.163
(1) kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) of sand handled.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible combinations and
permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
MOLDING AND
CASTING
QUENCH
OPERATIONS
FLOW * 4721 l/kkg (1134 gal/Ion)
COPPER 1.1 rog/l
SUSR SOLIDS 60 mg/l
OIL a GREASE 10 mg/l
ZINC 3.5 mg/l
pH 7.5-10
\ »
SETTLING
COLD WELL
-••TO DISCHARGE
4679 l/kkg (1123 gal/Ion)
/ FLOW* 46 l/kkg(ll gal/Ion)
/ COPPER .1.1 mg/l
*•—I SUSR SOLIDS 25 mg/l
OIL a GREASE 10 mg/l
ZINC 3-5 mg/l
pH 7.5-10
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY FOUNDRIES
MOLD COOLING AND CASTING QUENCH
BPT MODEL
FIGURE 3K-7
-------
TABLE IX-7
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY - NOI.D COOLING
AND CASTING QUENCH OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
ZINC
Copper
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
pll
Flow
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkg(l)
(lb/1000 lb)
0.00015
0.0000 5
0.001
0.0005
46 1/kkg
mg/l(2)
3-5
1.1
25
10
6-9
(11 gal/ton)
•—i
in
Control and
Treatment Techno logy(3)
Recycle of 99Z and
discharge of 1Z of
wastcwater flow after
treatment via settling
and cooling with a
cooling tower.
Estimated(4)
Total Cost
S/kkg
$2.53
$/ton
$2.30
(1) kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Mil I ig ranis/ liter are based on the pollutant Ibs/ton value observed in the samples applied to the model
flow rate of 11 gal/ton.
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible combinations and
permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment, ill-vised. Estimated total costs
shown are.only incremental required above those facilities which are normally existing witluini a plant.
-------
—I
CT)
29.07O l/kkg (6982 gal/Ion)
1
CASTING
PROCESS
Copper 7
Fluoride 3
Leud O.6
Susp. solids 150
Oil S grease 2O
Zinc 14
pll 6 -
Flow = 29.O70 l>
(6962 gal
\ 1 L^J
mgTT) \ HOLDING ~^~) *
"?!/ \ TANK r^i »
:yl \ +j *
m»v.>-J ^
mg/l/
9
kkg\
/lon)J
1 1
• JL /
3 HEAT E \ /
^ EXCHANGER p \ /
1 ^ > '
l*-T~^v COLD WELL
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
COPPER AND COPPER Al LOY CASTING OPERATIONS
CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATION
BPT MODEL
I CURE
-------
Critical
Parameters
Copper
Fluoride
Lead
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
Zinc
PH
Flow
TABLE IX-8
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY - CONTINUOUS CASTING OPERATIONS
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkg(l)
(lb 1000 Ib)
mg/1
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Control and
Treatment Technology
(2)
Recycle of all waste-
waters through a heat
exchanger. The non-
contact cooling medium
for the heat exchanger
is cooled via a cooling
• towe r.
(3)
Estimated
Total Cost
$/kkg $/ton
<50 emp.
$2.35 $2.13
>50 emp.
$1.45 $1.31
—j
—i
(1) kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control
and treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only incremental costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
583 l/kkg (I4O gal/ton)
OUST
COLLECTORS
00
FLOW- 583 l/kkg(I4O
AMMONIAta* N) 24
COPPER
CYANIDE-TOTAL
IRON
MANGANESE
PHENOL
SUSR SOLIDS
Oil a GREASE
SULFIDE
PH
SOLIDS
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION
BPT MODEL
I I
IGURE 3X1-9
-------
TABI.F. IX-9
art - KFKMIENT LEVEL
t'KKKOUS - DUST COLI.KCTION OPKKATHWS
Critical
Paraneters
BPT Effluent Level
^g/kkgTTV"
(Ih 1000 Ib) ing/l
Control and
Treatment Technology
(2)
(3)
Ł• tinted
Total Coat
$/ton
10
AMOUR i a
Cupper
Cyanide
(Total)
Iron
Magnesium
Phenols
SUBP. Solids
Oi 1 and Crease
Sulfide
PH
Flow
No discharge of
process waste-
water pollutants.
Complete recycle of
all wastewaters through
a dragnnl tank.
Ductile Iron
<50 emp.
$0.761 $0.689
30-2/19 emp.
$0.141 $0.128
>150 emp.
$0. 108 $0.098
Cray Iron
10-49 cap.
$0.299 $0.271
5O-249 emp.
$0.165 $0.150
>2W .-ap.
$0.106 $0.096
Malic-able Iron
<250 amp.
$0.184 $0.167
$0.100
$0.110*
Si eel
<250 emp.
$0.181 ~ $0.164
>250 amp.
$0.12*3 $0.112
(I) kg/hkg (Ib/IOOO Iba) of Band handled.
(2) Technulogy listed is not nccesoniily all inclusive nor dot-9 it retlect all possible
cOMbinal ions and permit ul ions nf tr.-utmuiit •Kllioda.
(!) Costs may vary tome, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chusiicals, flow to be IruattMl, (rcudnent turhnology sclfiMi-d wburv comjiel iiig allurnat ives
fxinl, and eilcnt of preliminary isuili fications rri|iiiri*d to ai-cupt (In; indirnlcd control
;iml I rfiilpwMit dt*viHi*d. Ksl im.ilfit lfit.il fiiHin slmwii Jiri* utilv incriMik^nt.-il n»sl«; ri^nniri*!!
-------
5413 l/kkg (1300 gol/lon)
Ammonia (as N)
Antimony
Cadmium
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Phenols
Susp solids
Oil 8, grease
Zinc
pH
10 mg/l
03 mg/l
03 mg/l
3.3 mg/l
18 mg/l
2IO mg/l
60 mg/l
100 mg/l
O.7 mg/l
I85O mg/l
25 mg/l
150 mg/l
4-8
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUS FRY STUDY
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS*
BPT MODEL
FIGURE HXI-IO
-------
TABLE IX-10
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
FEKROUS - MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
oo
Critical
Parameters
Ammonia
An t iraony
Cadmium
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Phenols
Susp. Solids
Oi1 and Crease
Zinc
pH
Flow
BPT Effluent Level
(3)
kg/kkg(l)
(Ib 1000 Ib)
mg/1
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Control and
Treatment Technology
(2)
Recycle of all waste-
waters after treatment
via neutralization with
caustic, flocculation
and clarification.
A vacuum filter is used
to dewater the clarifier
underflow, with the filter
cake disposal at a landfill
Estimated
Total Cost
$/kkg $/ton
Ductile Iron
<250 emp.
$3.36 $3.05
>250 emp.
$0.721 $0.654
Gray Iron
10-49
$18.91 $17.16
50-249 emp.
$3.55 $3.22
>250 emp.
$1.04 $0.940
Malleable Iron
<250 emp.
$3.39 $3.09
>250 emp.
$2.03 $1.84
(1) kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ibs) of sand handled.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may,vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary nullifications required to accept the indicated control
and treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only iitcreuiont.il costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
1499 l/hkg(360 gal/Ion)
1 1
SLAG
QUENCHING
OPERATIONS
FLOW- 1449 l/kkgf)6O gal/Ion)
AMMONIA(a» N) 0.6 mg/l
FLUORIDE 40 mg/l
IRON 10 mg/l
LEAD O.7 mg/l
MANGANESE 0.9 mg/l
PHENOL 0.2 mg/l
SUSP. SOLIDS 73 mg/l
01 LB GREASE 18 mg/l
SULFIDE 2.5 mg/l
ZINC 3.3 mg/l
PH 7.5-10
1-6?-^
f "I I
/ DRAGOUT / f
/ TANK / SOLID
J
-8PT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
SLAG QUENCH
BPT MODEL
FIGURE JXT-II
-------
TABLE IX-11
HPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
FERROUS - SLAG QUENCHING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkg(1)
(Ib 1000 Ib)
•fi/I
Control and
Treatment Technology
(2)
(3)
Estimated
Total Cost
$/ton
00
00
Ammonia
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Phenols
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
Sulfide
Zinc
PH
Flow
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Treatment in a dragout
tank followed by the
complete recycle of
all wastewaters.
Ductile Iron
<250 emp.
$0,600 $0.545
>250 emp.
$0.170 $0.154
Cray Iron
<250 emp.
$0.522 $0.474
>250 emp.
$0.189 $0.172
Malleable Iron
<250 emp.
$0.406 $0.368
>250 emp.
$0.286 $0.259
(I) kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control
and treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only incremental costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
903 imglZIT gol/lon)
COOLING
TOWER
CASTING QUENCH
AND
MOLD COOLING
OPERATIONS
9O3 !/Migl2l7 gol/lon) ^
CO
SETTLING
Wl TH
ORAGOUT
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING
BPT MODEL
FIGURE 3XM2
-------
TABLE IX-12
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
FERROUS - CASTING QUENCH AND MOLD COOLING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Fluoride
Iron
Susp. Solids
Oi1 and Grease
PH
Flow
BPT Effluent Leyel
kg/kkg(l)
(Ib 1000 Ib)
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
(3)
Control and
Treatment Technology
(2)
Recycle of all waste-
waters following settling
in a dragout tank and side-
stream cooling via a
cooling tower.
oo
tn
Estimated
Total Cost
$/kkg $/ton
Due t ile Iron
<250 emp.
$0.537 $0.488
>250 emp.
$0.207 $0.188
Gray Iron
<250 emp.
$0.225 $0.205
>250 emp.
$0.209 $0.190
Malleable Iron
>250 emp.
$0.463 $0.419
Steel
<250 emp.
$0.534 $0.482
>250 emp.
$0.413 $0.375
(1) kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control
and treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only incremental costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
4663 l/fcfcg (II2O 0.01/Ion)
466 l/kfcq (112 gol/lon)
SOLIDS
Ammonia (at N) 5 mg/l
—i
cx>
CT>
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Mangunes*
Nickel
Phenols
Susp. tolids
OH S gr«OM
PH
Flow =
0.2 mg/l
I6O mg/i
O.65 mg/l
3 mg/l
O.3 mg/l
1.3 mg/l
96OO m»/l
35 mg/l
6-9
4663 l/hkg
(1120 gol/ton)
SOLIDS
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
FERROUS FOUNDRY
SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
BPT MODEL
I I \
'FIGURE IX-13
-------
TABLE IX-13
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
FERROUS - SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
BPT Effluent level
kg/kkgd)
(lb 1000 lb)
mg/1
(2)
Control and
Treatment Technology
(3)
(4)
Estimated
Total Cost
$/ton
-j
oo
Ammonia
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Flow
NO DISCHARGE OF PROCESS
WASTE WATER POLLUTANTS
Recycle of 90Z of the
wastewater flow following
settling in a dragout. The
solids are reclaimed for
reuse. The remaining 10%
of the wastewater flow
undergoes further treatment
prior to recycle. This
treatment involves pll adjust-
ment with lime, phenol destruc-
tion with potassium permangan-
ate, flocculation, and clarifi-
cation. The clarifier sludge
is dewatered using a vacuum
filter, and the filter cake is
landfilied.
Cray Iron
>250 einp.
$0.953 $0.864
Steel
>250 emp.
$1.30 $1.17
(1) kg/kkg ('lb/1000 Ibs) of sand handled.
(2) Milligrams/liter are based on the pollutant Ibs/ton value observed in the samples
applied to the model flow rate of 112 gal/ton.
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor docs it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment models.
(4) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control
and treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only incremental costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
CO
CO
GRINDING
SCRUBBER
SUSR SOLIDS HO mg/l
OIL a GREASE 5 mg/l
MAGNESIUM 98 mg/l
pH 7.5-10
FLOW-6662 IAkg(l6OO gal/Ion)
1
SETTLING
I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRIES
GRINDING SCRUBBERS
BPT MODEL
J.i. _. * _ ,.. Irif^i ir>r"
IX-14
-------
TABLE X-14
BAT ALTERNATE NO. 1 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRY GRINDING SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
12}
Incremental
Critical BAT Limitations Control andli| Cost Over BPT
Parameters kg/kkgmg/1 Treatment Technology $/kkg $/ton
Magnesium No discharge of process Complete recycle of $24.18 $21.76
Susp. Solids wastewater pollutants. BPT treatment system
Oil and Grease effluent.
PH
Flow
00
IO
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
9? l/kky (?2 gol/lon)
OUST
COLI ECTION
SYSTEM
—I
vo
o
Fluoride 1.2 mg/l
Magnesium I mg/1
Phenols 1.1 mg/l
Susp. solids 30 mg/l
Oil Q grease 10 ma/I
pH 7.5-10
Flow=92 l/kkgli!2 gal/Ion^
SETTLING
SOLIDS
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
MAGNESIUM FOUNDRIES
DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM
BPT MODF.L
I I T
FIGURE IXr 15
-------
TABLE IX-1 5
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
MAGNESIUM - DUST COLLECTOR OPERATIONS
BPT Effluent Level Estimated*3*
Critical kg/kkg(l) Control and . x Total Cost
Parameters (Ib 1000 Ib) mg/j. Treatment Technology ' $/kkg $/ton
Fluoride No discharge Of process Recycle of all waste- $0.265 $0.240
Magnesium VOStewater pollutants. waters following settling
Phenols in a dragout tank.
Susp. Solids
Oi1 and Crease
P1I
Flow
(1) kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ibs) of sand handled.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs ujay vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control
and treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only incremental costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
SUSP. SOLIDS 40 mg/l
OIL 8 GREASE 30 mg/l
ZINC 130 mo/I
pH 6-8
FLOW- 158 l/kkg(38 gal/ton)
CASTING
QUENCH
OPERATIONS
ro
OIL SKIMMER
SETTLING AND
HOLDING TANK
SUSR SOLIDS 35 mg/l
OIL 8 GREASE 20 mg/l
ZINC 130 mg/l
pH 7.5-10
FLOWM58 l/kkg(36 gal/Ion)
•BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ZINC FOUNDRIES
CASTING QUENCH PROCESS
BPT MODEL
FIGURE JXI-16
-------
TABLE IX-16
BPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ZINC - CASTING QUENCH OPERATIONS
—i
^o
co
Critical
Parameters
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
Zinc
PH
Flow
BPT Effluent Level
kg/kkg(1)
(lb 1000 lb)
mg/1
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Control and
Treatment Technology
(2)
Complete recycle of all
casting quench waters after
a settling and skimming
operation.
Zero discharge flow based
on complete recycle.
Recycle flow of 38 gal/ton
is based on prudent water
and waste management.
(3)
Estimated
Total Cost
$/kkg $/ton
<50 crop.
1.35 1.22
50-249 emp.
0.320 0.290
<250 emp.
0.507 0.459
(1) kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment methods.
(3) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control
and treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only incremental costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
POTASSIUM
PERMANGANATE
ZINC
MELT ING
FURNACE
SCRUBBERS
(95% INTERNAL RECYCLE)
PHENOLS
SUSP SOLIDS
OIL a GREASE
ZINC
PH
85 mg/l
4 00 mg/l
700mg/l
2Omg/l
4.5-6.O
FLOW«3I4O l/kkg(75S gpl)
LIME
D
PHENOLS 5 mg/l
SUSP SOLIDS 3O mg/l
OIL S GREASE 20mg/l
ZINC 5 mg/l
PH 7.5-10
FLOW-3140 l/kkg(755 gpl)
H—
1 ,
..
=^-l
1
OK) 1
FILTRATE
SLUDGE
BPT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ZINC FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
BPT MODEL
I I I
FIGURE OX-17
-------
TABLE IX-17
DPT - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ZINC - MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Pheno1s
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
Zinc
PH
ID
tn
Flow
BPT Effluent Level
(4)
kg/kkg(l)
(Ib 1000 lb)
0.016
0.094
0.063
0.016
mg/1
5
30
20
5
(2)
Control and
Treatment Technology
(3)
Estimated
Total Cost
7.85
Emulsion breaking using acid
and alum, skimming the oily
break. Neutralization with
lime in conjunction with
7.5-1 0 potassium permanganate addi-
tion for phenol destruction.
Finally, polymer addition for
improved floe formation and
then solids removal in a
clarifier.
Based on a tightening of the recycle rate within the scrubber package
to 95% and the—flow rates as noted in the 308 survey, the scrubber
system discharge flow is 3140 liters per kkg of metal poured (755
gal/ton). The discharge flow rate was determined by applying the
5% rate of discharge to the total scrubber system flow.
$/ton
7.12
(1) kg/«ckg'(lb/1000 Ibs) of metal poured.
(2) Milligrams/liter are based on the pollutant Ibs/ton value observed in the samples
applied to the model flow rate of 755 gal/ton.
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations and permutations of treatment models.
(4) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land
and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives
exist, and extent of preliminary modifications required to accept the indicated control
anil treatment devised. Estimated total costs shown are only incremental costs required
above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
-------
SECTION X
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984 are not
based on an average of the best performance within an industrial category.
Instead, they are based on the very best available control and treatment
technology employed by a point source within the industry category or
subcategory or by another industry from which technology is readily
tranferable. BAT may include process changes or internal controls, even
when not common industry practice.
For some subcategories and some subcategory process segments, determination
of the average of the best performances of plants led to the development of
BPT technology capable of treating process wastewater to a level suitable
for complete process wastewater recycle. For these processes, BAT is
equivalent to BPT in that BPT represents the very best demonstrated /control
and treatment technology.
For other subcategories and subcategory process segments, the average of
the best performances of plants does not support a BPT level of no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. The BPT effluent from these
processes contains toxic pollutant not fully controlled by BPT technology.
These toxic pollutants found in the BPT effluent require advanced
treatment. BAT represents this advanced level of treatment.
i
To provide the Agency with a range of treatment alternatives to choose from
in its decision making process of establishing effluent limitations and
standards, a maximum of three BAT alternatives applicable to processes
discharging toxic pollutants in the BPT effluent were developed.
Given the prevalence of 100 percent recycle at plants in this category, the
first approach taken in the development of BAT considered the engineering
feasibility of the application of additional of treatment equipment to the
BPT treatment train which would enable the complete recycle of treated
process wastewater. At least one BAT alternative for each process is
designed to achieve no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Generally, these alternatives are designed with only that treatment
equipment necessary to provide process wastewater of suitable quality for
complete recycle. As indicated in Section XIII this is generally the least
expensive treatment alternative.
The top of the line of current technology was also considered to identify
"what technology is applicable to foundry waste streams and to identify the
797
-------
effluent reduction capability of the technology to remove toxic pollutants
to a level appropriate for discharge. The Agency in the development of
these alternatives considered the volume and nature of the BPT discharges,
the volume and nature of the discharges expected after application of BAT,
the general environmental effects of the toxics pollutants, and the costs
of the various pollution control levels.
BAT technology considers those process control technologies which at the
pilot plant, semi-works or other level, have demonstrated sufficient
technological performance and economic viability to justify investing in
such facilities. BAT respesents the highest degree of demonstrated control
technology for plant scale operations up to and including "no discharge" of
process wastewater pollutants. The costs of this level of process
wastewater pollutant control are defined by top-of-the-line of current
technology, subject to limitations imposed by economic and engineering
feasibility. Technical risk may exist with respect to performance and
certainty of costs and some technologies may require process development
and adaptation before application to a specific plant.
The factors considered in assessing best available technology economically
achievable include the age of the equipment and facilities involved, the
manufactoring process employed, process changes, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) and the cost of
application of such technology. In general, the BAT technology level
represents, at a minimum, the best economically achievable performance of
plants of various ages, sizes, processes or other shared characteristics.
As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may be
transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may include
process changes or internal controls, even when not common industry
practice.
IDENTIFICATION OF BAT
Aluminum Casting
After the application of BPT technology, 3 of the 5 aluminum casting
processes have a process wastewater discharge. The effluents from these 3
processes contain toxic pollutants. The control of these toxic pollutants
is addressed by various BAT alternatives developed for each process.
Investment Casting Process:
Various treatment technologies were examined prior to the development of
BAT. During the developmental stages, the engineering aspects of extensive
recycle and the water quality requirements of the investment casting
process were considered. In addition, any cost benefits associated with a
BAT technology were identified.
798
-------
Three BAT alternatives have been developed for the aluminum investment
casting process. Each is an extension of BPT treatment and each involves
extensive recycle of process wastewater. The revalent considerations made
for each alternative are:
Alternative 1. Figure X-l
An examination of the different uses of water in the investment
casting process indicates that the BPT treated process wastewater is
of suitable quality for 100 percent recycle. High quality water for
mold back up washdown is not required. This is a house cleaning
operation and process wastewater after BPT treatment is of suitable
quality to be used as washdown water. ,,
In addition, recycled process wastewater can be used for the removal
of the mold medium during the hydroblasting of the casting. This
cleaning operation involves the use of high pressure water sprays to
clean the casting. With 3.25mm (1/8") to 4.7mm (3/16") diameter
nozzel tips and 7atm (100 psig) water pressure, periodic cleaning of
the nozzels would be a minimum.
This alternative was developed because it provides the maximum
effluent reduction benefits for the least incremental cost above BPT
of the three BAT alternatives. Application of this BAT alternative
technology results in no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
In addition, monitoring pollutants would not be required and
monitoring costs would be nill. Table X-l summarizes the BAT effluent
levels, control and treatment technologies and estimated costs per
unit of production.
Alternative 2. Figure X-2
The addition of deep bed multi-media filtration to the BPT clarifier
overlfow reduces the pollutant levels appropriate for discharge. Deep
bed mulit-media filtration has been commercially available for many
years and the resulting effluents have been achieved in plants with
raw process wastwater characteristics similar to investment casting
process wastewaters. The effluent levels represent concentrations
achievable with properly operated and maintained filters.
This alternative provides the least effluent reduction benefits for an
incremental increase in costs over alternative 1. In addition,
monitoring of the effluent would be required and monitoring costs
would be a continuing expenditure. Table X-2 summarizes the BAT
effluent levels, control and treatment technologies and estimated
costs per unit of production.
This treatment technology would produce the following effluent levels:
799
-------
Flow
Pollutants
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
PH
Alternative 3. Figure X-3
26,850 1/kkg
mq/1
10
10
0,
0,
0,
(6,450 gal/ton)
kq/kkq (lb/1000 Ibs)
0.268
0.268
0.003
0.003
0.003
7.5 - 10.0
The addition of a deep bed mulit-media filter before 100 percent
recycle of the treated process wastewater provides a higher level of
water quality which may be required with the use of low pressure
sprays or with the use of small spray nozzels.
However, replacement of low pressure sprays with high pressure sprays
(100 psig) and an increase in nozzel size would prove considerably
most economical than the installation of a deep bed filter prior to
complete recycle. Application of this BAT alternative technology
results in no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Table X-3
summarizes the BAT effluent levels, control and treatment technologies
and estimated costs per unit of production.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
The mode of treatment most prevalent with plants operating melting
scrubbers consists of settling and recycle.
furnace
These plant treatment practices formed the basis of BPT and then was
expanded using the treatment design of plant 17089 to complete the BPT
treatment train. For those plants with minimal treatment to achieve a
level of performance equivalent to BPT, additional treatment equipment may
have to be installed. However, with the simultaneous issuance of both BPT
and BAT, those plants with minimal treatment have a viable alternative to
installing extensive BPT or BAT treatment technology. Noting the extensive
recycle capabilities of various plants which have installed minimal
treatment, a BAT alternative was developed which is designed with only
increased settling capacity and oil skimming technology beyond that
provided by the scrubber equipment package. This enables 100 percent
recycle of process wastewater. This represents a far less expensive
treatment scheme than the other BAT alternative.
For those plants with extensive treatment already in place only the
installation of minimal equipment is necessary to achieve a level of
performance equivalent to BAT. Therefore, two BAT alternatives have been
developed with knowledge that some plants have extensive treatment in place
800
-------
while other plants have provided minimal treatment or none at all. The
relavent considerations made for each alternative are:
Alternative No. 1. Figure X-4
This BAT alternative treatment is based on the design of internal recycle
systems provided as part of the scrubber manufacturer's equipment package
and the transfer of technology from the zinc melting furnace scrubber
process. Scrubbers are used on aluminum and zinc melting furnaces when
dirty, oily or greasy scrap is rerne1ted, and as a result of the heating
process, fumes are given off by the oily contaminents. The remelting of
oil-free, grease-free scrap does not require the use of scrubbers. The
function of the melting furnace scrubber is the same for both aluminum and
zinc melting operations. The design of the scrubber depends upon dust or
fume loading, e.g., a function of scrap cleanliness, particle size
distribution, and the manufacture's experience. Differences in metallurgy
between zinc and aluminum is a minor design parameter in relation to the
other parameters mentioned above.
Extensive internal recycle rates (greater than 95 percent) have been
indicated by the surveyed plants with aluminum and zinc melting furnace
scrubbers. 100 percent internal recycle has been indicated by a plant
operating a zinc melting furnace scrubber. The internal recycle system
consists of a settling step and recycle pumps. The internal recycle system
for both aluminum and zinc melting furnace scrubbers are similar.
This BAT treatment is based on the achievement of 100 percent recycle by
the plant with the zinc melting furnace scrubber and the inclusion of an
addition settling tank and oil skimming to provide increased solids and oil
removal. This additional equipment is more extensive in solids and oil and
grease removal capability than what is found in scrubber internal recycle
systems provided by the manufacturer. Table X-4 summarizes the BAT
effluent levels, control and treatment technologies and estimated costs per
unit of production.
Alternate No. 2. Figure X-5
This system is designed with the complete recycle of the BPT treated
effluent. This system would be of use to those operations desiring a
complete recycle system with a greater degree of pollutant removal
capability. This system results in no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. Table X-5 summarizes the BAT effluent levels, .control and
treatment technologies and estimated costs per unit of production.
Casting Quench Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT level of treatment with no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
801
-------
Die Casting Process:
For this process, BAT is an extension of BPT. However, the presence of the
various toxic pollutants, namely, the chlorinated phenols and other
phenols, and the concentrations at which these toxic organics are found
together with copper, lead, and zinc in the BPT effluent warrents extensive
BAT treatment prior to an effluent discharge. Various technologies were
examined for their toxic pollutant removal capabilities. In addition, in
process controls were examined to identify what changes can be made to
reduce water usage and what measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate
the contamination of process wastewater with toxic organic pollutants.
Procedures enacted to reduce the amount of hydraulic oil leakage and die
lubercant waste at the process, lowers the demands placed on the treatment
equipment for the removal of the toxic organic pollutants and increases the
suitability of 100 percent recycle of the process wastewater.
During the development of the three BAT alternatives, the engineering
aspects of extensive recycle, and the water quality requirements of the die
casting process were considered. In addition, any cost savings realized as
a result of a particular BAT alternative were identified.
Consideration of the water quality requirements of the process in light of
the technical aspects of the process indicated that the process wastewater
is suitable for extensive recycle provided either certain in process
changes are made or extensive treatment is provided.
Alternative No. 1. Figure X-6
This alternative was developed because it provides the maximum effluent
reduction benefits for the least incremental cost above BPT of the three
BAT alternatives. In addition, through the use of 100 percent recycle,
monitoring of the effluent discharge is not required and the associated
costs of monitoring for toxic pollutants avoided. Purchases of miniciple
water for use as make-up, would be reduced. However, the application of
this BAT alternative requires either the prudent use of die casting
lubercants or the segregated collection of die lubes as depicted in Section
IX for the BPT treatment of die lubercants.
Even after BPT treatment for oil removal, the BPT effluent contains levels
of toxic organics requiring treatment. Lubercants which, in addition to
use on the die surfaces, are often liberally sprayed on the exterior of the
die to cool it. Excess lubercants drip to floor and run down the floor
drain unless specific measures have been taken to collect them. This
excess of die lubercant adds significantly to the concentration of organic
toxic pollutants in the process wastewater. This BAT alternative provides
no treatment for organic pollutant removal. Therefore, without the use of
specific treatment designed for the removal of these organic materials from
the process wastewater, the concentrations of these materials will
802
-------
continuously build up within the recycle system and lessen the suitability
of the treated process wastewater for recycle.
To reduce the organic content in the process wastewater, replacement of the
die lubercants as exterior die cooling sprays with recycled process
wastewater is required. The overspraying of die lubercants on the die
surface should also be avoided and proper maintenance of the hydraulic oil
system to reduce hydraulic oil leaks, another source of organics in the
process wastewater, should be enacted. Separate collection of die
lubercant drippings will also reduce the organic content of the die casting
process wastewater.
With enactment of these in process changes, the treated process wastewater
is suitable for use as cooling water for the die casting machine, quench
tank make up, and as exterior die cooling water. Otherwise, recycle
process wastewater with high concentrations of organics, particularly the
phenols, may cause operational problems in the various areas where recycle
process wastewater is used. At some high concentration level, the phenols
may absorb on the heat transfer surface on the water side of the hydraulic
oil heat exchangers and decrease the heat exchangers efficiency. At some
concentrated level, organic materials in the quench tank may volatilize and
cause a hazard to the equipment operators. In addition, the organic
material at high enough concentrations in the quench tank may char on or
blemish the surface of the hot casting as it contacts the quench water.
This charring or blemishing of the casting surface may affect product
quality.
The design of this BAT alternative is based on sampling data, survey data,
and engineering practice. Plants 14401 and 17089 form the basis for the
design of this BAT treatment alternate. Plant 14401 has achieved 90
percent recycle of die casting process wastewater -through the use of simple
settling and recirculation pumps. Slowdown is not controlled but occurs
during settling tank overflow. The recycled process wastewater is used as
external die cooling water, internal die cooling water, and as quench tank
make up. Information about this plant was provided by the plant survey
data.
Plant 17089 is identical to this BAT treatment alternative in equipment
components. Both systems employ the use of oil removal equipment and deep
bed mulit-media filters. Seventy-five percent of the treated process
wastewater at this plant is recycled and used as internal die water cooling
and as casting quench make up. A treated effluent level of 8.0 mg/1 total
suspended solids and 10 mg/1 oil and grease is achieved.
However, even after filtration organic effluent levels are in the range of
0.3 to 0.64 mg/1. With these organic effluent levels, either 100 percent
recycle of the treated process wastewater as provided by this alternative
or additional treatment designed specifically for organics removal is
required. The use of potassium permanganate for phenol destruction was
803
-------
considered but the high levels of phenol make the use of this treatment
chemical uneconomical.
This BAT alternative involves the tightening of the BPT treated effluent
recycle rate from 85 percent to 100 percent. In addition, in process
changes are made which; 1) replace the use of die lubercants as cooling
sprays on the exterior of the die with recycled process wastewater, 2)
eliminate excess spray of die lubercants on the die surface, and 3) reduce
hydraulic leaks which contaminate the process wastewater. This system
results in no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Table X-6
summarizes the BAT effluent levels, control and treatment technologies and
estimated costs per unit of production.
Alternative No. 2. Figure X-7
This alternative illustrates the rigorous treatment required and the
additional costs incurred when in process changes, which limit the
dispersion of organic toxic pollutants at the source, are not adopted.
This alternative provides organic toxic pollutant control at the end of the
pipe and is the most expensive treatment design of the three alternatives
developed. The use of activated carbon filter for the removal of the toxic
organics in the recycled process wastewater serves two purposes; 1) to
remove toxics to a level suitable for discharge and 2) to prevent the
buildup of organic materials, particularly phenols, in the recirculatory
system. In addition to the cost of the activated carbon filter, monitoring
of toxic pollutants in the effluent would be required and the associated
costs of monitoring would be incurred.
In this BAT alternative, activated carbon treatment is provided for the
effluent of the final BPT treatment step. The activated carbon filter
effluent is then recycled at the same rate (85 percent) and discharged at
the same rate (15 percent) as in the BPT treatment system. Activated
carbon filtration technology provide effluent level appropriate for
discharge and recycle. Table X-7 summarizes the BAT effluent levels,
control and treatment technologies and estiamted costs per unit of
production. This technology would produce the following effluent levels:
804
-------
Flow
545 1/kkg
Pollutants mg/1
Suspended Solids 10
Oil and Grease 10
Ammonia 0.1
Phenols 0.05
2.4 Trichlorophenol 0.05
Chloroform 0.05
2,4-dichlorophenol 0.05
2,4-dimethylphenol 0.05
2-n i trbphenol 0.05
2,4-dinitrophenol 0.05
Pentachlorophenol 0.05
Phenol 0.05
Copper 0.3
Lead 0.3
Zinc 0.3
PH
Alternative No. 3 Figure X-8
(131 gal/ton)
kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs)
0.005
0.005
0.0005
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
7.5 - 10
The value added to the treated effluent of the second BAT alternative makes
that water extremely expensive to throw away. This BAT alternative is
identical to the second BAT alternative but recycles all the process
wastewater passing through the activated carbon filter. With 100 percent
recycle, monitoring costs would be eliminated and for those plants which
purchase municiple water, 100 percent recycle would further decrease the
volume of water purchased. Table X-8 summarizes the BAT effluent levels,
control and treatment technologies and estimated costs per unit of
production.
Die Lube Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Copper Casting
BPT level of treatment with no
After the application of BPT technology, one of the three copper casting
processes has a process wastewater discharge. The effluent from the mold
cooling and casting quench process contains toxic pollutants. The control
of these toxic pollutants is addressed by BAT.
805
-------
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT level of treatment with no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Mold Cooling and Casting Quench Process:
After review of the process wastewater characteristics of this process, and
the analysis of the manufacturing process, only one BAT alternative was
developed on the basis that any other alternatives developed would be
marginally more expensive for the pollution reduction benefits achieved.
Alternative No. 1. Figure X-9
This BAT treatment system is a logical extension of the BPT level of
treatment for mold cooling and casting quench. Closing the loop on the BPT
treatment system represents the most cost effective method of controlling
the discharge of copper and zinc toxic pollutants. Additional metals
removal technology beyond BPT would be required to reduce the
concentrations of these toxic pollutants to suitable levels for discharge.
This additional equipment, clarification, sulfide precipitation, etc. would
represent a level of technology over and above what other plants are doing
in managing mold cooling and casting quench wastewaters when no oily
solutions or oily contaminants are involved. Plant 4736 has demonstrated
the ability to recycle mold cooling and casting quench process wastewaters
to the extent of achieving no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
With the exceptions of water flow and the particular metal pollutants
present in the process wastewater, the quenching of steel castings and the
quenching of copper castings are similar processes. The settling
characteristics of the particulates in both waste streams are similar.
The same pollutants that are uncharacteristic of steel casting quenches are
uncharacteristic of copper casting quenches. Both process wastewaters
require solids removal and cooling equipment. Therefore, after
consideration of the similarities and differences between these two
processes and an examination of the engineering aspects of transferring
treatment technology, an appropriate transfer of technology can be made
from the ferrous casting quench process segment to the copper casting
quench process segment. The BAT treatment technology for the copper
casting quench process is based on the performance of plant 4736 and on the
performance capabilities of plants quenching steel castings.
In achieving 100 percent recycle of process wastewater the monitoring of
pollutants in the effluent would not be required.
The BAT treatment involves tightening the recycle rate of the BPT treatment
system from 99 percent to 100 percent. The cost of this is minimal as it
806
-------
involves only very minor adjustments to the BPT recycle rate (closing the
valve) and does not involve additional equipment. This system results in
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Table X-9 summarizes the
BAT effluent levels, control and treatment technologies and estimated costs
per unit of production.
Continuous Casting Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Iron and Steel Casting
level of treatment with no
BAT for this subcategory is identical to BPT in that BPT represents the
highest degree of demonstrated control technology available.
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT treatment with
process wastewater pollutants.
no discharge of
Furnace Scrubber Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Slag Quenching Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Casting Quench and Mold Cooling Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Sand Washing Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Magnesium Casting
BAT for this subcategory is identical to BPT in that BPT represents the
highest degree of demonstrated control technology available.
BPT level of treatment with no
level of treatment with no
BPT level of treatment with no
level of treatment with no
807
-------
Grinding Scrubber Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT level of treatment with no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT level of treatment with no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Zinc Casting
After the application OF BPT technology one of the two zinc casting
processes has a process wastewater discharge. The effluent from the zinc
melting furnace scrubber contains toxic pollutants. Three BAT alternatives
have been developed for control of these toxic pollutants.
Casting Quench Process:
The BAT treatment is identical to the BPT level of treatment with no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
Alternative No. 1. Figure X-10
The mode of treatment most prevalent with plants operating zinc meling
furnace scrubbers consists of extensive internal recycle of the scrubber
process wastewater, generally greater than 90 percent, followed by joint
treatment with non metal molding and casting process wastewaters. However,
some plants extensively recycle within the scrubber equipment package and
then discharge the process wastewater without further treatment.
The ability of scrubbers to tolerate high recycle rates within the
equipment package without detrimental effects in performance prompted the
development of this BAT alternative. This level of performance is achieved
through eliminating the overflow from the scrubber. In many cases this may
be done by simply turning the overflow valve off or installing a valve in
the overflow line. For those plants with minimal treatment to achieve a
level of performance equivalent to BAT, additional treatment equipment may
have to be installed. However, with the simultaneous issuance of both BPT
and BAT, this alternative is a viable alternative to installing extensive
BPT and BAT treatment technology for those plants with minimal treatment in
place.
This alternative is the least costly of the three BAT alternatives. The
ability of the scrubber equipment to provide sufficient treatment for 100
percent recycle of process wastewater is demonstrated by many plants in the
808
-------
survey data, particularly by the zinc melting furnace scrubber installed at
plant 4622. Table X-10 summarizes the BAT effluent levels, control and
treatment technologies and estimated costs per unit of production.
Alternative No. 2. Figure X-ll
This BAT alternate is an extention of BPT and provides treatment over and
above that required for the 100 percent recycle of zinc melting furnace
scrubber process wastewater as demonstrated by plant 4622. This is the
next most costly BAT alternative. However, with the elimination of a
process wastewater discharge monitoring costs do not accrue and for those
plants purchasing municiple water, 100 percent recycle will reduce this
expenditure.
For those plants with extensive treatment in place only a limited amount of
equipment may need to be installed to achieve this level of BAT
performance. Treatment of the blowdown of the 95 percent internal scrubber
recycle is provided through the addition of lime and polymer followed by
clarification. The 5 percent overflow of the clarifier is recycled after
treatment back to the melting furnace scrubber. Table X-ll summarizes the
BAT effluent levels, control and treatment technologies and estimated costs
per unit of production.
Alternative No. 3. Figure X-12
This is the most expensive BAT alternative and illustrates the incremental
cost above BPT associated with the installation of extensive treatment,
i.e. activated carbon, necessary to remove toxic organic pollutants to a
level suitable for discharge. This BAT alternative involves application of
sulfide precipitation and activated carbon and filtration technology to the
basic BPT treatment system (potassium permanganate phenol destruction is
not required with the use of activated carbon). These technologies provide
an effluent level appropriate for discharge. Table X-12 summarizes the BAT
effluent levels, control and treatment technologies and estimated costs per
unit of production. This technology would produce the following effluent
levels:
809
-------
Flow
Pollutants
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Ammonia
Phenols
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
2.4. 6-Tr ichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-DimethyIphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Copper
Lead
Zinc
PH
3140 1/kkg
mq/1
10
10
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0,
0,
0,
(755 gal/ton)
kq/kkq (lbs/1000 Ibs)
0.031
0.031
0.0003
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.00016
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
7.5 - 10
810
-------
26.85O l/Kkg (64SO gal/Ion)
INVESTMENT
CASTING
OPERATION
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
SUSP SOLIDS 2OOO mg/l
OIL 8 GREASE 4O mg/l
ALUMINUM 4.4 mg/l
pM 6.5 - 8.5
FLOW- 26350 (Akg (64SO gol/lon)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
INVESTMENT CASTING
BAT MODEL ALTERNATE I
FIGURE
-------
TABLE X-l
CAT ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
co
i—"
ro
(2)
Incremental
Critical BAT Effluent Level Control and ,,. Cost Over DPT
Parameters kg/kkging/I Treatment Technology1 $/kkg $/ton
Aluminum No discharge of. Complete recycle of $13.20 $11.88
Susp. Solids process waste- BPT treatment system
Oil and Grease water pollutants. effluent.
P«
Flow
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect all
possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of
land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where
competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications re-
quired to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities which
are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result
of complying with 13PT standards.
-------
POLYMER
I
INVESTMENT
CASTING
OPERATION
00
i—»
co
SUSR SOLIDS 20OO mg/l
OIL a GREASE 4O mg/l
ALUMINUM 4.4 mg/l
pH 6.5 - 8.3
FLOW«26.85O I/MQ I645O gal/tat)
10 mg/l
5 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
7.5- 10
SUSR SOLIDS
OIL a GREASE
ALUMINUM
PM
FLOW=26.85O lAkg (645O got/ton)
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
INVESTMENT CASTING
BAT MODEL ALTERNATE 2
FIGURE X-2
-------
TABLE X-2
BAT ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Aluminum
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
pll
Flow
BAT Effluent Level
kg/kkgd) mg/l(2)
0.003
0.269 10
0.134 5
7.5 - 10
26,850 1/kkg
(6,450 gal/ton)
Control and (3)
Treatment Technology
/4\
Incremental
Cost Over BPT
0.1 Applies filtration
$30.14
technology to BPT
treatment system
effluent.
CO
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of metal poured or pounds per 1000 Ibs of metal
poured.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on a flow of 26,850 liters effluent per kkg
of metal poured (6,450 gal/ton).
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
26.830 l/kkfl (645O gal/Ion)
Ml-
INVESTMENT
CASTING I
OPERATION
|SUSR SOLIDS 20OO mg/lj
OIL 8 GREASE 4O mg/l
ALUMINUM 4.4 mg/l
pH 6.5 - 8.5
FLOW-26.85O lAkg (645O gal/Ion)
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
INVESTMENT CASTING
BAT MODEL ALTERNATE 3
IGURE X-3
-------
TABLE X-3
BAT ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY INVESTMENT CASTING OPERATIONS
(2)
, Incremental* '
Critical BAT Effluent Level Control and* ' Cost Over BPT
oo
i—>
cr>
Parameters kg/kkg mq/1Treatment Technology $/kkg $/ton
Aluminum No discharge of Recycle all of BAT $46.69 $42.02
Susp. Solids process waste- Alternate No. 2
Oil and Grease water pollutants. filter effluent back
pll to process.
Flow
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
r
MELTING I
FURNACE
SCRUBBER
SYSTEM |
00
SUSR SOLIDS 39 mg/l
OIL 6 GREASE IO mg/l
pH 6-8
FLOW-8060 (Akg (1936 gal/ton)
'OIL SKIMMER
| SETTLING |
TANK |
806O l/kkg(l936 gal/Ian)
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER
BAT MODEL ALTERNATE I
1 I
FIGURE X-4
-------
TABLE X-4
BAT ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
(2)
n . Incremental '
Critical BAT Effluent Level Control and(1) Cost Over BPT
Parameters kg/kkg mg/1 Treatment Technology $/kkg $/ton
Susp. Solids No discharge of Recycle all process 0 0
Oil and Grease process waste- wastewater effluent of
pH water pollutants. BPT treatment system
Flow primary settling stage
(Step A).
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
00
I—"
00 all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
r
I ALUM
SUSR SOLIDS 35 mg/l |
OIL 8 GREASE 10 mg/l
pH 6-8 |
FLOW• 8060 I/Vkg(1936 gal/Ion) ' LIME
MELTING |
FURNACE
SCRUBBER
| SYSTEM |
I POLYMER >—-
•
I
"1!
11
8O6O IAkg(1936 gal/Ion)
1
U
1 VACUUM FILTER ,
SCUM
TANK
SOLIDS
4OO l/Mig (96 gal/Ion)
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER
BAT MODEL ALTERNATE 2
\ \ I
FIGURE X-5i
-------
TABLE X-5
DAT ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
(2 J
., Incremental^
Critical BAT Effluent Level Control and( ' Cost Over BPT
Parameters kg/kkg mg/1 Treatment Technology $/kkg$/ton
Susp. Solids to discharge of Complete recycle of $0.121 $0.110
Oil and Grease Process waste- the BPT treatment
PH water Pollutants. system effluent
Flow
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
Ło (2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
CASTING ,
OPERATION
00
ro
SUSR SOLIDS 470 mg^
OIL B GREASE 4OO mg/l
PH 6.5-80
FLOW-3626 IAkg(87l gal/ton)
I SCUM
i TANK
3626 l/KKg(87l got/>on)
VACUUM I
|_ FILTER |
SOLIDS
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
BAT MODEL ALTERNATE I
IGURE
-------
TABLE X-6
BAT ALTERNATE NO. 1 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Flow
BAT Effluent Level
kg/kkg mg/1
No discharge of
process waste-
water pollutants.
Control and(1)
Treatment Technology
Tighten recycle rate
of BPT effluent
from 85% to 100%
Incremental
Cost Over BPT
$0.098
$0.089
ro
ro
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
CASTING
OPERATION
00
ro
CO
* te-T
SUSP. SOLIDS 4TO mg/l
OIL A GREASE 40O mg/l
pH 6.5 - 8.O
FLOW-3626 IAhg(87l gol/>on)
r
\ ___ 1^
l H
FILTERSJ I
L—J
ILTER
BACKWASH
I _*jA 1
IW—{"""• VACUUM 1
[_ FILTER [
SOLIDS
3081 l/hkg (740 gol/lon)
r
SUSP SOLIDS K) mg/l
OIL 8 GREASE 5 mg/l
pH 7.5-10
FLOW-545 l/kkg(!3l gol/lon)
ACTIVATED
CARBON
FILTER
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
DISCHARGE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
BAT MOUEl ALTERNATE 2
FIGURE X-7
-------
TABLE X-7
BAT ALTERNATE NO. 2 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Flow
00
ro
BAT Eff1ueht Level
kg/kkg(l) ~ig7I(2)
0.005 10
0.003 5
7.5-10
545 1/kkg
(131 gal/ton)
Control and (3)
Treatment Technology
Activated carbon
filtration technology
is applied to the
BPT treatment system
effluent. BPT re-
cycle rate of 85% and
discharge rate of 15%
are maintained for
carbon filter effluent.
Incremental
Cost Over BPT
$11.44
$/ton
$10.39
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of metal poured or pounds per 1000 Ibs of metal
poured.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on a flow of 545 liters effluent per kkg
of metal poured (131 gal/ton).
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only _i_ncjreinen_ta_l required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a"plant and/or have been
a result of complying with BPT standards.
installed as
-------
1 CA
CASTING
PO
171
' — '
SUSR SOLIDS 470 mg/l
OIL 8 GREASE 4OO mg/l
pH 6.9 - 8.O
FLOW-3626 IAkg(B7l galdon)
I
FILTERL-
^ /BACKWASH
I SCUM
I TANK
3626 1/l.kg (871 gal/ton)
I
CARBON
FILTER
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ALUMINUM FOUNDRIES
DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
BAT MODEL-ALTERNATE 3
FIGURE X-8
-------
•TABLE X-8
BAT ALTERNATE NO. 3 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ALUMINUM FOUNDRY DIE CASTING OPERATIONS
Cr itical
Parameters
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Flow
BAT Effluent Level
mg7l
No discharge of
process waste-
water pollutants.
Control and(1)
Treatment Technology
(2)
Incremental
Cost Over BPT
"$~7kkq $/ton
Tighten recycle rate
of BAT Alternative
No. 2 activated carbon
filter from 85 to 100%
$11.54
$10.48
oo
ro
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
I MOLDING AND
CASTING *
I QUENCH
I OPERATIONS I
FLOW - 4721 l/kkg(||34 got/ton)
COPPER Ql mg/l
SUSP SOLIDS 90 mg/l
OIL S GREASE 10 mg/l
pH 6-9
00
ro
SETTLING
4721 l/kkg (1134 gal/Ion)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY FOUNDRIES
MOLD COOLING AND CASTING QUENCH
BAT MODEL -ALTERNATE 1
-------
TABLE X-9
DAT ALTERNATE NO. 1 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
COPPER AND COPPER ALLOY FOUNDRY MOLD COOLING AND CASTING OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Copper
Susp. Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Flow
BAJ Effluent Level
kg/kkg mg/1
No discharge of
process waste-
water pollutants.
Control and*])
Treatment Technology
Tighten BPT effluent
recycle rate from
99 to 100%
(2)
Incremental
Cost Over BPT
$/ton
0
0
oo
ro
oo
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect
all possible combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability
of land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary modifications
required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only i ncremental required above those facilities
which are normally existing within a plant and/or have been installed as
a result oL complying with DPT standards.
-------
CO
ro
vo
ZINC MELTING
FURNACE
SCRUBBERS
TIGHTEN INTERNAL
RECYCLE RATE TO IOOX
NOTE: NO EQUIPMENT NEEDED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ZINC FOUNDRIES
MELTING FDPNACE SCRUBBERS
BAT MODEL - ALTERNATE NO. I
I I
FIGURE X-10
-------
TABLE X-10
BAT ALTERNATE NO. 1 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ZINC FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
00
to
O
Critical
Parameters
Phenols
Suspended Sol ids
Oil and Grease
Zinc
PH
Flow
BAT Effluent Level
ky/kKcj
(lb/1000 Ib) mq/1
(1)
No discharge of
process waste-
water pollutants.
Estimated
Total Cost
Control & Treatment Technology
Tighten the recycle rate of the equipment
already in use to 100% as practiced in a
variety of similar applications and equip-
ment arrangements.
(1) No cost is associated with this alternate as no additional treatment equipment (including BPT) is
needed. DCP responses indicate that all surveyed plants currently have in place and in use the
equipment (scrubber package as provided by manufacturer) needed for this method of operation.
This cost represents the fact that the TOTAL COST for this alternate is ZERO.
-------
00
CO
ZINC
MELTING
FURNACE
SCRUBBERS
% INTERNAL RECYCLE
RECYCLE
TANK
I ff i
I 1 I U 1
PHENOLS
SUSR SOLIDS
OIL 8 GREASE
ZINC
pH
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ZINC FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
BAT MODEL -AL1ERNATE NO. 2
FLOW=3I40 l/Mig(r55 gpl)
-------
TABLE X-ll
BAT ALTERNATE NO. 2 - EFFLUENT . LEVEL
ZINC FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBKR OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Phenols
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Zinc
BAT Effluent Level
kg/kkg
(lb/1000 Ib)
mg/1
No discharge of
process waste-
water pollutants.
Control & Treatment Technology
Recycle of BPT treatment effluent back to
the melting furnace scrubber operation.
(2)
Incremental
Cost Over BPT
$/kkg $/ton
0.337 0.306
co
CO
ro
Flow
(1) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect all possible combinations
or permutations of treatment methods.
(2) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals,
flow to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of
prelminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental required above those facilities which are normally existing
within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPT standards.
-------
00
CO
co
ZINC
MELTING
FURNACE
SCRUBBERS
INTERNAL RECYCLE
FILTER
FEED
TANK
I PHENOLS 85 mg/l 1
' SUSR SOLIDS 4OO mg/l
OIL a GREASE TOO my/1
ZINC 2O mg/l
pH 4.5 - 6.0
FLOW-3140 l/kkg(755 gpl)
VACUUM
FILTER
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
CARBON
FILTER
TO DISCHARGE
FILTER
FEED
TANK
O.IO mg/l
IO mg/l
5 mg/l
O. I mg/l
7.0 - 9.O
PHENOLS
SUSR SOLIDS
OIL a GREASE
ZINC
PH
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
ZINC FOUNDRIES
MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBERS
BAT MODEL - ALTERNATE NO. 3
FLOW«3l4OI/kkg<755 gpl)
-------
TABLE X-12
BAT ALTERNATE NO. 3 - EFFLUENT LEVEL
ZINC FOUNDRY MELTING FURNACE SCRUBBER OPERATIONS
Critical
Parameters
Phenols
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Zinc
PH
Flow
BAT Effluent Level
kcj/kkg(l)
(lb/1000 Ib) mg/1
(2)
0.00031
0.031
0.016
0.00031
0.1
10
5
0.1
7.0-9.0
Control & Treatment Technology
Applies further treatment to BPT discharge.
Discard potassium permanganate feed from
BPT. Add sulfide feed in conjunction with
neutralization and clarification. Clarifier
discharge is then filtered and treated via
activated carbon column. Effluent is
discharged.* '
00
oo
Provides further treatment for BPT treatment system effluent.
remains at 755 gal/ton used in DPT model.
Flow
(4)
Incremental
Cost Over BPT
$/kkg $/ton
11.43 10.36
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of metal poured or pounds per 1000 Ibs of metal poured.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on a flow of 3140 liters effluent per kkg of metal poured (755 gal/ton).
(3) Technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive, nor does it reflect all possible combinations or
permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some, depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devised. Estimated total costs
shown are on]y incremental required ubove those facilities which are normally existing within a plant
and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPT standards.
(5) Elimination of the ixjtassium permanganate feed is credited to the annual chemical costs of the
treatiifcAWT-systems outlined for this alternate.
-------
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
The basis for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under Section 306 of
the Act is the best available demonstrated technology. New plants have the
opportunity to design the best and most efficient manufacturing processes
and wastewater treatment technologies, and Congress therefore directed EPA
to consider the best demonstrated processes and operating methods, in-plant
control measures, end-of-pipe treatment technologies, and other
alternatives that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible,
including, where practicable, no discharge of pollutants.
Identification of. New Source Performance Standards
New Source Performance Standards rest on the technology options considered
for BAT in Section X. Since BAT represents the current state-of-the-art
technology, no further improvement for new sources is possible.
Rationale Used to Develop NSPS Effluent Limitations
The rationale used to select NSPS was identical to that used to select BAT
in Section X. No justification could be found for selecting a technology
option for NSPS less stringent than the BAT alternatives.
Size, Age, Manufacturing Process, Process Changes and Other Factors
The aspects of size, age, manufacturing process, process changes, and the
other factors discussed for BAT in Section X also apply to NSPS.
Engineering Aspects of_ New Source Performance Standards
In addition to the engineering aspects discussed in Section X for BAT, it
should be noted that the design of new plants offers the opportunity to
optimize performance of in-plant controls. This optimization should enable
new plants to attain NSPS with reduced hazardous waste generation in
comparison with many existing plants meeting BAT. In addition, new plants
have the advantage of installing dry type air pollution control devices
where appropriate under air pollution control regulations. This would
eliminate the process wastewater associated with wet air pollution control
devices (scrubbers).
Nonwater Quality Environmental Impacts
The nonwater quality environmental impacts associated with NSPS are the
same as those associated with BAT, as discussed in Section VII. The energy
835
-------
requirements to meet this standard should represent a small fraction of the
plants' consumption.
NSPS Effluent Levels
The NSPS effluent levels are identical to those BAT treatment alternative
levels discussed in Section X.
836
-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations that must be achieved by existing sources in the
foundry point source category that discharge into a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) are termed pretreatment standards. Section 307(b)
of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of a
POTW. The Clean Water Act of 1977 adds a new dimension by requiring
pretreatment for pollutants, such as heavy metals, that limit POTW sludge
management alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on
agricultural lands. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be technology-based, analagous to the best
available technology for removal of toxic pollutants.
Consideration was also
pretreatment levels:
given to the following in establishing the
Plant size, age, manufacturing processes, air pollution sources
raw materials and process chemicals, and in process changes.
The engineering aspects of the application
technology and its relationship to POTW;
of pretreatment
o Nonwater quality environmental impact (including energy
requ i rements); and
o The total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction and other benefits to be achieved from such
application.
Pretreatment standards must reflect effluent reduction achievable by the
application of the best available pretreatment technology. This may
include primary treatment technology as used in the industry and in-plant
control measures when such are considered to be normal practice within the
industry.
A final consideration is the determination of economic and engineering
reliability in the application of the pretreatment technology. This must
be determined from the results of demonstration projects, pilot plant
experiments, and most preferably, general use within the industry.
PRETREATMENT OPTIONS
837
-------
Of the 1132 plants with process wastewater, an estimated 360 plants
introduce process wastewater pollutants into POTWs. The technologies
considered for pretreatment are analagous to the best available technology
for removal of toxic pollutants. Analysis of the process wastewater
pollutants, presented in Section V and the treatment technologies resulted
in the consideration of two options for pretreatment for existing sources.
Technology Options Available:
Option One - No discharge of process wastewater pollutants through the
use of 100 percent recycle of process wastewater.
Option Two - Pretreatment prior to the introduction of process wastewater
pollutants into POTWs.
RATIONAL USED TO DEVELOP PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES - FACTORS CONSIDERED
Size, Age, Manufacturing Processes, Air Pollution Sources, Raw Materials,
Process Chemicals, and jjn Process Changes
These factors were inherently considered during the development of the
metal molding casting subcategories, and their consideration is reflected
in the subcategories and subcategory segments identified in Section IV-
Enqineering Aspects of_ Pretreatment for Existing Sources
Pretreatment standards are analyagous to BAT and as such the same
considerations given to the engineering aspects of BAT are applied to the
development of pretreatment technologies. Of particular concern in the
development of pretreatment technologies was the presence of toxic metals.
The levels of toxic metals detected in the process wastewaters across the
subcategories are such that these metals would either pass through,
interfere with, or would be in compatible with the operation of a POTW. In
light of this, two different approaches or options to pretreatment were
development; Option 1: assures that these toxic pollutants will not
adversely affect POTWs through no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. Option 2: sufficient toxic pollutant removal capability to
assure that the levels of toxic pollutants introduced into a POTW after
pretreatment are compatible with the POTW and do not substantially limit
POTW sludge management alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludge
on agricultural lands.
Furthermore, for those pretreatment technologies identified under option 2,
where the pretreatment technology is based on a modified 100 percent
recycle BAT technology, a level of metals removal greater than that
required for recycle to the manufacturing process is necessary prior to
discharge.
838
-------
This higher level for treatment of toxic metals removal under option two
requires additional equipment over and above that required for BAT. This
higher level of treatment consists of a holding tank, reaction vessel, a
chemical feed system, for metals removal via sulfide precipitation on a
batch basis. Mixing equipment, pumps, piping, and filters are also
required.
Nonwater Quality Environmental Impacts
The volumes of sludges resulting from pretreatment technologies will be
approximately equivalent to that which results from BAT technology.
However, pretreatment reduces concentrations and quantities of toxic
pollutants in POTW sludges. These sludges will become more amenable to a
wider range of disposal alternatives, possibly including beneficial use on
agricultural lands. Moreover, disposal of adulterated POTW sludges is
significantly more difficult and costly than disposal of smaller quantities
of wastes from individual plant sites.
Cost of_ Pretreatment Technology
Under Option 1 where the pretreatment alternative is identical to the BAT
technology the total costs (including energy costs) of pretreatment are
equivalent to the BAT costs. However, under Option two, where a higher
level of metals removal is required for discharge than that required for
100% recycle, the capital and operating costs are greater than under the
Option 1 treatment system. For the batch treatment equipment to pretreat
10,000 gallons of process wastewater per day (a medium volume of process
wastewater requiring pretreatment) an estimated capital cost of $160,000
over and above the BAT capital cost is incurred.
IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Aluminum Casting
Investment Casting Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives.
Option 1: BAT alternative No. 1 (Figure X-l) or BAT alternate No. 3
(Figure X-3)
Option 2: BPT (Figure IX-1) or BAT alternate No. 2 (Figure X-2).
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
The resulting effluent levels are identical to the effluent levels
presented in sections IX and X for the treatment schemes identified above.
3. Supporting Basis.
839
-------
The supporting basis for these pretreatment technologies and effluent
levels is identical to the rationale presented in sections IX and X for the
treatment schemes identified above.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives.
Option 1: BAT alternative No. 1 (Figure X-4) or BAT alternative No. 2
(Figure X-5).
Option 2: BPT treatment plus sulfide precipitation
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutants Concentrations
Suspended Solids 10.0 mg/1
Oil and Grease 10.0 mg/1
Copper 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis.
The supporting basis for these pretreatment technologies and effluent
levels is ' identical to the rationale presented in Sections VII, IX and X
for the' treatment technology identified above.
Casting Quench Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives.
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-3)
Option 2: BPT treatment associated with aluminum die casting
operations (Figure IX-4) plus sulfide precipitation
and filtration for metals removal.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
840
-------
Option 2: Pollutants Concentrations
Suspended solids 10 mg/1
Oil and Grease 10 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment
technology and effluent levels is identical to the
rationale presented in Section IX for this treatment
scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology
and effluent levels is identical to the rationale
presented in Section IX for this treatment scheme and
in Section VII for sulfide precipitation of lead and zinc.
Die Casting Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BAT alternative No. 1 (Figure X-6) or
BAT alternative No. 3 (Figure X-8)
Option 2: BPT treatment (Figure IX-4) plus sulfide precipitation
for metals removal.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Option 2: Pollutants Concentration
Suspended Solids 10 mg/1
Oil and Grease 10 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for these pretreatment technologies and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section X for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
841
-------
Section IX for this treatment scheme and in Section VII for
sulfide precipitation of lead and zinc.
Die Lube Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives.
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-5).
Option 2: Contract haul of die lubercants to a reprocesser or
appropriate disposal site.
2. Resulting EFfluent Levels.
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
3. Supporting Basis.
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
section IX for the treatment schemes identified above.
Option 2: The high levels of organic toxic pollutants identified in
this process wastewater would either pass through, interfere
with, or would be incompatible with the operation of a POTW.
Copper Casting
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-6).
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and batch sulfide
precipitation and filtration of settling tank overflow, (10
percent blowdown) 10 percent blowdown for removal of copper,
lead, and zinc.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Option 2: Pollutants Concentration
Suspended solids 10 mg/1
Oil and Grease 10 mg/1
Copper 0.1 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
842
-------
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme and in section VII for
sulfide precipitation of lead and zinc.
Mold Cooling and Casting Quench:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BAT treatment (Figure X-9)
Option 2: BAT treatment (Figure ) with 90 percent recycle and batch
sulfide precipitation and filtration of settling tank
overflow (10 percent blowdown) for removal of copper and
zinc.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutants Concentration
Suspended Solids 10 mg/1
Oil and Grease 10 mg/1
Copper 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis.
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this treatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme and in section VII for
sulfide precipitation of zinc.
Continuous Casting:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
843
-------
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-8)
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and sulfide
precipitation and filtration for removal of copper and zinc
in the settling tank overflow.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutants Concentration
Suspended Solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 10 mg/1
Copper 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX of this treatment scheme and in Section VII for
sulfide precipitation of copper and zinc.
Iron and Steel Casting
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-9)
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and batch sulfide
precipitation and filtration of selling tank overflow (10
percent blowdown) for removal of copper, lead, and zinc.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
844
-------
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended Solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 10 mg/1
Copper 0.1 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option.1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme and in section VII for
sulfide precipitation of copper, lead, and zinc.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-10)
Option 2: BPT treatment with batch sulfide precipitation, 90 percent
recycle and deep bed multi-media filtration of the blowdown.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended solids 10 mg/1
Oil and Grease 10 mg/1
Cadmium 0.1 mg/1
Copper 0.1 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
Phenols 0.7 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent level is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme.
845
-------
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent level is identical to that rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme and in Section VII for
sulfide precipitation of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.
Slag Quench Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-11)
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and batch sulfide
precipitation and filtration of drag out tank overflow (10
percent blowdown) for removal of lead and zinc.
2. Resulting Effluent levels
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended Solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 10 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme and in Section VII for
sulfide precipitation of lead and zinc.
Mold Cooling and Casting Quench Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternative
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-12)
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and 10 percent
blowdown
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
846
-------
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended solids 150 mg/1
Oil and Grease 5 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
The supporting basis for both pretreatment technology options and effluent
levels is identical to the rationale presented in Section IX for this
treatment scheme.
Sand Washing Process:
1. Pretreatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT (Figure IX-13) is considered for pretreatment technology
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and sulfide
precipitation for treatment of chromium and lead.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 10 mg/1
Ammonia 5 mg/1
Chromium 0.1 mg/1
Iron 0.2 mg/1
Lead 0.1 mg/1
Manganese 0.1 mg/1
Nickel 0.1 mg/1
Phenols 0.2 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis ,
Option 1: The supporting basis for this' pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section X for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this effluent level and in Section VII for
sulfide precipitation of chromium and lead.
Magnesium Casting
847
-------
Grinding Scrubber Process:
1. Treatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT treatment (figure IX-14)
Option 2: Pretreatment Model (Figure XI1-2)
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutants Concentration
Suspended solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 2 mg/1
Magnesium 10 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section X for these treatment schemes.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section X for this treatment scheme.
Dust Collection Scrubber Process:
1. Pretreatment Options - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT treatment (Figure IX-15)
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and batch sulfide
precipitation and filtration of settling tank overflow (10
percent blowdown) for removal of zinc.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels.
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended Solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 10 mg/1
Magnesium 1 mg/1
Phenols 1.1 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
848
-------
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme.
Option 2: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section IX for this treatment scheme and in Section VII for
sulfide precipitation of zinc.
Zinc Casting
Casting Quench Process:
1. Treatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
Option 1: BPT treatment
Option 2: BPT treatment with 90 percent recycle and batch sulfide
precipitation and filtration of settling tank overflow (10
percent blowdown) for zinc removal.
2. Resulting Effluent Levels
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 10 mg/1
Zinc 0.1 mg/1
pH 7.5-10.0
3. Supporting Basis
Option 1 The supporting basis for the effluent levels from this
pretreatment technology and effluent level is identical to
the rationale presented in Section X.
Option 2: The supporting basis for the effluent levels achieved by
this pretreatment technology is identical to the rationale
in Section IX and in Section VII for sulfide precipitation
of zinc.
Melting Furnace Scrubber Process:
1. Treatment Options Considered - Treatment Alternatives
849
-------
Option 1: BAT alternative No. 1 (Figure X-10) or alternative No. 2
(Figure X-ll)
Option 2: BAT alternative No. 3 plus potassium permanganate in place
of activated carbon.
Resulting Effluent Levels
Option 1: No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
Option 2: Pollutant Concentration
Suspended Solids 10 mg/1
Oil & Grease 5 mg/1
Phenols 5 mg/1
Zinc 0.1
pH 7.5-10.0
Supporting Basis
Option 1: The supporting basis for this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels in indentical to the rationale in Section X.
Option 2: The supporting basis for by this pretreatment technology and
effluent levels is identical to the rationale presented in
Section X potassium permanganate treatment for phenol
destruction.
850
-------
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
Section 307(c) of the Act requires the EPA to promulgate Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates NSPS.
New indirect dischargers, like new direct dischargers/ have the opportunity
to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies including
process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies,
and to use plant site selection to insure adequate treatment system
installation.
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (PSNS)
New Source Pretreatment Standards were based on the options considered for
PSES in Section XII. Since PSES represents the current state-of-the-art
technology, no further improvement for new sources is possible.
RATIONALE USED TO DEVELOP PSNS
The rationale used to develop PSNS is identical to that used to develop
PSES in Section XII. No justification could be found for developing
technology options for PSNS that are different than PSES.
Size, Age, Manufacturing Processes, Air Pollution Sources, Raw Materials,
Process .Chemicals and In Process Changes
The Aspects of these factors, discussed for PSES in Section XII also apply
to PSNS.
Engineering Aspects of_ New Source Performance Standards
In addition to the engineering aspects discussed in Section XII for PSES,
it should be noted that the design of new plants offers the opportunity to
optimize performance of in-plant controls. This optimization should enable
new plants to attain PSNS with reduced hazardous waste generation in
comparison to many existing plants meeting BAT.
Nonwater Quality Environmental Impacts
The nonwater quality environmental impacts associted with NSPS effluent
levels are the same as those associated with PSES, as discussed in Section
VIII. Energy consumption in order to attain new source performance should
represent a negligible fraction of total plant consumption.
851
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Preotection Agency was aided in the preparation of this
Draft Development Doccument by the Cyrus Win. Rice Division of NUS
Corporation. Rice's effort was managed by Mr. Thomas J. Centi.
Mr. Samuel A. Young, and Mr. David E. Soltis directed the engineering
activities. Field and sampling programs were conducted under the
leadership of Mr. Samuel A. Young and Mr. David E. Soltis. Laboratory and
analytical services were conducted under the guidance of
Miss C. Ellen Gonter and Mrs. Linda Dean. The drawings contained within
were provided by the RICE drafting room under the supervision of Mr.
Albert M. Finke, Mr. William B. Johnson and Mr. Keith Christner. The work
associated with calculations of raw waste loads and effluent loads is
attributed to Mr. David E. Soltis and Mr. Robert J. Ondof. The cost
estimates for treatment models is by Mr. Albert M. Finke. Computer
services and data analyses were conducted under the supervision of
Mr. Henry K. Hess.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Ms. Kaye Starr,
Ms. Nancy Zrubek, and Ms. Carol Swann of the word processing staff for
their tireless and dedicated effort in this manuscript.
Finally, the excellent cooperation of the many companies who participated
in the survey and contributed pertinent data is gratefully appreciated.
Special thanks is also given to the Cast Metals Federation and the American
Foundrymen's Society*.
853
-------
SECTION XIV
REFERENCES
1. Bader, A. J., "Waste Treatment for an Automated Gray and Nodular Iron
Foundry", Proceedings of the Industrial Waste Conference, 22nd, Purdue
University, pp. 468-476 (1967T
2. "Chrysler's Winfield Foundry Solves Pollution Problem", Foundry, 97,
pp. 162, 167-169 (September, 1969).
3. "Cupola Emission Control", Engles and Weber (1967).
4. "Cupola Pollution Control at Unicast", Foundry, 98, pp. 240, 242
(April, 1970).
5. Deacon, J. S.m "In Defense of the Wet Cap", Modern Casting, pp. 48-49
(September, 1973).
6. "Emissions Control System is Based on Impingement", Foundry, 101, N.
9, pp. 108-110 (September, 1973).
7. Foundry, "1973 Outlook" (January, 1973).
8. "Foundries Look at the Future", Foundry (October, 1972).
9. "Inventory of Foundry Equipment", Foundry (May, 1968).
10. "Iron Casting Handbook", Gray and Ductile Iron Foundries Society,
Inc., 1971, Cleveland, Ohio.
11. Manual Standard Industrial Classification (1967).
12. "Metal Casting Industry Census Guide", Foundry (August, 1972).
13. Miske, Jack C., "Environment Control at Dayton Foundry", Foundry, 98,
pp. 68-69 (May, 1970).
14. Settling Basins Clean GM Foundry Water", Foundry, 97, p. 146
(February, 1969).
15. U. S. Department of Commerce, "Iron and Steel Foundries and Steel
Ingot Producers", Current Industrial. Reports, pp. 1-18 (1971).
16. U. S. Department H.E.W., Public Health Service Publication. »99-AP-40.
855
-------
17. Wagner, A. J. , "Grade's Wichita Midwest Division Honored for Top
Environmental Control Job", Modern Casting, 58, N.6, pp. 40-43
(December, 1970).
18. "Water Pollution From Foundry Wastes", American Foundrymen's Society
(1967).
19. Waters, 0. B., "Total Water Recycling for Sand System Scrubbers",
Modern Casting, pp. 31-32 (July, 1973).
20. U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1977, U.S. Department of Commerce.
21. Building Construction Cost Data, 1978 Edition.
22. "Richardson Rapid System", 1978-79 Edition, by Richardson Engineering
Services, Inc.
23. U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Manufacturers, 1970.
24. Wiese-Nielsen, K. Dr., "High Pressure Water Jets Remove Investment
Casting Shells", Foundry M/T, September, 1977.
25. "Sand Reclamation - A Status Report of committee 80-S", Modern
Casting, Manual 79, pp. 60.
26. David Kanicki, "Water at Neenah Foundry", Modern Casting, July 1978,
pp. 44.
27. Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, Industrial Water Pollution Control.
28. Menerow, Nelson, L., Industrial Water Pollution.
29. Parsons, William A. Dr., Chemical Treatment of_ Sewage and Industrial
Wastes.
30. Kearney, A. T. and Company, Inc., "Study of Economic Impacts of
Pollution Control on the Iron Foundry Industry", 1971.
856
-------
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY
Agglomerate. The collecting of small particles together into a larger
mass.
Baghouse. An independent structure or building that contains fabric bags
to collect dusts. Usually contains fans and dust conveying equipment.
Binder. Any material used to help sand grains to stick together.
Bulk Bed Washer. A wet type dust collector consisting of a bed of
lightweight spheres through which the dust laden air must pass while being
sprayed by water or liquor.
Charge. A minimum combination of the various materials required to produce
a hot metal of proper specifications.
Clarification. The process of removing undissolved materials from a
liquid, specifically by sedimentation.
Classifier. A device that separates particles from a fluid stream by size.
Stream velocity is gradually reduced, and the larger sized particles drop
out when the stream velocity can no longer carry them.
Coagulant. A compound which, when added to a wastewater stream, enhances
wastewater settleability. The coagulant aids in the binding and
agglomeration of the particles suspended in the wastewater.
Cope. The top half of a two-piece sand mold.
Core. An extra-firm shape of sand used to obtain a hollow section in a
casting by placing it in a mold cavity to give interior shape to a casting.
Crucible. A highly refractory vessel used to melt metals.
Cupola. A verticle shaft furnace consisting of a cylindrical steel shell
lined with refractories and equipped with air inlets at the base and an
opening for charging with fuel and melting stock near the top. Molten
metal runs to the bottom.
Drag. The lower half of a two-piece sand mold.
Electrode. Long cylindrical rods made of carbon or graphite and used to
conduct electricity into a charge of metal.
857
-------
Filter Cake. That layer of dewatered sludge removed from the surface of a
filter. This filter is used to reduce the volume of sludge generated as a
result of the waste treatment process.
Flask. A rectangular frame open at top and bottom used to retain molding
sand around a pattern.
Flocculation. The process in which particles agglomerate, resulting in an
increase in particle size and settleability.
Flux. A substance used to promote the melting or purification of a metal
in a furnace.
Gate. An entry passage for molten metal into a mold.
Head. A large reservoir of molten metal incorporated into a mold to supply
hot metal to a shrinking portion of a casting during its cooling stage.
Heat Treat. To adjust or alter a metal property through heat.
Hydraulic Cyclone. A fluid classifying device that separated heavier
particles from a slurry.
Impingement. The striking of air or gasborne particles on a wall or
baffle.
Induction Furnace. A crucible surrounded by coils carrying alternating
electric current. The current induces magnetic forces into the metal
charged into the crucible. These forces cause the metal to heat.
Ladle. A vessel used to hold or pour molten metal.
Mold. A form made of sand, metal, or refractory material, which contains
the cavity into which molten metal is poured to produce a casting.
MOLDING
COyMolding. The C02 (carbon dioxide) molding processes uses sodium
silicate binders to replace the clay binders used in sand molds and
cores. In the C02 process, a low strength mold or core is made with a
mixture of sodium silicate (3-4%) and sand. Carbon dioxide gas is
passed through the sand, causing the sodium silicate to develop a dry
compressive strength greater than 200 psi. Ready-to-use cores and
complete molds can be made quickly, with no baking or drying needed.
The high strength developed by the C02 process enables molds to be
made and poured without back-up flasks or jackets.
No-Bake Molds. The process is of fairly recent (15 years) origin.
The sand coating consists of a binder and catalyst, their interaction
858
-------
results in a molded sand with high green strength (over 200 psi). The
name of the process derives from the fact that the mold requires no
baking. The amount of sand used, and the general form of the molds
are similar to green sand operations; however, the high strength
permits flask removal and mold pouring without a jacket. The castings
poured using this process have good dimensional accuracy and excellent
finish.
Permanent Mold Casting. A metal mold consisting of two or more metal
parts is used repeatedly for the production of many castings of the
same form. The molten metal enters the mold by gravity. Permanent
mold casting is particularly suitable for high-volume production of
small, simple castings that have a uniform wall thickness and no
undercuts or intricate internal coring.
Plaster Mold Casting. Plaster mold casting is a specialized casting
process used to produce nonferrous castings that have greater
dimensional accuracy, smoother surfaces and more-finely reproduced
details than can be obtained with sand molds or permanent molds.
Shell Molding. Shell molding is a process in which a mold is formed
from a mixture of sand and a heat-setting resin binder. The sand
resin mixture is placed in a heated metal pattern in which the heat
causes the binder to set. As the sand grains adhere to each other, a
sturdy shell, which becomes one half of the mold, is formed. The
halves are placed together with cores located properly, clamped and
adequately backed up, and then the mold is poured. This process
produces castings with good surface finish and good dimensional
accuracy while using smaller amounts of molding sand.
Pattern. A form of wood, metal, or other material around which molding
material is placed to make a mold for casting metals.
Polymeric Flocculant (Polyelectrolyte). High molecular weight compounds
which, due to their charges, aid in particle binding and agglomeration.
Quenching. A process of inducing rapid cooling from an elevated
temperature.
Recuperator. A steel or refractory chamber used to reclaim heat from waste
gases.
Scrap. Usually refers to miscellaneous metal used in a charge to make new
metal.
Shot Blast. A casting cleaning process employing a metal abrasive (grit or
shot)propelled by centrifugal or air force.
859
-------
Shakeout. The operation of removing castings from the mold. A mechanical
unit for separating the mold material from the solidified casting.
Slag. A product resulting from the action of a flux on the oxidized
non-metallic constituents of molten metals.
Slag Quench. A process of rapidly cooling molten slag to a solid material.
Usually performed in a water trough or sump.
Snorkel. A pipe through the furnace roof, or an opening in a furnace roof,
used to withdraw the furnace atmosphere.
Spray Chamber. A large volume chamber in a flowing stream where water or
liquor sprays are inserted to wet the flowing gas.
Sprue. A vertical channel from the top of the mold used to conduct the
molten metal to the mold cavity.
Tapping. The process of removing molten metal from a furnace.
Tuyere. An opening in a cupola for introduction of air for combustion.
Venturi Scrubber. A wet type of dust collector that uses the turbulence
developed in a narrowed section of the conduit to promote intermixing of
the dust laden gas with water sprayed into the conduit.
Washing Cooler. A large vessel where a flowing gas stream is subjected to
sprays of water or liquor to remove gasborne dusts and to cool the gas
stream by evaporation.
Wet Cap. A mechanical device placed on the top of a stack that forms a
curtain from a water stream through which the stack gases must pass.
860
-------
TABLE XV I 1-1
METRIC TABLE
CONVERSION TABLE
HULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS) by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
•ere ac
•ere - feet ac ft
British Thermal
Unit BTU
British Thermal
Unit/pound BTU/lb
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic Inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit *F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpm
horsepower hp
Inches 1n
Inches of mercury 1n Hg
pounds Ib
million gallons/day mgd
•rile ml
pound/square
Inch (gauge) pslg
square feet sq ft
square Inches sq 1n
ton (short) ton
yard yd
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(»F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3.785
1.609
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/m1n
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
•C
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
(0.06805 pslg +1)* atm
0.0929 sq m
6.452 sq cm
0.907 kkg
0.9144 m
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters <
liters i
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters >
liters ,
liters/second
killowatts ;
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms [
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric ton (1000 kilograms)
meter
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 0-311-726/3881
------- |