United States      Industrial Environmental Research  EPA-600/2-79-003
        Environmental Protection  Laboratory            January 1979
        Agency         Research Triangle Park NC 27711
        Research and Development

&EPA  Process Water Quality
        Requirements for  Iron
        and Steel  Making

-------
                 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination  of  traditional grouping was  consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

    1. Environmental Health Effects Research

    2. Environmental Protection Technology

    3. Ecological Research

    4. Environmental Monitoring

    5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

    6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)

    7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

    8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

 This report has been assigned to the  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
 NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
 onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
 vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
 provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
 of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
 This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
 approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
 reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
 commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

 This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
 tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                 EPA-600/2-79-003

                                      January 1979
   Process Water Quality
Requirements for  Iron and
           Steel  Making
                     by

                 S. Bhattacharyya

                I IT Research Institute
                10West 35th Street
                Chicago, Illinois 60616
               Contract No. 68-02-2617
                  Task No. 2-1
              Program Element No. 1BB610
          EPA Project Officer: John S. Ruppersberger

         Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
           Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
            Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                  Prepared for

         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            Office of Research and Development
               Washington, DC 20460

-------
                            PREFACE
     Water use in the iron and steel industry is basically
non-consumptive.  More than 90% of the 95,000 to 150,000 liters
(25,000 to 40,000 gal) of water required per tonne of steel is
returned to large water bodies.  But during usage, the water
is polluted and the polluting waters contaminate the environ-
mento  Significant efforts are now being made to accomplish the
following:

     -  Lessen use of water through recycling and
        treatment.

        Acquire greater knowledge and understanding
        of the effect of water purity level on equip-
        ment and product quality.

     This brief study focuses its attention on the second goal.
The study reveals significant gaps in information relating water
and product qualities, on the one hand, and water quality and
equipment productivity, on the other.  Areas of research are
identified to close these data gaps.
                               ii

-------
                            ABSTRACT

      This  study was directed to develop information on minimum
 water quality requirements for the different unit processes in
 iron and steel making,  identify the data gaps,  and recommend
 research efforts needed to obtain the required  information,,
 A combination of literature study, plant visits,  and discussions
 witt} the American Iron and Steel Institute,  equipment manufac-
 turers,  water chemical suppliers, and consultants was used in
 this studyo

     „ The central finding of this study is that  a  ateel plant
 neither allocates water on the basis of individual processing
 units nor recycles water from each processing unit on individ-
 ual and separate circuits„  In fact, the steel  plants do not
 record water flowing in and out of each individual unit, nor
 do they analyze these waters.

     1 -In a steel plant, water is normally used as-received and
 lime-softened; in a few cases, special treatments are given.
 Water is distributed to clusters of processing  units usually
 located in close proximity.  The distributed water is of a few
 basic qualities, two to four, and analyses of these basic qual-
 ities; are made,  Higher quality water is infrequently used in a
 cascading manner for lower quality applications'.
      In some U,S, as well as foreign steel plants, recycling ex-
 ceeding 98% of recirculating water is practiced without any sig-
 nificant equipment problem and product quality  deterioration.
 When equipment problems arise, the present water  control tech-
 nology can usually solve the problem.  The modern equipment is
 rugged in design and able to accommodate significant water im-
 purities with the help of chemical controls;
      Very little .information is available on the  effect of water
 quality on product quality.  Water recycling and  reuse problems
 are intimately related to steel plant Waste recycling and air
 pollution problems, and data on these are also  limited.
      Several research and study recommendations have been made
 to close the data gaps.  One significant recommendation is basic
 data generation on flow and water analysis at individual conT.
 sumption points through the installation of flow  meters and
 sampling points.
      This  report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
 No. 68-02-2617 by IIT Research Institute under  the sponsorship
 of the U.S,  Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers
.the contract period 31 August 1977 to 5 January 1978,


                               iii

-------
                           CONTENTS


Preface ...................  p  .....     ii
Abstract. . .  „  .  .  .....  ..........•••«    ii:i-
Figures ........  „  .  .  .  .....  ........      v
Tables. ......  .....  .  .......  .......     vi
Acknowledgments  ................  .....  .    vii
   !„  Introduction  .  .  ........  .........     j_
   2.  Conclusions.  .......e.p.  ........     2
   3.  Recommendations.  ........ ..••  ..........     3
   4.  United States Iron and Steel Industry,  .......     5
            Capacity and Distribution ............     5
            Producing Units of an Integrated Steel Plant.     o
            Water System in an Integrated  Steel Plant  .  .    ^Q
   50  An Approach to the Study  .....  ........    37
            Introduction. .....''...........    37
            Open Literature ..... ... P  ......    17
            Iron and Steel Plants .............    ig
            American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) ,.-.-.    -,*
            Equipment Manufacturers . ,  .  „ .  .-...-..    in
   6.  The Basic Findings and Discussions  ........    20
            Kaiser Steel Corporation (KSC) . .  . . .  .  .  . '   ^n
            Armco Steel Corporation (ASC)  ........    25
            Colorado Fuel & Iron Steel Corporation (CFI),    31
            Discussions with Groups and  Individuals  ,  .  ,    33
            Information from Equipment and Water
              Chemical Suppliers .......  »....„    41
            Foreign Steel Plants. ............    43
            Recycling of Steel Plant Wastes and Its
              Relationship to Water Usage  ........    46
            Some Strip Quality Problems  Associated
              with Water Quality. ............    50
   7.  Reuse and Recycling of Water in the Iron and
       Steel Industry  ......'.....p......    53

References. ............ .o..o.Po..,P..0    55
Appendices
   A.  Statistical Highlights of the U.S. -Iron and
       Steel Industry  .  . . . .  . . . •  «  = •  . . .  .  .  .    59
                              iv

-------
                            FIGURES

Number

  1   Geographical distribution of the UttS. iron and
      steel industry„ ."'..«,."«,.'..  8  ...".  „."<><,.'   6

  2   Total UoS., .steel production „ «,  .  .  <. „  = ,  ,• ,  , ,,  „    7

  3   Process unit interrelationships  „  ,  , „  0 „  0 ,  .  „  „.  12
                                                    s
  4   Schematic arrangement of the water-treatment
      system at Fairless Works of United States Steel
      Corporation o.oooooooo°ao<>oooo°oo   14

  5   Water supply and usage at Appleby-Frbdingham
      for the year ending March, 1972 • „  „  0 «  o .  , »  o  <,  =   15

  6   Kaiser Steel water systems„ . „  0  0  » ,  o «  <, »  o  0  »   21

  7   Water supply„and distribution to major production
      areas, Armco Steel Corporation0  „.  o 9  ,,'...  9  .  0'.  27

  8   Simplified schematic of the wastewater system,
      Armco Steel Corporation „ 0 . ,  »  .  . ,  . .  « .  .  ,  o   28

  9   Steel melt shop water system, Armco  Steel
      Corporation «, „ . = o » . o = <,<,.»»  , .  9 o  „  ,  .   30

 10   Mill water distribution, Colorado  Fuel & Iron,
      JLj I ^T OC«*OOOOO*O*OOOOO5><^°OOOOO   sJ ^M

 11   Simplified material flow diagram,  Colorado Fuel
      & Iron Pueblo plant 	 »..  9 °  ° *««>>«   36
                   - ,  "i
 12   Strip mill'cooling water recirculation systems,
      Hoesch Hiittenwerke, Dortmund, West Germany*  . .  o  .  ,-   45

 13   .Particle size distribution for representative
      samples of ferruginous wastes „  .  „  . .  . .  . .  ,  <,  .   51

 14   Simplified flow sheet for recycling  „ „  . „  „ „  e  .  .   55

-------
                            TABLES
Number                                                      Page
  1   The Top 10 Steel Companies of 1976 .........     9
  2   Forecast of Water Consumption at Appleby-
      Frodingham for Year Ending March, 1976 .......    16
  3   Kaiser Steel Corporation Average Influent and
      Effluent Water Analysis at the Water Treatment
      Plant, 1976. .....................    22
  4   Analyses of Water of the Four Major Water
      Streams, Kaiser Steel Corporation. .........    24
  5   Mill Water Distribution and Blowdown, Armco
      Steel Corporation. ...... ...........    26
  6   Average Analysis of Effluents to Dicks Creek,
      Armco Steel Corporation, Period 10/1/77 to
      10/31/77 ....... 	 .........    27
  7   Analysis of Plant Influent (1976), Colorado
      Fuel & Iron.	    34
  8   Analysis of Plant Effluent for October 1977,
      Colorado Fuel & Iron	    35
  9   Water Analysis, National Steel Corporation,
      Weirton. . . . .	    38
 10   Water Analysis, U.S. Steel FairfieId Works,
      Alabama	 ..................    39
 11   Water Analysis, Youngstown Sheet & Tube,
      Indiana Harbor ...... , ........ „  „  .  „    40
 12   Mold Deposits in Continuous Steel Casting. . .  .  .  .    42
 13   Continuous Steel Casting Problems, .	„  „    44
 14   Permissible Impurities in Industrial WaStewater
      from Rolling Mills, Hoesch Iron & Steel Works,
      Dortmund, West Germany ... ..........  00    47
 15   Unit Requirements for Water, USINOR,  Dunkirk,
      France ........ ...... ...  . . .  „  .  o    43
 16   Sources and Rates of Production of Iron-Bearing
      Wastes, British Steel Corporation (BSC),  1975.  ...    49
                              vi

-------
                        ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the following
steel plants in supplying data on water flow and quality:

          1.  Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana, California

          2.  Armco Steel Corporation, Middletown, Ohio

          3c  Colorado Fuel and Iron Steel Corporation,
              Pueblo, Colorado

     Mr. William Benzer of American Iron and Steel Institute,
Washington, D«,C0, was very helpful in supplying published mate-
rial and arranging the meeting with the AISI Environmental Com-
mittee o

     Cooperation of Calgon Corporation and equipment manufactur-
ers, such as Koppers, Loftus, Wilputte, Morgan, and ASEA, were
of assistance in this study„

     We thank Hydrotechnic Corporation, New York City, for
allowing us the use of their updated water flow diagrams of
several steel plants and basic water quality data obtained by
them on a current EPA program.

     Mr0 Walter Zabban, Chief Engineer, the Chester Engineers,
Pittsburgh, Penn0, was a consultant to this study, and discus-
sions with him on any topic related to water treatment and usage
in iron and steel industry were very helpful,

     Mr0 John Ruppersberger,  the EPA Project Officer, is to be
specially thanked for going out of his way in helping us to
remove roadblocks in data gathering.
                              VI1

-------
                           SECTION 1

                         INTRODUCTION


     During "1967-76, the IKS. steel industry produced a total of
1-1/5 billion tonnes (1-1/3 billion tons)  of steel and directly
employed 510,000 workers annually„  Statistical highlights of
the U.S. iron and;steel industry are given in Appendix A.  Enor-
mous quantities of water were needed at every stage of produc-
tion.  Less than 1070 of this water was literally consumed in the
process, and,the,rest o£ it' wae returned to the environment»
In most instances, the returned water was harmful to some aspect
of the environmento  This study focuses on one aspect of water
usage, namely, on the minimum quality requirements for process
water for the various iron and steel making units.  Once infor-
mation on current water quality requirements is identified and
quantified, it will be possible to direct research efforts to
modify these requirements with lesser water usage as a goal and
establish meaningful minimum water quality requirements without
compromising product quality or equipment performance and pro-
ductivity.  The complexity of steelmaking technology, the in-
dustry's somewhat aging equipment, its highly capital-intensive
nature, the magnitude of the risks associated with equipment
failure, and the monetary losses associated with off-quality
products support the need for establishment of a;very thorough
data base of minimum water quality requirements that will en-
hance in-plant water reuse and recycling programs resulting in
reduced wastewater discharge0
a  One tonne = 1000 kg = 2205 Ib0  One ton = 2000 Ib,

-------
                           SECTION 2

                          CONCLUSIONS

     The central finding of this study is that an integrated
steel plant does not allocate water on the basis of individual
steel processing units or point source categories as defined in
EPA effluent guidelines.  Water is distributed on the basis of
a few basic qualities (as low as two) to clusters of plant units.
These basic water qualities have, in most cases, progressive but
significant differences.,  The water qualities are derived not
solely on the basis of equipment maintenance/productivity de-
mands or product quality requirements, but on the quality and
quantity of the water available and the existing distribution
systems.  In certain areas, steel plant effluent is the only
water source to keep alive a stream and instead of significant
recycling most of the water is treated and discharged on a once-
thr9ugh basis.

     The equipment used in the steel industry is rugged in nature.
Furnaces and machinery can be designed to tolerate acceptable
compromises to water quality when properly implemented.  How-
ever, a lack of knowledge of water chemistry and flow rate en-
tering or leaving an equipment unit makes it virtually impossible
to establish meaningful quality adjustments without encountering
unacceptable risks of plant breakdown and product quality degra-
dation.  This enormous data gap in water quality information at
each plant unit needs to be bridged.  As a minimum, it will be
necessary to install flow meters at the inlets of all major
water-consuming points, and to have incorporated in that scheme,
sample points for water collection and analysis.  These flow
and analytical data can then be utilized to determine the tol-
erance level of equipment and the products they produce.  On
this basis, further modification can be made for development of
effective and economical wastewater treatment technology and
total recycle.  Outlines of research programs to fulfill this
need are given in Section 3.

-------
                           SECTION 3

                        RECOMMENDATIONS

     Minimum water quality needs for different plant processes/
subprocesses are virtually nonexistent, and need to be defined
before significant in-plant water reduction programs can be
initiatedo   The information needed to make an intelligent de-
cision regarding minimum water quality for the process has two
aspects:

          1.  Effect on process equipment

          2.  Effect on product quality and recycling
              of steel plant metallics0

     To study the effect of water quality on process equipment,
a two-level research effort is needed,,  At the plant level, the
basic information regarding water quality and flow should be
gathered systematically,,  This should be relatively easy and
economically acceptablec  At the laboratory level, short- and
long-term studies on the effect of water quality on equipment
performance must be conducted to obtain an understanding of the
minimum water quality that can be sustained by the equipment
without loss in normal  service Iife0
     A study of the effect of water quality on product quality
is more difficult because it will require production of some
off-quality products.  The scppe of the research effort can be
limited to finishing units of a steel plant because the effect
of water quality on coke production,  pig iron, and steel ingot
is negligible«,  The most significant effects of water quality
are associated with finished steel products, primarily the
coated and cold-rolled  flat products.  In steel finishing, there
is also a significant paucity of knowledge, and studies are re-
quired independently as well as with collaboration of the steel
industry.  A few research suggestions are given below:

          1«  Establish correlation between non-adherence
              of paints on auto body panels and their
              accelerated corrosion with localized sur-
              face contamination resulting from residual
              oil and/or iron salts left on the sheets
              after cleaning.

          20  Determine the relationship between water-
              oil emulsion quality and oil-^burn phenomena
              on cold-rolled steel sheets„

-------
 3.  Develop oily sludge treatment to make them
     suitable for recycling without causing air
     pollution and equipment operation problems,
 4.  Determine if the use of dry film graphite
     lubricant is an acceptable alternative to
     oil and grease.
 5c  Develop heavy metal removal technology
     particularly with emphasis on total re-
     cycling of vacuum degassing water.

 6.  Advance technology for chromium recovery
     from plating liquor and sludge.

 7.  Determine degree of built-in overdesign
     in existing equipment, to enable efficient
     operation with lower water quality than
     currently used.

 8=  Techno-economic study to replace existing
     cooling tower system for cooling non-
     contact cooling water of blast furnace
     stave and tuyere cooling, and EOF hood
     and lance cooling with completely deminer-
     alized water in a totally enclosed circuit
     with air-cooled heat exchanging facility.

 9.  Use simulation techniques and accelerated
     tests to determine the effect of water
     quality on steel and iron making equipment.
10.  Develop a computer model incorporating
     material and heat flow in making one ton
     of finished steel to predict minimum water
     requirement per ton steel produced using
     combinations of different water qualities
     and partial or total recycling.

-------
                           SECTION 4

             UNITED STATES IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
CAPACITY AND DISTRIBUTION

     From less than 10.9   106 tonnes  (12 million tons) in 1900,
UoS. raw steel production reached a high of 137 x 106 tonnes
(151 million tons) in  1973=  The production of 116 x 106 tonnes
(128 million tons) in 1976 increased to about 119 x 106 tonnes
(131 million tons) in 1977„  To provide a perspective, in 1976
the steel productions of Japan,   European Economic Community
(EEC), and USSR were 107, 134, and 147 million tonnes, respec-
tively, (1) out of a total world steel production of 683 x 106
tonnes (753 million tons).

     While the above tonnage figures between the countries are
all comparable, there are significant differences in the produc-
ing units.  Japan has virtually rebuilt its capacity during the
last 25 years and has the most modern and productive equipment,,
Much of the EEC and USSR plants are more modern than the USA's,
EEC plants do not have,to serve far-flung communities as they
are very tightly clustered in the heart of Western Europe„  Un-
til the late 60's, USSR plants had similar distribution, two
major areas, one in the Ukraine and the other at the Urals,
centered in  Magnitogorsk, about 2400 km (1500 miles) apart.

    • The majority, 65 to 70%, of the U0S0 steel industry is situ-
ated in a six-state region bordering the Great Lakes, as shown
in Fig0 I.'2)  'They obtain their need of billions of liters of
daily water requirements from the Great Lakes and the large
river complexes in these states„  Because of ample supply of
clean water, the industry had very little problem in meeting the
water needs of steel production 0.

     The present installed UoS0 steel capacity is about 145 x 10s
tonnes (160 million tons).  Various growth projections have been
made, and one such estimate is shown in Fig0 20^)  According to
Fig, 2, by 1980 an installed capacity of about 168 x 106 tonnes
(185 million tons) will be needed to produce 151 x 10s tonnes
(167 million tons) of raw steel if all the additional million
tons of steel demand are not to be lost to imports.  In 1977,
a record import of 17 million tonnes (24 million tons raw steel)
took place,,

-------
                                                                                                          LOCALITIES WHERE RAW STEEL IS MADE;
 STEEL  INDUSTRY EXTENDS FROM COAST TO  COAST
 IN THE UNITED STATES
("""} States producing steel  mill products
^"~~^ (Plant sites  not indicated)

  •  Centers producing raw steel

 MAJOR DEPOSITS OF IRON ORE  AND COKING COAL

  Q  IRON ORE - Deposits currently or recently
     mined or presently being developed

 £  COKING COAL - Coked at  present time or
     has been coked in the past
 ALASKA  £ O

 ALASKA - No steelmaking  facilities  in Alaska
 HAWAII  - Honolulu
 Source:  American Iron and Steel  Institute,
         "Geography of Iron and Steel In the United States"
ALABAMA
  Birmingham
  Fairfield
  Gadsden
ARIZONA
  Tempe
CALIFORNIA
  Emeryvl1le
  Etiwanda
  Fontana
  Long Beach
  Los Angeles
  Torranee
  Union City
COLORADO
  Pueblo
CONNECTICUT
  Bridgeport
DELAWARE
  Claymont
FLORIDA
  Tampa
GEORGIA
  Atlanta
HAWAII
  Honolulu
ILLINOIS
  Alton
  Chicago
  Chicago Heights
  Granite City
  Kankakee
  Lemont
  Morton Grove
  Peoria
  South Chicago
  Ster)ing
 INDIANA
  East Chicago
  Fort Wayne
  Gary
  Kokono
  New Castle
  West Cheater
 KENTUCKY
  Ashland
  Newport
  Owensboro
 MARYLAND
   Baltimore
   Sparrows Point
 MICHIGAN
   Dearborn
   Ecorse
   Ferndale
   Trenton
   Warren
 MINNESOTA
   Duluth
   St. Paul
 MISSISSIPPI
   Flowood
 MISSOURI
   Kansas City
 NEW JERSEY
   Roebl1ng
 NEW YORK
   Buffalo
   Dunk!rk
   Lackawanna
   Lockport
   New Hartford
   Syracuse
   Watervliet
  NORTH CAROLINA
   Croft
   Monroe
                                                                                                                                                              (2)
 Figure   1.     Geographical   distribution  of   the  U.S.   iron  and  steel   industry^
OHIO
  Campbel1
  Canton
  C i nc i nna t f
  Cleveland
  Lora i n
  Mansfield
  Hiddletown
  Portsmouth
  Steubenvl I le
  Warren
  Youngstown
OKLAHOMA
  Sand Springs
OREGON
  Portland
PENNSYLVANIA
  Al iqulppa
  Beaver Fa I Is
  Bethlehem
  Brackenridge
  Braddock
  Braeburn
  Br.dgevMIe
  Burnham
  Butler
  Carnegie
  CoatesvtIle
  Duquesne
  Erie
  Fair less Hills
  FarreU
  Harrisburg
  Hous ton
   Irvine
   Ivy Rock
   Johnstown
   Latrobe
   HeKeesport
   Midland
   Milton
   Monaca
   Monessen
   Munhall
   New Castle
   Oakmont
   Philadelphia
   Phoentxv! He
   Pittsburgh
   Reading
   Steel ton
   TitusvHIe
   Washington
   West Homestead
 RHODE  ISLAND
   PhJlipsdale
 SOUTH CAROLINA
   Cavce
   Georgetown
 TENNESSEE
   Harriman
   Knoxville
 TEXAS
   Fort Worth
   Houston
   Lone Star
   Longv i ew
   Pampa
   SeguSn
   Vlnton
 UTAH
   Geneva
 V.I RG IN I ft
   Chesapeake
   Newport News
    Roanoke
  WASHINGTON
    Seattle
  WEST VIRGINIA,
    Huntington
    Weir ton

-------
  20(
  190|
  180|
  170|
  16o|
  15o|
  140[
  13(

  12(

  IK
S ioc
o
6(
51

5(
        I
        I
                                                                       £_»
                                                               Trendline  (Best estimate; takes
                                                                     »   into account increasing.
                                                                ^  .      yield with growth;of
                                                                         continuous casting)
                                                          O  Raw Steel Production, U.S.
                            X" —X Total Shipments of Steel
                                   Products,  U.S.

                            A   A 1970 to 1976 from Ref.  2,
                                   1977 data  estimated
                                                                                 181

                                                                                 163

                                                                                 145


                                                                                 127


                                                                                 109"
                                                                                                        91  |

                                                                                                        82  I
                                                                                                            14-1
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            03

                                                                                                        68  S
                                                                                                           59
                                                                                                           50
                                                                                                           41
           1950
1955
1960
-J,
7T~~	TTffTT	T7ST
                                                                                                           32
   1945
                                                     Year
TT7T
                              Figure 2.  Total U.S.  steel production.
                                                                         (3)

-------
     Using a quantitative economic analytical technique, Mo and
Wang(4) projected'a 2.9% average annual growth rate to 140 mil-
lion tonnes (154 million tons) finished steel, equivalent to
about 181 million tonnes (200 million tons) of raw steel. ^Even
assuming an import contribution of 17 million tonnes  (19 million
tons) of finished steel (raw steel 24 million tonnes, 26 million
tons), a domestic raw steel production of 158 million tonnes
(174 million tons) will require 172 million tonnes (190 million
tons) of raw steel capacity.
     Thus, it appears that a minimum of 163 million tonnes  (180
million tons) of raw steel capacity will be required  in the next
3 to 5 years.  In other words, almost 4 million tonnes of raw
steel capacity must be added every year for the next  few years,
apart from modifications, modernization, and environmental ex-
penses.  On the other hand, any new and modernized capacities
designed with environmental considerations in mind will appre-
ciably reduce the problems associated with water pollution.

     The major steel producers are all integrated mills, i.e.,
they have their own coke plants, blast furnaces, steel melt
shops, and mills within a single boundary and authority.  Table 1
lists the top ten steel companies and their production, revenue,
and employment costs. (•>)

PRODUCING UNITS OF AN INTEGRATED PLANT

     Pig iron  (also called hot metal) is produced in  tall re-
actors  (blast furnaces) from iron-bearing raw materials such  as
ores, pellets, sinter and scrap, fluxed with limestone.  Coke is
required to provide energy for smelting and is the reducing med-
ium  for iron production.  Modern blast furnaces are very large
units,  as  large as 10,000 tonnes/day,  A 4000 tonne/day blast
furnace may require as much as 200 million liters (50 million
gallons) of water daily.  Large piles of raw materials are us-
ually  stored in the open with complete environmental  exposure.

      Coke  is made in closed rectangular ovens by destructive
distillation of raw crushed coal.  In addition to coke  coke
ovens  produce  a valuable gas and many chemicals which are nor-
mally  recovered.  These are ammonia, tars, light oils, phenol
and  benzene.   In addition, fine particles of coal and'coke are
generated  in profusion.  Coal stored in large piles is also
exposed to weather.

     An agglomerated product, called sinter, is often a sub-
stantial portion of iron-bearing charge in a blast furnace
This product is made from natural and crushed fines of iron ore
coke,  limestone, mill scale, and flue dusts, much of which will'
otherwise  be discarded as waste.  The sinter plant consists of
a long  traveling grate furnace on which the mixture is burned
under  conditions to obtain a desired product.
                               8

-------
               TABLE 1.  THE TOP 10 STEEL COMPANIES OF 1976
Raw Steel
Production,
millions_of
Company
U.S. Steel Corp.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Armco Steel Corp.
National Steel Corp.
Republic Steel Corp.
Inland Steel Corp.
Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corp.
Lykes- Youngs town Corp.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel Corp.
Allegheny Ludlum
Steel Corp.
Sales
Revenues ,.
billion
tonnes
25.7
17.1-
6,9
908
8.7
7.2
6o3

4o6
3.5

0.7

(28.3)
(18.9)
(7.6)
(10,8)
(9.6)
(7,9.)
(7oO)

(5.1)
(3.9)

(0.8)

8
5
3
2
2
2
2

1
0

0

$
.725
.305
.165
.841
.,546
.401
.052

. 643
.936

.902

Employment
Cpsts
billion

3.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.

0.

.$. '
578
314
974
885
911
738
735

592
375

304

% of
sales
41 .0
44.1
30.9
31.2
35.8
.•*
30.9
35.8

36.5
40.1

33.6

Net
Income ,
million
$
410.
168.
123.
85.
65.
104.
44.

19.
3:.

30.


3
0
7
7
9
0
4

0
2

7

Long-Term
Debt,
billion

1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.

0.

$
960
023
667
744
372
480
349

673
183
-
177

Figures in parentheses are in million tons

-------
     The molten pig iron contains significant amounts of impuri-
ties, and to produce steel these are oxidized and fluxed away in
basic oxygen converters (EOF), open hearths (OH), and electric
arc furnaces (EF).  Until 1968, OH was the major steelmaking pro-
cess requiring less of pig iron and more of scrap.  In 1976,
over 607«> of raw steel was produced by EOF, projected to increase
to 807o by 1980.  EOF requires 70% of its charge to be pig iron.
The impact of this technological turnabout is reflected in in-
stallation of large blast furnaces (Bethlehem, 7600 tonnes/day
and Inland, 6300-9900 tonnes/day) and coke ovens to feed them,
both requiring very large quantities of cooling water.

     Simultaneously, with the advant of EOF, continuous casting
of molten steel has made rapid progress, over batch casting of
large ingots.  While traditional ingot casting required very
little cooling water, continuous casting requires a very high
volume of water, often of different purity levels, one of which
requires special treatment.  The other water stream gets highly
contaminated with scale.

     Vacuum degassing of molten steel is also a significant de-
veloping technology.  The nature of the process is such that
some of the metallic elements including heavy metals are pulled
out  and enter the waste stream after gas cleaning.

     After casting, the large ingots or continuous cast slabs
and  billets are heated and shaped by passing through large cy-
lindrical or shaped rollers.  The heating in large furnaces and
soaking pits requires a significant amount of water for cooling.
In the rolling process a very large volume of water is needed
for  cooling the rollers, bearings, and the products, as well as
for  cleaning the thick scales from the product by high-pressure
water jets before the start of rolling.  Moreover, oil is used
in oil-water emulsions for cold rolling.  Thus, a complex water
stream is generated from the shaping operation.

     In addition to shaping, many of the flat products are sup-
plied with coatings of zinc, tin, lead-tin alloy, chromium, and
polymers.  To prepare for coating, the steel materials are
cleaned of surface scales by acid pickling.  Thus the coating
operations generate a complex wastewater stream containing acids
and  their salts plus metal and organic coating materials—and
this stream is one of the most difficult to handle.

     An overall flow pattern of the steelmaking process is
shown in Fig. 3.(2)

WATER SYSTEM IN AN INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT

     While Fig. 3 shows the complex pattern of material flow in a
steel plant, the water system to accomplish efficient operation
is far more complex, as shown in Fig. 4.v°)  in Figa 4  the fin-
ishing units of sheet and tin mill and tube plant form'the most
complex water system consisting of acids, oils, and scales
Eventually, sludge is removed, pickle liquor is dumped, and


                              10

-------
flocculator oil skimmings are burned.  The hot strip mills and
the tube mill form another complex while the coke oven, blast
furnace, and open hearth form a third complex,,  The fourth com-
plex is essentially the power plant.

     The diversity of water treatment, its routing and usage,
may be even more clearly seen in the schematic water use pattern
shown in Fig0 5 for Appleby-Frodingham Steel Co. of the U,K,(7)
The circulating water amounts to 150,000 liters/tonne of steel
(36,000 gal/ton)a of which 3100 liters/tonne(750 gal/ton)  are
consumed.  Of the 3100  liters/tonne  consumption, about 90% is
lost in evaporation and the remainder  is discharged to water
bodies.  About  40% of the  circulating water  is used under  lime-
softened condition, another 40%  as received, and the remaining
207o with special treatments.

     With recirculation and usage, contaminant levels tend to
build up in the water streams but do not change the basic nature
of the treated water which is fed to the different plant units,
as shown in Fig0 5.  The anticipated consumption of water per
plant units for a production level of 4,5 million tonnes ( 5 mil-
lion tons) per year is  given in Table 2,  The consumption rate
of 24,000 liters/min is equivalent to 2900 liters/tonne of steel,
i,e,, about 700 gal/ton.  The blast furnace  complex accounts
for a quarter of the consumption, followed by 14% in coke ovens
and 9% at the sinter plant.  In other words, all activities
directly related to pig iron production account for 51% of the
total consumption.  It  has been pointed out  earlier that with
the technological switch from OH to EOF, more pig iron will be
needed to produce a ton of steel and thus will increase water
consumption.  This increase can be offset by judicious recycling
and design of water treatment units,
                                                /ON
     At the ARBED Esch-Belval works in Luxemburgw' with a raw
steel production capacity of 104 million tonnes/year, the spe-
cific water consumption is betwen 1200 and 1700 liters/tonne of
steel, i,e,, between 290 and 400 gal/ton.  All the water recir-
culation systems of the works are of closed  design laid on a
cascade basis.
     At the USINOR's Dunkirk plant^ ' in France, at 8 million
tonne/year production stage, a water consumption of only 1800
liters/tonne is planned, i,e0, 430 gal/ton.  At both USINOR  and
ARBED, great attention  is given to establish a rain-water net-
work which is used for  cooling pig iron, granulating the blast
furnace slag, spraying  the slag and cinder pits, etc.
   1 gallon =  3.785  liters

                               11

-------



ScftpR«cycli




Meui
Scrap


Electric



£1
i|
i
t
K
si
•SI
£1
\
S
si
I
1
?
5
u.
I





Caitmt



                                                                fir PHI
                                                                *.-§ '51 S i = »
                                                                       4—4


r~
Continuous
Catling
fiillti Unit

Continwout
Caiting
Slab Unit

?


N__T

ji -i r i - *
el 51 *- i S =
LEGEND:
	 In-plant flows
	 Scrap recycle
1      Flows from outside
      OFlow streams joined to obtain common
      cost to following process
             Figure 3.   Process  unit interrelationships<2>
                                     12

-------













_











Primary Breakdown 14
To Blooms

-
To Bill»U vii Bloomi

Primary BrMfcdown ^
ToSlibs

Purchaitd
W00*'11^^^ " B
t
r
\
1
•
— 4





co'rnl f

r
V








V
'










> — .




A Heavy Structutsli '7
J ^*" end Re«<

_», Wife Product..
Nailt
•: i
18
Bar end Rod
.:
     Pgrehawd
        Continuous Cast Blooms
Continuous C«it
B.ilen
 Contmuoui Cut
 SJ»bj
                                                                       Dir«* Shipnwntl of Ingot*. SJ*bi, (3.3%)
                                                                       BtlMU. Blooms
                                                                          _ Heavy Sltunurels.   ,7.9.41
                                                                                     13.2%)
                                                                           Barn, Light StructmU
                                                                           S«amlB«Pipe,
                                                                                    ,„,*,
                                                                          J^ColdKniihed   ,,.9%|
p-j   Galvonliint"|—fc- Ga


[  I   Tin Plating and  271 t j.
j  |  Other Plated Products   I   _!'
                                                                                     i 6.4X1
Hot Rolled
Sheet .n
-------
          SHEET AND TIN MILL
LADLE  COKE
SHOP  PLANT
                                        NATIONAL   HOT STRIP MILLS
             DEL  A W  A  HE
                                      I ,  V E It
Figure  4.   Schematic arrangement  of the water<• treatment system
   at Fairless Works of United  States Steel Corporation,^)
      (Copyright  1971 by United  States Steel  Corporation)

-------
e&rtrortion
                    River An.cholme .
                    Varies with seasons
                    impure and very hard
                        64 BO
                  Ashby Villz
                Sewage effluent of
                consistent quality
                hard
                     4310
Token during year
fo of licensed amount
 Tftotnwnt.
Proportions as used
 Wiiortj of m3 per annum
 Otportmental consumption
       Sinter
       plant

       Furnace
       cooling


       Gas cleaning 25 2%

       Blowing     142%

                 ioo"%
      Iron making
      5135-2-36°/o of
      circulating water
           49OO
           757%
     Temporary
     hardness
     removed by lime
     softening
Used
raw
        2IQO
        487°/o
                  Plant drainage
                  and rainfall
               Vories with rainfall
               high dissolved solids
                     5000
                  North Lincoln
                  boreholes
                  Potable quality
                  very hard
                      37IO
                         _North Lindsey
                         "Water Board
                          Total  I95OO
                          (excluding
                          NLWB supply
                          which is
                          undefined)
3I3O
626%
Lime ,',  .Lime
-"nsa
  Used
   raw
        Lime softened
        55BO  41-3%
            2:94
             Used raw
           4545   337%
               239
    3255
    87-8%
     HIS   Total I350O
Lime soda
plus base
exchange
Used
row
         Fully
         softened
         ,2325
         Row
         D5O
            122
         056
                                                    29% ,27%
             • 14-7%
              subsequently
              distilled

              Total I35OO
              litres per min


              7-11 million m9
                                                                  Rolling mills
                                                                  H8O-25O%ot
                                                                  circulating water

                                                               Steel  production
                                                               1775-204%
                                                               circulating water
                                                          Steam rising
                                                          2O2O-673%of
                                                          steam generated
Quenching   39%

Cooling     61%

           oo%


Coke ovens
1820-548% of
circulating water
                                                                         Domestic
                                                                         .820
                          Power generation
                          365-114% of
                          circulating water
                                                    Miscellaneous
                                                    385
            Figure  5.
    Water  supply  and  usage  at  Applebv-Frodingham
   for the  year ending  March,  1972.(7)
                                                      15

-------
TABLE 2.
FORECAST OF WATER CONSUMPTION AT APPLEBY-FRODINGHAM
       FOR YEAR ENDING MARCH, 1976
Consuming Plant
Sinter plants
Blast furnace cooling
Blast furnace gas cleaning
Blast furnace blowing
Coke ovens
Steelmaking - EOF
Continuous casting
Rolling mills
Electrical power generation
Steam raising
Domestic purposes
Slag quenching
Miscellaneous users
Total
Water
liters/min
avg
2,225
2,450
1,545
2,590
3,540
1,500
1,000
1,590
1.225
2,880
1,000
1,045
1,410
24,000
Consumption
percent
of total
9.3
10.2
6.4
10.8
14.7
6.2
4,2
6.6
5.1
12.0
4.2
4.4
5.9
100.0
                   16

-------
                           SECTION 5

                   AN APPROACH TO THE STUDY
INTRODUCTION'
     The objective of this study was to develop data on minimum
water quality requirements for different unit processes of the
iron and steel industry,,  One would logically assume that much of
this information is'available in the open literature, a careful
analysis of which should identify the data sought for and reveal
any gaps to be filled.  Thus, the four basic questions posed in
the work assignment could be answered adequately.

     It was also expected that a wealth of information must be
available with the water management divisions in the steel in-
dustry which could be obtained by correspondence with several
steel plants followed by plant visits and discussions, where
necessary.  In addition, the iron and steel industry trade asso-
ciation, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), must be
collecting this information and would have a generous data bank
to share with IITRI for this study.

     Furthermore, because equipment is designed to meet certain
performance criteria relating to heat transfer, flow rate, pres-
sure, temperature,  scaling, fouling, and erosion, the equipment
manufacturers must have a set of guidelines regarding water qual-
ities such as pH, temperature, total dissolved solids (TDS),
total suspended solids  (TSS), alkalinity and similar parameters
to enable them to design the equipment system.  Thus, the equip-
ment manufacturers were considered another information source
for this study.

     Unfortunately, on each of the above three counts the out-
come has been less  than satisfactory, if not disappointing.

OPEN LITERATURE

     Within the time frame of this study, a thorough manual and
computer-aided search was made for water quality information in
the steel industry, and the result has been disappointing.  The
computer search yielded no significant specific information.  A
manual search of relevant sources resulted in some data collec-
tion, mostly non-specific in nature.  The reason is that, till
                               17

-------
the mid 1960's, water quality, whether going into a processing
unit or being thrown out to a water body, was not considered to
be significant in the steel industry because of ample supply,
low cost, and lack of knowledge and concern about environmental
impact of polluted water.  Thus, hardly any data on water quality
levels at individual plant units were kept, let alone published.

      In view of heightened environmental awareness and EPA ef-
fluent guideline regulations, considerable data are now being
collected on discharges.  But since there are no  EPA requirements
for water quality documentation at equipment inlet and recycling
streams, there is still very little relevant information avail-
able in the literature.  A strong case can be made for such doc-
umentation.  Most of the data in the literature pertain to flow
rate, pH, TSS, IDS, and alkalinity on water streams as a,whole
for the entire plant or for a large combination of units.  No
specific data are available in the open literature on inlets
and outlets of 30 specific plant units., defined as point source
categories in the effluent guidelines A iU-lz;  jn each of these
30 units there are dozens of separate water streams and consump-
tion points, and obviously no information is available at these
subunits or locations,

IRON AND STEEL PLANTS

      The majority of the steel plants are clustered around the
Great Lakes  (Fig. 1)„  The assurance of ample clean water was a
major consideration  for'their location.  An equally important
reason was the availability of these water bodies as recipients
of  the polluted discharge from the steel plants.  Thus, in most
plants,  the basic treatment was nil or minimal—only elimination
of  excess  suspended  solids.  The water was used as received or
merely lime-softened, if required.

     ' A  few plants are  located in water-scarce regions; a prime
example  is Kaiser Steel Corporation (KSC) at Fontana near Los
Angeles.   Some plants are in arid/semi-arid regions; an example
is  Colorado Fuel and Iron (CFI) at Pueblo.  KSC was constructed
in  the 40's  and specifically designed for extensive water recyc-
ling.  Thus,  they kept  possibly the best set of data on water
quality.

      In the  Ohio valley, river pollution from steel mill wastes
became a source of major community concern long before the
national concern expressed in the creation of EPA.  Armco Steel
Corporation  (ASC), Middletown, Ohio, initiated a set of measures
for extensive water  recycling, and their data collection on ef-
fluent is  significant. "
                               18

-------
AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE  (AISI)

      AISI, unfortunately, has no  centralized data bank on water
quality requirements in the steel  industry, and was unable to
help IITRI in providing these data.  They readily gave IITRI a
collection of their published studies  and requested IITRI to
contact individual steel plants  to obtain the necessary data.  A
meeting was held with AISI Environmental Committee at Pittsburgh.


EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
    *. • •*   <. '               •
       Several invidual steel plant equipment suppliers were
contacted for design information on water quality for,their
equipmento  The general response was that they did not have any
specific requirement unless it was a power plant or some such
special unite  They design their equipment based on steel plants'
water  supply information, which  is very general in nature.  Thus,
the source of equipment supplier did not result in significant
data generation,,

       Most recently some  information regarding water quality on
product quality was presented in a society meeting and also
appeared  in a weekly metalworking  publication.  These data are,
possibly,  the most specific to date on this subject.

       Our approach to  data collection  and information developmert
covered all possible  avenues.  Because significant and critical
data on minimum water  quality requirements for process water and
product quality are not  there, it  will be necessary to undertake
research  studies  to obtain more  specific data and this is recom-
mended later.
                                19

-------
                            SECTION 6

                THE BASIC FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

     The information reported in this section was obtained ba-
sically from plant visits, open literature, and discussions with
individuals.

     Three steel plants were visited:
          Armco Steel Corporation (ASC),  Middletown, Ohio

          Colorado Fuel and Iron Steel Corporation (CFI),
            Pueblo, Colorado
          Kaiser Steel Corporation (KSC), Fontana, California.

KAISER STEEL CORPORATION

     KSC recycles about 98% of its water.  Its net consumption
is 4600 I/tonne (1100 gal/ton).t13'  Of this only about 960 I/ton
(230 gal/ton) is finally discharged to a municipal wastewater
plant, which treats it for discharge to the ocean.  This excep-
tionally low discharge of 960 I/tonne is  much better than the
best data from steel plants such as ARBED, Luxemburg; Dunkirk,
France; and Appleby-Frodingham, U0K0, mentioned earlier.  How-
ever, the total requirement will increase to about 3400 1/min
(9000 gpm), and discharge between 5700 and 7200 1/min (1500 and
1900 gpm) with the addition of new BOF and continuous casting
units now under construction,,

     Much has already been written about KSC's cascade system
of water usage.  In this system water of the highest quality
once used is reused in the next system requiring lower quality
and so on.  Four such systems are used along with some special
water systems, as shown in Fig. 6.(-*-4-)  The system was planned
this way from the start because of the arid nature of the region.

     The analyses of influent and effluent streams at the water
treatment plant are given in Table 3.  Though flow charts show
that the water stream from the domestic reservoir flows directly
into the industrial reservoir, a difference in the analyses
between these two qualities exists.  It is noted that in the
solid contents and hardness level, the industrial water is
higher.  This is so because the plant is  not on a level ground
                              20

-------
    from
I
UNo
1
i
1 WELL No. 2

INDUSTRIAL RFS
— . ' f

COOLING
TOWER
No. 19
^
COOLING
TOWER
No. 10
i
TIN
MILL.
SHEET
CALVG.
COLDROLl
SHEET
1 i ,
WCKl«
MHI9 ,
1
_ 	 __,.. ,, v... 	 . 	 , 	 . 	 , 	 . — _
[WATER TKEATMENT PLANT}
«
DOMESTIC RtSERVOm

•s
F.RVOIR , '

.^ .
I i
b
I,MKSTICSI:RVIC
.• \ •«<•-.;.'.. -»" r<.
& milU; fire |iro-
ectlon & hnilxnpe
X
I SEWAGE TP.F.ATMEN
1 PLANT

1 	 *
k,

COOLING TOWERS No. 2A
A
PLATE, PIPE.
& SLAB. MILLS:
power room &
Tumace cooling
COLD MILL & PI
MILL-pkktolin


PIPE MILL
hydraulic
descaling
PE
it


1


JL GATE VALVE
y iwwmallv ckwl
WATER
SOFTENER
_, PLANT
r ' 	
i.
?
» » '
j_. . -i 	 M 	 . — __ j
. POWER PLANT
WASTE HEAT
I .
-_J71
COOLING
TOWER No. 3
1
POWER PLANT
cooling system & misc.
f— 	 1
ICOOLINC TOWERS No. 2U|
„ B..BT t
PLATE. PIPE. STRUCTURAL &
SLAB'G MILLS: HOT SCARFING MILL
1 scale flush & general use; pig casting


1
»

J, J, & 	 1
COOLING TOWER No. 14
motor-room cooling water
1

M/
HOT STRIP MILL
AIR COMPRESSOR
MOTOR ROOM
,, J, I— J
FURNACE
Nrn. 1.2,3
' ' 	 > '
, Jr
[COOUNG TOWER No. 15 |
(excess to wastewater
treatment plant)
	 * w ' ' <"
| COOUNG TOWERS No. 1
*_
BLAST FURNAC
No. 1.
mtfc DI &M-T
E | OP

* *TT 	 1.
EN HEARTH | i > JJ 	
— ,i „ rr


HOT STRIP MILLi
general use |

I
FONTANA
  SLAG
(contractor)
r
 STORM
 DRAIN
RECOVERY

   T
                               BAROMETRIC
                                CONDENSER
                                                 ICOOLINC TOWER NO. i2| I
                                                 BLAST
                                                FURNACE
                                                  No. 3
                                                         COOUNG
                                                       ITOWER NO. is
                                                                 BLAST
                                                              FURNACE No. 4
          WASTRWATFR
           TREATMENT
             PLANT
                                _c
                                3E
                                            COKE PLANT-
                           [BENZOL PLANT! LIQUOR COOLING COILS
                                                                            ICOOLINC TOWER
                                                                            I     No. 8
                                                                            BLAST
                                                                         FURNACE No. 2

^ *fr r
COOLING TOWER
No. 17 _ -
J, i
BLAST
FURMACE
No. 4
gas washer
BLAST
FURNACE
No. 4
Sll| pit)
4f » r
COOLING TOW ERl
i N°-",
A- i
»L ^
FUR.1ACE
tfut wainer
BLAST
FURNACE
No. 3
llJJ pltt
in" ••
fy V
COO LING TOWER
No. 9
i I
BLAST
FURNACE
No. 2

BLAST
FURNACE
No. 2
s!i< pin
                                                                                                       SUPPLY*

                                                                                                      (TREATMENT;


                                                                                                       /DOMESTIC

                                                                                                      | SYSTEM
                                                                                                       NDUSTR1AL

                                                                                                        SPECIAL

                                                                                                        YSTEMS:


                                                                                                        HIGHEST
                                                                                                        IMDUSTRIAL
                                                                                                         SPECIAL
                                                                                                         2nd
                                                                                                         INDUSTRIAL
                                                                                                        ' INDUSTRIAL
                                                                                                          SPECIAL
               [ACID DISPOSAL PLANT |

                       i
      NONRECLAIMABLEWASTEWATER LINE
                                                                                                          LOWEST
                                                                                                          INDUSTRIAL
                                                                                                    WASTE

                                                                                                    TREATMENT.

                                                                                                  > DISCOS SL

                                                                                                    & KEUSE

                                                                                                  /  SYSTEM
                           Figure  6.    Kaiser  Steel  water  systems.
                                                                                   (14)
                                                        21

-------
TABLE 3.  KAISER STEEL CORPORATION AVERAGE INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
       WATER ANALYSIS AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, 1976U4)
            Item
           	Effluent
           DomesticIndustrial
Influent   Reservoir  Reservoir
PH
Alkalinity (as CaC03>, mg/1
  Phenolphthalein
  Methyl orange
Total Solids, mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),
  mg/1
Total Suspended Solids (TSS),
  mg/1
   7.7
    0
  159
  234
  229
8.5
  4
 57
129
124
6.8-8.9
    0
   68
  160
  149
   11
Non-COo Hardness (as CaCO.,) ,
mg/lj J
Total Hardness (as CaCOo) ,
mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
1
148
11
23
23
48
7
9
54
12
19
•PI
-
*
29
75
15
15
-
-
*
 Ft
 Calcium/magnesium ratio of 6 remains unchanged through treat-
 ment.
                                 22

-------
and, depending on demand, water  from one water  stream may  flow
back into the industrial reservoir on  its way to  the  next  tier
of water usage„

     Though KSC has the best wa^er usage record,  its  water qual-
ity data for individual plant units are neither specific nor
extensive,,  The additional water quality data available are for
cooling tower waters„  Analyses  of the four major system streams,
from the highest to the lowest,  are given in Table 4»

     Data in Table 4 show how significantly water quality  de-
grades with use.  TDS builds up  by about an order of  magnitude
between streams 1 and 4.  Chloride increases approximately 20-
fold, hardness 9-fold, and sulfate 7-  to 8-fold.

     Even with this system there are some areas where equipment
problems have been encountered.  At the tin mill,  reverse
osmosis (RO) is used where the^TDS is  brought down from domestic
water supply level of 150 to 5 mg/1.   The TDS buildup interferes
with the emulsion stability, and before the use of RO, the emul-
sion had to be thrown out in a couple  of days creating a signif-
icant pollution problem.  At present,  the emulsion is stable for
a couple of weeks.  From this one example, it becomes dear that
application of existing technology at  the proper  areas can sig-
nificantly reduce the water pollution  problem.

     Only a few cases of effect  of water quality  on product
quality were identified during the discussion.  Speck rust on
cleaned and oiled plates was  initially thought to arise from
poor water.  But now it is considered  to arise  from water  drop-
lets from the nearby scrubber, carrying traces  of acid.

     In an indirect manner, oily mill  scale sludge is a water
quality problem.  Because the adhering oil to the mill scale
cannot be easily separated, its  use at the sinter plant is hin-
dered.  If used, the burning creates an air pollution  problem—a
blue haze.  Proper water treatment  of the scale-laden water
should provide a solution to the problem.

     Recovery of chromium from plating waste will be  desirable,
both for use of chromium and reuse of  the water.  -However, at
present, lack of proper technology compels KSC  to dump them in
solar ponds where, in a few years, natural concentration from
20 mg/1 to 16 g/1 may enable them to recover chromium.

     From the viewpoint of this  task,  not much  information re-
garding water quality at specific units was obtained. KSC has
extensive information on incoming water and cooling tower  water
analysis, and follows a practice which may be considered the
best in the world.  However, it  is to  be remembered that in
spite of this exemplary practice, the  flow rates  shown for all
streams are based on calculations.  We were given to  understand


                              23

-------
           TABLE 4.  ANALYSES OF WATER OF THE FOUR MAJOR WATER STREAMS,
                             KAISER STEEL CORPORATION

Quality
Level
1
(highest)
2
3




4
(lowest)


Use
Non- contact
cooling
Rolling mills
Blast furnace
Steelmaking
Sintering
Coke ovens

Blast furnace
gas cleaning


PH
7.4

7.7
7.3




7.1


TSS,
mg/1
23

50
39



*
50


TDS,
mg/1
283

300
550




3000

Hard-
ness,
mg/1
108

120
200




900

Total
Chlo-
Alkal ini ty , r ide ,
mg/1
51

70
50




220

mg/1
53

50
170




. 1100

Sul-
fate,
mg/1
49

70
100




370

Can be as high as 300 mg/1.

-------
that in the entire plant there may not be more than three water
flowmeters in operation.  Thus, one  significant  data gap at KSC
is simply lack of adequate flow information.  This data gap
coupled to absence of.water analysis for individual plant units
makes it difficult to predict additional gains that can be made
in ^ the use of a different flow rate  and/or water quality to ob-
tain the same high quality end product now being obtained.
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION  (ASC)

     Using water on an average of 25 times, ASC  had drastically
reduced its water usage.  As shown in Table 5,(15) a consumption
of 2400 1/min (6240 gpm) amounts to  96% recycling and 6000 to
8000 liters of effluent per tonne of steel,

     ASC draws water  from the Miami  River and, after settling
and holding in ponds, the make-up water is lime-softened and
distributed as shown  in Fig. 7,  Thirteen separate recirculated
water systems are used.  All wastewater flows through a storm
sewer system to Dicks Creek, a small tributary of the Miami
River,  During the hot,  dry summer months, the natural flow in
the creek dries up, leaving ASC waste as the only water source.
In order to prevent fish kills during the low flow periods, all
wastewater is of sufficient quality  to support fish life without
dilution,  A simplified  diagram of the wastewater system is shown
in, Fig, 3,  Seventeen water conservation and wastewater treatment
systems were installed.  Typical analyses of discharge to Dicks
Creek at Outfall Nos, 002  (BF and Coke Ovens), 003 (OH), 005
(Primary Mills), and  641  (Pickling)  are given in Table 6.

     Outfall 003 has  high zinc because the open  hearth shops use
a large amount of galvanized iron scrap.  Also,  the significant
fluoride content arises  from the use of fluorspar for steelmaking

     The primary mill operation is reflected in  the significant
level of oil and grease  in Outfall 005,  The very large chloride
level in Outfall 641  reflects the pickling operation.  Outfall
002 is fed by a large volume of non-contact cooling water from
the blast furnace complete, and temperature is a  significant
monitoring indicator.

     In Figure 9,   ' the two modern water systems—one for EOF
and the other for vacuum degassing and continuous casting—are
shown.  The entire EOF shop discharges only 190  1/min  (50 gpm)
of effluent.  Of course, significant evaporation losses occur
at the cooling tower.  The original  concept was  to use boiler
quality water in a totally closed cooling system because the
temperature rise in the hood, duct,  and lance cooling  is very
high, 60°F.  On economic grounds, this concept was changed to
use of lime-softened  water and open  air cooling  towers with ex-
cellent results.  The normal blowdown of 95 1/min  (25  gpm) re-
sults in five to six  cycles of concentration.  Dissolved solid
levels reach 1500 mg/1 or higher without noticeable scaling or
corrosion problems.
                               25

-------
     TABLE 5.   MILL WATER DISTRIBUTION AND BLOWDOWN,
               ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION
Production Area
Coke plant
Blast furnace
Open hearth shop
Basic oxygen shop
Vacuum degas ser
Continuous caster
Soaking pits and
slab furnaces
Hot rolling mill
Picklers 3,
Cold rolling mill
Annealing furnaces
Coating line
Total
*
Make-up ,
1/min
3,800
3,800
4,200
1,100
12,500
(12,500)
1,900
(12,000)
000 (750)
2,600
(1,100)
280
33,000
Total Water Used
Recirculated and
Once Through,
1/min
38,000
87,000
95,000
62,000
12,500
57,000
91,000
265,000
3,800
700,000
1,100
5,300
790,000
Slowdown,
1/min
3,000
2,900
1,100
190
To contin-
uous caster
To hot mill
To hot mill
9,500
3,800
1,900
1,100
110
24,000
Parentheses indicate blowdown from another system.
                             26

-------
                  Lime
                 softening
                  plant
LPM "  liters per minute
                            3800 LPM
                                     •Coke plant
                            3800  LPM
                                     Blast furnace
                            4200  LPM
                            	» Open hearth shop
                            1100 LPM
                            	•	*• Basic oxygen shop
12,500 LPM
       •• Vacuum degas
                      •Concast •
1900 LPM
                            3.000 LPM
         Soaking pits S slab furnaces —Hot rolling -pAnneol



            	•• Pickling
                            2600 LPM
280 LPM
                             -••Cold rolling



                             	*• Coating
       -Figure  7.   Water  supply  and distribution
                to  major production  areas
              Armco Steel Corporation.
                                27

-------
3800
3800 <
4200 (
1100
12,500 '
1900
3000
3000
280
.oooj

Coke
plont

,000,
,100}
300)
3,30pJ

soc),

800).
BOO),
w\
Sof

Blast
furnace

Open hearth
shop

Basic oxygen
shop

Vacuum
degosser
NH3 liquor ^j-
L
Cooling water
Gas cleaning r
Cooling water
Gos cleaningj
Cooling water l
Goscleaninar



Hot mill


Dephenoli*olio7]^H3strippmg]-||'2\ ^QQQ
| "|



<

sedimentation |-H_flllZ?lL0l_nl2?0] imn

I
*ii>difnf Motion t x •» Ir ' _7 ^
QC to onj
f~ — — * — • —i
^ Continuous ^ sedimentation 1-1
i cosTcr i w— ••*_ MV — — . *j i
,._ j |
(2,sooi q^on
Chemical coagulation' , 	 :— J-f3oHvl .,«-.
~1 8 sedimentation > *L An«£Linl IP22^ 1 1 00


Dij*kl»re

^ 	 1
Acid rinse

Pnld mill

8 emulsions

• Cnot'tno



_, . rrom
lened water M!-m;


Deep well disposolj
J"Acid"neut , /. ..-{ ,-7on
-t-j iron 8 oil| in 	 V'j, ji( J/uu
i_retno«olj
' (3°j 1 1 0
"I
thru nirkc; Pr^eU (6240) 24.000
33,000 (8775)

 1/min (gpm)
                  River
Figure 8.  Simplified schematic of the wastewater
       system, Armco Steel Corporation.(15T
                           28

-------
   TABLE 6.   AVERAGE ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENTS TO DICKS  CREEK,
                   ARMCO STEEL CORPORATIONM_
                PERIOD 10/1/77 TO 10/31/77(15)
                              Analysis at Otttfall No.
    Parameter             002        003      005       641
TSS, mg/1                  -       38.6      17         2
Total iron, mg/1           -         -         -        0.222
Dissolved iron, mg/1       -        0.032     0.05      0.105
Fluorides, mg/1            -       16.9
Chlorides, mg/1            -„...-         -      541
Total zinc, mg/1,  .... :  s  ...-..,-       55        0.053      0.077
Lead, mg/1                 -        0.427
Oil and grease, mg/1       -         -       4.5
pH                        7.9        7.56     8.45       8.2.
Flow,  106 liters/day     3o8        3.3      2,5        8,7
Temperature,  °C (°F)    21 (70)      -
                                29

-------
               Hood a
                duct
                    680,000
                      (18,000)
               Evaporation
23,000
(6,000) Slowdown
                                                   Moke-up water
7

Oxyge
loncp
(4)
\


n
r





















p
fa
spr


'•
"

Pump 8
fan seals
sprays, etc.

         woter
                Cooling woter system


HT
T<
\\ \
lickenersj
) filters


Make-up

Filters
a vacuum
pumps
water ,
'*

Tose
1^71
fine rlonnino water S»
                                                               190
                                                                  17,000

                                                                    (4'50(*
                                  Evaporation
                                    vt/
                                                                  Gas
                                                                cleaning
                                                                 system
                                     (a)

                               Softened make-up water
                           12.500     t	
                         Vacuum
                         degosser
                        condenser
                         cooling
                                Deep bed
                                filters
                         Continuous
                          caster
                           slab
                          cooling
                                                       1900

                                                       500)
                     Soaking pit 8
                     Slab furnace
                       cooling
                                       Slab 8
                                     hot strip mill
                                     clarification
                                       plant
                          Pickers
                                            r
                                    To Dicks Creek
                                      (b)
                       Annealing
                        furnace
                        cooling
                                     1/mfn (gpm)
Figure 9.  Steel  melt shop water system, Armco Steel Corporation
(a) EOF  is .served by two separate water systems discharging  on'lv
190 1/min (50 gpm) .   (b) Vacuum degassing  and continuous  castin'o-
waters are reused.                                                       •L"S
                                        30

-------
     From this it is realised that  process  water at the  EOF shop
can tolerate a high TDS  level.   How high this  level can  attain—
with proper chemical treatment to prevent scaling—can only be
determined after a sustained  operation at different high levels.
Obviously> the plant operators will be unwilling to take such
risks to determine the limit  of equipment/chemical  capabilities
in controlling scaling problems just to determine the  water qual-
ity limitations for, any  piece of equipment,  though  this  informa-
tion may enable them to  further reduce discharges.

     Figure 9b shows how the  very large volume of water  required
for vacuum degasser and  continuous  casting  units are reused in
the primary mills,

     A perennial problem is treatment of spent pickle  liquor.
At ASC, at the terminal  waste treatment plant,  the  spent pickle
liquor is disposed of'by deep oil injection.   All other  acid and
oily wastes are combined and  treated. The oily mill scale sludge
also causes blue haze when burned  (as at KSC)  and is dumped at
presento  It:is expected that after several years of exposure
it may be usable  in the  sinter plant„

     Very little  specific data; on water quality and quality-
related product problems were available at  ASC,   The familiar
problem of speck rust and carbon spots on flat products  (men-
tioned  at KSG) are also  evident at  ASC.  Unlike KSC, at  ASC they
feel that speck fust  is  due to high dissolved  solids (chlorides)
in  the water.  They .are  studying this problem  by changing from
river water  (TDS  70 to 220 mg/1) to well water (<30 mg/1).   They
are working on temperature/humidity  control,  and increase in
oiling  of pickled  sheets.

COLORADO FUEL & IRON STEEL CORPORATION (CFI)

     This 100-year-old plant  is established in a semi-arid re-
gion at Pueblo, Colorado, where water rights are very  precious
and more people were killed for Stealing water than for  stealing
horses I  The  plant waiter is taken from th$  Arkansas River 40 km
 (25 miles) west of Pueblo, It is conducted by a 74 km (46 mile)
long canal  to large storage reservoirs located about 7 km (4
miles)  from the plant.   The transportation  cau$es 15%  loss of
water  taken  from  the  river.   Thus,  out of a typical 330  x 106
I/day  (87 MGD) water  taken out of the fiver, about  280 x 10s
I/day  (75 MGD) is  received at the reservoirs,  as shown in Fig. 10.

     The effluent  is  discharged into Salt Creek, a  natural flow
channel lying almost  entirely within CFI property.   Typically,
about  197,000 1/min (52,000 gpm) of water is  discharged.  In
other words,  the  entire  280 x lO6 I/day (75 HGD) taken in  is dis-
charged though some local recyling  of water is carried out.  On
an average, water  amounting to 71,000 I/tonne  (17,000  gal/ton)
of steel is used  for a production level of  1,45 million  tonnes/

                               31

-------
ggj ~r!'7   j
                                               I	jf. „_£. __L. nn
     Figure 10.   Mill water distribution, Colorado Fuel  &  Iron, 1974





                                    32

-------
year.  The Arkansas river becomes  totally  dry  after the entire
river flow has been intercepted by the  city, CFI, and other
 owners„   The river becomes  a river  again below Pueblo, com-
posed entirely of  the  sewage  outfall  of the  community and the
steel millc  Thus, the situation at CFI is different from other
steel plants.  The 280 X 106 I/day  (75MGD) intercepted by CFI is
returned fully so  that downstream  there will exist a river for
others to tap.  The quality of the returned  water, however, is
extremely important, and CFI  ensures  that  it is of high quality
with fish thriving in  the holding  lagoons.

     Analysis of plant influent for 1976 is  given in Table 7
(data provided by  CFI)„  Certain special features of this analy-
sis may be noted,,  This area  of Colorado has many mineral depos-
its and the  high lead  and associated  arsenic,  as well as fluor-
ides, reflect that condition,      '

     The October 1977  average, maximum, and  minimum analyses of
plant effluent are given,in Table  8,  Again, the high level of
lead and zinc may  be noted.   The quality criteria (I6' for water
indicate that cyanide, phenol, and mercury are in excess.  The
source of mercury  may  be from the  coal  washery,  CFI is one of a
few steel plants which have a coal washery within the plant
boundary, and large lagoons have been established to settle the
coal fines.

     No information was available  regarding  effect of water
quality on product quality.   The simplified  material flow dia-
gram in Fig,  11  shows  the nature of end products  (no cold rolled
sheet or coated products),  and these  arevirtually not affected
by water quality,

DISCUSSIONS  WITH GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS

     In this category, the  following  activities may be listed:
          1,  Discussion with AISI Environmental Committee
          2,  Discussion  at Hydrotechnic Corporation

          3,  Discussion with Mr,  Walter Zabban, The Chester
              Engineers, Pittsburgh,  Consultant

American Iron and  Steel Institute  (AISI)
     AISI is a  trade  association  for  the steel industry and is
located in Washington, D.C,   At  the beginning  of  this  study  a
meeting was  arranged with Mr, W,  Benzer, who is  in  charge of the
AISI Environmental Committee,  In  this  meeting, Mr,  Benzer was
helpful and  gave copies of  several studies sponsored by AISI on
Pollution Control  in  the  Steel  Industry,
                                 33

-------
TABLE 7.  ANALYSIS OF PLANT INFLUENT  (1976),
            COLORADO FUEL & IRON
Parameter
Alkalinity, mg/1
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Nitrate (N) , mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Dissolved solids, mg/1
Suspended solids, mg/1
Oil and grease, mg/1
Arsenic, yg/1
Copper, yg/1
Fluoride, yg/1
Iron (dissolved), yg/1
Lead, yg/1

High
129
0.46
0.1
12
181
313 ,
23.9
3
20
40
680
480
30
Analysis
Low
50
<0.1
0.1
<1
82
226
4.38
<1
<5
<5
410
10
<10

Average
100
0.1
0.1
6.8
105
270
13.4
2.3
9.6
5.7
53
143
18
                        34

-------
   TABLE  8.
ANALYSIS OF PLANT EFFLUENT FOR OCTOBER 1977
       COLORADO FUEL & IRON
Parameter
Temperature, °C
Dissolved oxygen, mg/1
BOD5, mg/1
pH
TSS, mg/1
Oil and grease, mg/1
Ammonia (N) , mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Arsenic, yg/1
Iron (dissolved) , yg/1
Lead, yg/1
Zinc, yg/1
Phenol, yg/1
Mercury, yg/1

Min
18
3.5
2.9
7.7
5
1
1.4
0.044
-
-
-
<20
<40
60
<3
Analysis
Max
23
5.6
6,1
8.4
14
10
3.6
0,222
18
185
<0.1
30
40
350
57
<0.4

Average
4.9
4.2
«•*
8
3
2.0
0,110
-
-
-
30
<40
220
7
Quality
Criteria^16'







0.005


50

50
5000
1
2*
0.05 and 0.1 yg/1 for fresh water aquatic life and wildlife and
for marine aquatic life, respectively.
                              35

-------
                                                           SCRAP 2150
                                                         HOME + PURCHASE
                           BASIC
                        OXYGEN FCE.
                           (BOF)
 CAST IRON
PIGS FOR O.H.
   FD.RY  86
                        2
                     ELECTRIi
                \   FURNACES    J

                 ^^   _L*S
   INGOT MOLDS
       93
**1
STEEL INGOTS
3730



1 ^^V S*^ ^^^^^


CONT. CASTER
270
                              IBLOOMS& BILLETS
                                ROUNDS S  RAILS
                                    3090
            R.R.
           SPIKES
I—wTRET
WIRE PRODUCTS
                      GRINDING
                       BALLS
IG



GRADER
BLADES
                                       TIE pJrf
                                       RAIL ANCH,
              MERCHANT
                BAR
                       STRUCTURALS
SEAMLESS TUBE
                      GRINDING
                       BARS
FLATS & MISC
                                                                    RAILS
Figure 11.   Simplified material  flow diagram, Colorado Fuel & Iron
       Pueblo plant.  Average daily (365  days)  tonn.es  in  1971.
                                    36

-------
      A couple of months  later,  a meeting with  the  full AISI
Environmental Committee took place where the EPA Project Officer,
Mr. Ruppersberger, was also present„


      While trying to be  helpful, AISI  did not  agree  to refer our
requests for information  to any  steel plant.  They  felt that
enough information had already been  supplied to EPA and that this
should be sufficient and  utilized.   Any steel plant approach to
be made by IITRI on this  program had to be strictly on an indi-
vidual basis.

      Drc S0 C0 Caruso, of the Mellon Institute,  Carnegie Mellon
University (CMU) was present at  the  meeting;  CMU has been asso-
ciated with AISI for many years  on  conducting studies on pollu-
tion, and at our request  AiSI.. agreed to release several volumes
of studies completed so far,^  '' ^Q)  These studies do not
directly relate to  this  task.,
                ; -.
Hydrotechnic Corporation. New York

      Hydrotechnic  (HC) is, at present, involved in a study for
EPA.  The study is entitled "Integrated Steel Plant Pollution
Study for Zero Water and  Minimum Air Discharge„"  A visit was
made to their office,

      HC is studying water discharges from the  following
integrated steel plants:

           1.  Kaiser Steel, Fontana (KSC)
           2.  Youngstown Sheet  & Tube, Indiana Harbor (YSTIH)

           3c  Inland Steel, Indiana Harbor (ISIH)
           40  United States Steel,  Fairfield (USSF)

           5,  National Steel, Weirton  (NSW)

      The thrust of HC's  study is on zero-discharge,  For this,
HC is compiling accurate  information on flow rates, evaporation
losses, and recycling.  They are  marginally concerned with water
quality, and very few data were  available from  them.

      The KSC water quality data shown  earlier  in Table 4 were
from the Hydrotechnic study:  Tables 9  to 11 give the data avail-
able from Hydrotechnic on the three  other steel plants.  The data
are very meager and show  that only  a few types  of water qualities
are used in these plants.  No information was available from
these steel plants through HC on the effect of  minimum water
quality on product quality.
                                37

-------
               TABLE 9.  WATER ANALYSIS,  NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, WEIRTON
00
     Quality
     Water Use
Non-contact cooling
Runout table sprays
 on hot strip mill
Cold rolling mills
Pickle lines and
 other facilities
TSS   TDS
                                       37
Hardness
 (A1203)
Alkalinity
 (Methyl
  orange)
   Total
Alkalinity,
  (CaC03)
2
3
Plating lines
Boiler house
<1 2250
34.2
47.9
50-100
     For Quality 1:  Na = 20 mg/1, phenol = 15 Tig/1, CN~ = 37 rpg/1, BOD =3.0,
                     ammonia (N) = 800 Vg/1, nitrates =0.7 mg/1, sulfates = 78 mg/1

     For Quality 3:  Silica = 25 mg/1.

     All other  data are in mg/1,,

-------
TABLE 10.  WATER ANALYSIS, U.S. STEEL FAIRFIELD WORKS,  ALABAMA
       Water Use
    Runout table sprays
    and pickle liquor
    dilution water

    Non-contact cooling,
    cold rolling mills,
    plating lines,
    pickle liquor rinse
    water, and other
    facilities
                                      Analysis, mg/1
                                       Oil andChlo-
TDS   TSS   Grease
               rides
                Sul-
                fates
175
175
25
25
10
10
15
30
                               39

-------
      TABLE 11.   WATER ANALYSIS,   YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE,
                        INDIANA HARBOR
Item
(All in mg/1
except pH)
pH
TDS
TSS
Oil and grease
Chloride
Sulfate
Phenol
NH4 (total)
CN (total)
Zinc
Cr (total)
Lead
Iron (dissolved)
Iron (total)
Hardness (total Ca)
as CaCO-
Alkalinity as CaC03
Hot Rolling Mills,
Strip Cooling,
Pickle Dilution
and Rinse
6.2-9.0
450
40
21
61
143
0.03
3.5
0.11
0.20
0.04
0.06
0.63
11.4

Cold
Rolling
Mills
7.0-11.4
565
14
7
25
254
<0.01
0.10
0.12
0.30
<0.01
0.03
0.26
1.30

Non- Con tact
Cool ing t

300
10









100-150
0-90
t
Worst quality that can be tolerated.

Should -not exceed Langelien Index for scaling potential.
Values in table are preferred by plant.   However,  plant uses
intake water on a once-through basis.
                              40

-------
Discussion with Walter Zabban
      Mr. Zabban,  Chief Engineer,  The Chester Engineers  is a
very knowledgeable person on water quality in thTs?eeI' industry
He was visited  several times.  His knowledge  on various wate?  *
treatments was  very helpful to 'other tasks?  On this tLk
he could only provide general guidelines  regarding  the effect of
»aHt.1 10 be enc°™tered in equipment . mainten-
ance and the best available treatment to improve water quality.

INFORMATION FROM EQUIPMENT AND WATER CHEMICAL  SUPPLIERS

      The  few  equipment manufacturers who responded to our in-
quiries have the following two general observations to make:

           1.   The equipment is rugged in design and can
                accept a wide range of water quality with
                modifications made by suitable  chemicals,
                where needed.

           2.   The equipment is made to customers' water
                specifications .

      A response from Koppers Engineering and  Construction, a
major coke oven and by-products plant supplier, was also -
obtained.    Without specifying any quantitative data, the gen-
eral philosophy of water -quality was mentioned - soft water, low
chloride,  temperature limitations, low suspended solid content;
and adequate Slowdown for scale control.

      Morgan Construction Co., a supplier of rolling mills, states
that they  do not issue any rigid water specification but a guide-
line.  For example, pH to be 7.0, chloride <100 mg/1, sulfates
<300 mg/1, TSS <25 mg/1, and largest suspended particle  to be
less than  250  ym (0.010 in.).

      Loftus Engineering Corporation, an engineering and construc-
tion firm, replied to the effect that they seldom had an oppor-
tunity to  specify water quality for their clients because avail-
able water had to be used.   Cooling water temperature is limited
to 32°C  (90°F).  Due to the size of equipment, large suspended
particles  are  acceptable; and in the event of  scaling, sediment,
or fouling occurring, the client takes the necessary steps to
alleviate  the  problem.

      Continuous casting mold cooling water requirements have
been critically analyzed in the literature because even  a trace
of scaling inside the mold may change the heat transfer  coef-
ficient significantly, resulting in a serious  molten steel break-
out from the thin enclosing solidified shell.   Some of the
various deposits encountered in a continuous casting mold are
shown in Table 12. "9>  With proper zeolite softener operation,

                                  41

-------
                                                     (19)
TABLE 12.  MOLD DEPOSITS IN CONTINUOUS STEEL CASTING ^  '
                                   Analysis, %
     Deposit              Case I' Case IICase  III
Silica as SiOn               414
Iron as ^e,2°3                1         85           8
Loss on ignition             7          9          29
Phosphate as P205            7          -          28
Calcium as CaO              48          -          16
Magnesium as MgO             2          -           7
Carbonate as C02            31          -
Zinc as ZnO                  -
Chromate as Cr000            -          5           4
Case I   - Calcium carbonate scale; poor softener
           operation (closed system)
Case II  - Migratory corrosion products (closed system)
Case III - Severe hydraulic fluid leaks (open recircu- ;
           lating tower system)
                           42

-------
and changing from re circulating tower system  to  a  closed  loop
operation, infiltration of the  system by oil,  grease, hydraulic
oil, and suspended  solids  is  prevented.  Closing  the  system also
minimizes inhibitor consumption,   Chromate-type  inhibitors are
recommended, but nitrates  can be  used.   Phosphate  and zinc-bear-
ing inhibitors  are  to  be avoided  since either  will rapidly plate
out on mold  surfaces and cause  breakouts.

      In continuous casting,  the  spray water  system  is often the
dirtiest and—combined with airborne contamination,  corrosion,
and fouling, normally  associated  with open  air cooling tower
systems--presents possible problems  as shown  in  Table 13,  With
proper design of the water system, all the  problems  can be total-
ly overcomec             ,

FOREIGN STEEL PLANTS

      Hoesch iron and  steelworks  located on the  eastern fringe of
the Ruhr district in West  Germany has installed  modern water re-
circulation  systems for its 1727  mm (68  in.)  hot strip mill.  As
a result, the system requires only 1.100  liters (290  gallons) of
make-up water per tonne of  steel produced,, (20)

      The Hoesch water systems  (as shown in Fig0 12) are  designed
for reuse at various facilities.   The quality of wastewater is
restricted  to that  involved in  the sludging operation and by
faults in the individual systems.

      Long-term analyses have shown that cost of recirculated
water is substantially lower  compared with  nonrecirculating
systems, in  spite of additional depreciation  and maintenance
costs.  The  total installed pump  rating  is  about 20,000 kw.

      Their  investigation  has also shown that investment  cost of
sea water cooling systems  in  new plants  located  directly  on the
North Sea is considerably  higher  than  that  of their  system.

      After  a thorough comparative analysis of capital costs,^
maintenance  and operational problems of  evaporation  cooling with
steam generation, and  cooling tower system, Hoesch opted  for
evaporation  cooling. Evaporation cooling system offers economic
advantages under  the following basic conditions:

            1.   The  large volume of steam generated must be
                accepted by the existing steam mains  and used
                in the  blast furnace area or power-generating
                station.

            2.   Where fuel  costs are high and investment  costs
                are  low, the evaporation system is  definitely
                advantageous.
                                43

-------
       TABLE 13.   CONTINUOUS STEEL CASTING PROBLEMS
                                                    (19)
   Problem Area

Migratory corrosion
  products

Scale and suspended
  solids

Oil
                                       Solutions
                      Effective corrosion inhibitor program
                      Use of stainless  steel  spray headers

                      Improved scale  pit  & filter  plant  operation
                      Use of polymeric/phosphonate dispersants

                      Effective use of  oil skimmers & filters
                      Use of surfactants
                      Improved housekeeping--minimize hydraulic
                        fluid and oil leaks

Biological fouling    Effective use of  proprietary biocides
Miscellaneous
  foreign debris
                      Improved housekeeping practices
                      Consistent  operation of  filter equipment
                                44

-------
01
                Recirculating system
                for pusher furnaces
Recirculating system roughing
 and finishing mills, coders
Run-out roller table
Recirculating system
                                                                                            2100
Recirculating system
   electricals
                                                                   1/min
                        Figure 12.   Strip  mill cooling  water recirculation systems,
                               Hoesch Hiittenwerke,  Dortmund,  West Germany. C20'

-------
      In addition to paying water cost for drinking water, Hoesch
had to pay a wastewater fee of DM Qo 21/1000 liters, i.e, about
$0.40/1000 gallons o   With the newly installed recirculation sys-
tem, the water cost was reduced to DM 0,10/1000 liters or $0.19/
1000 gallons .

      The permissible degree of rolling mill contamination is
given in Table 14n  On the basis of 1210 liters/tonne (290 gal-
lons/ton) of hot strip, the third  column in Table 14 shows the
ppm values as g/tome and compares with the fourth and fifth  col-
umns which are, respectively, the BPCTCA (1977) and BATEA (1984)
effluent guideline data.  Hoesch' s permissible values are better
than 1984 guideline data.
      In the USINOR's Dunkirk plant in France,      for an output
of 6000 tonnes/day (2 million tonnes/year) a makeup wa^ter of 0,9
to 1.0 million liters/hr  is needed, which is equivalent to
3600 to 4000 liters/tonne of steel.  As mentioned earlier, at the
8 million tonne/year stage the water requirement will be almost
half of 4000 liters/ tonne.         •

      At the Dunkirk plant, the fresh water coming from Dourbourg
Canal is decanted, heated with ferric chloride, softened with
lime, filtered, and chlorinated.  Some water is further softened
by ion exchange.  Table 15 gives the individual unit requirements.

     With  98.5% recycling,  the ARBED^22^  plant water  (Luxemburg)
requires 2500  liters/ tonne  (2.5 m3/ton) of steel;  53?0  is used  in
the blast furnaces, 327o in the steel plants and rolling mills ^
and 15% in the power station and for miscellaneous uses.

      Four separate water circuits are used:   one for BF and sin-
ter plant, second for BF gas cleaning, third for power station,
and fourth for mills and other uses.
                                                              ;'•
RECYCLING OF STEEL PLANT WASTES
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO WATER USAGE

      There is mounting pressure as well as. increasing interest
in the recycling of every unit of iron-bearing material gener-
ated within the plant perimeter.  This waste recycling is re-
lated to water recycling, both physically and technologically.
At the many plants of the British Steel Corporation, C23j about
2.4 millipn tonnes of waste was estimated to arise in 1975, as
shown in Table 16.  This quantity amounts to about 1070 of raw
steel production.

      The properties of collected waste must fit the units that
will consume it.  These properties depend on (1) form of collec-
tion, (2) the particle size distribution, and (3) the chemical
analysis.


                               46

-------
 TABLE 14.   PERMISSIBLE IMPURITIES IN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATE'R FROM ROLLING MILLS,
             HOESCH IRON & STEEL WORKS, DORTMUND, WEST GERMANY(20)
Item
Temperature
pH
Settling materials (TSS)
Total chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanides
Oil streaks
Oil and grease
(petroleum ether extraction)
Total iron
Permissible
Dortm
ppm
30 °C (86°F)
6.5-9.5
1.0
4.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
0
5.0
No limit
EPA Guideline
n,i«nt-w Hot Forming Flat, , ,
quality, category "0" - Hot Strip T
ana BPrTCA
g/tonne1" (1977)

6.0-9.0
1.0 1.1461
4.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
0
5.0 0.3438

3ATEA
(1984)

6.0-9.0
0.0156






0.0063

Except temperature and pH. 1 ppm = 1 g/tonne.

      on 1,200 liters/tonne (290 gallons of effluent/ton)  of  steel.

-------
        TABLE 15,   UNIT REQUIREMENT? FOR WATER,  USINOR,
                       DUNKIRK,  FRANCE (21)
      Process Unit
Blast furnaces

  Cooling
  Filtering of the gases

Steel works

  Cooling of the hoses
  Cooling of the smokes
  Scrubbing of the gases

Rolling mills

  Cooling of the motors
  Rollers (stabling and
    quarto)
  Descaling

Strip rolling train

  Cooling of the motors
  Train, furnaces, and
    descaling

        Total
Water Need,

1000 I/hr
   4,000
   3,600
     200
     100
   1,500
   1,100
   1,550

     450
   3,000
   2,000
  25,000
   Cooling Towers
1 cooler of 4 x 106l/hr
1 cooler of 4 x 106l/hr
1 cooler of 1.5  x 10?l/hr
1 cooler
1 cooler
1 cooler
1 cooler
                                48

-------
    TABLE 16.  SOURCES AND RATES'OF PRODUCTION  OF  IRON-BEARING WASTES,
                BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION  (BSC), 1975<23)
         Source
Sinter plant dust
Blast, furnace dust  (dry
Blast furnace dust  (wet)
Baste oxygen steel  fume
Electric arc furnace  fume
Slag metal recovery:
  Ironmaking
  Steelmaking
Mill scale
Pickling acid residues
    Normal Rates
   of 'Production'
     (dry basis) _
20-40 kg/tonne .sinter
10-10 kg-/tonne hot metal
10-20 kg/tonne hot metal
 7-15 kg/tonne steel
10-20 kg/tonne steel
      kg /tonne hot metal
      kg/tonne steel
20-60 kg /tonne steel
 5-10 kg/tonne steel
Estimated Quantities
 Arising within. BSC
   in 1975, tonnes
      300,000
      200,000
      180,000
      180,000
       40,000

      150,000
      380,000
      930,000
      30,000

-------
      The form of collection is intimately associated with_water
treatment and recycling facilities of the plant.  The initial
water content of the wastes is normally either very low (<5%) or
very high (>90%) .  Some wastes are collected dry, others by wet
scrubbing.  Reduction of >90% to 70% water is usually carried out
in thickeners, and the underflow is either allowed to settle and
dry (requiring large land areas and, being at the mercy of the
weather, is not preferred) or filtered to a cake containing 15
to 30% moisture.  The technology is available and can be coupled
to water recycling solutions.
      Particle size in the wastes varies widely between processes,
as shown in Fig. 13.  Also, it depends on collection technique,
dry vs. wet, and is thus related to water recycling,,  Apart from
the coarse mill scales, none can be recycled directly.  The
wastes cited in Fig. 13 do not include iron-units that are as-
sociated with waste pickle liquor generation and recycling.

      Chemical analyses of the wastes, particularly their tramp
element contents, may pose problems to their recycling and in-
directly affect water recycling„  The wastes usually have the
following groups of metals and minerals:

           1.  Valuable reusable materials (Fe, Mn, C)

           2.  Slag/gangue materials (CaO, Si02, A1203, MgO)

           3.  Tramp elements (Zn, Pb, S, P, K20, Na20, Ni,
               Cu, Sn, Mo)

      If chromium plating is used, then Cr-bearing residues will
also be generated.

      At BSC, sinter plant dust, as well as BF and EOF dusts col-
lected dry, is recycled.  The wet collected dusts are dumped,
thus wasting valuable water.  None of the electric furnace dust,
containing high levels of tramp elements, is recycled.  Mill
scale and slag metallics are recycled.  At BSC, out of 204
million tonnes of waste.,  1.8 million tonnes are recycled.

      The study at BSC shows that a complete waste recycling sys-
tem must be a part of complete water recycling, and a synergistic
solution is best for both.

SOME STRIP QUALITY PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH WATER QUALITY

      From the foregoing discussion it is clear that very little
is known about minimum water quality requirements for each unit
steel-making process.  Even much less than that is known about
the effect of water quality on product quality.  The problems of
"speck rust" of plates and sheets, and "blue haze" due to sinter
plant use of oily mill scale residue were mentioned earlier.
Another problem that has come out in the open is strip cleanli-
ness, and corrosion problems of auto body sheets associated with
it.
                               50

-------
   100



—* 90

 0)

 If 80
 (0
 O
 « 70


"""' 60
•M
.c

   50
   .0
   30
TO

"3  20

3
O   10
 Blast  furnace
.dust  (wet)

   Electric arc
   furnace fume

    Basic  oxygen
    steel  fume
\
  \

                                                         Sinter plant dust

                                                           Mill scale

                                                            Blast furnace dust (dry)
                                                         "V
                                                            v..
          1X3
                2.5
                          10     25    50   100    250   500  1000   2500  5000 10000  25000

                            Particle Size (microns)  [log  scale]
     Figure 13.   Particle  size  distribution  for representative  samples
                              of ferruginous wastes.(23;

-------
      In a recent article, (24) Q^J researchers have speculated
that the organic carbon deposits on steel sheets may arise from
residues of drawing oi!0  These residues are remnants of water-
oil emulsion used for temper rolling,,

      In a recent panel discussion on   strip cleanliness at the
Joint AISE/ASLE Lubrication Session at Cleveland, certain similar
problems were discussed,,  The discussion was off-the-record.

      The nature of oil-burn on steel surface^ which appears in
cold rolling was related to fatty oil and water on the surface
resulting in formation of iron oxide.(25)
                              52

-------
                           SECTION 7

                  REUSE AND RECYCLING OF WATER
                 IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY


      ,The assumption that fresh water is an inherently cheap
commodity,  abundantly available without effort, was finally laid
to rest in the 1970's.   Almost 90% of water utilized in the steel
industry is n on consumptive in nature, i.e., the steel mills re-
turn them directly to the lakes, rivers, and other water bodies
from which they were taken.   Of the remaining 10%, 80% of it
goes back to the environment in evaporation and returns promptly
through rain and snow0   Only about ,2% may be said to be consumed,
i.e., lost with sludge  and other waste products and only re-
cycled back to water bodies  after prolonged periods„  However,
that 2% amounts to some 4200 I/tonne (1000 gallons/ton) steel,
and a  steel production ,of 136 million tonnes/year (150 million
tons/year)  means an immediate loss of 570 billion liters (150
billion gallons) of water/year;or about 1560 million liters/day
(400 million gallons/day).  One means of conserving these sup-
plies ,is by the. reuse of water.  --It is necessary to define the
terms reuse and recycling a little more precisely before an
evaluation can be made.

      Reuse denotes that water is used and returned to a :water
body for subsequent use by another consumer.  If the water body
happens £p be the sea,  then a direct loss of resource will ,occur,

      Recycling implies repeated use of water for the same or
successive processes,,

      The concept of total recycling and zerp-discharge must
take into consideration:

           lo  Transfer of pollutant to air, and its control.

           2^  Solid waste as a pollutant and its recycling.

      At presenti the future EPA guidelines stipulate a rate of
effluent discharge coupled-with pollution level.  Several S-teel
plants in the USA and abroad are, at present, doing better "than
90% recycling and some as high as 98% recycling.  On the other
hand, some plants may be using water on a virtually once-through
basis, though the discharge is treated to meet state and federal
regulations.  An example is Colorado Fuel and Iron, which draws

                              53

-------
about 280 x 10s liters/day (75 MGD) and discharges the same
amount.  With significant recycling, the withdrawal can be
considerably lessened, but the amount withdrawn (less evapora-
tion losses) must be returned to the Arkansas River to enable
downstream users to have adequate water„

      Figure 14 gives a simplified picture of a typical recycle
system. (*•")  Contaminants as suspended or dissolved materials
are picked up at a "consuming" point.  Water is "lost" from the
system due to direct losses, evaporation, or with impurities
(sludges) at the treatment stage.
      Relationships can be obtained based on water and contam-
ination balances, with the term definitions given in Fig. 14,
such as:                                                    '
           A = B + L                                         (1)

           B = Y + CL - D
               	R - C                                      (2)

           R = AC + Y - D _ AC + Y - D
               	g           A - L                         (3)

     The basic concept of water conservation by recycling is
that (A + V) vpl/hr  of water can be made available with a make-up
supply of A vol/hr.  A will be minimized by reducing losses L
and by reducing B, the blowdown.  B may be reduced, as Eq0 2
shows, by  (1) minimizing contamination (Y), (2) maximizing con-
tamination removal (D) by treatment, and (3) operating at the
maximum permissible recycle concentration in terms of the total
contaminants. It is Eqe 3 that was spught in this task.
That is,  we were trying to obtain information on water contam-
ination level with which the equipment can operate efficiently
and still produce the quality of products demanded of them.

      A simple fact of Eq. 2 is that as R approaches C from the
high side, B increases significantly.  In other words, B can be
made a very small value if R is made significantly much larger
than C.  However, assuming C to be the level of pollution pres-
ent in water obtained from an acceptable body of water, an R
much larger than C cannot be tolerated, or R has to be treated
again to bring it down to C level.

      Quantitatively, it is doubtful if recycling has much ef-
fect on water consumption except that it might be argued that
it could lead to overall increases in losses by evaporation.
For example, in an open-air cooling system the actual water
loss is greater if a proportion of the wate** is evaporated to
provide cooling than if the water is used on a once-through
basis—that is, where the sensible heat of the water is in-
creased but no diminution of quantity occurs»  Thus, one has
to consider closed evaporation cooling systems instead of open-
air type, if real saving in water is to be accomplished in re*-
peated and total recycling.


                              54

-------
MAKErttP  WATER -—
  A  l/hr  (gal/hr)
     .  C  kg/I (Ib/gal)
                             WATER  USE
                                              CONTAMINANT ADDITION
                                                   Y kg/hr (Ib/hr)
     A + V  l/hr (gal/hr)
Cone.
YR-0>AC
  A.V
kg/1  (Ib/gal)
                          RECYCLED V/ATER
                            V . l/hr (gal/hr)
                             . lill kg/1 (Ib/gal)


                                  TREATMENT
                                  REHQVAL  OF
                                 CQHUM HUNTS
                                D  kg/hr  (Ib/hr)
                                Including losses
                                        WATER  LOSSES
[Evaporation and others]
      'L l/hr  (gal/hr)
                                   SLOWDOWN  EFFLUENT
                                       B ]/hr (gal/hr)
                                      ConC. R kg/1  (Ib/gal)
            Figure  14-   Simplified; flow  sheet for recycling.
                                                                (26)
                                      55

-------
                          REFERENCES

 1.   American  Iron  and  Steel  Institute, Annual  Statistical  Report,
     1976. Washington,  D0Co,  1977.
 2.   Arthur  D, Little for  the American  Iron  and Steel  Institute,
     "Steel  and  the Environment: A Cost Impact  Analysis,    No.
     C-76482,  May 1975.
 3.   National  Materials Advisory Board, "Trends in the Use  of
     Ferroalloys by the Steel Industry  of  the United States,"
     NMAB  276, Washington, D.C., July 1971.
 4.   William Y.  Mo  and  Kung-Lee Wang, "A Quantitative  Economic
     Analysis  and Long-Run Projections  of  the Demand for  Steel
     Mill  Products," 1C 8451, Bureau of Mines,  Washington,  D.C.,
     1970.

 5o   National  Journal,  Jan. 14, 1978, p. 55.

 6«,   H.  E. McGannon (ed.), The Making.  Shaping  and Treating of
     Steel,  9th  edition, 1971, U.S. Steel  Corporation, Pittsburgh,
     Jfenn0
 7.   G.  W0 Cook, "Conservation of Water by Reuse at the Appleby-
     Frodingham  Steelworks, Scunthorpe," Iron and Steel Inter-
     national, Vol. 47, October 1974, p. 393.
 8.   A.  Wagner,  "Experience Gained  in the  Iron  and Steel  Works  of
     Luxemburg by Using Closed Water Circuits and the  Effect of
     These Measures on  the Economy  and  Water Pollution,"  Iron
     and Steel International, Vol.  47,  No. 3, June 1974,  p. 235.

 9.   Mo  Huysman, "Reduction in the  Amount  of Water Used in
     USINOR's  Dunkirk Plant," ibid., p. 236.

10.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency, "Development Document
     for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New  Source
     Performance Standards for the  Steel Making Segment of  the
     Iron and  Steel Manufacturing Point Source  Category,"
     Washington, D.C.,  January 1974.

11.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency, "Development Document
     for Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule  Making for Effluent
     Limitation  Guidelines and New  Source  Performance  Standards
     for the Hot Forming and  Cold Finishing  Segment of the  Iron
     and Steel Manufacturing  Point  Source  Category," EPA-440/1-
     75/048, Group  I, Phase II, Washington,  D9C., August  1975.
                               56 .

-------
12.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Development  Docu-
     ment for Interim Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines  and
     proposed New Source Performance Standards for the Forming
     Finishing and Specialty Steel Segments of the Iron  and
     Steel Manufacturing.Point Source Category," Vols. I and
     II, EPA-440/l-76/048-b, Group I, Phase II, Washington,
     D.Co, March 1976.

13c  Hootie Rugge, Kaiser Steel Corporation, "Kaiser Steel Water
     Use and Reuse," July 21, 1976, private communication,,

14,  Robert D. Wight, "How It's Done at Kaiser," The Bulletin,
     Vol. 8, No. 4, 1972, p. 15,

15 o  J. Thompson, "Water Pollution Control Program at Armco's
     Middletown Works,"  Iron and Steel Engineer, Vol. 49, No., 8,
     August 1972, p. 43o

16o  U.S0 Environmental Protection Agency, "Quality Criteria
     for Water," EPA-440/76/023, Washington, D0C,, July 1976.

17.  G, Mo Wong-Chong and S. G0 Caruso, "An Evaluation of  the
     Treatment and Control Technology Recommended for the  Blast
     Furnace  (Iron) Wastewater," Mellon Institute, Carnegie-
     Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Penn,, August 1976.

18o  G. M. Wong-Chong,  S0 G0 Caruso, and  T. G0  Patarlis, "An
     Evaluation of EPA  Recommended Technology  for the Treatment
     and Control of Wastewater from the By-Product Coke Plants-
     Alternate 2," Mellon Institute, Carnegie-Mellon  University,
     Pittsburgh, Penn.

19„  D. J0 Juvan, "Design of Critical Water System for  Contin-
     uous Casters," Tech. Paper No. 247,  presented to 1975
     AIME National Open Hearth and Basic  Oxygen Steel Confer-
     ence, Toronto, Canada, April 13-16,  19750

20,  H. F. Thee gar ten and R0 K. von Hartman, "Hoesch Hutten-
     werke's  Hot Strip  Mill Water Supply  System," Iron  and
     Steel Engineer, Vol. 50, No, 8, August 1973, p.  67.

 21.  P0  Guyard, Tribune de  Cebedeau, No,  255,  1965, pp.  58-74.

 22.  P. Mosel, Revue Technique Luxembourgeoise, No.  3,  1954,
     pp0  138-163.

 23o  N0 Y. West,  "Recycling Ferruginous Wastes: Practice  and
     Trends," Iron  and  Steel International, Vol» 49,  No.  3,
     June  1976, p.  173.

24,  Curt  Hazlett,  "GM  Probe May  Solve Rust Riddle,"  American
     Metal Market/Metalworking News, Vol. 85,  No.  234,  Dec. 5,
     1977, po 12.
                             57

-------
25.  Y. Tamai and M. Sumitomo, "Qn the Nature of Oil-Burn  on
     Steel  Surfaces," J, Amer. Spc. Lubric. Eng., Vol.  31,
     No. 2, 1975, p. 81.

26.  D. G.  Miller and D0 H. Newsome, "Conservation of Water by
     Reuse  in the United Kingdom," Chemipal Engineering Pro-
     gress  Symposium Series, Vol. 63, No.  78, 1967, p.  13,

27.  Anon., Iron &  Steel Engineer, Vol. 54, No. 7, July 1977,
     p. 63.
                              58

-------
                                 APPENDIX A

STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF  THE U.S.  IRON  AND  STEEL  INDUSTRY<27-*


ponniiPTinw
f (Mi II !**•%• fit ™
twtiMont of
nrt Tom}



SHIPMENTS
(millions of
net tons)
SHIPMENTS
MAJOR
PRODUCTS
ALL GRADES
(millions of
net tons)
SHIPMENTS
MAJOR
MARKETS
(millions of
net tons)

EMPLOYMENT




FINANCIAL



CAPITAL EXPEND'S
FOR AIR & WATER
QUALITY CONTROL
HBMMMMBMWf^mBVia^MMMBWBMBHBB
FOREIGN
TRADE
Ifniliions of




Tbtil US. Pin Iron
Tout US. RawStMl
1 Open Hnrth
Basic Oxygen
Elactric
Total Canadian Raw Steel
Total World Raw Steel
Total Steel Mill Product*
Carbon
Alloy ,
Stainless
Shapes. Plates and Piling
Bars and Tool Steel .
Pipe and Tubing
Wire and Wire Products
Tin Mill Products
Sheets and Strip
Automotive ..
Steel Service Centers"
Construction & Contractors' Products**
Containers & Packaging
Industrial & Electrical Machinery & Equipment
Average Number of Employees (thousands)
Annual Wages and Salaries (billions)
Total Employment Cost/Hr. Worked (hrly employees)
Net Assets (billions)
Total Revenue (billions)
Net Income (millions)
Capital Expenditures (billions)
Total Dividends Paid (millions)
Profit Per Dollar of Revenue
Percent Return on Stockholders' Eouitv^
Capital Expenditures (millions)
Water (millions)
Air (millions)
•••^•••••^^•••^•MB^BHMB^^B^B^^^MMMa^^H^^H^HMI^^Hi^HMVBMHM
Imports, All Steel Mill Products
Carbon
Alloy
Stainless
Dollar Value (billions)
Exports. All Steel Mill Products
Dollar Value (millions)
1976
86.9
128.0
23.5
79.9
24.6
14.5
753.1
89.4
80.3
8.1
1.0
11.3
14.2
6.3
2.5
6.4
42.3
21.4
14.6
12.0
6.9
7.9
454
$8.3
$11.74
$27.5
$36.5
$1,329
$3.3
$631
3.6rf
7 7%
$489.2
$158.7
4»*^1ft c
14.3
13.6
.483
.175 ,
$4.0
2.7
$1,255
1975
79.9
116.6
22.1
71.8
22.7
14.4
712.0*
80.0
70.8
8.4
.8
13.9
13.4
8.2
2.2
5.7
30.8
15.2
12.7
12.0
~6.r
7.3
457
$7.4
510.59
S25.1
$33.7
$1,595*
$3.2
$658
4.7rf
9.8%
$453.1
$131.8
$321.3
!2.0
11.4
.448
.167
$4.1
3.0
$1,862
1974
95.9
145.7
35.5
81.6
28.7
15.0
782.8
109.5
98.0
10.2
1.3
18.1
18.5
9.8
3.2
7.5
45.0
18.9
20.4
17.6
8.2
9.7
512
$7.9
$9.08
$22.8"
$38.2*
$2,475*
$2.1
$674*
6.5«f*
17.1%
$267.2
$106.9
$160.3
16.0
15.4
.413
.176
$5.1
5.8
$2,118
1973
100.8
150.8
39.8
83.3
27.7
14.8
768.6*
111.4.
100.9
9.4
1.1
16.8
18.2
9.1
3.2
7.3
49.4
23.2
20.4
17.2
7.8
9.7
509
$6.8
$7.68
$21.2*
$28.9*
$1,272
$1.4
$443
4.4rf
9.3%
$100.1
$34.7
$65.4
•••••WBBBBBkBBai
15.1
14.6
.434
.128
$2.8
4.1
$1,004
1972
88.9
133.2
34.9
74.6
23.7
13.1
694.5
91.8
83.2
7.8
.8
13.2
15.5
7.6
3.0
6.1
39.9
18.2
16.8
13.6
6.6
8.2
478
$5.8
$7.08
$20.5
$22.6
$775
$1.2
$402
3.4*
5.8%
$201.8
$57.0
$144.8
•••^^••••••••••••i*
17.7
17.1
.448
.149
$2.8
2.9
$604
1971
81.3
120.4
35.6
63.9
20.9
12.0
639.9
87.0
79.3
7.0
.7
13.6
14.2
7.6
2.8
6.8
35.6
17.5
•14.4
13.6
7.2
7.5
487
$5.2
$6.26
$20.0
$20.4
$562
$1.4
$390
2.8*
4.3%
$161.6
$73.4
$88.2
18.3
17.7
.415
.192
$2.6
2.8
$576
1970
91.4
131.5
48.0
63.3
20.2
12.3
654.2
90.8
83.2
6.9
.7
14.1
14.6
7.8
3.0
7.2
35.1
14.5
16.0
13.4
7.8
7.9
531
$5.2
$5.68
$19.7
$19.3
$531
$1.7
$487
2.84
4.1%
$182.6
$110.0
$72.6
•^•••^••••••••ai
13.4
12.9
.349
.177
$2.0
7.1
$1,019
1969
95.0
141.3
60.9
60.2
20.1
10.3
632.0
93.9
85.1
7.9
.9
14.5
14.4
9.2
3.3
6.6
38.1
18.3
15.8
13.9
7.1
8.5
544
$5.3
$5.38
$18.9
$19.2
$879
$2.0
$488
4.6rf
7.0%
$138.0
$71.0
$67.0
14.0
13.5
.353
.182
$1.7
5.2
$796
1968
88.8
131.5
65.8T
48.8
16.8
11.3
582.5
91.9
83.2
7.8
.8
14.6
13.7
10.1 •:
3.4
7.3
36.6
19.3
14.1 --
14.2
7.9
8.4
552
$5.0
$5.03
$18.5
$18.7
$992
$2.3
$451
5.3rf
8.2%
$101.7
$61.5
$40.2
18.0
17.5
.316
.172
$2.0
2.2
$444
1967
87.0
127.2
70.7t
41.4
15.1
9.7
547.6
83.9
76.0
7.0
.8
14.1
13.1
9.0
3.1
6.6
32.6
16.5
13.4
13.4
7.3
7.8
555
$4.7
$4.76
$17.3
$16.9
$829
$2.1
$480
4.94
6.9%
$94.1
$54.7
$39.4
11.5
11.1
.189
.149
$1.3
1.7
$415
*  Revised figure.
t  Includes any Bessemer production.
*  As of January 1 of each year, rather than
  December 31, as in previous issues.
         Selected tonnage previously reported under this category now reported in oil and 9** industry.

-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          (Please read Instructions on the reverse befors completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/2 -79-003
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Process Water Quality Requirements for Iron and
 Steel Making
                           5. REPORT DATE
                            January 1979
                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
S. Bhattacharyya
                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
IIT Research Institute
10 West 35th Street
Chicago, Illinois  60616
                                                      10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                           1BB610
                           11, CONtRACT/GRANT NO.

                           68-02-2617,  Task 2-1
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Pevelopment
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                           Task Final: 8/77 - 1/78
                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                             EPA/600/13
 15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is John S. Ruppersberger,  MD-62,
 919/541-2557.
 16. ABSTRACT  The repOrt gjves results of a study to: develop information on minimum
 water quality requirements for the different unit processes in iron and steel making;
 identify data gaps; and recommend research efforts to obtain the required informa-
 tion. The study utilized plant visits, literature, the American Iron and Steel Insti-
 tute, equipment manufacturers? water chemical suppliers, and consultants.  Typical
 steel plants do not allocate water on the basis of individual processes or recycle
 water from each process on separate circuits: most do not even record volume or
 analyze water to individual unit operations. Water is usually distributed to clusters
 of processing units.  Higher quality water is infrequently used for lower quality appli-
 cations in a cascading manner, In some plants, recycling exceeding  98% is practiced
 without significant equipment or product quality problems. When equipment problems
 arise, the present water control technology can usually solve them.  Modern equip-
 ment is rugged in design and able  to accommodate significant water  impurities with
 the help of chemical controls. Insufficient information is available on the effect of
 water quality on product quality. Water recycling and reuse problems are intimately
 related to steel plant waste recycling and air pollution problems. One of the research
 recommendations is basic data generation on flow and water analysis.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                 DESCRIPTORS
               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                   c. COSATI Field/Group
 Pollution
 Iron and Steel Industry
 Industrial Processes
 Water Quality
 Water Reclamation
                Pollution Control
                Stationary Sources
             13 B
             11F
             13H
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Unlimited
               19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
               Unclassified	
               26. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
               Unclassified
                                                                   21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                                       67
             22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                             60

-------