United States Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/2-79-046
Environmental Protection Laboratory February 1979
Agency Research Triangto Park NC 27711
Research and Development
Assessment of Surface
Runoff from Iron and
Steel Mills
-------
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-600/2-79-046
February 1979
Assessment of Surface Runoff
from Iron and Steel Mills
by
G.T. Brookman, B.C. Middlesworth, and J.A. Ripp
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Contract No. 68-02-2133
Task No. 4
Program Element No. 1BB610
EPA Project Officer: Norman Plaks
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
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY 4
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11
3.1 Conclusions 11
3.2 Recommendations 13
4.0 TASK I - IDENTIFICATION OF SURFACE RUNOFF SOURCES . . 15
4.1 Existing Data on Stormwater Runoff - Iron 16
and Steel Industry
4.1.1 Armco Steel Corporation 16
4.1.2 Kaiser Steel Corporation 23
4.1.3 Source Information Industry-Wide 23
4.2 TRC Assessment of Potential Sources of 25
Contaminated Runoff
4.2.1 Pollutants of Concern 28
5.0 TASK II - FIELD PROGRAM 30
5.1 Description of Sites 30
5.1.1 Description of Drainage Basins and Unit 32
Operations - Site 1
5.1.2 Description of Drainage Basins and Unit 35
Operations - Site 2
5.2 Test Plan 39
5.2.1 Site 1 Test Plan 40
5.2.2 Site 2 Test Plan 45
5.2.3 Implementation of Test Plan at Site 1 51
5.2.4 Implementation of Test Plan at Site 2 52
5.3 Chemical Laboratory Procedures 54
5.4 Field Survey Results 56
5.4.1 Site 1 Results 56
5.4.2 Site 2 Results 68
5.5 Problem Areas 90
6.0 TASK III - CONTROL OF CONTAMINATED STORMWATER .... 94
6.1 Iron and Steel Industry Control Systems 94
6.2 Other Industries 95
7.0
TASK IV - TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROGRAM RESULTS
99
APPENDIX
A
B
C
DATA SHEETS
FIELD DATA
CALCULATIONS FOR TABLES 7-2 THROUGH 7-5
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
2-1 Highlights of Results of Field Sampling Programs,
Sites 1 and 2, March-June, 1977 8
2-2 Comparison of Average Annual and Hourly Point Source
Loadings with Average Annual and Hourly Runoff Loadings of
TSS for Selected Drainage Basins, Sites 1 and 2,
March-June, 1977 9
4-1 Mills Surveyed and Toured 17
4-2 Basin Runoff Characteristics, Armco Steel Corporation
Study ;> 19
4-3 Description of Activities and Operations in Basin,
Armco Steel Corporation Study 20
4-4 Storm Data, Armco Steel Corporation Study 22
4-5 Stormwater Data - 1975, Kaiser Steel Corporation,
Fontana, CA 24
4-6 Potential Sources of Contaminated Stormwater 27
5-1 General Site Characteristics 31
5-2 Description of Individual Drainage Basins Sampled,
Site 1 . 33
5-3 Description of Individual Drainage Basins Sampled,
Site 2 37
5-4 Summary of Sampling Sites, Site 2 46
5-5 Preservation and Analytical Methods Used for Sample
Analysis 55
5-6 Storm Event Data, Site 1, March - April, 1977 57
5-7 Dry Vs Wet Flows, Site 1, March - April, 1977 59
5-8 Range of Pollutant Concentrations at the Sampling
Locations at Site 1, March - April, 1977 60
5-9 Mean Pollutant Concentrations, in mg/Jl at Site 1,
March - April, 1977 61
5-10 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, March - April, 1977, Outfall 005 - Site 1 .... 62
5-11 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, March - April, 1977, Outfall 010 - Site 1 .... 63
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
TABLE PAGE
5-12 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, March - April, 1977, Outfall Oil - Site 1 64
5-13 Storm Event Data, Site 2, May - June, 1977 69
5-14 Dry Vs. Wet Flows, Site 2, May - June, 1977 71
5-15 Range of Pollutant Concentrations at the Sampling
Locations at Site 2 in mg/Jl, May - June, 1977 73
5-16 Mean Pollutant Concentrations in mg/Jl at Site 2,
May - June, 1977 74
5-17 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, May - June, 1977, Outfall 002 - Site 2 75
5-18 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, May - June, 1977, Outfall 004 - Site 2 76
5-19 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, May - June, 1977, Outfall 006 - Site 2 77
5-20 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, May - June, 1977, Outfall 007 - Site 2 78
5-21 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, May - June, 1977, Outfall 009 - Site 2 ..'.... 79
5-22 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, May - June, 1977, Outfall 010A - Site 2 80
5-23 Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants, Dry Vs. Wet
Weather, May - June, 1977, Outfall 010B - Site 2 81
5-24 Mean Pollutant Concentrations, mg/Jl in the Tidal River
at Site 2, May - June, 1977 (Sampling Location 015) 83
7-1 Summary of Results, Sites 1 and 2, Potential Problem
Areas, March - June, 1977 100
7-2 Comparison of Average Annual Runoff Loadings with Average
Annual Point Source Loadings for Selected Drainage Basins,
Site 1, March - April, 1977 102
7-3 Comparison of Average Annual Runoff Loadings with Average
Annual Point Source Loadings for Selected Drainage Basins,
Site 2, May - June, 1977 103
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
TABLE PAGE
7-4 Comparison of Average Hourly Point Source Loadings for
Drainage Basins with Average Runoff Mass Loadings for
Several Storms, Site 1, March - April, 1977 105
7-5 Comparison of Average Hourly Point Source Loadings for
Drainage Basins with Average Runoff Mass Loadings for
Several Storms, Site 2, May - June, 1977 106
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
5-1 Plan'- Site No. 1 . 34
5-2 Plan - Site No. 2 36
5-3 Typical ISCO Sampling System with Electronic Rain Gauge . . 41
5-4 Outfall 005 - Site 1, TSS and IDS Concentrations Versus
Time Compared to Basin Flow and Rainfall Intensity .... 66
5-5 Rainfall and Flow in Basin 007 Versus Time, Site 2,
6/9 to 6/10/77 Storm 70
5-6 Outfall 007 - Site 2, TSS and TDS Concentrations Versus
Time Compared to Rainfall Intensity 85
5-7 Outfalls 010A and 010B - Site 2, Pollutant Concentrations
Versus Time Compared with Rainfall Intensity 86
5-8 Outfall 012 - Site 2, Pollutant Concentrations Versus
Time Compared with Rainfall Intensity 87
6-1 Isometric View, Swirl Concentrator as a Grit Separator . . 96
6-2 Rainfall Detention Ponding Ring for Flat Roofs 98
vii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since industries and municipalities are on the way to meeting the point
source standards of the 1977 interim goal of PL 92-500 (Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972), the effect of non-point source pollution on
water quality is gaining more attention. The National Commission on Water
Quality reported in 1976 that "non-point pollutant sources are significant to
the Commission's study because they may in some instances overwhelm and negate
the reductions achieved through point source effluent limitations." Based
on these findings, the Commission recommended to Congress that "control or
treatment measures shall be applied to agricultural and non-point discharges
v?hen these measures are cost-effective and will significantly help in achieving
(2)
water quality standards."
Hon-point sources are diffuse in nature, usually intermittent, site spe-
cific, not easily monitored at their exact source, related to uncontrollable
meteorological events (precipitation, snow melt, drought), and not usually
repetitive in nature from event to event. The primary transport mechanism for
non-point sources is water runoff from meteorological events. The three basic
modes of runoff transport are overland (surface) flow, interflow (also called
interstitial flow), i.e., flow through the ground between the surface and
groundwater levels, and groundwater flow. Surface runoff will usually contain
the highest quantity of contaminants and is the most rapid method of transport
of non-point sources.
Because of the great quantities of water and raw material used in making
iron and steel, mills are usually located near waterways. Contaminated storm-
water runoff from these mills could rapidly reach these waterways; thus the
potential of causing a detrimental environmental impact is present.
-1-
-------
In April 1976 the Metallurgical Processes Branch of the Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
retained TRC - THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England to perform an assessment
of surface runoff from iron and steel mills. The principal objective of this
program was to provide EPA with an evaluation which it can use in determining if
stormwater runoff from iron and steel mills is an environmental problem and
should be included in the Agency's long-term planning as an area of concern.
The program had the following sub-objectives:
1. To identify sources of surface runoff unique to iron and steel mills
and to characterize runoff streams in terms of quantity and composi-
tion.
2. To assess the specific problems of surface runoff at iron and steel
mills and evaluate the contribution made by these individual sources
to the overall problem.
3. To identify control systems used by the industry or by other industries
which are or could be used to treat contaminated stormwater.
To meet these objectives, TRC performed a program including the following
tasks:
Task I - Identification of Surface Runoff Sources
Task II - Field Program to Quantify and Qualify Surface Runoff
Task III - Review of Existing Control Technology
Task IV - Technical Evaluation
Task I included a review of existing data on stormwater runoff in the iron
and steel industry and, through plant visits and conversations with plant person-
nel, an assessment of potential sources of contaminated runoff. This task is
described in Section 4.0. Task II included a field survey at two steel mills.
The field program and its results are presented in Section 5.0. Task III involved
-2-
-------
gathering information on stormwater control from plant visits and a literature
search on industrial control in general. The information gathered is described
in Section 6.0. Section 7.0 (Task IV) is a discussion of the program results as
they apply to the iron and steel industry as a whole. A summary of the total pro-
gram results is presented in Section 2.0, and major conclusions and recommendations
are presented in Section 3.0.
Note - In some cases where information or data was received from outside sources,
English units had been used rather than metric units and therefore were not con-
verted .
-3-
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
TRC -" THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England was retained by the Metallur-
gical Processes Branch of the IERL/RTP EPA to perform an assessment of surface
runoff from iron and steel mills. The assessment was performed utilizing a four
task program which included:
Task I - Identification of Surface Runoff Sources
Task II - Field Program to Quantify and Qualify Surface Runoff
Task III - Review of Existing Control Technology
Task IV - Technical Evaluation
Before this program, little work had been performed on surveying stormwater
and identifying potential sources of stormwater contamination in the steel indus-
try. Previously, the most comprehensive studies had been undertaken by Armco
Steel Corporation's Houston Works in Houston, Texas, and Kaiser Steel's Fontana,
California plant (See Section 4.1.1).
At Armco, the mill was divided into drainage basins and characterized by size,
activity, and land cover (i.e., buildings, paved area, railroad track, undeveloped
land, stockpiles, and ponds). Each basin was sampled for several storms. Param-
eters measured included total suspended solids (TSS), oil and graase, biochemical
oxygen demand (BODs), total organic carbon (TOC), and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Armco found that stormwater quantity and quality varied appreciably with
drainage basin characteristics and location. This limited the validity of any
correlation of parameter concentrations between basins. Furthermore, the quality
of stormwater runoff was found to vary directly with storm duration and inten-
sity and also with the number of antecedent dry days prior to storms. As ante-
cedent dry days increase, so does the potential particulate matter to be scoured.
-4-
-------
Other significant results of the Artnco study were the absence of a "first flush"
effect, and the absence of significant quantities of organic matter. The "first
flush" effect is a condition where the matter accumulated in a basin since the
last runcff event is scoured from the area at the start of the next storm event.
In almost all cases, the "flow dependent" effect was observed, i.e., peak param-
eter concentrations occurred at peak runoff flows.
The Kaiser program involved sampling during the rainy season (February and
March) in 1975. Runoff from twelve storm events was sampled for chloride, con-
ductivity, and oil and grease. The oil and grease results from the Kaiser pro-
gram were much higher than those obtained at Armco.
Since the Armco and Kaiser studies were the only data existing on stormwater
runcff from steel mills, several plants were toured as part of this program in
an effort to combine a number of factors which affect site specific runoff, such
as terrain, climate, mill locations and operations, into an overall industry
wide assessment of the most probable sources of stormwater contamination. The
following companies were contacted and/or visited:
United States Steel
National Steel
Armco Steel
Republic Steel
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Inland Steel
Kaiser Steel
CF&I Steel
Alan Wood Steel
Runoff from the activities and operations of steel mills was segmented into
the following groups:
Runoff from storage and disposal piles (coal, coke, slag, iron).
Runoff from adjacent urban areas into the mill.
-5-
-------
Runoff from slag handling and processing facilities.
Runoff of accumulated materials from roof and ground areas from sever-
al mill operations (blast furnace, sinter plant, EOF shop, open
hearth, coke and by-product plant, coal and coke handling, and finish-
ing areas).
Because runoff is site specific, it was impossible to compare the contami-
nated stormwater potential of an area in one particular mill to the same area
in another mill. Climate, terrain, operations, maintenance, and the location
of processes relative to each other are unique to each mill. Therefore, a
rating system was devised which ranked the relative potential of each activity
or operation at an individual plant. Based on the assessments of TRC person-
nel, the ratings were entirely subjective, except where physical data were
available (e.g. Armco's Houston Works). A field survey was designed to deter-
mine the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff from iron and steel mills
with sampling concentrated on the following activities or operations which were
rated as having the greatest potential for contaminating stormwater:
Coal storage piles
Coke storage piles
Slag Dumps
Iron ore and pellet storage piles
Coal and coke handling
The survey program was performed at two different sites. Both sites were
fully integrated mills on tidal rivers. However, neither location had a
representative slag dump; therefore, no slag dump runoff data were obtained.
In addition, because of tidal backflow problems, no iron ore pile runoff data
were obtained at Site 1. The parameters measured in this program were:
-6-
-------
Runoff Flow Rainfall
Total Iron Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Dissolved Iron Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Phenols Cyanide
Ammonia Sulfates
Oil and grease and organic parameters such as BODs, COD and TOG were not
measured because previous work performed by TRC showed that these parameters
would not be of sufficient magnitude to be of concern. Previous work by Armco
revealed very high concentrations of COD and TOC which were concluded to be a
result of inert coal and coke fines and not reactive organics.
Based on the data collected at the two sites, the coal and coke storage
piles, and the coal and coke handling areas have the highest potential for
contaminating stormwater. Table 2-1 is a summary of average concentrations of
the various pollutants in these areas for the two mills sampled.
In order to determine the potential gross impact of stormwater runoff from
the mills sampled, the stormwater runoff mass loadings were compared to the
point source mass loadings which would exist under proposed BAT control.
Since BAT is EPA's next step in the control process (July, 1984), this compar-
ison appears to be valid.
Table 2-2 compares selected annual and hourly runoff mass loadings to
point source loadings based on proposed Best Available Technology (BAT) Ef-
fluent Guidelines for TSS. This table shows that TSS runoff loadings are
generally higher than point source loadings. In addition to TSS, the field
data indicate that runoff from coal piles could produce substantial mass load-
ings of ammonia, phenols and total iron.
In most cases at both sites, the parameter concentrations were rainfall
intensity dependent (i.e., the concentration increased with increased rainfall
intensity and vice versa). In some cases, the size and characteristics of the
-7-
-------
TABLE 2-1
HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTS
OF FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAMS
SITES 1 ANT. 2
MARCH-JUNE, 1977
Pollutant
TS5
TDS
1
TOTAL
IRON
i
Site
No.
2
1
2
Potential
Problem
Areas
Coal Star.
Coke Stor.
1 Coke- & Coal
2
1
2
1
2
1
i
lUSSOLVED
IRON
1
2
1
2
1
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke i Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Scor.
Coke Stor.
Coke i Coal
Handling
Average Wet
Concentrations ,
mg/1
353
505
392(a)
184
471
745
959(a)
2158
18
32.3
12.6^aJ
2.4
0.2
0.09
1.0l(a)
0.12
i
(b)
There were two sampling points near the coke storage
for only one (outfall 013) are shown.
n.d. - none detected.
n.a. - not analvzed.
area at Site 2. The average concentration
1 Pollutant
PHENOL
AMMONIA
CYANIDE
SULFATE
Sire
No.
2
1
?
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Potential
Problem
Areas
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Average Wet
Concentrations,
aig/l
0.01
0.06
0.03(3)
0.37
0.33
2.1
29.3(a)
43
n.d.(b>
0.01
0.55(/1)
1 ;
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke 4 Coal
Handling
n.d.(b)
132
n.a.':c>
129(a)
312
-8-
-------
TABLE 2-i
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL AND HOURLY POINT SOURCE LOADINGS WITH
AVERAGE ANNUAL AND HOURLY RUNOFF LOADINGS OF TSS FOR SELECTED DRAINAGE BASINS
Sites 1 and 2
March-June, 1977
Site
1
2
Outfall
009
010
Oil
Oil
(Coal
Pile)
010
Gil
(Coal
Pile)
012
013
Average Amv.i.-tl Loadings
BasirJ on BAT
F.f fluent Guidelines^) (*)
Kg/yr(lh/yr)
TSS 1850(4100)
TSS 1850(4100)
TSS 1.8xlOl<(4.0nlOl<)
-
Average Annual
Runoff Loadings
Kg/yrUb/yr)
TSS 3600 (8000)
TSS 80 (180)
TSS 3315 (7290)
TSS «.lx!0s(9.0xl05)
TSS 1.5x10 (J.3xlO )
M
TSS 7760 (1.7x10 )
TSS 310 (680)
TSS 550 (1210)
Average Hourly Loadings
Based on Maximiri 1 Day
HAT Effluent Guide linesU)
Kg/hr(lb/hr)
-
TSS 0.6 (1.3)
TSS 0.6 (1.3)
TSS 6.0 (13)
Rainfall Event.s
Average Hat»9 Loadings of PollutantH In Runut f
Kft/hi (Ib/hr)
3/24/77
TSS 0.06(0.13)
TSS 0.14(0.32)
-
-
3/27-3/28/77
-
TSS 3.54 (7.8)
TSS 10.3 (22.6)
4/16/77
TSS 1.74 (3.83)
-
6/9-6/10/77
"
TSS 219 (48^)
-
6/20/77
-
"
TSS 136 (299)
-
-
-------
drainage basin had an effect on the time lag between rain intensity and runoff
flow, and the time lag between runoff flow and parameter concentrations.
Finally, as in the Armco study and other industrial work performed, the
runoff data did not show a "first flush" effect.
Stormwater controls which presently exist within the steel industry are
limited. The only system specifically designed for stormwater control exists
an Armco's Houston Works, where coal piles have been diked as a control measure
for both fugitive air emissions and stormwater runoff. Runoff collected within
the diked area flows by gravity to an earth pond. In nearly two years of
operation, losses from evaporation and percolation have prevented any observed
overflow from this pond. On dry days, 190,000 liters (50,000 gallons) of water
(equivalent to 6mm of rain) are sprayed on the coal piles to control fugitive
dust emissions. This water is supplied from a separate concrete pump basin
which receives water from the blowdown of a coke plant cooling tower.
Several mills contacted in this program collect stormwater runoff with
process wastewater from certain mill areas and the water is subsequently treated
at a terminal plant. This necessitates a system of combined sewers within the
plant and in several cases a holding pond is needed prior to treatment to
handle high flows from storms.
Many mills store their raw materials (predominantly iron ore) in concrete
bunkers and bins. Some of these bunkers have concrete floors and stormwater
has to be pumped out periodically. These bunkers were not installed for storm-
water control but rather to guard against material loss; however, they can
serve a control purpose by containing runoff which can chen be pumped to a.
treatment system.
This program illustrates that certain areas within a steel mill may pose a
problem. The problem, however, is site specific. Major conclusions and recom-
mendations for the program are listed in the next section.
-10-
-------
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Conclusions
Based on the industry evaluation it is apparent that, except for the
Armco-Houston and Kaiser Surveys and this program, little quantification and
qualification of stonnwater runoff from iron and steel mills have been per-
formed.
The following conclusions resulted from the field survey:
1. With the exception of runoff from coal and coke storage areas, the
majority of the basins tested in the field survey had pollutant
discharges which, on an annual basis, were less than the proposed BAT
Effluent Guidelines for the point sources located within the basins.
No data were obtained from iron ore and pellet storage piles and
active slag dumps.
2. Runoff from the coal storage piles at Site 1 was found to have high
pollutant loadings but it is controlled and not representative of the
industry as a whole. Runoff from the coal storage piles at Site 2 has
considerably lower mass loadings. TSS concentrations were typical of
urban runoff while IDS Values were approximately twice typical urban
runoff concentrations.
3. At both plants, runoff from coal and coke handling areas and the coke
plant area generated higher hourly mass loadings of total suspended
solids than the average hourly loadings for point sources based on
maximum 24-hour loadings in the proposed BAT Effluent Guidelines.
4. The coal storage areas sampled in this study had much lower runoff
concentrations for TSS, TDS, total iron, and sulfate than those found
in runoff from utility coal containing higher percentages of sulfur.
5. Since no "first flush" effect was observed for any pollutant at
either of the field sites, it does not appear to be a problem with
runoff from iron and steel mills.
6. In general, total suspended solids concentrations were typical of
urban runoff.
7. Total dissolved solids concentrations were generally higher than
those of typical urban runoff, particularly in the runoff from coal
and coke storage piles and the coal and coke handling areas.
8. Many of the parameter concentrations, particularly phenols, displayed
a consistent pattern at both sites. Phenol concentrations were
"rainfall intensity dependent" (i.e., the concentration increased
with increased rain intensity and vice versa).
-11-
-------
9. In several cases, the size and characteristics of the drainage basin
had an effect on the time lag between rain intensity and runoff flow
and the time lag between runoff flow and parameter concentration.
For example, in highly impervious drainage basins such as in finish-
ing areas, there was essentially no time lag between rain intensity
and flow and no time lag between flow and parameter concentration,
while in more pervious drainage basins there was a time lag in which
flow peaks occurred later than rainfall peaks and parameter concen-
tration peaks occurred later than the flow peaks.
10. Total iron is a potential problem in both coal and coke storage areas
and coal and coke handling areas. It exceeded proposed BAT Effluent
Guidelines for point sources by 2 to 4 times. Dissolved iron, however,
was only a small percentage of the total iron and was generally
within-BAT Effluent Guidelines.
11. Ammonia exceeded proposed BAT Effluent Guidelines for point sources
by a factor of 2 during some storms in runoff from coal and coke
handling at Site 1 and coke storage at Site 2.
12. Cyanide does not seem to be a problem except for two samples taken in
the runoff from the coke storage area at Site 2. These samples
averagad approximately twice the proposed BAT Effluenc Guidelines for
point sources.
13. Results from the two sites indicate that phenols are significantly
less than proposed BAT Effluent Guidelines.
14. Sulfates were generally less than standards used for public water
supplies.
15. At both sites, ammonia concentrations peaked at about the same time
as the first rainfall intensity peak and then slowly decreased through-
out the remainder of the storm event.
The following conclusions resulted from the evaluation of stormwater
control:
1. Some iron and steel plants have made efforts to control stormwater,
e.g., Armco-Houston diking its coal piles.
2. There are some methods of stormwater control available to the indus-
try, e.g., rainfall detention ponding rings for flat roofs. However,
there is little experience with the application of these control
techniques in the steel-making industry.
3. The problem needs more definition on a plant by plant basis and, to
be cost, effective, treatment should be approached on a plant by plant
basis. Areas of concern are the coal and coke storage areas and the
coal and coke handling areas.
-12-
-------
3.2 Recommendations
Based on the conclusions and observations of this program, the following
recommendations are made:
1. Significant differences between plants make it desirable to develop a
stormwater control strategy for the iron and steel industry on a
plant by plant basis.
2. At some plants, it may be beneficial to treat stormwater from certain
areas to bring runoff mass loadings down to the same order of magnitude
as point sources based on the proposed BAT Effluent Guidelines. The
most likely area is coal piles where it may be beneficial to treat
runoff for total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and total
iron.
3. If stormwater runoff is found to be a problem at a specific site,
more work should be performed to determine the feasibility of cost-
effective controls for mill areas identified as having potential
stormwater contamination problems.
4. Future studies should be directed to quantify and qualify stormwater
runoff from the iron ore storage and slag disposal areas.
5. Because many steel plants are built on permeable soils next to water-
ways, groundwater contamination from stona events is possible.
Future programs should investigate potential groundwater contamina-
tion from the industry.
6. In order to better quantify and qualify the stormwater runoff from
coal and coke storage, coal and coke handling, iron ore storage, and
slag disposal areas, sampling should be concentrated at the sources
of the runoff from each of these areas to eliminate other interfer-
ences, such as process water and otVier runoff sources.
7. Continuous flow monitoring and sampling should be kept to a minimum
number of sites located only in areas where stormwater runoff is a
potential problem. Sampling equipment should be automated.
8. Continous monitoring of process water flows entering the storm sewer
systems should be done in cases where interference with stormwater
runoff cannot be avoided.
9. Samples should be collected prior to and as close to the beginning of
a storm event as possible to better define the early reactions of the
pollutants. This may involve collecting grab samples at the first
sign of precipitation or continuous sampling on days when rainfall
probability is high.
-13-
-------
10. To make problem .definition more cost effective, it may be feasible to
reduce the quantity of sampling and substitute a mathematical model
which will predict runoff quantity and concentrations. The Short
Stormwater Management Model (SSWMM)(5) which has been adapted to coal-
fired utility plants could be adapted to steel mills.
-14-
-------
4.0 TASK I - IDENTIFICATION OF SURFACE RUNOFF SOURCES
To identify sources of surface runoff from the iron and steel industry, TRC
used four major techniques to gather information:
Literature Search
Contacts with Regulatory Agencies
Contacts with Industry Representatives
Mill Visits
The literature search was used to locate any existing industry stormwater
data and control technology. The search was of little use in providing existing
data since most data obtained by the industry were too recent to have reached the
literature bases searched. However, some useful information was obtained concerning
control technology. It is discussed in Section 6.0.
Three EPA regional offices and three state agencies were contacted. They
were able to provide some general background, but no agencies have yet focused on
stormwater runoff from the iron and steel industry.
The majority of information was obtained through industry contacts and plant
visits. While the industry has not yet generally concerned itself with stormwater,
industry representatives have given TRC considerable time and effort in developing
this assessment. The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) set up a task force
to review program objectives. The task force included corporate environmental
staff from United States Steel, Republic Steel and Armco Steel.
TRC contacted the eight largest steel companies which are:
Armco Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Inland Steel
Joties & Laughlin Steel
National Steel
Republic Steel
United States Steel
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
-15-
-------
In addition, companies such as Kaiser Steel and Colorado Fuel and Iron, which
are located in arid areas, were also contacted. Alan Wood Steel was added to
the list because its mill is somewhat isolated from other industries and urban
development. All of these companies were contacted either through personal
plant tours or telephone conversations.
Table 4-1 shows the mills actually investigated and the basic mill processes.
Plans made to tour the Aliquippa Works of Jones and Laughlin could not be met
due to schedule limitations. Bethlehem Steel declined to actively participate
in the program.
The identification of surface runoff sources is reported in two subsections
of this report. Section 4.1 summarizes the available survey data gathered by
the iron and steel industry. Section 4.2 identifies sources based on the plant
tours performed by TRC personnel in this program.
4.1 Existing Data on Stormwater Runoff - Iron and Steel Industry
The literature search yielded no available data. Interviews with regula-
tory agencies and industry representatives provided two sets of existing data on
stormwater. The first set of data is from a stormwater sampling program con-
ducted at the Armco Steel Corporation's Houston Works, Houston, Texas, from May
1975-September 1976. The second set of data is a compilation of stormwater
runoff data for 1975 from the Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana, California.
4.1.1 Armco Steel Corporation
Armco Steel's Houston Works conducted a comprehensive survey of stormwater
runoff from May 1975-September 1976. This study was the first attempt by a steel
company to quantify and qualify stormwater from distinct process areas. In 1975,
-16-
-------
TABLE 4-1
MILLS SURVEYED AND TOURED
COMPANY
NATIONAL STEEL
U.S. STFEL
U.S. STEEL
U.S. STEEL
REPUBLIC STEEL
AKMCO STEEL
ARMCO STEEL
MAN WOOD STEEL
YOUNCSTOWN S & T
C.r (, I STEEL
INLAND STEEL
KAISER STEEL
NAHF. OF WORKS
Weirton Works
Edgar Thonson Works
Falrless Works
Geneva Works
Gulf steel Works
Houston Woiks
Hlddletown Works
Alan Wood Steel Co.
Campbell Works
Pueblo Plant
Indiana Harbor
Works
Kaiser Steel Works
LOCATION
Uelrion,
WV
Bradjnrk,
PA
Fairies Hills
PA
Provo,
UT
Cadsden,
AL
Houston,
TX
Mlddletown,
OH
Cnuahohocken,
PA
Yoimp,atovn,
on
Pueblo.
CO
F.aet Chicago,
IN
Fontann,
CA
PLANT OPERATIONS
COKE
PLANT
/
-
/
/
' /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
SINTER
PIANT
/
V (a)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ (e)
/
/
/
BLAST
FURNACES
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
STEEL MAKING
BASIC
OXYGEN
FURNACES
/
/
-
-
/
-
/
/
/
/
/
OPEN
HEARTH
FURNACES
-
-
/
/
-
-
/
-
/
-
/
/
ELECTRIC
FURNACES
-
-
/
-
/
/
-
-
-
/
/
-
FINISHING
OPERATIONS
/
Ac)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
NOTES
*/ - mean!) that plant has these facilities
(a) Discontinued operation in January 1975. No current plans for use.
(b) Majority of finishing dene at Irvln Works.
(c) Will be aliut down in 1977.
-------
the Texas Water Quality Board wanted to set discharge limitations on seven of
Armco's stormwater outfalls. After a literature search yielded no published data
on industry stormwater, Armco successfully proposed to the state agency that Armco
perform this comprehensive survey prior to the initiation of limitations on storm-
water quality.
During a normal rainfall approximately 230 hectares of developed area at the
Houston Works discharge stormwater runoff to seven stormwater outfalls and one
combined wastewater-stormwater outfall which has treatment. Plant stormwater
drainage is divided into nine fairly distinct basins which were determined by
visual observations during storms. The total plant basin is divided as follows:
15.4% building area, 4.9% paved area, 8.2% railroad track, 70.4% either unde-
veloped land or stockpile areas, and 1.1% ponded area. The breakdown by basin
is shown in Table 4-2. The stockpile area is segregated into a raw products
area, composed of iron ore, limestone, coal and coke, and a finished steel
products area.
The various activities and operations for each basin are summarized in Table
4-3.
In this survey, Armco found that stormwater quantity and quality varied appre-
ciably by drainage basin which limited the validity of any correlation of parame-
ter concentrations between outfalls. Furthermore, the quality of the stormwater
runoff was found to vary directly with storm duration and intensity and also with
the number of antecedent dry days between storms. As the antecedent dry days in-
creased, so did the potential particulate matter to be scoured.
For this particular study, the "first flush" effect was only observed three
times at a combined sewer discharge from the east ditch-west ditch drainage basins.
This is a condition whereby the matter accumulated in a basin since the last run-
off event is scoured from the. area at the start of the next storm event. In al-
most every other case, the "flow dependent" effect was observed, i.e., peak parameter
-18-
-------
TABLE 4-2
(6)
BASIN RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION STUDY
Sub-
Basin
005
006
on?
008
009
010
Oil
East
Bitch
West
Ditch
TOTAL
%
Buildings
24.2
13.4
21.0
0.0
9.6
22.6
9.3
24.2
23.9
15.4%
%
Paved
9.4
5.0
5.0
0.0
6.3
5.3
17.8
7.3
7.8
4.9% '
%
Track
8.7
9.2
24.9
1.4
18.4
19.4
14.3
13.4
7.3
8.2%
%
Ponded
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
. 1.0
2.2
1.6
1.1%
% Undeveloped
or Stockpiles
57.7
72.4
45.0
98.6
65.7
52.7
57.6
52.9
59.4
70.4%
Basin
Area
Hectares
57.8
1.9
1.7
3.9
2.7
1.1
24.5
71.9
67
232.5
-19-
-------
TABLE 4-3
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS IN BASIN
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION STUDY
(6)
Basin
Activities and Operation
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
West Ditch
East Ditch
Wide Flange Mill; Shipping Office; Roundhouse (car, truck, and
railroad car repair facility); western halves of the No. 1
Electric Furnace Shop, No. 2 Plate Mill, Plate Shipping Build-
ing, Heavy Plate Shear Building, and Plate Heat Treat Buildinj.
Direct Reduction Plant.
Sinter Plant.
Iron ore storage area located between the Stock House and
docking facility.
West end of the Mold Foundry; area between the Coke Plant
proper and the east end of the Stock House; Coke Transfer.
Coal transfer; main coal conveyor belt from the dock area to
the coal storage area; Coal Shaker Building; numerous coal
transfer points; located in immediate vicinity of the west end
of the Coke Plant area.
Mold Preparation Shop; eastern part of the No. 2 Electric Fur-
nace Shop; eastern half of the Coke Ovens; Coke Oven By-
Products area; coal pile storage area; eastern half of the
Mold Foundry; employee parking area.
Slag Storage Area; Slag Plant Area; West Pond; eastern halves
of No. 1 Electric Furnace Shop, No. 2 Plate Mill, Plate Ship-
ping Building, Heavy Plate Shear Building, and Plate Heat
Treat Building; Truck Shipping area; Slab Yard Buildings;
Structural Shape Storage Building; Bloom, Ingot and Slag
Yard; western halves of structural Mill Building and Billet
Yard; Roll Shop; Plate Torching and Shipping Building; 60"
Mill Building; Soaking Pit Building; Material Storage Pile.
Covered Scrap; No. 1 Open Hearth Shop; eastern halves of
Structural Mill Building and Billet Yard; Heat Treat Build-
ing; Rod Mill; Coil Storage Building; Wire Mill Building;
Bar Storage Buildings; Mill Spares Building; Wire Mill Ware-
house; East Pond; Blast Furnace; Power House; Western half
of No. 2 Electric Furnace Shop.
-20-
-------
concentrations occurred at peak runoff flows. The flow dependent concentrations
occur because the vast majority of contaminated runoff at the Houston Works can
be attributed directly to heavy particulate matter. This is mostly relatively
heavy, insoluble iron oxides. This particulate matter is scoured in direct
proportion to the flow of stormwater runoff.
Table 4-4 summarizes the flow, quality, and rainfall data for basins 005,
006, 009, 010, and Oil. Armco found no discharge from basin 007 and 008 out-
falls during the survey program. In addition, part of the stormwater from the
east ditch and west ditch is combined with process water and sent to a treatment
pond; therefore, these areas were not included in the survey.
The results in Table 4-4 show that basins 009 and 010 had the highest
total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations. These results were expected since
coal and coke handling occur in these areas. The major source of solids is
fugitive dust fallout from material handling. Much of the ground area in these
two basins is covered with dust fallout from coal and coke storage and handling.
Basin Oil had one storm with a high TSS concentration (Storm #2 - 2378 mg/1),
but overall the emissions are lower than 009 and 010. Generally, coal storage
piles such as those located in basin Oil contribute high TSS concentrations,
and therefore this area would normally be expected to have much higher TSS
concentrations. However, Armco Houston has diked their coal piles, and runoff
is contained in a holding pond (See Section 6.1).
The Armco data clearly show that oil and grease emissions are not of major
concern in the stormwater. Armco has oil baffles on several stormwater discharges,
but the baffles do not pick up significant quantities of oil.
Basin 007 discharges from a small pond via an overflow weir. During the
survey, Armco did not detect any flow from the pond. All stormwater from 007
either percolated into the ground or evaporated. Armco constructed a weir in
-21-
-------
TABLE 4-4
STORM DATA
ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION STUDY
(6)
Basin
005
t
006
i
009
010
Oil
Storm #
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
.3
. 1
. 2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total Flow
MG
0.404
0.690
0.065
0.546
0.501
8.0 x 10"1*
8.0 x W~k
1.2 x 10 3
6.3 x 10~3
6.3 x 10~3
0.3816
0.460
6.84 x lO"1*
6.3 x 10~k
0.031
1.2 x 10 3
0,112
0.470
0.266
0.054
0.016
0.037
Avg. TSS
mg/1
278.0
355.0
24.6
119.5
115.1
505.0
426.0
584.0
808.0
1471.8
2709.4
1117.0
10722.0
3186.0
8561.9
2481.8
314.5
2378.0
854.1
246.5
4.0
198.5
Avg. Oil
& Grease
mg/1
N/A
2.0
N/A
<0.5
<0.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
' 2.0
0.5
<0.6
<0.6
0.8
0,6
<0.5
<0.1
N/A
N/A
0.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rainfall
Inches
0.39
0.32
0.20
0.45
0.40
0.20
0.02
0.40
0.20
0.15-
2.30
N/A
0.20
0.15
2.30
0.30
0.70
1.80
1.20
0.50
0.20
0.20
N/A = none analyzed
-22-
-------
in a manhole of the 1.2m underground concrete channel which serves as basin
008's discharge. Since the weir was constructed, Armco personnel have not
observed any flow. The majority of stormwater in the area infiltrates the lower
soil strata.
4.1.2 Kaiser Steel Corporation '
Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana, California, is a fully integrated iron
and steel plant. It is located in a region of little rainfall. Rain normally
occurs only during February and March. Raw material piles are not located in
bunkers or diked and are subject to stormwater runoff. During 1975, Kaiser
monitored the mill runoff during the rainy season.
Most stormwater runoff flows to one drainage ditch. This ditch is a
mountain creek and is dry most of the year. Flow is measured in this ditch
with a Parshall flume, which has a maximum measurement of 11,400 1pm. Since
this mill is in an arid climate, as much of the runoff as possible is retained
for use as process water. The runoff which cannot be retained is discharged to
the surrounding land as there is no receiving water body. Within a distance of
less than two miles, all of the water either evaporates or percolates into the
soil.
Table 4-5 is a summary of the monitoring data obtained during 1975.
Samples from 12 different stormwater runoff events were reported. These data
show much higher concentrations of oil in the runoff than were found at Armco
Houston. The plant personnel could give no reasons why the oil concentrations
were so high.
4.1.3 Source Information Iiidustry-Wida
One area in which some work was performed on an industry-wide basis was an
/Q\
environmental assessment of steelmaking furnace dust disposal. The report
-23-
-------
TABLE 4-5
STORMWATER DATA - 1975
KAISER STEEL CORPORATION
FONTANA, C
Date
of
Sample
02/03/75
02/04/75
02/05/75
02/09/75
02/10/75
03/05/75
03/08/75
03/10/75
03/14/75
03/22/75
03/23/75
03/26/75
TOTAL
Estimated
Total
Flow
MG
1.4988
.1831
.8034
1.4333
.786
51
3.1577
1.5104
.4135
1.0378
-
.7245
12.06
Chloride
in
mg/1
17.6
98.6
163.0
131.0
85.2
44.3
106.0
44.7
72.6
54.0
40.0
136.0
Electrical
Conductivity
in
Micromhos/cm
200
1580
1360
1060
1300
420
950
320
550
470
3/0
1040
Oil
in
mg/1
23.0
85.4
28.0
12.8
63.3
131.0
311.0
52.7
494.0
56.1
14.2
81.7
Visible
Oil in
Discharge
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Color
of
Discharge
Light Brown
Gray
Yellow Gray
Yellow
Gray Brown
Gray Brown
Gray Brown
Gray Brown
Gray Brown
Gray Brown
Gray
Gray Brown
-24-
-------
concluded that runoff from disposal piles of steelmaking furnace dust collected
by air pollution control equipment is a potential problem. This runoff can be
contaminated with suspended and dissolved solids and heavy metals. The report
stated that the magnitude of transport by surface runoff and its contamination
depends largely upon the methods of disposal. Wastes buried in soil pits do
not present a surface runoff problem, whereas waste piles exposed to precipi-
tation are subject to particle dislodgement by runoff. The potential pollutants
include antimony, mercury, cobalt, lead, zinc, chromium, selenium, and manganese.
4.2 TRC Assessment of Potential Sources of Contaminated Runoff
Since runoff is a site-specific problem, TRC toured several plants in an
effort to obtain data to combine a number of factors which affect site-specific
runoff (such as terrain, climate, mill locations and operations) into an overall
assessment of most probable sources of stonnwater contamination, industry-wide.
The runoff from activities and operations of steel mills has been segmented
into the following groups:
Runoff from storage and disposal piles (coal, coke, slag, iron ore and
and pellets).
Runoff from slag handling and processing facilities.
Runoff from adjacent urban areas into the mill.
Runoff of accumulated materials from roof and ground areas from
several mill operations (blast furnace, sinter plant, BOF shop, open
hearth, coke and by-product plant, coal and coke handling, and finish-
ing area).
The material piles are a potential source of contaminated stormwater
because, generally they are stored in open, flat terrain in undeveloped sections
of the mill. They present large surface areas for contact with rainwater.
Slag handling and processing facilities are a potential source because of
the quantity of materials and the continuous use of water as a coolant.
-25-
-------
At some mills urban runoff from adjacent areas may contribute significantly
to both the volume and mass loading of mill runoff.
A predominant source of accumulated materials within a mill is fallout from
fugitive and uncontrolled air emissions. Only the finishing operations do not
contribute fallout. The finishing area is included as a potential source of
contaminated stormwater because it usually encompasses a large geographic area
of the mill and contains a high percentage of impervious area, i.e., roof and
pavement. Therefore, it is an area which can accumulate fallout and has essen-
tially a 100% runoff rate.
Because runoff is site specific, it was impossible to compare the contaminated
stormwater potential of an area of one particular mill to the same area in another
mill. Climate, terrain, operations, maintenance, and the location of processes
relative to each other are unique to each mill. Each plant was therefore rated
according to a system designed to rank the relative potential for contaminated'
stormwater of each of its activities. A rating of 1^ for a given mill indicated
the area or areas with the highest potential for stormwater contamination. Ratings
of 2_ to 5_ were assigned to areas in the order of lessening concern. Table 4-6
shows the rating for each activity or operation for the 11 plants toured or inter-
viewed. These ratings are purely subjective based on TRC personnel assessments.
The Armco Houston Works rating was .compiled based on the Annco data presented in
Section 4.1. At the botton of Table 4-6, the total and average ratings are reported.
Because these numbers are subjective, it would be inappropriate to take a 1.6 rating
as being of more concern than a 1.7. However, based on these ratings, the following
activities and operations are most likely those of greatest potential for contami-
nating stormwater industry wide:
Coal storage piles
-26-
-------
TABLE 4-6
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATED STORMWATER
MILLS
NATIONAL STEEL -
We i r t on ( a )
U.S. STEM. -
Ed%ar Thfison
U.S. STEEL -
Faiflcr.s
U.S. STEEL -
Geneva
p.F.r'iauc STEEL -
^a^.-iden (b>
A.W.O STEEL -
HUU* ton
AKMCO STELL -
M!(!^l«tDwn
.'.LAN WOOU STEEL -
Coc.^liohocken
YO'-N'-.STOVy SHEET 6 TUBE -
CaspbtU
COLORADO n;£i. & IRON
P IK blO
IM-AND STEEL -
InUla:M Harbor
TOTAL RATING .'J)
COAL
PILES
1
-
1
1
2
Ci.n-
t rolled
at
So'-'rce
3
2
3
1
1
15
COKE
PILES
2
2
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
1
1
21
sue
PILES
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
18
IRON
ORP.
PILES
Con-
trolled
at
Source
2
1
2
2
2
3
Con-
trolled
at
Source
(c)
Con-
trolled
at
Source
1
2
IS
SLAG
HANDLING/
PROCESSING
1
1
2
4
3
it
2
1
3
2
3
26
RUNOFF
INTO
HILL
2
1
5
3
1
5
2
2
1
3
4
29
1LAST
FURNACK
AB5A
3
1
2
4
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
27
FUGITIVE FALLOUT TO ROOF & CKOUHD AREAS
SIHTEF.
PIJJiT
3
-
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
25
EOF
SHOP
3
1
-
-
2
-
2
3
-
3
3
17
OPEN
HEARTH
SrtOP
-
-
2
i.
-
-
2
-
1
-
3
12
COKE BY-
PRODUCT
PLANT
2
-
L
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
22
COAL t
' COKE
HANDLING
i
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
22
FINISHING
AREAS
5
-
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
3
^
3i
(a) Conraolnatfcd stormwbter from all areas except storage piles and coal and coke bundling go to terminal treatment syste&s.
(b) Alt contaminated atonovater goes to terminal treatment ayatemu.
(c) Ore la stored In concrete diked area, rain seepb into ground and nay Inflltrata a crack which paaa«a under torag* plica. If this la troc,
the or* pll«a would b« rated as a ^.
(d) Controlled at *ourc« actlvltlaa ara not Included la cither total or avaragc rctlcg.
-------
Coke storage piles
Slag piles
Iron ore and pellet storage piles
Coal and coke handling
It was also concluded that, while finishing operations will contribute a large
quantity of stormwater, they generally will be the lowest area of potential con-
tamination. Since runoff is site specific, there will be many cases within the
industry which will not fit the above criteria. This is evident in some of the
mills listed in Table 4-6.
In addition to the rating of the 13 categories, there were special cases at
some of the plants toured. These were not included in the table because they are
not typical of the industry. At Armco's Middletown Works, there are two areas
where sludge from pollution control is stored. One sludge pile is in the slag dump
area which is rated as a number i_ area of concern. The Edgar Thomson Works of U.S.
Steel stores tar as a fuel. The tar, if spilled, could contaminate stormwater,
depending upon the adequacy of containment measures, and therefore it was given a
rating of _3^ The final "other" potential source was the disposal of chemical wastes
at U. S. Steel's Fairless Works. It was given a rating of 2_ among that mill's con-
cerns .
4.2.1 Pollutants of Concern
Based on the observations made during tours and interviews, it was concluded
that contaminated stormwater from iron and steel mills may contain the following
pollutants in significant concentrations:
Total Suspended Solids Total Dissolved Solids
Cyanide Phenols
Ammonia Total Iron
Dissolved Iron Sulfates
-28-
-------
Solids were of most concern since they are likely to be scoured from all areas
of a mill. Phenols, cyanide, and ammonia were of most concern in coal and coke
handling facilities and in the coke plant area. Dissolved iron was presumed to be
only a small portion of the total concentration. The insoluble iron concentration,
however, was thought to be significant contributor to the suspended solids concen-
tration in many areas of a mill. Metals were assumed to be a major contaminant in
the slag dump and disposal areas. Finally, sulfates were presumed to be a signifi-
cant contaminant in the coal handling and coke plant areas.
In general, organics were not thought to be a problem when dealing with mill
stormwater. Some plants will be exceptions, particularly those which have signifi-
cant urban runoff combined with mill runoff. In these cases a filtered chemical
oxygen demand (COD) would be of interest.
-29-
-------
5.0 TASK II - FIELD PROGRAM
5.1 Description of Sites
Two steel mills were surveyed in the spring of 1977 for the stormwater
runoff field program. Table 5-1 lists the general characteristics of each of
these two sites.
The differences between the two sites are quite obvious. Site 1 is a much
older plant and has one sixth of the acreage of Site 2. The drainage basins
within Site 1 are clearly defined with permanent primary flow measurement
devices previously constructed at the outfalls from each of the runoff basins.
Site 1 was sampled first because it is a more consolidated mill, its drainage
basins are clearly defined, and primary flow devices (weirs) were previously
installed at the outfalls.
Site 2 is built on 5.5m of raised fill area above the floodplain of the
tidal river. Due to the flat topography and the permeable nature of the soil,
Site 2 has no well-defined natural runoff system. Unless directed by storm
sewers or open channels, the runoff from Site 2 will percolate directly into
the ground. The sampling program at Site 2, therefore, concentrated on the
runoff entering the plant storm sewer network.
A more detailed description of each site follows. At both sites, iden-
tifying numbers were assigned to drainage basins. Each drainage basin had an
outfall and a sampling location. Throughout this section of the report, the
same number is used to identify either the basin or the outfall and sampling
location for that basin.
-30-
-------
TABLE 5-1
GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Age of Plant
Developed Area
(Hectares)
Terrain
Runoff Receiving
Body
Plant Operations
Period of Sampling
Number of Sampling
Points
Permanent Flow
Devices
Site 1
37 Years
230
Flat, Semi-Permeable
Tidal River
Coke Plant, Sinter Plant,
Blast Furnaces, Electric
Furnaces, Finishing
Operations
3/77 to 4/77
5
Yes
Site 2
25 Years
1600
Flat, Permeable
Tidal River
Coke Plant, Sinter Plant,
Blast Furnaces, Open Hearth
Furnaces, Electric Furnaces,
Finishing Operations
5/77 to 6/77
13
No
-31-
-------
5.1.1 Description of Drainage Basins and Unit Operations - Site 1
Five drainage basins as listed in Table 5-2 were sampled.
Figure 5-1 shows the site plan with the five separate drainage basins and
their associated outfalls. Basin 005 is the largest basin with 57.8 hectares.
It contains various mills, shops, the shipping department, part of the No. 1
Electric Furnace Shop and the Roundhouse. Most of this basin, approximately
60%, is undeveloped or used for outside storage. The sampling location is a
weir box on an open ditch at the southern corner of the basin.
Basin 006 is a small drainage area, approximately 1.9 hectares in size.
It encompasses the Direct Reduction Plant. Seventy-two percent of this area is
undeveloped or used for outside storage area.
Basin 009 is another relatively small drainage area. The major activity
in this area is coke transfer. The west end of the Mold Foundry and the area
between the Coke Plant proper and the east end of the Stock House comprise the
2.7 hectares of this basin.
Basin 010 is the smallest of the five drainage basins (1.1 hectares).
Most of the activity in basin 010 is coal handling. Conveyor belts carrying
coal from the dock area to the storage area, the Coal Shaker building and
numerous other coal transfer points are located within this drainage basin.
Drainage basin Oil, located in the southeastern section of the plant, is
approximately 24.5 hectares. The list of activities within this basin is sum-
marized in Table 5-2. The coal storage area is subject to stormwater runoff
but, since a 0.46m earth dike surrounds the coal piles, the stormwater is
contained. During large rainstorms this contained water is channeled into a
holding pond.
-32-
-------
TABLE 5-2
DESCRIPTION OF INDIVIDUAL DRAINAGE BASINS SAMPLED
SITE 1
Basin
005
006
009
010
Oil
Activities and Operations
Wide Flange Mill; Shipping Office; Roundhouse (car, truck,
and railroad car repair facility) ; western halves of the
No. 1 Electric Furnace Shop, No. 2 Plate Mill, Plate Ship-
ping Building, Heavy Plate Shear Building, and Plate Heat
Treat Building.
Direct Reduction Plant.
West end of the Mold Foundry; area between the Coke Plant
proper and the ease end of the Stock House; Coke Transfer.
Coal transfer; main coal conveyor belt from the dock area
to the coal storage area; Coal Shaker Building; numerous
coal transfer points located in immediate vicinity of the
west end of the Coke Plant area.
Mold Preparation Shop; eastern part of the No. 2 Electric
Furnace Shop; eastern half of the Coke Ovens; Coke Oven
By-products area; coal pile storage area; eastern half of
the Mold Foundry; employee parking area.
Area
(Hectares)
57.8
1.9
2.7
1.1
24.5
-33-
-------
N
ELECTRIC FURNACE
MOLD
FINISHING AREA PREPARATION
FINISHING AREA
NO. 2 ELECTRIC FURNACE SHOP
PARKING
HOLD FOUNDRY
EAST POND
WEST POND
SINTERING PLANT-
STORAGE _ -5
0101. __ -Ji-s
BLAST
FURNACE
DIRECT REDUCTION PLANT
ORE STORAGE
;|C 000 SAMPLING LOC.
'X////X////// DRAINAGE BASIN
PLANT PERIMETER
SITE NO. 1 PLAN
DRAINAGE BASIN &
SAMPLE POINT LOCATIONS
Figure 5-1: Plan - Site No. 1
-------
The five drainage basins of Site 1 all empty into the tidal river running
along.the southern end of the plant. The outfalls themselves were located
within either the discharge canal just before the canal empties into the river
or within drainage pipes leading into the river.
5.1.2 Description of Drainage Basins and Unit Operations - Site 2
Because there are no well defined drainage basins within Site 2, the
delineation of drainage areas was based upon the storm sewer plans for the
plant. The storm sewer system for Site 2 originates at the roof drains from
most of the plant operations, includes the road and railroad line runoffs, and
terminates in either a canal leading into the tidal river or into the river
directly. A general layout of Site 2 showing the drainage basins and the
sampling locations is presented in Figure 5-2.
Basins 002, 003, 004, 005, 006 and 007 are all located on the central
drainage canal. A description of the activities and operations within these
separate basins is listed in Table 5-3. Outfalls 002, 006, and 007 receive the
runoff from mill buildings and surrounding paved areas from which the storm
sewers originate. Outfall 004 receives the runoff from the northeastern half
of the Open Hearth Furnaces, the railroad lines, and the Mold Preparation Shop
just to the south of the Open Hearths. The southwestern half of the Open
Hearths drains into the 010 basin. Outfalls 003 and 005 receive the drainage
from open exposed areas where slag was used to fill borrow pits. Some process
water was continuously flowing from the Open Hearths (004), the Slab Cooling
Process (006) and the Hot Strip Mills (007).
Drainage basins 008 and 009 contain buildings, ore conveyors and the sur-
rounding paved areas of che Blast Furnace and sinter Plants. Sampling poiut
-35-
-------
{ Obi
ELECT. FCE & CASTER
\
SLAB MILLS
(SLAB COOLING)
. PROCESS
WATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
005
SLAG DUMP
OPEN HEARTHS'
BLAST. FURNACE
SINTER PLANT
. AREA
;f; 000 SAMPLING LOC.
DRAINAGE BASIN
PLANT PERIMETER
SITE NO.2 PLAN
DRAINAGE BASIN AND SAMPLE
POINT LOCATIONS
NO.002 THRU N0.014
Figure 5-2: Plan - Site No. 2
-------
TABLE 5-3
DESCRIPTION OF INDIVIDUAL DRAINAGE BASINS SAMPLED
SITE 2
Basin
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
Activities and Operations
Diesel Repair Shop.
Slag Filled Borrow Area; Railroad tracks.
Mold Preparation Shop; northeast side of Open Hearth
Furnaces; Railroad tracks.
South end of Open Hearth Shop; Railroad tracks; Slag
Dump Area; Mold Preparation.
Hot mills; Slab cooling area; Slab mill; Billet mill.
Hot strip mills.
Blast furnace; Sinter Plant; Employee Parking; Ore
Conveyors.
Sinter Plant; Ore Conveyors; Roadways.
One half of Open Hearth Plant; Coke Plant; Coke yards;
Numerous Railroad lines; Coke By-Products Complex.
Coal storage.
Southern end of Coke Ovens - surface runoff .
Southern end of Coke Ovens - surface runoff .
Ladle Repair Shop; Railroad track area.
Area
(Hectares)
2.2
1.9
7.5
1.6
4.9
2.1
3.7
4.6
58.5
4.0
0.53
0.61
0.2
-37-
-------
008 was a manhole on a line leading directly into the river. Sampling point
009 was another manhole on a line upstream of 008. Even though most of the ore
storage areas were located adjacent to 008 and 009, little runoff from these
piles entered the storm sewers because the ore piles were permeable and situ-
ated on flat permeable ground.
Runoff from the coal storage area either percolated into the ground im-
mediately surrounding the coal piles or was collected in small ditches sepa-
rating the coal piles from the bordering roadway. In no case was the coal pile
runoff observed flowing off the plant property. Sample location Oil was one of
the small ditches bordering the storage area.
Drainage basin 010 was the largest of the thirteen sampled. Even though
drainage basins 012 and 013 are located within the bounds of basin 010, these
two basins empty into a small settling pond to the south and do not flow into
outfall 010. Outfall 014 runoff did lead into the storm sewer system termi-
nating at outfall 010. Basin 010 included half of the Open Hearths plus the
total storm sewer network surrounding the coke storage yards, the Coke Plant,
the Ladle Repair Shop and the Coke By-Products Complex. All these storm sewers
terminated in two 2.4 meter lines leading into the canal at the western end of
the site.
Basins 012 and 013 were local surface runoff areas on the south end of the
Coke Plant. The runoff was sampled at points just before it entered the set-
tling pond. Basin 014 was a 0.2 hectares area just north of the Ladle Repair
Shop. This basin was relatively flat and was made up of railroad lines leading
into the shop and road surface.
-38-
-------
5.2 Test Plan
A test plan was developed to attain the objective of quantifying the
pollutants associated with stormwater runoff from iron and steel mills. No
attempt was made to assess the effects of these pollutants on the receiving
water. The test plan was designed to determine:
1. Background conditions at each sampling location prior to a storm
event, i.e., dry weather flow conditions.
2. Volume of stormwater runoff and pollutant concentrations in the
runoff as a function of time for the storm event.
The following additional data were gathered:
1. Rainfall accumulation as a function of time for the storm event.
2. Dustfall accumulation between storms.
The sampling sites were located in the following areas considered to have
the highest potential for runoff problems:
1. Coal storage
2. Coke storage
3. Slag disposal
4. Iron ore and pellet storage
5. Coal and coke handling
Specific sampling sites were chosen which would be easily accessible and
which would provide representative samples. The sites chosen precluded sampling
of slag handling and disposal areas at both sites. Sample field data and cali-
bration sheets are included in Appendix A.
-39-
-------
5.2.1 Sice 1 Test Plan
The selection of sampling locations at Site 1 proved to be a relatively
easy task. The drainage basins were well-defined and weirs had been previously
installed in several of the basins. Basins to be sampled were selected, based
on the location of the areas/operations of concern to the program. Five basins
(005, 006, 009, 010, and Oil) each with a weir at its outfall were chosen.
(See Figure 5-1 for location of basins and outfalls.) In addition, a drainage
ditch in the coal storage area was chosen as a sampling location. A typical
sampling equipment installation used in this program is shown in Figure 5-3.
The equipment included an ISCO Sampling System and a Climatronics Electronic
Weather Station (EWS). The ISCO Sampling System includes an ISCO Model 1680
Sequential Sampler, an ISCO Model 1700 Flow Meter and an ISCO Model 1710 Digital
Printer. The ISCO Model 1680 Sequential Sampler collects samples automatically
at a pre-set volume and frequency. Sampling can be triggered either by an
internal clock or by an external flow meter. This piece of equipment facilitates
sampling and allows workers to perform other tasks at the same time samples are
being collected. Setting the controls for flow-based sampling results in
frequent sampling at peak flow during a storm event. The ISCO Model 1700 Flow
Meter indicates the water level in the weir with a submerged plastic tube which
continuously emits bubbles just upstream of the weir. As the water level
fluctuates, back-pressure changes in the tubing are accurately measured with a
sensitive electronic transducer. An optically encoded function generator disc,
specific for each size and type of-weir, converts water level to flow rate.
-40-
-------
Figure 5-3: Typical ISCO Sampling System with Electronic Rain Gauge
-41-
-------
5.2.1.1 Outfall 005
Outfall 005 discharges via a concrete weir box located in an open
drainage ditch and equipped with a 90° V-notch weir (0.30m head height). Sam-
pling equipment at this location included an ISCO Sampling System and a Clima-
tronics Electronic Weather Station (EWS). For Outfall 005, a special combination
disc (90° V-notch weir-0.30m head height/6.1m rectangular weir without end
constrictions) was used to measure the highly variable storm flows.
Dry and wet weather samples were to be. collected on a flow basis at Out-
fall 005. The flow meter was set to trigger the sampler to collect 500 ml of
sample whenever 3780 liters of water had passed over the weir. It was estimated
that this sample rate would provide ten-minute samples at peak flow during a
storm event. The parameters to be analyzed at this outfall were total sus-
pended solids (TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS).
The ISCO Model 1710 Digital Printer provides a permanent typed record of
totalized flow at pre-selected time intervals. The Climatronics Electronic
Weather Station (EWS) was to be used only with the tipping bucket rain gage and
a Rustrak recorder. The bucket tips whenever 0.25mm of rain accumulates, and
the rainfall is recorded automatically.
5.2.1.2 Outfall 006
Outfall 006 is a 0.91m storm sewer discharging to an open ditch which
follows the western boundary line of the plant. The outlet is equipped with a
90° V-notch weir (13cm head height). The ISCO Sampling System consisting of
the Model 1680 Water Sampler, Model 1700 Flow Meter, and Model 1710 Digital
Printer was mounted on a metal walkway beside the outfall pipe. A plastic rain
-42-
-------
wedge was strapped to one of the rail posts on the metal walkway. No dry
weather flow was expected from Outfall 006 with the exception of water peri-
odically flushed from the Direct Reduction Plant. This flow was to be sampled
on a flow basis to be determined in the field. During storm events, the sam-
pler was set to collect 500 ml of sample whenever 378 liters of water had
passed over the weir, resulting in ten-minute samples at peak flow. The pol-
lutants to be analyzed at this outfall were TSS and TDS.
The plastic rain wedge was to be read periodically during rainstorms and
rainfall accumulation recorded.
5.2.1.3 Outfall 009
Outfall 009 discharges over a 90° V-notch weir (13cm head height)
located in the inlet of a 1.2m closed pipe which leads to the tidal river. The
ISCO Sampling System and a plastic rain wedge were mounted on the metal walkway
above the pipe inlet. A combination disc (90° V-notch weir-13cm head height/
1.2m rectangular weir without end constrictions) was used to measure the highly
variable storm flows.
Dry and wet weather samples were to be collected on a flow basis at Outfall
009. The sampler was prepared to collect 2000 ml of sample whenever 378 liters
of water had passed over the weir, resulting in ten-minute samples at peak flow
during a storm event. The pollutants to be analyzed at this outfall were TSS,
TDS, total iron, dissolved iron, phenols, cyanide, and ammonia. Total iron
analyses were to be alternated with dissolved iron analyses, and phenols with
cyanide. For example, one group of four sample bottles would be analyzed for
total iron and phenols, and the next group would be analyzed for dissolved iron,
and cvanide.
-43-
-------
The plastic rain wedge was to be read periodically during a storm event and
the rainfall accumulation recorded.
5.2.1.4 Outfall 010
Outfall 010 discharges from a concrete structure placed in a manhole
of a 0.46m storm sewer line which drains to the tidal river. It was equipped
with a 90° V-notch weir (13cm head height). The ISCO Sampling System was installed
on a wooden platform constructed just above the weir. A plastic rain wedge was
attached to a fence post in the vicinity of the manhole. A combination disc
(90° V-notch weir-13cm head height/1.5m rectangular weir without end constric-
tions) was used to measure the highly variable storm flows.
Dry and wet weather samples were to be taken on a flow basis. The sampler
was set to collect 2000 ml whenever 378 liters of water had passed over the weir.
The pollutants to be analyzed at this outfall were the same as those at Outfall
009, with the addition of sulfates. Pollutants were alternated as they were at
Outfall 009.
The plastic rain wedge was to be read periodically during a storm event and
the rainfall accumulation recorded.
5.2,1.5 Outfall Oil
Outfall Oil discharges via a concrete weir box placed in an open drain-
age ditch. A metal walkway and sampling platform provide for easy access to a
0.61m rectangular weir with end constrictions. The ISCO Sampling System was
mounted on a metal walkway. A Belfort Rain Gage, a self-contained batter operated
instrument, was mounted on a flat area of land in the vicinity of the concrete
weir box.
-44-
-------
Again, dry and wet weather samples were to be collected on a flow basis.
The ISCO Sampling System was programmed to collect 2000 ml whenever 3780 liters
of water had passed over the weir. The pollutants to be analyzed at this out-
fall were the same as those at Outfall 009, with the same procedure for alter-
nating pollutants.
5.2.1.6 Coal Pile Ditch
Grab samples were to be obtained during rain storms from a drainage
ditch which runs along the coal storage area in the vicinity of Outfall Oil. No
dry weather flow was expected in this drainage ditch.
5.2.1.7 Pustfall Sampling
Several flat locations were to be chosen for dustfall sampling which
would be clear of obstructions and be near the test drainage basins. These
locations would be marked off in 0.6 m by 0.6 m squares, one of which would be
sampled daily from each site except during storm events, in which case a sample
would not be collected.
5.2.2 Site 2 Test Plan
The selection of sampling locations and the installation of equipment proved
to be a more difficult task at Site 2. Drainage basins had not been previously
defined nor were there any permanent flow measuring devices. This necessitated
the installation of weirs and platforms on which to mount equipment at several of
the outfalls. The selection and subsequent maintenance of sampling locations
was further complicated because of the vastness of the plant. A summary of
the outfalls chosen is presented in Table 5-4.
See Figure 5-2 for outfall locations.
-45-
-------
TABLE 5-4
SUMMARY.OF SAMPLING SITES
SITE 2
Outfall
002
I
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
* 010A
* 010B
Oil
012
013
014
015
I
Sample Collection
Method
Grab
Grab
ISCO Sampler with
weir
Grab
ISCO Sampler with
weir
ISCO Sampler with
weir
Grab
Grab
ISCO Sampler
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Flow
Method
Bucket and stop-
watch
Bucket and stop-
watch
ISCO flow meter
and printer
Bucket and stop-
watch
ISCO flow meter
and printer
ISCO flow meter
and printer
None
None
Gurley meter
None
*
None
None
None
None
Sampling
Schedule for
Storm Events
Every storm event
(when possible)
Every 'Storm event
(when possible)
low priority
Sample 2 of
sites 004,006,5, 007
for each storm
Every storm event
(when possible)
low priority*
Same as 004
Same as 004
Every storm event
(when possible)
Every storm event
(when possible)
Every storm event
Every storm event
Sample 2 of sites
012,013, & 014
for each storm
Same as 012
Same as 012 & 013
Every storm event
l
Parameters to be
Analyzed
TSS, TDS
TSS, TDS
TSS, TDS
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
TSS, TDS
TSS, TDS
TSS, TDS
TSS, TDS
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
TSS, TDS
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Metals
TSS, TDS
Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
Phenols, Ammonia,
Cyanide
TSS, TDS, Sulfate,
Phenols, Ammonia,
Total Fe, Dis-
solved Fe, Metals
TSS, TDS, Phenols,
Sulfates, Ammonia,
Total Fe, Dis-
solved Fe, Metals,
Cyanide
TSS, TDS, Phenols,
Sulfates, Ammonia,
Total Fe, Dis-
solved Fe, Metals,
Cyanide
TSS, TDS, Total Fe
Dissolved Fe
TSS, TDS, Phenols,
Sulfates, Ammonia,
Total Fe, Dis-
solved Fe, Cyanidel
''Two separate identical sampling locations.
-46-
-------
5.2.2.1 Outfalls 002. 003 and 005
Outfalls 002, 003 and 005 are pipes which discharge to the central
canal. Grab samples were to be taken at these locations. Flow data were to be
(14)
determined by the free fall velocity (California Pipe) method. Table 5-4
lists the parameters to be analyzed at each outfall.
5.2.2.2 Outfall 004
Outfall 004 is a 1.2m concrete pipe which also discharges to the cen-
tral canal. In order to provide continuous flow measurements and facilitate
sample collection, a portable 90° V-notch weir plate (25cm head height) was in-
stalled in the pipe. In addition, the ISCO Sampling System and the Climatronics
EWS were mounted on a wooden platform bolted into the top of the pipe. Dry and
wet weather samples were to be collected on a time basis. Dry weather sampling
was to be performed at 30 minute intervals over an eight hour day. During a
storm event, samples were to be taken at 15 minute intervals from the beginning
of the storm through peak storm intensity to ensure that any possible "first
flush" effects were measured. As the intensity of a storm event waned, the
sampling interval was to be extended to 30 minutes. This sampling was to
continue until the base flow returned to its pre-storm level.
5.2.2.3 Outfall 006
Outfall 006 is a l.lm concrete pipe which also leads to the central
-canal. As with Outfall 004, a wooden platform was bolted into the top of the
pipe upon which the ISCO Sampling System was mounted. A 25cm rectangular portable
weir was installed in the pipe.
-47-
-------
There is a large dry weather flow at this outfall which originates from the
slab cooling area. The sampling frequency for both dry and wet weather sampling
was the same as Outfall 004.
5.2.2.4 Outfall 007
Outfall 007 is a 0.77m pipe, discharging to the central canal. As with
Outfalls 004 and 006, a wooden platform was bolted onto the top of the pipe upon
which was mounted the ISCO Sampling System. A portable 90° V-notch weir (13cm
head height) was installed in the pipe. Dry and wet weather samples were to be
collected at this outfall at the same intervals as Outfalls 004 and 006.
5.2.2.5 Outfalls 008 and 009
Outfalls 008 and 009 are located in manholes in the southwestern part
of the mill (See" Figure 5-2). Flow measurements were not taken at Outfall 008 be-
cause it is a junction manhole. A Gurley meter and a staff gage mounted in the
manhole were to be used to determine flow at Outfall 009. The Gurley meter is a
cable suspended current meter which is used to measure the velocity of the water
in the pipe. Flow in the pipe can be calculated using this velocity, the diameter
of the pipe, and the. stage reading from the staff gage. Samples were to be col-
lected at both outfalls with the ISCO Model 1680 Water Sampler. Sampling frequency
called for 30 minute samples from the beginning of the storm event through peak
storm intensity to ensure that the initial effects of the storm (including any
possible "first flush" effects) were measured. As the storm waned, this interval
would be extended to one hour and would be continued throughout post-rainfall sam-
pling. Dry weather samples were to be collected hourly from each outfall. The
schedule also called for sampling at Outfalls 008 and 009 to be alternated with each
storm.
-48-
-------
5.2.2.6 Outfall 010
This location includes two outfalls, 010A and 01OB, which are two 2.4m
pipes discharging to the west canal. A wooden platform was built on top of Out-
fall 010B. An ISCO Model 1680 Water Sampler and a Belfort Rain Gage were mounted
on this platform. The flow in these pipes (approximately 80% full) was too high
to install a weir and flew meter. A Gurley current meter and staff gages were
used to measure flow.
Dry weather samples were to be collected at each outfall on an hourly basis.
Wet weather samples were to be collected at 30 minute intervals from the beginning
of a storm through peak storm intensity and lengthened to hourly at the end of the
storm and throughout post-rainfall sampling.
5.2.2.7 Outfall Oil
Outfall Oil is a small drainage ditch located in the coal storage area
(See Figure 5-2) on the western side of the plant.
Wet weather samples were to be collected with sampler plugs which would be
emptied every 15 minutes during a storm event. These plugs are inserted in the
ground, flush with the surface. No dry weather flow was expected in this drainage
ditch. A plastic rain wedge was mounted on a fence post in the vicinity of the
drainage ditch.
5.2.2.8 Outfalls 012 and 013
Outfalls 012 and 013 are both located near the southern end of the
coke ovens. Outfall 012 is a 0.30m pipe which discharges to a pond on the mill
property. The pipe comes from,a storm junction box. The box is below ground and
only about 0.46m deep. A portable 90° V-notch weir (8cm head height) was installed
-49-
-------
in the pipe. Outfall 013 is an open drainage ditch leading from the coke bat-
tery to the same pond. A plywood weir was constructed and installed in the
ditch. An instrument platform was built to house the ISCO Sampling System and
a plastic rain wedge. The same platform was to be used for each outfall.
Sampling was to be alternated between the outfalls with each storm.
Dry weather flow was not expected at either outfall. Wet weather samples
were to be collected every 30 minutes from the beginning of the storm event
through peak storm intensity and extended to one hour as the storm waned.
5.2.2.9 Outfall 014
Outfall 014 is a small, open gutter leading into the side of a man-
hole box through a 0.33m corrugated pipe. A portable 90° V-notch weir (8cm
head height) was placed at the entrance to the pipe with the overflow going
into the pipe. An instrument platform was constructed and placed on top of the
manhole to house the ISCO Sampling System and a plastic rain wedge.
There was no dry weather flow expected at this outfall, and thus only wet
weather samples were collected, with the same frequency as Outfalls 012 and
013.
5.2.2.10 Location 015
Location 015 is a small sampling pump used to sample the tidal river.
Samples were to be taken periodically at this location whenever dry and wet
weather sampling took place. The river water was sampled because it was used as
process water and was a contributor to dry weather flow at several outfalls.
Any difference in river quality would have to be accounted for in differences
between dry and wet weather samples.
-50-
-------
5.2.2.11 Dustfall Sampling
As at Site 1, several locations were to be chosen for dustfall sam-
pling which would be clear of obstructions and be near the test drainage basins.
These sites were to be sectioned off in the same manner as at Site 1 and a
different section swept daily from each location except in the case of a storm
event, when samples would not be collected.
5.2.3 Implementation of Test Plan at Site 1
A number of modifications to the test plan were required to obtain meaning-
ful samples during the field survey. These were occasioned by the magnitude of
the rainfall and some unforeseen physical conditions. With the exception of the
changes noted in this section, the field survey followed the test plan described
in Section 5.2.1.
Samples were collected on a time basis (hourly) during the first rainfall
event (3/24/77) at Outfalls 005, 010, and Oil rather than on a flow basis be-
cause the steady all-day drizzle precluded a "first flush" effect. Sampling on
a time basis provided more samples than would have been collected on a flow
basis during this storm which caused only a slight increase in the water level
over the weir at these three outfalls.
Outfall 006 shewed no runoff on 3/24/77 and hence no samples were obtained.
Runoff at this outfall was detected only during the storms of 3/27-3/28/77,
and 4/16/77, but was of such low flow and short duration that automatic sampling
was abandoned and a few grab samples were obtained.
Outfall 009 showed the effects of tidal backflow from the river and samples
could not be obtained at the weir during any of the storms. Surface runoff did
occur from the area and it drained to the snail pond on the upstream side of the
-51-
-------
weir but samples could not be taken in the pond due to contamination from the
tidal backflow. Grab samples were taken from a small stream of road runoff and
a stormwater drain. Tidal backflow also occurred at Outfall 010 during the
beginning of the 3/27-3/28/77 storm and delayed the start of sampling. Runoff
was not detected during either of the small storms of 3/31/77 and 4/4/77 at
Outfall 010 and hence no samples were obtained. With the exception of the
above storms at Outfall 010, all of the storms at Outfall 005, 010, and Oil
were sampled on a flow basis.
Due to the low number of samples taken during storm events at Outfall 005,
the ISCO Sampling System was reset to collect samples whenever 1890 liters of
water had passed over the weir instead of 3780 liters. This was employed
during the storm of 4/16/77 and resulted in more samples being collected.
Dry weather sampling was conducted on a time basis (hourly) at Outfalls 005,
010, and Oil instead of a flow basis as planned. This resulted in the collection
of a larger number of samples.
The test plan originally called for a dustfall sampling site to be set up
in each of the drainage basins. Due to the scarcity of flat paved areas free
from obstructions such as tall buildings and heavy traffic, only one area was
found suitable for dustfall sampling. This was in the vicinity of the coal
and coke handling operations (Basin 010). Three sampling sites were set up in
this area.
5.2.4 Implementation of Test Plan at Site 2
As with Site 1, several modifications of the test plan were necessary once
the field survey was underway. These dealt similarly with the method of sample
collection and flow measurement at each outfall and are discussed below. The
sample collection and flow measurement methods used are shown in Table 5-4.
The major difficulty encountered at this site was obtaining a rainfall of
sufficient intensity and duration to create surface runoff. Most of the plant
-52-
-------
area was built on level, semi-permeable ground and, in order for surface runoff
to occur, either an intense thunderstorm or a steady all-day rain resulting in
substantial (greater than 2.54cm) rainfall was necessary. This occurred only
twice during the entire field survey.
The planned sample collection method for several of the outfalls had to be
modified for various reasons. The ISCO Model 1680 Water Samplers could not be
used at Outfalls 008 and 009 because of possible damage due to heavy machinery
traffic in the vicinity. Grab samples were collected periodically at these out-
falls during both dry and wet weather sampling periods. Sampler plugs were not
used at Outfall Oil. The location of the drainage ditch and manpower constraints
made grab sampling easier. The ISCO Water Samplers were not used at Outfalls 012,
013, and 014 because the short duration of surface runoff at each outfall favored
grab sampling. Only a few samples were obtained from Outfalls 003 and 005 due
to the low flows of very short duration at these sites.
In addition to these changes in sample collection methodology at several
outfalls, changes were also made in flow measurement. Instead of using the free
fall velocity (California pipe) method at Outfalls 002, 003, and 005, a bucket
of known volume and a stopwatch were employed due to the short duration of
runoff at each site and manpower constraints.
As at Site 1, dustfall sampling was limited due to a lack of suitable
locations. Sampling sites (Basins 009 and 013) were set up in the vicinity of
the slag disposal, coke storage, and iron ore storage areas, but it was impos-
sible to set up sites which would provide representative samples in the coal
storage and coal and coke handling areas.
-53-
-------
5.3 Chemical Laboratory Procedures
No on-site chemical analyses were performed at either test site. All
samples were composited and split into volumes required for the analysis of each
parameter. All samples were preserved in accordance with the Manual of Methods
(10)
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. These preservation methods are
shown in Table 5-5. Samples were shipped to the TRC corporate laboratory for
analysis.
Prior to shipping the samples to the laboratory, the following information
was recorded on each bottle label and on a sample log sheet (see Appendix A for
sample log sheets):
Sample number
Sample location
Date and time of collection
Parameters to be analyzed
Date and time of preservation
In addition, because of transit time, sample analyses for cyanide, phenols,
and ammonia could not be accomplished within the time limitations of the standard
presentation and analysis. The following procedure which was developed by the
Analytical Quality Control Chief, EPA Region I was used for these samples. The
samples were split and one-half of the sample was "spiked" with an appropriate
standard (cyanide, phenols, and ammonia) while the other half was left "un-
spiked." Both samples were then sent to the laboratory for parallel analysis.
A comparison of each "spiked" sample with its "unspiked" mate would show the
degradation rate incurred during shipping for each of the three parameters.
-54-
-------
TABLE 5-5
PRESERVATION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
USED FOR SAMPLE ANALYSIS
Parameters
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS)
Total Iron
(d)
Dissolved Iron
Phenols
Cyanide (Total)
Ammonia
Sulfate
(a)
Preservative
Cool to 4°C
Cool to 4°C
HN03 to pH < 2
Filter (0.45 y Filter);
HN03 to pH. < 2
Collect in glass only;
Cool to 4°C; H PO to pH<4;
1.0 g CuS04/l
Cool to 4°C;
NaOH to pH 12
Cool to 4°C;
H2SO to pH < 2
Cool to 4°C
Concentration
Technique
None
None
Evaporation
Evaporation
Colored end product
extracted with CHC1-
Reflux distillation
into NaOH
None
None
Analytical^)
Method
Filtration; Gravimetry
Filtration; Evaporation;
Gravimetry
(c)
Atomic Absorption;
Air-Acetylene Flame
(c)
Atomic Absorption;
Air-Acetylene Flame
Distillation;
4-Aminoantipyrine Method
Color ime trie Method
(Chloramine-T)
Distillation at pH 9.5;
Nesslerization
Turbid ime try
I
Ul
(a) All samples preserved in accordance with the Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (EPA 1974). (10)
(b) Analyzed in accordance with procedures described in Standard Methods fof the Examination of Water
and Wastewater .
(c) Strong acid digestion.
(d) Filtered on site.
-------
Upon receiving the samples for analysis, the Supervisor of the Chemical
Laboratory checked to insure agreement between the labeled shipping bottles and
the accompanying sample log sheets. An analysis number was then assigned to the
set of samples and the samples were scheduled for work-up by laboratory chemists
and technicians.
All chemical analyses were performed according to procedures described in
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.^ The procedures
utilized are presented in Table 5-5.
Once analysis of the samples was completed, the final results and raw data
were returned to the Supervisor who reviewed them for accuracy. The Supervisor
then reported all final results to the project manager. A file was maintained
by the Supervisor which contains all pertinent data for the specific project
such as final results, calculations and project memoranda.
5.4 Field Survey Results
5.4.1 Site 1 Results
Table 5-6 summarizes the storm event data for Site 1.
Out of the five storm events sampled at Site 1, only the storm of March 31
approximated the high intensity, short duration rainfall typical of this semi-
tropical area. From historical observations of previous storm events at Site 1,
it was expected that the total rainfall at various locations around the plant
would differ over the course of a storm. This uneven distribution of rainfall
was never observed during the field program. During the sampling program, the
rainfall was typically a steady drizzle with occasional heavy downpours uniformly
distributed over the entire plant. In all five events, rain wedge totals closely
corresponded to the recording rain gages.
-56-
-------
TABLE 5-6
STORM EVENT DATA
SITE 1
MARCH - APRIL, 1977
Date
3/24/77
3/27-
3/28/77
3/31/77
4/4/77
4/16/77
Storm Beginning
0500
2000 (3/27)
1410
0200
0430
Storm Ending
2130
0200 (3/28)
1430
0500
2000
Total Rainfall
cm
0.84
1.42
0.20
0.36
0.71
(inches)
(0.33)
(0.56)
(0.08)
(0.14)
(0.28)
Average
Rainfall
Intensity
cm/hr
0.05
0.23
0.61
0.13
0.05
(in/hr)
(0.02)
(0.09)
(0.24)
(0.05)
(0.02)
Maximum
Rainfall
Intensity
cm/hr
0.13
0.61
1.07
0.41
0.56
(in/hr)
(.05)
(0.24)
(0.42)
(0.16)
(0.22)
I
Ul
-------
Table 5-7 summarizes the flow data from Site 1. Time-weighted average flow
data plus the range of flow for both dry and wet weather sampling are listed.
The dry weather flows at Outfall 010 were not measurable; the water levels over
the weir were essentially zero except for a small trickle which volumetrically
was negligible. Wet flow data were limited at outfall 010 due to occasional
tidal backflows. At outfalls 005 and Oil wet flows were significantly higher
than dry flows.
Tables 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, and 5-12 all refer to the pollutant data
measured at Site 1. The range (Table 5-8), the mean (Table 5-9) and the average
mass loadings (Table 5-10 through 5-12) of pollutants show the obvious differ-
ences between dry and wet weather conditions. Average mass loadings of pol-
lutants for dry weather conditions were calculated by multiplying the mean
concentrations value measured during each storm by the time-weighted average
flows from Table 5-7. Average mass loadings for wet weather conditions were
calculated by multiplying the time-weighted average concentrations by the time-
weighted average flows, both determined from the concentration and flow curves
for each rainfall event. The time-weighted average wet weather flows pertain to
the time over which each parameter was sampled and may vary for the different
parameters within each storm event. In some instances, due to lack of data,
straight average concentrations, or in some cases, one data point, were used to
calculate wet weather average mass loadings. When no flow data were measured,
mass loadings were not calculated.
At all outfalls except the coal pile drainage ditch, the mean dissolved
solids were higher than the suspended solids. At outfalls 005, 010, and Oil,
where automatic sampling was performed, the dissolved solids were consistently
higher than the suspended solids, often by at least one order of magnitude. Tha
reaction of dissolved solids varied with each outfall and each storm event. In
-58-
-------
TABLE 5-7
DRY VS WET FLOWS
SITE 1
MARCH - APRIL, 1977
i
Ui
VO
I
OUTFAI.L
DATE
3/24
3/27 - 23
3/29
3/31
4/4
4/5
4/16
4/18
DR
Avg. Flow
Ipm(gpm)
473
(125)
227
(60)
216
(57)
005
Y
Range
Ipm(gpm)
.
435-568
(115-150)
227
(60)
76-254
(20-67)
W
Avg. Flow
Ipm(gpra)
1056
(279)
6083
(1607)
401
(106)
2112
(558)
3456
(913)
ET
Range
Ipm(gpra)
227-2233
(60-590)
454-15026
(120-3970)
227-984
(60-260)
568-4542
(150-1200)
228-15900
(60-4200)
0
W
Avg. Flow
Ipro(gpro)
12.5
(3.3)
16.0
(4.2)
ND«=)
ND(c)
13.3
(3.5)
10
Range
Ipm(gpoi)
0 - 29.1
(0 - 7.7)
0 - 67.0
(0 - 17.7)
ND(c>
ND«>
0 - 49.02
(0 - 13.0)
DR
Avg . Flow
ipm(gpra)
38
(10)
3.4
(0.9)
87
(23)
01
Range
Ipm(gpm)
27-53
(7-14)
0-13.2
(0-3.5)
76-106
(20-28)
1
W
Avg. Flo-
Ipm(gpm)
189
(50)
708
(187)
405
(107)
170
(45)
583
(154)
T
Range
Inm(gpm)
45 - 534
(12-141)
38 - 2203
(10 - 582)
95-939
(25-248)
15-367
(4-97)
83-1374
(22-363)
(a) No flow data were taken at Outfalls 006 and 009, nor at the coal pile drainage, ditch.
(b) There was no measurable dry flow at 010 during the program.
(c) ND - No flow data were obtained.
(d) Flow values are time weighted averages for the entire event.
-------
TABLE 5-8
RANGE OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AT THE
SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT SITE 1
MARCH - APRIL, 1977
o
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Phenols
Cyanide (Tol.cil)
Ammonia
Sul fate
Outfall 005
Dry
4-31
327-463
Wet
11-113
238-964
Range
Outfall 006(l>)
Dry
Wot
1 1-676
200-1501
of Pollutant .Concentrations, mg/i
Outfall 009A(a)t(b)
Dry
Wet
156-951
376-1316
18-51
o.io(c)
0.04-0.09
n.d.-0.03(d)
0.23-3.5
Outfall 010
Dry
4-649
2007-5438
1 .1-8.3
0.1-0.6
16-34
n.d.-0.99(d)
54-96
400-1580
Wet
10-12X2
661-4993
1.2-3.6
0.1-0.2
0.02-1.1
n.d.(d>
3.6-73
180-490
Outfall Oil
Dry
7-42
668-1049
1.1-2.7
0.10(c)
0.02-0.68
n.d.«»
0.57-26
Wet
9-1.51
427-1196
0.96-5.8
0.10-0.30
0.01-0.52
n.d.-0.01(d)
0.65-28
Coal Plle(b)
11 ry
Wet
1116-9559
1419-2974
34-44
0.50(C)
.0.13-0.85
n.d.-0.17(d>
27-84
(a)
(b)
(c)
(I)
Road runoff nl 009.
No dry samples obtained.
Only one value obtained.
n.d. -not detectable - detectable limit = 0.001 Dig/1.
-------
TABLE 5-9
MEAN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS, IN mg/«, AT SITE 1
MARCH - APRIL, 1977
Outfall
Pollutant
TSS
IDS
Total Iron
Dissolved
Iron
Phenols
Cyanide
(Total)
Ammonia
Sulfate
005
Dry
15
396
Wet
45
541
006 («)
Dry
Wet
264
762
009 (a \
Dry
Wet
505
745
32.4
0.1
0.06
0.01
2.1
010
Dry
84
3078
3.3
0.4
25
0.5
73
718
Wet
184
2158
2.4
0.1
0.37
_(b)
43
312
Oil
Dry
18
868
1.9
0.1
0.13
_(b)
9.1
Wet
35
919
2.6
0.2
0.086
0.002
3.4
Coal Pile Drainage Ollcl/a*
Dry
Wet
4188
2289
39.3
_
0.39
_(b)
56
(a) No dry samples collected.
(b) Several non-detectable values were also obtained.
-------
TABLE 5-10
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
DRY VS . WET WEATHER
MARCH - APRIL, 1977
OUTFALL 005 - SITE 1
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
3/24 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone.,
ng/1
39
938
Avg.
Flow,
Ipa
(gpm)
1200
(317)
1200
(317)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
2.82
(6.2)
67.5
(149)
3/27-28 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone.,
mg/1
48
332
Avg.
Flow,
Ipn
(RP»>
3845
(1016)
3847
(1016)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
11.1
(24.4)
76.6
(168.5)
3/29 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone. ,
mg/1
16
353
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
473
(125)
473
(125)
Avg.
Mass
Loading ,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.45
(0.99)
10.0
(22.0)
3/31 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone. ,
mg/1
38
581
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
401
(106)
401
(106)
Avg.
Mats
Loading,
(Ib/hr)
0.91
(2.0)
14.0
(30.8)
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solid*
4/4 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone.,
mg/1
37
669
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpn)
2434
(643)
2434
(643)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
5.46
(12.0)
97.7
(214.9)
4/5 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone . ,
mg/1
17
443
Avg.
Flow,
Ipn,
(gpm)
227
(60)
227
(60)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.23
(0.51)
6.0
(13.2)
4/16 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone. ,
mg/1
75
371
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
4205
(1111)
4205
(1111)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
19.0
(41.8)
93.6
(206.0)
4/18 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone.,
ng/1
14
409
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpa)
227
(60)
227
(60)
Avg.
Masa
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.19
(0.42)
5.6
(12.3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Average Mass Loadings for wet xv-eather calculated by multiplying
the time weighted average concentration by the time weighted
average flow, which were determined from the flow and concentra-
tion curves for each event.
Average wet weather flows are time-weighted flows for the sam-
pling period for each parameter. These may vary for the dif-
ferent parameters within each storm.
Average Mass Loadings for dry weather calculated by multiplying
the straight average concentration by the time-weighted average
flow from Table 5-7.
-62-
-------
TABLE 5-11
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MARCH - APRIL, 1977
OUTFALL 010 - SITE 1
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Phenol
Ammonia
Sulfate
3/24 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone.,
mg/1
76
2170
2.61
0.46
50
285
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
12.7
(3.36)
12.7
(3.36)
12.7
(3.36)
12.7
(3.36)
4.43
(1.17)
14.7
(3.88)
Avg,.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(lb/hr)
o7os
(0.13)
1.65
(3.64)
0.002
(0.004)
0.0004
(0.0009)
0.013
(0.03)
0.25
(0.55)
3/27-28 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone . ,
mg/1
1717
- 150
0.119
0.559
41.0
224
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
34.4
(9.1)
34.4
(9.1)
"34.4
(9.1)
34.4
(9.1)
. 34.4
(9,1)
34.4
(9.1)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
' kg/hr
(lb/hr)
3.54
(7.80)
0.31
(0.68)
' 0.0002
(0.0005)
0.001
(0.003)
0.08
(0.19)
5.46
(1.02)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Average Mass Loadings for wet weather calculated by multiplying the time weighted
average concentration by the time weighted average flow, which were determined
from the flow and concentration curves for each event.
Average wet weather flows are time-weighted average flows for the sampling period
for each parameter. These may vary for the different parameters within each
storm.
Average Mass Leadings for dry weather calculated by multiplying the straight
average concentration from Appendix B by the time-weighted average flow from
Table 5-7.
-63-
-------
x TABLE 5-12
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS ^'
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MARCH - APRIL, 1977
OUTFALL Oil - SITE 1
Date
Tarameter
Total
Suspended
Sol ids
Total
Dissolved
Solids
Total
Iron
Dissolved
Iron
Phenol
Ammonia
3/24 (Wet)
Av |> .
Cone . ,
mg/1
11
1343
0.98*
D.I**
0.117
1.4''one valu--: only
(a)
(b)
Average Mass Loadings for wet weather calculated by multiplying tin- time weighted average
concentrat ion by the I line weighted average flow, which were determined from the flow and
concentration curves for each event.
Average wet weather flows are time-weighted average flows for the sampling period for
each pai-anutor. Theny may vary for the different parameters ulthln each storm.
Average Mass Loadings for dry weather calculated by multiplying the straight average
concentration from the time-weighted average ilow from Table 5-7.
-------
Figure 5-4 the dissolved solids at outfall 005 appear to correspond directly to
both the flow and rainfall intensity curves but this was not always the case at
the other outfalls. After plotting all the dissolved solids data and comparing
these ctirves to the rainfall intensity and flow curves, no conclusive statement
can be made concerning the reaction of dissolved solids to a storm event.
The reaction of total suspended solids to a storm event also varied with
each outfall and event. In a few cases, suspended solids correspond directly to
rainfall intensity and flow,- but in most instances, as shown in Figure 5-4,
there was a time lag between the rainfall intensity peaks and suspended solids
concentration peaks.
The pollutant data from outfall 010 do show some interesting results. As
indicated in Tables 5-8 and 5-9, the dry weather concentrations of total dissolved
solids, total iron, dissolved iron, phenols, cyanide, ammonia and sulfates are
greater than the wet weather concentrations. The mean measured values under dry
conditions of 25 mg/1 for phenols, 73 mg/1 for ammonia and 718 mg/1 for sulfates
are quite high. These concentrations were brought to the attention of the mill
personnel who are further investigating the results. During runoff conditions
these levels were reduced significantly. The stormwater runoff at outfall 010,
therefore, appeared to dilute these pollutants.
This same dilution effect was observed for phenols and ammonia concentra-
tions at outfall Oil, although the levels are much less than those measured at
outfall 010. The mass loading data (Table 5-12) indicate that the dry weather
loading is at least one order of magnitude less than the wet weather loading of
phenols. In most cases the same is true for the ammonia loadings.
-65-
-------
TSS
en
E
o
5
120
100
80
o
1 60
LU
I 4°
< 20 -
o
o
a
0
700
600
500
400
300
200
nr
TSS AVERAGE LOADING RATE
18.9 KILOGRAHS/HR.
41.7 POUNOS/HR.
i I I i i i i i
TDS
IDS AVERAGE LOADING RATE
93.7 KH.OGRAMS/HR.
206 POUNDS/HR. .
TDS-371 mg/1 AVG.
I I
. i i i i
3.302
2.794
J 2.286
d T-778.
166.54
0.13
_ 0.11
5 0.09
_, 0.07
i
£ 0.05
»
^ 0.03
0.01
52,000
-
I
I^MB
I
1 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1
SITE 1 OUTFALL 005
STORM 4/16/77
TOTAL RAINFALL 0.28 INCHES
LJ > it t i i i
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
TIME
FIGURE 5-4: OUTFALL 005 - SITE 1 TSS & TOS CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS
TIME COMPARED TO BASIN FLOW AND RAINFALL INTENSITY
-66-
-------
From the limited data taken at outfalls 010 and Oil, the concentrations of
phenols exhibited a consistent pattern. It appears that increases and decreases
in phenols loading in these drainage basins correspond directly to increases and
decreases in rainfall intensity with very little time lag.
In three cases out of five, ammonia showed a general trend of decreasing
concentration over the period of the storm. It appears that the stormwater
acted to dilute the ammonia over the course of the storm rather than cause a
"first flush" effect. In no case was a "first flush" effect observed.
Detailed sample results for all outfalls for Site 1 are presented in
Appendix B.
Dustfall samples from drainage basin 010 were collected and analyzed for
dry weight. Calculations performed on the results determined the average daily
accumulation of dust in this basin where coal transfer was the major activity.
The values ranged from 35.6 milligrams per day per square meter in a position
directly under a coal conveyor to 1.1 milligrams per day per square meter in an
area on the perimeter of the coal transfer area.
The next analytical step was to extrapolate the average dustfall accumulation
over the entire basin and then to compare this total accumulation to the mass
loading ot" solids during a rainfall event. The average total accumulation of
dust in basin 010 was calculated at 0.19 kilograms per day. Comparing the
hourly dustfall accumulation to the hourly mass loading of solids during a
rainfall event, the dustfall percentage falls between 0.2% and 0.5%. Even
comparing the total dustfall accumulations over the three dry days prior to the
3/27-28 storm, the dustfall percentage is still only 2.49% of the total solids
loading.
-67-
-------
A summary of the dustfall data is included in Appendix B. Sufficient dust-
fall samples were not collected at Site 1 so that a true quantitative analysis
could be run over a series of storm events. From the limited data gathered,
however, it is apparent that the amount of dustfall surrounding a raw materials
handling area will have a minimal effect on the total solids pollutant loading
from stormwater runoff.
5.4.2 Site 2 Results
Only two storm events occurred during the field program (May-June, 1977)
which were of sufficient magnitude to produce surface runoff. Data from these
events are summarized in Table 5-13.
The first storm event started as a steady downpour which then tapered off
to a drizzle with occasional heavy showers. Surface runoff was evident at all
of the sampling locations. The rainfall intensity curve for this storm event is
shown in Figure 5-5.
The second storm event was short in comparison to the first, but again re-
sulted in a considerable amount of surface runoff at all of the sampling sites.
This storm was also a heavy downpour. Due to manpower constraints and equipment
failure, very little data except total rainfall and storm duration was gathered.
There were also several other small storm events which resulted in 1.3cm
of rain or less. Because most of the plant area is semi-permeable and level,
surface runoff was not detected during any of these storms.
Table 5-14 shows the average flows and ranges of flow for several of the
outfalls during dry and wet weather. Complete information exists only for out-
falls 004, 006, and 007.
-68-
-------
TABLE 5-13
STORM EVENT DATA
SITE 2
MAY - JUNE, 1977
Date
6/9-
6/10/77
6/20/77
Storm Beginning
0500 (6/9)
0900
Storm Ending
1500 (6/10)
2030
Total Rainfall
cm
4.45
2.59
(inches)
(1.75)
(1.02)
Average
Rainfall
Intensity
cm/hr
0.13
0.23
(in/hr)
(0.05)
(0.09)
Maximum
Rainfall
Intensity
During Storm
cm/hr
1.42
_(a)
(in/hr)
(0.56)
_(a)
I
ON
\O
I
(a)
No rainfall intensity data were collected on June 20 due to equipment failure
and manpower constraints.
-------
o
I
f
B
H
i
Z
»-«
g
tyi
VI
«
o
o
o
H
B
g
w
4.
4.
3.
3.
2
2.
1.
1.
7
9
6.
6.
5.
4.
3.
3.
2.
1.
«
« \j\*
572
064
556
048
.54
032
524
016
508
n
u
.57
w m
813
056
299
542
785
028
271
514
7C1
/O/
n
U.£U
0.18
0.16
5 0-14
|o.»
~o.io
| 0.08
^0. 06
0.04
0.02
2.000
* p w W
1,800
1,600
§1,400
§1,200
^1.000
c 800
600
400
f\f\f\
200
n
i ' i
-
.
4 i 8
1 1 1
-
-
-
; /
Trl 1
i
1
11
i
In
U
i
i i
1
n
PLv
i i
9 12 'i
NOON
i
v
XJ
i
)
in
u
1
i ii. 1.1.1 i 111 ii i ill i
.
SITE 2
RAINFALL INTENSITY
STORM 6/9 TO 6/10/77
-
-
,.
-
1 , . .n fl f'Kn . 1 ri . . . n . . .
4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME "OON
1 A 1 Ik
.iii ill III iii ill i
SITE 2
OUTFALL 007 STORM 6/9 TO 6/10/77 "
TOTAL RAINFALL 1.75 INCHES
«
-
_
1 |-fcj EQUIPMENT
\ 1^*1 FAILURE
K^.^J, , !_ J-n^rx^J^Yk-^-^-T-W-, M-X, ,
NOON
" " " " " NOON
TIME
Figure 5-5: Rainfall and Flow in Basin 007 Versus Time,
Site 2, 6/9 to 6/1Q/77 Stprm
-------
TABLE 5-14
DRY VS. WET FLOWS
SITE 2
MAY - JUNE, 1977
(a)
Outfall
002 (b)
\J\Jf.
004 (c)
UUH
006(c)
uuo
007 (c)
UU /
009^)
\J\J J
010A(b)
\J±\Jt\
mr,T,(b)
UlUo
Date
5/10
5/18
6/9-10
6/20
5/10
5/18
6/9-10
6/20
5/10
5/18
6/9-10
6/20
5/10
5/18
6/9-10
6/20
5/10
5/18
6/9-10
6/20
5/10
5/18
6/9-10
6/20
5/10
5/18
6/9-10
6/20
Sampling
Condition
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Wet
Wet
Average Flow
1pm (gpra)
.
53 (14)
-
-
163 (43)
413 (109)
549 (145)
382 (101)
1120 (296)
2150 (568)
2498 (660)
3066 (810)
4.5 (1.2)
2.9 (0.8)
45 (12)
291 (77)
_
5344 (1412)
-
-
^
l.OSxlO5 (28570)
-
-
_
5.14X1014 (13590)
-
Range ,
1pm (gpm)
.
23-91 (6-24)
-
-
132-310 (35-82)
223-727 (59-192)
163-988 (43-261)
189-795 (50-210)
655-3410 (173-900)
1540-3293 (407-870)
730-4290 (193-1133)
1692-9463 (447-2500)
4.0-4.9 (1.0-1.3)
2.5-4.0 (0.7-1.0)
1.1-216 (0.3-57)
45-5776 (12-1526)
_
5223-5465 (1380-1444)
-
-
_
1.03xl05-1.12xl05 (27280-29580)
-
-
_
3.3xlOl*-6.6xlO'* (8640-17480)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Flow data were not collected at outfalls 003, 005, 008, Oil, 012,
013, 014, and 015.
Straight averages.
Time-weighted averages.
-71-
-------
In general, average wet weather flows were higher than dry weather flows.
One notable exception is that the average dry weather flow on May 18 at outfall
004 was greater than the flow during the storm of June 20. This is probably due
to an increase in process water flow on May 18, although the flow ranges for
both days indicate that a higher peak flew occured on June 20.
The difference in average flow between dry and wet weather was not as evi-
dent at outfalls 004 and 006 as it was at outfall 007. While outfalls 004 and
006 showed average wet weather flows which ranged from one to -three times the
average dry weather flows, outfall 007 displayed average wet weather flows which
ranged from ten to one hundred times the dry flow. This was visually evident
during a storm event. The flow at outfall 007 increased from a steady trickle
over the weir to a height above the weir, necessitating the conversion from a
90° V-notch weir to a rectangular weir.
The flow data for storm events at outfalls 004, 006, and 007 show some in-
teresting trends. The flow peaks at outfalls 006 and 007 corresponded very
closely to rainfall intensity peaks with almost no time lag. Figure 5-5 also
shows the hydrograph of June 9-10 for outfall 007. At outfall 004 the time lag
between rainfall intensity peaks and flow peaks ranged from 0.5 to 3.5 hours.
The difference was probably due to the type of drainage basin associated with
each outfall. Outfalls 006 and 007 receive stormwater either directly from roof
drains or from paved areas. The basin which drains to outfall 004 is a mostly
unpaved (permeable) area, causing the time lag between rainfall peaks and runoff
peaks.
Tables 5-15, 5-16, and 5-17 through 5-23 show the range of concentrations,
the mean concentrations, and the average mass loadings of the pollutants analyzed
-72-
-------
TABLE 5-15
RANGE OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AT THE
SAMPLING LOCATIONS AT SITE 2 IN mg/1
MAY - JUNE, 1977
-
POLLUTANT
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Iron
Dissolved
IronW*
Outfall
002
Dry
11-29
91-2019
Wet
9-176
112-284
003
Dry
Wet
11-132
93-1A8
004
Dry
2-47
113-205
0.20-1.2
n.d.-0.2
Wet
3-39
160-359
0.18-2.2
0.1-0.6
006
Dry
20-416
102-159
Wet
8-2537
145-490
007
Dry
1-60
54-245
Wei
3-119
107-418
008
Dry
22-56
112-172
1.0-2.2
0.1-0.3
Wet
19-89
224-265
2.8-7.5
0.1-0.7
009
Dry
4-58
116-138
0.78-1.4
0.1-0.3
Wet
55-109
151-251
3.0-5.2
0.2-0.4
POLLUTANT
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Iron
(d)
Dissolved Iron
Phenol
Cyanlde(Total)
Ammonia
Sulfate
Outfall
010A
Dry
5-37
76-125
0.57-1.3
0.1
n.d.-O.Ol
0.01
3.8-8.6
Wet
3-48
131-253
0.93-5.9
0.1-0.4
n.d.-0.02
0.01
0.1-0.7
010B
Dry
13-28
89-133
(bJ
1.5
(b)
0.2
n.d.-O.Ol
n.d.-O.Ol
7.1
-------
TABLE 5-16
MEAN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/1 AT SITE 2
MAY - JUNE, 1977
002
4>
I
all,
004
006
007
003
009
010A
010B
(a)
on
012
(a)
.Sampling
Condition
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wot
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wot
Dry
Hu t
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wot
Dry
Wet
Dry
W.:t
Dry
HL't
Dry
Wet
TSS
20
47
21
13
11
96
298
15
35
44
45
32
73
18
23
19
60
853
257
392
64
TDS
749
178
110
1S7
216
130
223
118
227
149
241
124
201
104
183
102
183
471
:i6o
959
416
Total Iron
0.61
0.51
1.6
5.2
1.1
4.0
0.85
1.75
-(b)
18
18
11.'.
12.6
5.8
I'ol Lu In lit
Dissolved I roil
0.08
0. 14
0.21
0.2.
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
-(b)
0.2
0. 18
0.2
1.0
0.5
'henul
0.01
0.004
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.03
Total
lyanide
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.011
0.2
,0.55
1
Ammotil a
18.45
0.26
-(b)
0.6
0.33
1 .0
29.3
Sul fate
232
78
129
(a) No dry uu;ither samples collected.
(b) OnJy one s.nnple analyzed.
-------
TABLE 5-17
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MAY- JUNE, 1977
OUTFALL 002- SITE 2
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
5/18 (Dry)
Avg5e)
Cone . ,
mg/1
20
114
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
53
(14)
53
(14)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.07
(0.14)
0.36
(0.8)
6/9-10 (Wet)
Avg
Cone . ,
mg/1
65
212
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
53
(14)
53
(14)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.21
(0.45)
0.67
(1.48)
6/20 (Wet)(d)
Avg.(e)
Cone . ,
rag/1
37
133
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
53
(14)
53
(14)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.12
(0.26)
0.42
(0.93)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Average mass loadings for wet weather calculated by multiplying the time weighted average
concentration by the time weighted average flow, which were determined from the flow and
concentration curves for each event.
Average wet weather flows are time weighted average flows for the sampling period for
each parameter. These may vary for the different parameters within each storm.
Average mass loadings for dry weather calculated by multiplying the straight average
concentrations from the Appendices by the average flows from Table 5-14.
(d)r.
(e)
(f)
Wet weather average mass loadings were estimated using dry weather flows because wet
weather flow data were not obtained.
Straight average used.
No dry flow data collected on 5/10/77.
-------
TABLE 5-18
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MAY- JUNE, 1977
OUTFALL 004 - SITE 2
^ '
L'ate
Parameter
Total Suspended
Sol ids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
5/10 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone . ,
rag/1
9
155
0.2(d>
n.d.(e>
Avg.
Flow,
Ipra
(gpm)
163
(43)
163
(43)
163
(«)
163
(43)
Avg.
Has 9
Load ing,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.09
(0.2)
1.5
0.3)
0.002
(0.004)
-
5/18 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone . ,
mg/1
15
160
0.68
0.06
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
413
(109)
413
(109)
413
(109)
413
(109)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.37
(0.81)
4.0
(8.8)
0.02
(0.04)
0.001
(0.002)
6/9-10 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone . ,
ing /I
10
250
0.49
0.11
(0.002)
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpra)
662
(175)
662
U75)
662
(175)
693
(183)
Avg.
Masn
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.4
(0.88)
9.9
(21.8)
0.02
(0.04)
0.005
(0.011)
6/20 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone . ,
rag/1
9
203
0.36
0.04
Avg.
Flow,
Ipic
(gpm)
401
(106)
401
(106)
401
(106)
424
(n:o
Avg.
Haas
Load 1 ng ,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.22
(0.48)
4.9
(10.8)
0.01
(0.02)
0.001
(0.002)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Average mass loadings for wet weather calculated by multiplying the time weighted average
concentration by the time weighted average flow, which were determined from the flow and
concentration curves for each event.
Average wet weather flows are time weighted average clows for the sampling period for
each parameter. These may vary for the different parameters within each storm.
Average mass loadings for dry weather calculated by multiplying the straight average
concentrations from the Appendices by the average flows from Table 5-14.
One value only.
n.d.-not detectable. Detectable limit is 0.02 mg/1.
-------
TABLE 5-19
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MAY-JUNE, 1977
OUTFALL 006 - SITE 2
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
5/10 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone .,
mg/1
41
112
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gp»)
1120
(296)
1120
(296)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
2.3
(6.2)
7.5
(16.5)
5/18 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone .,
mg/1
130
148
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gP»)
2150
(568)
2150
(568)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
16.8
(37)
19.1
(42)
6/9-10 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone.,
mg/1
495
244
Avg.
Flow,
Ipu
(gpm)
1851
(489)
1851
(489)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
55
(121)
27.1
(59.6)
6/20 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone.,
mg/1
32
186
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
2824
(746)
2824
(746)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr.
(Ib/l.r)
5.4
(11.9)
31.6
(69.3)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Average mass loadings for wet weather calculated by multiplying the time weighted average
concentration by the time weighted average flow, which were determined from the flow and
concentration curves for each event.
Average wet weather flows are time weighted average flows for the sampling period for
each parameter. These may vary for the different parameters within each storm.
Average mass loadings for dry weather calculated by multiplying the straight average
concentrations from the Appendices by the average flows from Table 5-14.
-------
TABLE 5-20
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF.POLLUTANTS
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MAY-JUNE, 1977
OUTFALL 007 - SITE 2
oo
I
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Sol Ids
5/10 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone.,
ng/1
15
149
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gP»>
4.5
(1.2)
4.5
(1.2)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
O.OO/i
(0.009)
0.04
(0.09)
5/18 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone.,
rag/1
24
84
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
2.9
(0.8)
2.9
(0.8)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.004
(0.009)
0.01
(0.02)
6/9-10 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone .,
rag/1
36
222
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpra)
33.3
(8.8)
33.3
(8.3)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
Vg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.07
(0.15)
0.44
(0.97)
6/20 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone.,
rag /I
22
244
Avg.
Flow,
I pro
(ei>m)
165.4
(43.7)
165. A
(43.7)
Avg.
Haas
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
0.22
(0.48)
2.42
(5.32)
(a)
Average mass loadings fur wet weather calculated by multiplying the time weighted average
concentration by the time weighted average flow, which were determined from the flow and
concentration curves for each event.
Average wet weather flows are time weighted average flows for the sampling period for
each parameter. These may vary for the different parameters within each storm.
Average mass loadings for dry weather calculated by multiplying the straight average
concentrations from the Appendices by the average flows from Table 5-14.
-------
TABLE 5-21
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MAY-JUNE, 1977
OUTFALL 009 - SITE 2
' (b) '
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
5/18 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone.,
mg/1
32
124
L.I
0.2
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
5344
(1412)
5344
(1412)
5344
(1412)
5344
(1412)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(lb/hr)
10.3
(22.7)
39.3
(87.6)
0.35
(0.77)
0.06
(0.13)
6/9-10 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone .,
mg/1
73
201
4.0
0.25
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
5344
(1412)
5344
(1412)
5344
(1412)
5344
(1412)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(lb/hr)
23.4
(51.5)
64.4
(141.7)
1.28
(2.82)
0.08
(0.18)
(a)
(b)
(d)
Average mass loadings calculated by multiplying the straight
average concentrations from the Appendices by the straight
average flow.
Wet weather average mass loadings were estimated using dry weather
flow data because wet weather flow data were not obtained.
No dry flow data collected on 5/10/77.
No sample collected on 6/20/77.
-------
TABLE 5-22
00
o
I
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MAY-JUNE, 1977
OUTFALL 01OA - SITE 2
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Phenol
Total
Cyanide
Ammonia
5/18 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone .,
tng/1
23
104
1.06
0.1
0.005
0.01
4.9
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
149
(328)
674
(1483)
6.87
(15.11)
0.65
(1.43)
0.03
(0.07)
0.06
(0.13)
31.7
(69.7)
6/9-10 (Wet)
Avg.
Cone .,
ing /I
19
183
1.73
0.2
0.01
0.01
0.27
Avg.
Flow,
1pm
(gpm)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
l.OSxlO5
(28570)
1.08xl05
(28570)
Avg.
Mass
Loading,
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
123
(271)
1186
(2609)
11.21
(24.66)
1.3
(2.86)
0.06
(0.13)
0.06
(0.13)
1.75
(3.85)
(a)
(b)
(d)
Average mass loadings calculated by multiplying the straight
average concentrations from the Appendices by the straight
average flow.
Wet weather average mass loadings were estimated using dry weather
flow data because wet weather flow data were not obtained.
No dry flow data collected on 5/10/77.
No sample collected on 6/20/77.
-------
TABLE 5-23
AVERAGE MASS LOADINGS OF POLLUTANTS*
DRY VS. WET WEATHER
MAY-JUNE, .1977
OUTFALL 010B - SITE 2
i
00
Date
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Sol ids
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Phenol
Total Cyanide
Ammonia
5/18 (Dry)
Avg.
Cone.,
mg/1
22
102
1.5(d)
0.2
-------
at each of the outfalls for both dry and wet weather. Mass loadings were calcu-
lated in the same manner as at Site 1. Wet weather mass loadings at outfalls 002,
009, 010A, and 010B were calculated using the mean dry weather flow at each of
these outfalls to obtain a best estimate of storm loadings.
Table 5-24 shows the mean pollutant concentrations for both dry and wet
weather conditions at location 015 (river water intake). These values were to
serve "as background data because all the water used by the plant comes from the
river. The dry and wet weather data were not significantly different. Thus,
any increase in pollutant concentrations at any of the sampling locations during
wet weather could be due to stormwater runoff and not to the river water quality.
Table 5-15 through 5-23 show differences between dry and wet weather condi-
tions. With few exceptions, the wet weather concentrations and mass loadings of
pollutants were higher than those for dry weather. Dry and wet mean values for
dissolved iron at outfalls 008 and 009 were identical as were the dry and wet
values for total cyanide at outfall 010A. Total suspended solids and total iron
were very similar at outfall 004 during both weather conditions. Dry weather
values for total dissolved solids and ammonia for outfalls 002 and 010A respec-
tively were considerably higher than during wet weather.
Total dissolved solids concentrations were much higher than total suspended
solids concentrations at all of the outfalls during both dry and wet weather
conditions with two exceptions, those being the wet weather concentrations at
outfalls 006 and Oil. A consistent pattern was established for total suspended
solids. A direct relationship exists between TSS concentration and rainfall
intensity. An increase in rainfall intensity corresponded directly to an increase
in TSS concentration with no time lag. This is shown in Figures 5-6, 5-7, and
-82-
-------
TABLE 5-24
MEAN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS, mg/1
IN THE TIDAL RIVER AT SITE 2
MAY-JUNE, 1977
(SAMPLING LOCATION 015)
Pollutant
TSS
TDS
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Phenols
Total Cyanide
Ammonia
Sulfates
Mean Pollutant Concentrations, mg/1
Dry
19
120
0.43
0.1
0.005
0.004
-
20
Wet
35
182
0.83
0.3
0.010
-
0.34
-
-83-
-------
5-8. These Figures show the rainfall intensity plot as previously indicated in
Figure 5-5. Although Figure 5-7 shows a direct relationship between IDS and
rainfall intensity, again as at Site 1, IDS concentrations were generally found
to be erratic in relation to rainfall intensity and no consistent pattern was
observed. No conclusive statements can be made concerning this relationship.
This is most evident in Figures 5-6 and 5-8.
Several interesting trends occurred with total and dissolved iron. Six out
of nine outfalls showed that an increase in rainfall intensity also corresponded
directly to an increase in total iron concentration with no time lag. Figures 5-7
and 5-8 show this relationship. However, this was not true of dissolved iron,
since five out of nine outfalls showed dissolved iron to vary inversely with
total iron. As total iron concentration decreased, dissolved iron concentration
would increase and vice versa.
Although there were only limited data for phenols, a pattern was observed
similar to that at Site 1. Phenol concentration peaks were found to correspond
with rainfall intensity peaks. This is most evident in Figure 5-7.
There appears to be no relationship of any kind between cyanide or sulfate
concentration and rainfall intensity, although limited data prevent drawing any
definite conclusions. No consistent pattern exists.
As at Site 1, three outfalls out of five showed that ammonia concentrations
decreased over the period of the storm. Ammonia concentration appeared to peak
around the time of the first rainfall intensity peak and then slowly decrease
throughout the remainder of the storm event. Apparently, the stormwater dilutes
the ammonia rather than causing a "first flush" effect. Figures 5-7 and 5-8
clearly depict this dilution effect. In no case was the "first flush" effect
observed.
-84-
-------
_J
1
-o
a
iS
a
.bi
a
z
UJ
&
t-n
3
i/i
0
h-
t
^t
3)
y^
tSi
U4
>
O
vi
-./i
3
-j
<
o
*.Q64 , 0.16
3.556 O.U
-r 3.048 ^ 0.12
1 i
-j 2.S4 - OJQ
5 2.032 | Q.oa
1-524 5 o.06
1.016 0.04
.508 0.02
0
i i i i i i i i i i i i i ' ' i i
TSS AVERAGE UWCING WTt
.072 KILOGMMS/HR.
.120 .0157 POUNOS/HR.
5 3 10 12 2 4 8- 3 10 12 2 4 S 3 10 12 2 4
MOON n« MOON
i > i i 1 i i i i i i i i i i < > i
TDS AVERAGc LOADING RATS
'.U1
-------
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0
AMMONIA « 0.25 mg/1
AVG.
iIIIIIT^
OUTFALL 10A
AMMONIA
60-
Q
£
o .40
2 .20
Q 0
DFe - 0.16 mg/1
AVS-
I i i i I i i i
OUTFALL 108
DISSOLVED IRON"
o
x.
.014
.012
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
0
PHENOLS 0.004 mg/1
AVG.
OUTFALL 10A
|>210
. 180
g
150
120 -
90-
60-
30-
0
oo
£^ 300
5? ^ 25°
2 200
*~* i/i
O o
<0
fe"
150
100
50
0
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0)
PHENOLS
i i i i i i i i i
OUTFALL 108
PHENOLS - 0.019 mg/1
AVG-
OUTFALL 10B
4 6 8 1012 2 4 6 8 10
NOON TIME
FIGURE 5-7:
nfta ,n. .
12 24 6 8 1012 2
? m
J. 3.048
_j 2.54
«. 2.032
z 1.524
2 1.016
.508
y\ 0.16
^ 0.14
^ 0.12
" 0.10
J 0.08
5 0.06
5 0.04
2 0.02
0
i i i i
R
. 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 810 12 2 4
NOON NOON TIME
OUTFALLS 010A AND 010B - SITE 2. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
VERSUS TIME COMPARED WITH RAINFALL INTENSITY
6 8 10
I jHl
122 *
NOON
-------
I
CO
2
o 600
5^ 500
0 Dl
2 B 400
* * *
°Q 300
5° 200
100
o
600
S _ 500
§ o. 400
8. E
§ j* 300
_j 2 200
fe ° 100
0
1 ' 1 1 i i I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
x
>A
** /
T\ y/TDS - 360 mg/1
tj* \ X AVG.
>r \ X
^^ TDS \f
n ' u
-------
Detailed sample results of all outfalls for Site 2 are presented in Appen-
dix B.
Dustfall samples were collected in two areas at Site 2, the Sinter Plant
area and the coal and coke storage area. These samples were analyzed for dry
weight only. Calculations were performed on tbe results to determine the average
daily accumulations of dust in these two drainage basins. The data are presented
in Appendix B. The daily accumulations of dust were greater in the Sinter Plant
area than in the raw materials storage pile area. This was due to the low
.activity in these storage areas during the sampling program. The average accumu-
lations were 2.6 milligrams per day per square meter compared to 3.6 milligrams
per day per square meter for the Sinter Plant area.
The next analytical step was to extrapolate these average accumulations
over the entire runoff basin and then to compare the total accumulation to the
mass loading of solids during a rainfall event. At the Sinter Plant area, the
average total accumulation was 0.17 kilograms per day. Comparing this to the
average dry and wet weather loadings of total solids sampled at outfall 009, the
dustfall accumulations are not significant. The total dry mass loadings were
approximately 50 kilograms per hour. The dustfall data from the Sinter Plant
have little significance when compared to the mass loading because the sampling
point for runoff in this area was a storm drain in which most of the flow was
process water and not runoff water. The dustfall data do indicate the quantity
of dustfall to be expected in such an area and allow for comparision with other
dustfall sites.
No comparisons to mass solids loading in the raw material area were performed
because of the lack of significant runoff data in that area.
-88-
-------
5.4.3 Comparison of Results from Sites 1 and 2
In general, a comparison of the data from the two sites while indicating
similar pollutant trends, shows considerable differences attributable to the
characteristics of the site. The data from both sites indicate that stormwater
runoff from coal and coke storage and handling areas may be a potential problem
if no control exists, when compared to Best Available Technology Economically
Available (BATEA) Effluent Guidelines prepared for Iron and Steel Manufacturing^
(12) (13)
and with water quality criteria. (See Section 2.0). However, there was
a great difference between the two sites. Site 1 which had much higher loadings
from the coal pile area, does not present a problem because the piles are diked
and runoff is collected in a pond and recirculated as a fugitive air emission
control system. The samples collected inside the diked area are probably unique
and may not be representative of the iron and steel industry. At Site 2 the
.TSS values for the coal storage areas are well within the range of 26-2080 mg/1
TSS for typical urban runoff. (See Section 7.0) . 15) (16) Qn the other
hand, the range of TDS concentrations encountered in these areas at Site 2
exceeded the average concentration of 250 mg/1 TDS for typical urban stormwater
(15) (16)
runoff.
Average wet weather concentrations and mass loadings of pollutants were
higher than dry weather average values at both sites. Similar trends were
observed for pollutant concentrations. TDS concentrations were with few excep-
tions higher than TSS at all of the sampling locations during dry and wet weather
conditions. In addition, TDS concentrations were found to be erratic in relation
to rainfall intensity and no consistent pattern was observed. Such was not the
case with TSS concentration. A direct relationship existed between TSS concen-
tration and rainfall intensity at Site 2. An increase in rainfall intensity-
corresponded directly to an increase in TSS concentration and vice versa with
little time lag. A similar pattern existed for total iron and phenols. Dissolved
-89-
-------
iron was found to vary inversely with total iron. As total iron concentration
decreased, dissolved iron concentration would increase and vice versa. A "dilu-
tion" effect was observed with ammonia. Ammonia concentration generally peaked
at a time corresponding to the first rainfall intensity peak and then decreased
slowly throughout the remainder of the storm event. In no case was the "first
flush" effect observed with any of the pollutants at either site.
5.5 Problem Areas
There were certain physical problems that were common to both sites in
quantifying and qualifying the runoff. These problems can be extrapolated to
pertain to the iron and steel industry as a whole when evaluating stormwater
runoff.
The biggest problem encountered during the runoff program was the avail-
ability of manpower to ensure that flow data and samples were collected at every
sampling point on a regular basis throughout the runoff period. Because a
runoff field program is controlled by meteorological events, it is too costly to
maintain an entire field crew on site at all times. Due to the unpredictability
of the rainfall duration and the quantities of runoff, the on-site technicians
may be faced with the enormous task of collecting samples, taking rain wedge
readings, measuring flow where automated equipment is not used, and preserving
samples during a lengthy storm while awaiting the arrival of backup personnel.
This probem was not as apparent at Site 1 as it was at Site 2. The following
factors decreased the efficiency of the on-site technicians at Site 2:
1. The physical size of the plant - Sampling points were spread out.
With the 32 KPH speed limit it took, at the minimum, 1-1 1/2 hours to
complete a circuit of all the sampling sites.
2. The number of sampling points - Twice as many points were sampled at
Site 2 as at Site 1. Not all of these points could be treated the
same way. Some samplers had to be turned on and flow adjusted only
after a certain amount of runoff was encountered. Other points in-
volved the lifting of manhole covers to gain access to the storm sewer
-90-
-------
3. Long term runoff period - When runoff lasted more than 12 hours, the
ability of the technicians to keep up with the samples being collected,
replace bottles, batteries, and recorder tape, and preserve the samples
was hampered.
There are many ways of alleviating this manpower problem, but the most effi-
cient would be to limit the number of sampling sites. Continuous flow monitoring
and sampling should be kept to a minimum number of sites located only in areas where
stormwater runoff is a potential problem. Sampling equipment should be automated
at all locations.
Steel mills built on flat terrain present another physical problem, i.e.,
drainage basin definition. In such mills, the surface morphology is so complex
that runoff from certain drainage areas can cross-contaminate adjacent basins.
Diked areas, bermed areas, railroad crossings, and open ditches and construction
areas all contribute to cross-contamination when the surface topography across the
entire mill only varies a few feet. A pre-field study observation of a heavy rain-
fall can help in defining the runoff basins.
Obtaining good dry weather flow data at all sampling locations was another
problem area. Where continuous flows existed, usually non-contact cooling water
was being used and discharged at a sampling point. In other cases, such as at
Outfall 006-Site 1, and Outfalls 012 and 013-Site 2, the dry weather flows were
intermittent. There is no way of separating process water from runoff water during
a sampling period. The only means of alleviating this problem is to have control
of the process or non-contact cooling water or to maintain continuous records of
the process or non-contact cooling water entering the storm sewer systems.
Pollutant data would be enhanced if dry weather samples were collected just
prior to a rainfall event. In most cases when runoff flow levels have risen enough
to trigger a sample, the pollutant to be measured has already been affected by the
storm. An initial pre-event sample would better define the earlier reactions of
-91-
-------
the pollutants. In order to collect these pre-event samples, the field work
plan should include grab samples at the first sign of precipitation, or sampling
at least once a day when rainfall is imminent.
One problem common to both sites but not necessarily relevant to the whole
industry was the tidal backflow at some of the outfalls. Two outfalls at Site 1
and one at Site 2 were subjected to periodic backflows due to abnormally high
tides. These backflows produced erroneous flow data and also caused contamination
of the waters upstream of the outfall weirs. At those times when tidal backflows
were observed, sampling equipment was turned off and the samples discarded.
Sampling locations near intertidal zones should be avoided.
One of the equipment problems encountered at both sites was with the weighing
bucket rain gage. No matter where this rain gage was located, the always present
ground vibration caused the pen linkage assembly to bounce and jam. For this
reason, all the records from the weighing bucket gage were of poor quality. The
records from the tipping bucket gage gave much better data because ground vibra-
tions did not affect the sensing device.
The use of special measuring equipment such as the Gurley Current Meter to
measure flows at outfalls 008, 009, 010A, and 010B at Site 2 posed a problem
because too much time was spent setting up and taking these readings during a
runoff. If special flow measuring or sampling equipment is to be used during a
runoff program, extra field personnel should be employed to handle them. By
keeping a runoff program as automated as possible, the on-site technicians can
concentrate on maintaining the automated installation.
Finally, a minor equipment problem occurred with the bubbler line from the
flow meter. The bubbler line emits air into the runoff stream. On occasion
this influx of air caused enough biological growth around the outlet of the
bubbler line to restrict the air flow. When bubbler type flow meters are used
-92-
-------
on a runoff program, care must be taken to periodically maintain the bubbler
lines so they are free of any obstructions or fouling. This problem only occurred
once at Site 1. A periodic check of the air flow was immediately incorporated
into the maintenance procedures.
-93-
-------
6.0 TASK III - CONTROL OF CONTAMINATED STORMWATER
In the course of touring several mills, a few methods of controlling
stormwater were found within the industry. The only system installed primarily
for stormwater control was at the Armco-Houston Plant. A literature search was
conducted to survey methods of control used by other industries that might be
applicable or adaptable to steel mills.
6.1 Iron and Steel Industry Control Systems
The Armco-Houston Works has diked its coal piles as a control measure for
both fugitive air emissions and stormwater runoff. Slowdown from a cooling
tower is discharged co a concrete holding basin. On dry days, 190,000 liters of
this water (equivalent to 6mm of rain) are sprayed on the coal piles to control
fugitive air emissions. To guard against runoff, dirt dikes were built around
the coal piles. Runoff from the spray and stormwater is channeled to a holding
pond. This water either evaporates or percolates into the soil. The potential
exists for the stormwater and spray runoff to be recycled and used as a spray
for the control of fugitive air emissions. This process controls a source which
can contribute both to fugitive air emissions and contaminated stormwater. This
control process is only practical at mills located in areas where the potential
evapotranspiration is more than the mean annual precipitation. Unfortunately
very few steel mills are located in such areas.
Six of the twelve plants contacted collect stormwater runoff with process
wastewater for subsequent terminal treatment. This necessitates a system of
combined sewers within the plant. In addition, a holding pond prior to treatment
may be necessary to handle the high flows encountered. This control method can
-94-
-------
be costly to install (new sewer lines, etc.) and can be very costly to maintain.
In addition, it is not an effective control measure for an urban mill which has
space restrictions.
Several of the mills toured store their raw materials (predominantly iron
ore) in concrete bunkers or bins. Some of these bunkers have cpncrete floors and
stormwater has to be pumped out periodically. At other mills, the floors have drains
and stormwater percolates into the ground. These bunkers were not installed for
stormwater control but rather to guard against material loss; however, they do
serve a purpose in controlling stormwater. For the bunkers with floors, stormwater
collected in the bunkers could easily be pumped to lagoons. For bunkers with drains,
the drains could be plugged to prevent the pile leachate from contaminating ground-
water .
Some plants use concrete walls as barriers for storing iron ore. These bar-
riers .extend below grade permitting stormwater to percolate through the ore Into
the ground.
Some of the mills stored their raw materials in low graded areas where storm-
water would pool and eventually infiltrate or evaporate.
6.2 Other Industries
Very little information is available on the control of stormwater runoff from
industrial sites with the exception of the construction and mining industries. How-
ever, some of the technology developed for urban runoff control may be applicable
(17)
to the iron and steel industry. The inception of the swirl degritter ' shown in
Figure 6-1 is an example of such technology.
-95-
-------
A INLET
B DEFLECTOR
C WEIR AND WEIR PLATE
D SPOILER
E FLOOR
F CONICAL HOPPER
Figure 6-1: Isometric view swirl concentrator as a grit separator
-96-
-------
This device, created .originally to treat combined sewer overflows, requires
no moving parts but utilizes a "swirl" action to effect separation and concentra-
tion of suspended solids from. stormwater flows. The swirl degritter is being
tested in Denver, Colorado for dual dry/wet weather flow treatment and has
demonstrated potential as a control device.
Another urban runoff control technique with possible applications in the
industrial sector is the use of flat roof buildings. These roofs are utilized
for the detention of stormwater with subsequent settling and concentration of
larger fugitive emission suspended solids. The rainfall detention ponding
f-\ Q\
ring pictured in Figure 6-2 was developed by Wright-McLaughlin Engineers for
installation around a standard roof drain. It regulates the drainage rate of
the roof leader causing some settling of downstream receiving bodies. At an
iron and steel mill, this device could only be practically used on office buildings
and warehouses.
Both devices shown require periodic maintenance to remove concentrated
solids.
Several methods used by the mining and construction industries may be
applicable to the iron and steel industry. One involves the use of sediment
traps which are small, temporary structures used in various places to collect
coarse sediment. ! ' ' Examples of such structures include small
pits dug near areas of concentrated runoff, straw-bale barriers placed across
small drainage ditches, and low gravel dikes placed across graded roadways or in
drainage ditches. Detention basins or sediment ponds are used on larger drainageways
and are designed to detain sediment-laden runoff and remove a significant amount
(73)
of both coarse and fine sediments. ' Several of the iron and steel plants
that were contacted were already using basins as a form of wastewater treatment
or as holding ponds prior to terminal treatment.
-97-
-------
PLAN
NOTES:
ROOF DRAIN RING IS PLACED AROUND
STANDARD ROOF DRAIN INSTALLATION.
.NUMBER OF HOLE SETS AND RING DIAMETER
:TO BE BASED ON ROOF AREA DRAINED AND
iRUNUFF CRITERIA. MINIMUM SPACING TO BE
J2" C.C.
HEIGHT OF RING DETERMINED BY ROOF SLOPE.
USE BRASS OR STAINLESS STEEL
RAINFALL DETENTION PONDING RING
2"
ONE SET OF HOLES
VERTICAL
LEADER.
Figure 6-2: Rainfall detention ponding ring for flat roofs
-98-
-------
7.0 TASK IV - TECHNICAL.EVALUATION OF PROGRAM RESULTS
Table 7-1 shows a summary of the results for those areas at both sites
which had the highest pollutant runoff concentrations. The TSS and TDS values
are compared to typical urban runoff values. For the other parameters, water
quality criteria values are shown for informational purposes. This data cannot
be compared directly since receiving water sampling was beyond the scope of this
program. Sampled runoff from coal storage, coke storage, and coal and coke
handling were the areas which had the highest pollutant concentrations. The
coal storage area at Site 1 showed much higher values for most pollutants than
the same area at Site 2. However, this site is not typical of the rest of the
industry because the piles are diked and recirculated stormwater and cooling
water from a by-product plant cooling tower are sprayed on the pile for fugitive
dust control. During dry days up to 190,000 liters of water is sprayed on the
pile to prevent wind erosion of coal fines. The fines retained in the pile by
this means could be expected to substantially increase the concentrations of TSS
and total iron in the runoff compared to sites which do not have such a system.
It is also probable that the high TDS, ammonia, and phenol concentrations re-
sulted from the spray water system. Although this water originates from a
noncontact cooling system, it is probable that, the water contains high concentra-
tions of TDS and also phenol and ammonia absorbed in the water from the coke
plant air.
In order to determine the potential gross impact of stormwater runoff from
the mills sampled, the stormwater runoff mass loadings were compared to the
(3)
point source mass loadings which would exist under proposed BAT control.
Since BAT is EPA's next step in the control process (July, 1984), this corn-
par iuon was assumed to be valid.
-99-
-------
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Sites 1 and 2
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS
MARCH-JUNE, 1977
Pollutant
TSS
IDS
TOTAL
IRON
DISSOLVED
IRON
PHENOLS
CYANIDE
(TOTAL)
AMMONIA
SULFATE
Site
No.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Potential
Problem
Areas
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Co a]
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & CoaJ
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Stor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Coal Stor.
Coke Seor.
Coke & Coal
Handling
Average Wet
Concentrations ,
mg/1
4187
SST
505
392 (d)
184
n.s. (c)
2289
471
7-45
959 (d)
2158
n.s. (c)
39.3
18
32.3
12.6 (d)
2.;
n.s. (c)
n.d. (a)
0.2
0.1
l.Ofd)
0.1
n.3. -(c)
0.39
0.01
0.06
0.03 (d)
0.37
n.s. (c)
n.d. (a)
n.d. (a)
0.01
0.55 (d)
n.d. (a)
n.s. (c)
56
0.33
2.1
29.1
43
n.s. (c)
n.a. (b)
232
n.a. (b)
129 (d)
312
n.s. (c)
(14) (15) (16)
Typical Values
Urban Stormwater
Runoff, mg/1
26-2080
250
(12) (13)
Water Quality
Criteria, mg/1
0.3(Public
water supply)
0.1 (Fresh
water aquatic
life)
0.001
(Domestic
water supply)
5.0 (Fresh
water & marine
aquatic life
& wildlife)
0.02(Fresh
water aqua-
tic life)
250 (public
water supply)
(a) n.d. - none detected.
(b) n.a. - not analyzed.
(c) n.s. - no samples collected.
(d) There were two sampling points near the coke storage area at Sice 2.
concentrations for only one (outfall 013) are shown.
The average
-100-
-------
Tables 7-2 and 7-3 compare average yearly runoff loadings to average yearly
effluent loadings from the activities and operations in several drainage basins.
The effluent loadings are based on a summation of proposed BAT Effluent Guide-
lines for daily average values over thirty consecutive days for all processes
in a particular drainage basin. If only part of a process was located in a par-
ticular drainage basin, the loading was obtained by assigning a percentage of
(4)
the operation to the basin and then using an estimate of the production rate.
The appropriate production rate and BAT Effluent Guidelines for each process in
a basin were then multiplied to obtain an average annual effluent loading. All
operations in a basin were then summed to obtain a total basin effluent loading.
Avarage annual runoff loadings for each basin were calculated by multiplying es-
timated acreage by average annual precipitation (based on the years 1970-1976)
by calculated runoff coefficients and by the mean pollutant concentrations from
the sampling program. Examples of these calculations appear in Appendix C.
To obtain a worst case situation, it was assumed that rainwater which
infiltrated the ground had the same mean pollutant concentration as the runoff.
Therefore, Tables 7-2 and 7-3 contain a column labeled 100% runoff as a worst
case. There are presently no BAT Guidelines for coal storage piles. However,
the coal pile storage area at Site 1 yielded higher annual waste loadings than
any of the summed point source loadings (based on BAT Guidelines) of the drainage
basins tested.
Since runoff is an intermittent occurrence, another analysis was performed
comparing average hourly mass loadings for each storm tested to average hourly
loadings allowed based on the proposed maximum 24-hour BAT Effluent Guidelines.
As in the previous analysis the allowable loadings from all point sources in a
-101-
-------
TABLE 7-2
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF LOADINGS WITH
AVERAGE ANNUAL POINT SOURCE LOADINGS
FOR SELECTED DRAINAGE BASINS
SITE 1
MARCH-APRIL, 1977
o
CO
I
B.9I.I
0(19
010
Oil
<)|..-.,,l I...H
tart ol 'told
Fo.mJry;Cok,-
Slurafcp anil
Irnnsf'-r
l'f»a 1 Ti .inpfpr ;
Cool Sliafct'r
Bide,; ', c.f
(:oke Aie.tM
Hold rrepar.i-
tloil Sliup; 'i
ol Ho. 2
Heclrlc !tir--
tnro S'wjp; 'i
i>f CuV- Ovirn*;
Tolic By-dud
in: Is Ar«-.i;
Coal Storar,*:
', of Mo I.I
ruuivlry:
r.-irkfnp. Ar^H-s
F.st ImatrH
Area,
NcrtaiM
2.7
1.1
**.,
Avernp* Annua
r»/yr(ln/yr>
132(5J)
132(52)
132(52)
,,(24)
l/yr(sal/yc)
J.SxlO7
(9.3x10*)
1.4.107
(3.7x10')
3.8x10*
U.AxlO')
Estimated Runoff
Coefficient
0.2
0.06
0.25
Avei af,f Annual
Runoff,
l/yr(nal/yr)
7.2xin'(l.«xtn()
8. 3,111^(2. 2xl05)
9.5adlngs(100
Outfall
TSS I.8xl0l>().9ll01>)
CH 0.4 (0.8)
Nil] 90 (200)
0011 2.0 (5.0)
IFe 1020 (2250)
TSS 1400 (3 IOD)
CN 7.0 (15. O)
Nil] 600 (I3un)
turn 7.0 (ij.o)
TSS I.)xl0l>(2.9illll>)
CN 0.9 (2.0)
NH] linn (2800)
foil 30 (70)
TFe
I Runoff (,<«).<=)
/vt )
Coal Pile
1.6x10*0.5x10')
_
Z-lxlO^Ci^xlO1")
UO(30U)
l.SxIO^O.I^lO1*)
pile drainage ditch was separate from the sampling station at Outfall Oil.
(3)
Cyanides amenable to chlorination.
(c),.
Total cyanide.
-------
TABLE 7-3
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF LOADINGS WITH AVERAGE ANNUAL
POINT SOURCE LOADINGS FOR SELECTED DRAINAGE BASINS
SITE 2
MAY-JUNE, 1977
1
J *
o
U)
1
Drainage
Basin
010 (c)
Oil
012
on
Art ivltles and
Oper.it ions
1/2 of Open
Hearth Furuaceu
Ci.ke Storage;
Coke Ovens
and By -Product
Area; Railroad
Tracks
Coal Storage
Coke Storage;
Coke Mjiiill -
Ing; Coke ily-
Product Arua
Coke Stora.ie;
Coke ll.ni Jl
ing; Coke 3y-
Produr.t Area
.. J
Estimated
Area ,
lU-r t ,kfcs
58. 5
4.0
0.53
0.61
.
(24)
Average Annual Rainfall
cm/yt(ln/yr)
112(44)
112(44)
112(44)
112(44)
l/yr(gal/yr)
6.4xlO')
(1 7xl08)
4.5xl07
(1.2xlU7)
6.1xl06
(1.6xl06)
6.8>:105
(1.8x10°)
Estimated Runoff
Coefficient*2"
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
Average Annual
Rur.ol f ,
l/yrfgal/yr)
2.5xl06
(6.6xl07)
9.1xl06
(2.4xl06)
!.2xl06
(3.2xl06)
1.4x10^
(3.6xl05)
Total Average Annual
leadings Based on BAT
Rf fluent Culdellnes,O) (4)
Kg/yr(lh/yr)
TSS .1.8xlo'*(4.0xlO'')
CN*a)90 (200)
Nil, 3700 (8100)
>OH 180 (400)
-
~
-
-y
Average Annual
Runoff Loadings,
Kg/yr(lh/yt)(b)
TSS 1.5X1011 (3.3x1;)'')
CN 2.75 (6.1)
NH3 150 (310)
+011 2.75 (fc.l)
TSS 7760 (1.7x10'')
HH3 3.0 (6.6)
*OI1 0.09 (0.2)
TKe 164 (361)
TSS 310 (680)
CN 0.24 (0.53)
MM] 1.2 (2.64)
+OH 0.05 (0.11)
TFe 14 (30)
TSS 550 (1710)
CN 0.8 (1.7)
NI13 41 (90)
$OH 0.04 (0.09)
TFe 18 (40)
Worst Case Average
Annual Runoff Loadings
(100Z Runoff),
Ks/yr(lb/yi)(h)
TSS 3.8x10'' (8.4X101*)
CN 7.0 (15.4)
NH3 384 (845)
»OH 7.0 (15.4)
TSS 3.8xlOu (8.4x10'')
Nil 3 15 (33)
$OH 0.45 (0.99)
TFe 810 (1780)
TSS 1570 (3455)
CN 1.22 (2.7)
Nil] 6.1 (13.4)
$011 0.24 (0.53)
TFe 69 (152)
TSS 2670 (5875)
CN 3.74 (8.23)
NII3 199 (438)
JOH 0.2 (0.44)
TFe 86 (189)
Cyanides amenable to chlorjnation.
(b)
(c)
Total cyanide.
Used 0103 d.-ita.
-------
given drainage basin were summed. Tables 7-4 and 7-5 present this evaluation
for the two sites. These data show that TSS mass loadings were greater than the
summed drainage basin point source loadings (based on BAT Effluent Guidelines)
for moderate to heavy intensity storms. The other parameters are of the same
magnitude or less than the drainage basin point source loadings. It can, there-
fore, be concluded that at some sites it may be beneficial to control TSS in
runoff from certain activities and operations to bring them down to the same
order of magnitude as point sources based on the proposed BAT Effluent Guidelines.
While the slag disposal areas at Site 2 did not contribute significantly to
stormwater contamination, some of the mills visited in this program do have slag
disposal piles which have a high potential for contaminating stormwater runoff.
Slag disposal areas may also provide an opportunity for leachate contamination
of groundwater, an aspect of nonpoint source contamination beyond the scope of
this program. Both mills surveyed had highly permeable soils. If a worst-case
is assumed where the infiltrate has pollutant concentrations similar to the
runoff, approximately three to four times as much material from these mills
could infiltrate the soils and potentially reach the groundwater. A groundwater
evaluation program may be warranted to verify this assumption.
Due to drainage patterns in the areas of iron ore and pellet storage, it
was impossible to set up sampling sites to monitor stormwater runoff. At both
sites, runoff from the. iron piles ended up in ponds or depressions and never
reached the receiving body. In addition, there was no distinct source from
which to collect samples, such as the coal pile drainage ditches in the coal
storage areas. Further studies should concentrate on the storage areas not
covered in this program.
-104-
-------
TABLE 7-4
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE HOURLY POINT SOURCE LOADINGS
FOR DRAINAGE BASINS WITH AVERAGE RUNOFF MASS LOADINGS FOR SEVERAL STORMS
SITE 1
MARCH-APRIL, 1977
1
M
O
Oi
1
Drainage
Basin
010
01 I
Average Hourly
I'roiluct Ion Rates,
Kr./lirdb/hr)^')
2.0xH)''(4.SxlO'1)Coke
2.0x10'' (4. 5xl01|)Coke
Average Hourly Loadings Baued
on Maximum for 1 Day BAT
Effluent Guidelines,
Ks/lir(lb/lir)<3>
TSS
4,011
NII3
TSS
.(,011
Nil)
0.6 (1.3)
0.01 (0.02)
0.25 (0.55)
0.6 (1.3)
0.01 (0.02)
0.25 (0.55)
Average Mas
3/24 Storm
TSS
NII3
TSS
$011
Hllj
0.06 (0.13)
0.004 (0.009)
0.013 (0.03)
0.14 (0.32)
0.002 (0.004)
0.023 (0.05)
erage Mass Loadings of Pollutants In Runoff,
Kg/hr(lb/lir)
rm
(0.13)
(0.009)
(0.03)
(0.32)
(0.004)
(0.05)
3/27-28 Storm
TSS
NI13
TSS
4,011
NH3
3.54 (7.8)
0.001 (0.003)
0.08 (0.19)
10.3 (22.6)
0.004 (0.009)
0.058 (1.28)
4/16 Storm
TSS
4-011
Nil-,
TSS
$011
NII3
n!d>>
n. !.<">
1.74 (3.83)
0.002 (0.004)
0.03 (0.07)
(a) n.il. - mi data obtained.
-------
TABLE 7-5
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE HOURLY POINT SOURCE LOADINGS
FOR DRAINAGE BASINS WITH AVERAGE RUNOFF MASS LOADINGS
FOR SEVERAL STORMS
SITE 2
MAY-JUNE, 1977
Dra iimge
Basin
I
I-1
o
I
010
e
Average Hourly
Production Rates,
Kg/hr(lb/hr)<4>
Z.OxlO5
(4.4xl05)Steel
l.OxlO5 ,
(2.2xlO:')Coke
Average Hourly Loadings Based
on Maximum for 1 Day RAT
Effluent Guidelines,
Kg/hr(lb/hr)O)
TSS
00H
CN
NH3
6.0 (13)
0.06 (0.13)
0.03 (0.07)
1.3 (2.9)
Average Mass Loadings of Pollutants,
KR/l>r(lb/hr)(b)
6/9-6/10 Storm
TSS
0011
CN
Nil 3
219 (482)
0.04 (0.09)
0.01 (0.07)
0.09 (2.18)
6/20 Storm
TSS
00H
CN
136 (299)
0.02(0.04)
0.03(0.07)
3.02(6.64)
(,i) Cyanides amenable to clilorination .
(l>) Total cyanide.
(3)
-------
Both plants studied are representative of industry-wide operations. There-
fore, while conclusions may be generally applied to the entire industry, each
site should be addressed independently because many factors besides operations
and climate affect the runoff loadings, including:
,Soil conditions
Topography
Size of drainage basins
Location of activities and operations relative to one another
Neighboring industries and urban areas
Proximity of plant to receiving waters
Plant size
The general results of the field program can also be applicable to the
entire industry, but site specificity should be considered when evaluating sur-
face runoff problems at individual plants.
-107-
-------
REFERENCES
1. Staff Report, National Commission on Water Quality (Washington, D.C.,
April 1976).
2. Report to the Congress, National Commission on Water Quality,
(Washington, D.C., April 1968).
3. Code o£ Federal Regulations, Title 40 - Protection of Environment,
Part 420 Iron and Steel ^Manufacturing Point Source Category,
Effluent Guidelines and Standards as of July 1, 1976.
4. Water Pollution Abatement Technology: Capabilities and Cost, Iron
and Steel Industry, National Commission on Water Quality, November
1975.
5. Brookman, G.T., Binder, J.J., Wade, W.A., Sampling and Modeling of
Non-Point Sources at a Coal-Fired Utility, Office of Research and
Development, EPA, EPA-600/2-77-199, September 1977.
6. Armco Steel Corporation, Houston Works, Storm Water Sampling Program
at Armco Steel Corporation, Houston Works, Houston, Texas, April 1, 1976.
7. Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana, California, Annual Summary of Sur-
face Runoff performed for the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, 1975.
8. Weant III, G.E., and M.R. Overcash. Environmental Assessment of Steel-
making Furnace Dust Disposal Methods. EPA-600/2-77-044, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,
D.C., 1977.
9. Handbook for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Technology Transfer, August 1973.
10. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Methods Development and Quality
Assurance Research Laboratory, 1974.
11. Franson, M.A. ed., Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastevater, 14th Edition, APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington, D.C. 1976.
12. Water Quality Criteria, 1972, U.S. E.P.A., EPA-R3-73-033 (March 1973).
13. Quality Criteria for Water, Pre-Publication Copy, U.S. E.P.A. (1975).
14. Melcalf & Eddy, "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology, an
Assessment," PB-240 687, NTIS, December 1974.
-108-
-------
15. Whippie, William, Jr., Urbanization and Water Quality Control,
Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minn.,1975, p. 122.
16. N.H. Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission "Literature Review -
Pollutant Concentrations in Urban Runoff," August 1977.
17. Urban Runoff Pollution Control Technology Overview, EPA 600/2-77-047,
March 1977.
18. Poertner, E.G., Practices in Detention of Urban Stprmwater Runoff,
Office of Water Resource Research, APWA, June 1974.
19. Ashton, P.M. and Underwood, R.C., Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution.
Proceedings of a Southeastern Regional Conference, May 1-2, 1975,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia, Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, September
1975, pp. 264-266.
20. Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from
all Construction Activity. EPA 430/9-73-007, October 1973, 41-129.
21. Morris, R.H., et al., Water Pollution Abatement Technology: Urban
Runoff; Capabilities and Cost, National Commission on Water Quality,
Washington, B.C., December 1975, II-3-II-4.
22. Midwest Research Institute, Water Pollution Abatement Technology:
Capabilities and Cost, Control of Water Pollution from Selected Non-
Point Sources, National Commission on Water Quality, Washington, D.C.,
November 1975, 44.
23. Reed, L.A., "Controlling Sediment from Construction Areas," Third
Symposium on Surface Mining and Reclamation, Volume II: 48-57
(October 21-23, 1975).
24. Climatological Data: National Summary. NOAA, 1970-1976.
25. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Severs, ASCZ, New York,
1960.
26. 1972 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Standard D2036-72, Method 3,
page 553, 1972.
-109-
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA SHEETS
-110-
-------
SAMPLE LOG
X
££
01 VI
H 0
a.
e u
,
pa
BCM
/TEB
a -ra
O U
M 0
CH u
-------
THE ^SEARCH CORPORATION of New England
125 SIUAS DEANE HIGHWAY. WETHERSFIELD. CONNECTICUT 06109
Environmental Consultants To Management
Date 5/10/77
FIELD SUPERVISOR'S DAILY ACTIVITY REPORT
Field Supervisor
Project No. 32593-04
Job Location site
1.
2.
3.
Name
BCM
TEB
DAK
Item
FIELD PARTY
Work Name
Hrs.
11 4.
11 5.
11 6.
EQUIPMENT STATUS
S/N Owner
Work Name
Hrs.
7.
8.
9.
Work
Hrs.
Condition (maintenance, breakdowns, etc.
1. All equipment functioning normally.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.-
13.
14.
15.
Summary of Day's Activity Q) Conducted equipment checks. (£) Preserved and packed samples
for shipping. V2/ Shipped samples to TRC laboratory. VJ/ Cleaned sample bottles and prepared
for more dry weather sampling.
Tomorrow's Work Plan Continue dry weather sampling.
Weather: Partly cloudy, 50°F
Follow-up Work Orders (corrective action)
Provisional Form
-112- -
None
Initials
-------
h KCD]
U LTL!
7=0 THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England
125 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY, WETHERSFIE LO, CONNECTICUT 06109
203 563-1431
Environmental Consultants To Management
DAILY EQUIPMENT STATUS CHECK LIST
Date 5/8/77 Checker(s) BCM. TEB
Site
Project No.32593-04
Equipment
|Time of Visit [
1680 Samplers
1. All bottles clean and open
2. Sampler on bottle number
3. Nicad Battery changed
4. Purged sample line
5. Dessicant recharged
6. Pulses or rain, before next sample
1700 Flow Meters
1. Bubble rate bubbles/sec
2. Weir water level (feet)
3. Disk water level (feet)
4. Readjusted disk
5. Nicad battery changed
6. Dessicant recharged
1710 Printer
1. Paper tape replaced
2. Ink cartridge replaced
3. Dessicant recharged
4. Clock updated (yes or no)
5. Clock reading
Climatronics Rain Gage-Time f1845 |
1. Chart paper replaced -
2. Batteries replaced
3. General inspection
1/4" = 0.021 feet
4
1850
yes
1
no
no
no
30
1.3
0.48
0.45!
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
18 4(
6
1840
yes
1
no
no
no
30
1.4
0.30
0.31
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
no
182
7
830
yes
1
no
no
no
30
1.3
o.io;
0.09f
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
181
8
9
10
1800
yes
1
no
no
no
60
12
yes
off
remov-
ed
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
remov-
ed
no
no
no
no
no
no
13
14
730
yes
off
emov-
ed
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
Belfort Rain Gage-Time | 1815 {
1. Chart paper replaced -
2. Rainfall (inches) -
3. Ink reservoir filled -
4. Clock operating yes
-113 - - -
-------
APPENDIX B
FIELD DATA
-114-
-------
TABLE B-l
DUSTFALL DATA, SITE 1*
Outfall 010 Estimated Acreage 2.6 Coal Handling
Sample Area Description
//I Moderate Activity -
Day
No.
1
2
3
4
5
#2 High
#3 Low
#1
Cumulative Average
Weights Per Day
4.67 4.67
7.48 3.74
49.44 16.48
16.29 4.07
15.04 3.01
Activity - Near
Near Water Tower
Conveyor
Activity - Outside Conveyor Area
Dustfall Values
#2
Cumulative
Weights
15.22
28.54
32.23
26.27
96.61
(mg)/4 sq ft
#3
Average Cumulative
Per Day Weights
15.22 0.06
14.27 0.09
10.74 2.38
6.57 2.94
19.32 1.25
Average
Per Day
0.06
0.04
0.79
0.74
0.25
Total Daily Average/ft2 =1.67 mg/day/ft2
Total Daily Average/Acre = 72.75 g/day/acre
Total Daily Average/Basin 010 = 0.19 kg/day (0.42 Ib/day)
"Data is calculated in metric/English units from raw field data
and is converted to metric units only in text of report.
-115-
-------
TABLE B-2
DUSTFALL DATA SITE 2**
Sinter Plant Estimated Acreage 11.4 High Activity
Coke and Coal Piles Estimated Acreage 1.5 Moderate Activity
Sample
Squares
j
j
\
Total
Weight
No.
Days
Avg.
Wgh.
Average
Average
for the
Sinter Plant Dustfall Site
Dustfall Weights (mg)/4 sq ft
HI 02 03 //4 #5 #6 //7 08 09
8.48 8.09 2,91 5.86 9.03 15.24 25.76 22.21 25.46
11.38 16.90 8.72 13.16 6.98 7.86 14.09 4.05 4.71
7.05 6.91 9.50 3.50 3.05 17.60. 9.53 7.36
26.91 31.9 21.1 22.52 19.06 40.7 49.38 33.62 29.63
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19
1.35 1.52 0.96 0.98 0.79 1.63 1.90 1.25 1.56
Daily Accumulation 1.33 mg/day/4 sq ft
0.33 mg/day/ft2
14.48 gen/day /acre
Daily Accumulation
Sinter Plant Area 0.17 kg/day
0.36 Ib/day
ATlio C!3mr»1o ornirrrei t.jae 1- ainr»p»T f*f\ TJT i"Vl .
Cokfc and Coal Storage Site
Dustfall Weights (rag)/4 sq ft
ill it 2 03 #4 //5 //6 i>7 U8
2.04 5.16 3.03 5.88 6.50 7.36 6.73 23.27
8.92 11.73 * 5.66 5.39 13.55 6.05 0,62
2.33 2.27 0.99 1.73 2.56 4.08 3.70 8.52
/
13.29 19.16 4.02 13.27 14.45 24.99 16.48 32.61
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
0.67 0.91 - C 58 0.60 1.0 0.63 1.21
Average Daily Accumulation 0.94 mg/day/4 sq ft
0.24 ms/day/ft2
10.24 em/day/acre
Average Daily Accumulation
for the Coke and Coal Area 0.015 kg/day
0.034 Ib/day
0 9
34.52
1.59
36.11
19
1.9
**Data is calculated in metric/English units from raw field data
and is converted to metric units only in text of report.
-------
TABLE B-3
TSS RESULTS, IN mg/2,
SITES #1 AND n
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Sample No.
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
TSS
Concentration,
mg/&
4
5
13
18
21
32
38
42
47
52
59
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
78
85
91
99
100
102
SITE #1
Oil
010
i
i
005
i
009A
009A
Coal Pile
Coal Pile
006-
006
3/24
'
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/28
1040
1100
1200
1300
1400
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1600
0115
2100
0012
0030
2240
0305
Storm #1
i
Stc
'
I
rm #2
11
10
16
12
17
122
54
44
62
59
100
163
34
45
53
64
25
17
527
761
2384
1116
511
180
-117-
-------
'TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/Jl
112
118
125
132
134
' 136
138
140
144
150
154
159
163
168
172
175
181
188
195
201
202
209
210
216
218
224
226
231
232
233
236
240
244
245
246
Oil
1
(
005
010
1
Oil
1
010
1
005
1
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/29
i
3/31
3/31
0022
0225
1100
2230
0045
0140
0300
0830
1300
2100
2215
2225
0040
0145
0445
0645
0800
1000
1200
1400
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
0800
0900
1000 .
1300
1700
2100
1444
1740
Storm #2
\
Storm #2
i
Dry Weather #1
Storm #3
20
151
76
69
66
78
36
22
38
22
32
293
198
238
94
10
15
15
15
13
14
17
5
6
7
4
11
21
15
16
19
6
17
25
44
-118-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/£
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
268
277
282
286
291
295
297
300
303
307
310
314
318
321
325
328
332
342
347
349
353
358
363
365
366
367
005
010
t
005
i
Oil
1
Coal Pile
Coal Pile.
009A
1
006
006
005
3/31
4/1
4/1
4/4
i
4/5
i
4
i
16
2100
0315
0846
0450
0626
1031
1109
0900
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
0900
1200
1500
1900
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1140
1155
1040
1125
1205
1415
1055
1120
1121
Storm #3
1
t
Storm #4
1
Dry Weather #2
1
Storm it 5
13
65
21
50
11
67
23
184
81
58
29
22
27
4
23
31
8
10
11
28
20
13
7
7
9559
3691
951
474
159
156
41
676
11
-119-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/«,
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
378
381
387
390
400
401
409
414
417
420
423
426
427
431
434
440
444
447
450
457
461
465
1
4
7
005
i
^
Oil
0(
|
D5
Oil
1
010
SITE #2
006
i
4/16
i
4/
4/.
17
L8
5/9
k
1133
1146
1208
1245
1339
1504
1626
0842
1138
1239
1423
1614
2223
0742
0945
1245
1545
1845
2145
2245
0930
1030
1130
1230
1137
1237
1337
1437
1537
0000
0130
0300
Storm #5
}
Dry Wes
1
ither #3
Dry Weather
\
11
18
65
47
113
96
65
. 20
84
46
34
27
18
30
19
12
16
14
11
10
36
23
42
20
649
171
100
52
78
416
23
20
-120-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/£,
10
14
15'
18
21
24
28
39
41
44
50
53
59
62
68
75
78
81
84
90
97
103
109
118
122
126
127
132
136
140
141
144
150
159
006
1
007
015
010A
1
004
006
007
i
004
I
5
i
/9
5/10
5/9
5/10
0430
0630
0000
0130
0300
0430
0630
1000
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0000
0030
0100
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0000
0200
0630
0000
0230
0430
0630
0000
0030
0130
0300
Dry Wea
ither
25
24
10
8
1
8
5
15
37
17
9
15
12
19
22
18
,16
7
9
6
7
11
12
38
23
63
12
30
4
13
8
8
9
7
-121-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date T.ime Sampling Event mg/J.
168
177
184
197
205
211
219
237
238
239
242
245
248
251
254
261
268
271
274
277
273
281
284
287
291
292
295
298
301
304
307
310
313
004
. 1
010A
\
015
002
*
008
009
015
006
0(
1
>
7
004
1
5
'
110
0430
0600
0000
0300
0500
0600
1845
1340
1615
1125
1410
1550
1140
1400
1545
1050
1030
1200
1330
1500
1030
1200
1330
1500
1700
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
Dry We
ather
Dry Weather
'
7
17
13
16
5
9
40
29
11
55
22
56
4
33
58
2
197
46
188
91
10
60
1
1
50
4
2
47
13
17
10
20
8
-122-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/fc
316
319
322
325
328
331
335
338
344
346
351
354
363
366
371
374
379
382
387
390
393
396
400
403
404
412
416
418
430
442
454
460
463
466
004
i
.
010A
i
010B
i
1
006
i
007
1
004
1
T
007
1
5/18
\
6/9
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
1700
1030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1630
0930
1015
1100
1200
1245
0930
1130
1230
0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
1500
1630
Dry Weather
i
Storm //I
12
12
16
17
18
18
21
27
28
19
30
11
19
13
21
26
28
24
23
2537
225
812
1720
183
45
6
10
11
8
11
6
17
33
48
-123-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/i
469
473.
474
483
492
501
513
517
525
533
540
552
568
572
582
592 '
596
602
607
617
660
674
682
685
693
696
701
704
709
712
714
716
718
720
007
I
004
' .
010A
010B
010B
012
010A
i
1
010B
1
006
i
6/9
i
1800
2000
1345
1515
1645
1815
2015
0930
1030
1130
1230
1030
1230
0930
1030
1130
1200
1230
1430
1950
1515
19.15
2115
1515
1715
1815
1915
2015
2115
1315
1415
1515
1615
1715
Storm //I
i
51
17
6
11
8
11
3
48
20
17
25
60
21
513
259
109
67
29
563
230
38
15
31
702
22
12
32
27
29
268
331
295
487
85
-124-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/£
722
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
736
739
742
745
748
751
754
757
760
764
766
769
772
776
783
787
791
796
842 >
846
850'
854
858
006
{
002
>
'
003
>
'
005
008
i
1
009
\
i
Oil
>
t
006
j
007
^
0]
1
3
i
6/9
'
6/
10
6/9
6/10
6/9
1
1815
1945
0950
1130
1630
2005
0955
1125
1630
1000
1030
1215
1605
2315
1035
1230
1615
2315
1045
1205
1520
2025
2215
2345
0145
2200
0000
0200
0430
1100
1150
1530
1650
1945
Storm #1
i
,
629
306
176
66
11
9
21
14
11
17
41
30
19
89
109
69
58
55
448
223
2684
56
354
218
151
93
45
39
10
152
72
1380
12
12
-125-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/Jl
861
868
874
877
884
887
891
894
903
912
921
933
941
946
953
956
960
962
966
970
972
976
980
984
987
994
1001
1011
1018
1029
1032
1035
1046
1053
014
i
r
T
004
1
F
010A
i
1
006
1
1
T
010B
)
010A
f
6/9
\
6/
6/
i
10
9
. 6/10
1
f
6/9
6/
,
10
1115
1540
1935
2050
1145
2235
2225
2255
0025
0155
0325
0000
0200
0300
0500
1516
1716
1816
2016
1500
1600
1800
2000
2300
0000
0200
0400
1650
1850
2150
1550
1650
1950
2150
Storm #1
-.
r
76
60
24
61
49
21
7
6
39
6
9
21
17
13
16
7
3
7
3
232
21
54
16
13
20
21
26
29
21
25
23
20
27
18
-126-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/2.
1056
1080
1095
1098
1100
1102
1104
1108
1112
1116
1120
1124
1127
1135
1138
1143
1151
1154
1156
1158
1160
1164
1168
1172
1176
1180
1182
1185
1188
1191
1194
1197
1200
1206
1212
004
1
007
i '
010B
>
006
>
004
6/10
\
6/20
i
1440
1840
1545
2110
1615
1645
1715
1815
1915
2015
2115
2215
1610
1710
1740
1810
1910
1545
1615
1645
1715
1815
1915
2015
2115
2215
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1745
1815
i n ~i
Storm #1
{
Storm #2
i
"
10
3
32
29
119
100
8
62
77
71
21
6
137
41
38
36
30
398
188
77
76
24
16
13
17
20
34
12
12
9
12
10
12
11
13
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
TSS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event rag/A
1219
1222
1226
1230
1234
1238
1242
1246
1252
1256
1260
1268
1272
1276
1279
1284
1286
1303
1315
1327
1339
1343
1354
1359
1362
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
004
1
007
'
006
012
i
004
i
010B
i
002
I
003
1
005
1
6/20
6/21
6/
i
20
6/21
1
6/20
6/21
6A
\
20
1845
1900
0100
0300
0500
0700
0900
1100
0115
0315
0515
0915
1115
1530 '
1600
1630
1700
0115
0315
0515
0715
2345
0245
0345
0445
1540
1555
1650
1535
1550
1635
1645
1535
1550
Ston
n #2
r
10
12
14
10
4
9
9
3
8
13
11
24
24
533
179
182
158
7'
7
5
6
24
29
27
31
79
17
15
132
97
34
23
78
36
-128-
-------
TABLE B-3
(Cont)
Sample No. Outfall Date Time
1380
1384
1387
013
014
t
6/20
1525
1530
1600
Jjampling Event
Storm #2
TSS
Concentration,
727
121
44
-129-
-------
TABLE B-4
IDS RESULTS IN mg/A
SITES //I AND #2
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
4
5
13
18
21
32
38
42
47
52
59
63
64
65
66
67
68
. 70
78
85
91
99
100
102
112
118
125
132
134
136
SITE #1
Oil
i
t
010
'
0(
>
'
)5
t
009A
009A
Coal Pile
Coal Pile
006
006
Oil
Oil
Oil
005
3/24
i
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
1040
1100
1200
1300
1400
1000
. 1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1600
0115
2100
0012.
0030
2240
0305
0022
0225
1100
2230
0045
0140
Storm //I
'
>
Storm #2
i
1196
1095
1095
1110
1098
2090
2222
2269
2088
1964
2310
2262
939
922
964
897
947
949
376
617
2205
2557
200
373
878
506
. 427
319
300
238
-130-
-------
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/Jl
SITES //I AND 02
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
138
140
144
150
154
159
163
168
172
175
181
188
195
201
202
005
1
010
1
0
>
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/27
3/27
3/28
3/28
i 3/28
LI
0300
0830
1300
2100
2215
2225
0040
.0145
0445
3/28 0645
3/29 0800
|
1000
1200
1400
010 j 0800
209
210
216
218 I
224
226 >
0900
1000
Storm #2
>
253
357
294
4993
3791
2376
1059
661
1315
1684
1
Dry Weather #1 j 676
668
! 1 1100
i
| 1200
1300
7
I 1400 1
231 005 j 0800
232
233
236
240
244 .
245
246
'
247 j |
j 0900
\ 1000
1300 !
1
1700
2100
i
689
698
2007
2110
2172
2044
2048
2066
2108
327
329
347
364
385
365
3/31 1444 Storm #3 559
f
248 j
3/31 1740 j
3/31 2100 !
4/1 10315 i
556
703
482
-131-
-------
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
TJ ' RESULTS IN rag/A
t, :TES #1 AND n
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Sample No.
Outfall
Date
Time
Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
nig/A
249
250
251
252
253
268
277
282
286
291
295
297
300
303
307
310
314
318
321
325
328
332
342
347
349
353
358
363
365
366
367
005
F
010
005
i
f
Oil
^
4/1
4/4
i
4/5
J
.
!
1
0846
0450
0626
1031
1109
0900
1100
1200
1300
Storm #3
Storm #4
i \
Dry Weather #2
1400
1500
0900
1200
1500
1900
0900
1000
1100
1200
1 1300
j 1400
Coal Pile 4/16
Coal Pile
OG
>
9A
006
006
005
i
1500
1140
1155
1040
1125
1205
1415
1055
1120
>
623
525
642
753
641
4063
4198
3639
3955
4106
4503
445
1 463
1
I
433
432
1045
1049
998
| 995
1025
! 1034
998
Storm #5 1419
v
j 2974
! 1023
t
1316
1 609
i
529
. j 1360
j 376
1 1121 ' 719
-132-
-------
Sample No.
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/4
SITES //I AND #2
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall Pate Time Sampling Event
IDS
Concentration,
mg/i
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
378
381
387
390
400
401
409
414
417
420
423
426
427
431
434
440
444
447
450
457 !
461
465
1
0
i
o:
oc
i
0]
<
0]
1
SITE
00
D5
LI
r
)5
1
!
.1
0
t
1
# 2
6
4y
4/
4/
5/
'16
17
18
1
i
i
I
i
I
i
t
i
19 '
1133
1146
1208
1245
1339
1504
1626
. 0842
1138
1239
1423
1614
2223
0742
0945
1245
1545
1845
2145
2245
0930
1030
1130 I
1230
1137 1
1237
1337
1437
1537
i
0000
Sto
.1
Dry W<
^
Dry Wes
rm #5
i
i
'
jather it 3
1
i
j
i
ither
715
611
603
341
305
284
259
1155
1133
892
992
915
845
753
395
424
420
400
413
399
790
793
790
767
2713
2757
5438
2741
2728
148
-133-
-------
Sample No.
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/A
SITES //I AND n
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall
Date
Time
Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
ing/
4
7
10
14
15
18
21
24
28
39
41
44
50
53
59
62
68
75
78
81
84
90
97
103
109
118
122
126
127
132
136
006
'
007
i
1
015
010A
i
t
5/9
i
5/10
5/9
004
'
1
1
006
i
1
007
J
f
i
0130
0300
0430
0630
0000
0130
0300
,0430
0630
1000
0000
0100
0200
0300
$ 0400
J
j 0500
I 0600
i
{ 0000
| 0030
Dry Weather
- 0100 j
i
i
0130
0230
0330
0430
[ 0530
5/10 0000
i
0200
0630
0000
f 0230
i
140
103
131
109
126
143
124
155
87
128
100
122
76
106
104
i
I 116
109
i 144
145
I
153
j 142
J 164
' 179
\ 151
1
156
(
109
102
i
i 126
i
j 245
i 140
1 0430 108
-134-
-------
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/Jl
SITES //I AND //2
MARCH - JUNE 1977
TDS
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/2.
140
141
144
150
159
168
177
184
197
205
211
219
237
238
007
004
>
5/10
010A
i
1
1
i
i
015 1
0630
0000
0030
0130
0300
0430
Dry Weather 102
0600
0000
0300
0500 i
I i
! 0600
1845
1
002 5/18
1
239 008
I
242 |
245
t
248 | 009 !
251
254 1
\
t
261
268
i
r ;
015 !
t
006 ;
271 ]
274
277
>
i
i
i
278 1 007
281
284 '
287
291
!
1
i
1340
1615
1125
1410
1550
\ 1140
t
i t
! 1400 !
! 1545
f
1 1050
1
1030
1200
i
f
1330
1500
1030 {
i
1200
1330 i
1500
1 1700 !
160
140
134
205
I 150
144
93
117
98
102
130
137
91
163
172
112
138
116
119
103
138
143
152
159
66
118
54
88
92
-135-
-------
Sample No.
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/i
SITES //I AND il
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
mg/R
292
295
298
301
304
307
310
313
316
319
322
325
328
331
335
338
344
346
351
354
363
004
1
010A
i
5/18
'
010B
J
366
371
374
379
382
387
390
393
396
400
1
1
006
>
,
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
,1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
1700
1030
1130
1230
j 1330
Dry Weather
J1430
1530 j
i i
1030
! 1130
| 1230
1330
1430
?
1530
1630
'
113
126
114
187
187
185 .
193
169
132
166
j 189
i
'
j
163
156
162
108
125
104
99
94
97
I 89
t
108
133
89
i
108
t
95
; 93
6/9 0930 Storm #1 j .301
i
1 1015
f 1100 |
\
5 1200 ' *
I 228
i
! 186
324
-136-
-------
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/A
SITES #1 AND n
MARCH - JUNE 1977
TDS
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/2,
403
404
412 .
416
418
430
442
454
460
463
466
469
473
474
483
492
501
513
006
007
-
004
r
007
i
6/9
|
i
1 J
004
^
i
517 010A
525
533
540
552
568
572
582
592
596
602
607
617
i
010B
010B
012
1 1
1
'
1245
0930
1130
1230
0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
1500
1630
1800
2000
1345
1515
1645
1815
} 2015
1 0930
1030 1
1130
I 1230
j
1030
1230
i
0930
1030
1130
1200
Storm //I
1230 j
1430 ! ' '
218
107
193
129
171
184
202
201
344
108
288
I 418
J
325
305
326
359
254
- 276
173
211
253
212
239
185
245
307
316
431
423
222
1 1950 546
-137-
-------
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
Sample No.
Outfall
IDS RESULTS IN mg/4
SITES #1 AND //2
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Date Time Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
754
757
760
764
766
769
772
783
009
Oil
^
f
006
1
?
6/9 2315
1045
1205
1520
2025
2215
.
f 2345
007 6/9 2200
787 |
791
796
1
i
1 610 0000
i
i
(
f ! 1
0200
0430
842 i 013 6/9 1100
t '.
846
850 S
854 j
858 i
1
i
t
r
T
861 014 '
! J
868
874 ]
1
877 1 i
i
1150
1530
1650
1945
1115
1540
1935
2050
884 015 ; 6/10 1145
t
887 i 6/9 2235
j
891 i 004
i »
894
i
903
912 !
i
} I
2225
2255
j 6/10 0025
!
i
921
j
f
933 ! 010A
941 1 ;
1 1
946 ! T
0155
0325
0000
0200
0300
Storm //I 172
389
516
299
681
191
t
190
! 143
i
155
i 196
240
j 601
873
884
; 1353
1690
i
430
I 232
'; 49b
j 524
! 150
215
< 233
i
i 233
| 213
: 223
222
I 186
f i 164
; 158
-138-
-------
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN rag/4
SITES //I AND //2
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Sample No. Outfall Date Time
953
956
960
962
966
970
972
976
980
984
010A 6/10 0500
ft
007
^ '
006
V
1516
1716
1816
2016
1500
1600
.1800
2000
010B 6/9 2300
987
994
1001 !
i
1011 !
t
1018 1
1029 | ^
6/10 | 0000
1032 010A
1035
1046
1053 ^
1056 004
1080
1095 ,
, '
1 0200 |
0400 !
1650
t
| 1850
} t
2150
; 155° !
i t
i 165° 1
\ 1950 I
> 2150
1 1440 i
l
1840
j 2110
1098 007 6/20 } 1545
> i
1100
1102
1104
1108
1112
1116
1
i
i 1615
;1645
J1715
'i 1815 |
1915 i
;2015 j
1120 j i2H5
TDS
Concentration,
Sampling Event mg/P,
Storm #1 197
207
184
232
175
j 285
173
171
158
158
133
132
179
154
152
137
165
175
158
138
231
190
' 253
Storm #2 172
1
157
196
352
192
186
144
: 361
-139-
-------
Sample No.
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/fc
SITES //I AND #2
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
mg/?.
1124
1127
1135
1138
1143
1151
1154
1156
1158
007
0103
i
0
1160 i
.1164
t
1168
1172 !
1176
1180 j .
i
f
36
i
1182 j 004
1185
1188
1191
1194
1197
1200
1206
1212
1219
1222
i
1226 j 007
1230 f
1234
1238
1242
.
6/20
1
6/21
* !
2215
1610
1710
1740
Storm 7/2
i
1810
1910
1545
. 1615
1645 j
1715
1815
1915
2015
2115
2215
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1745
1815
1845
1900
0100
0300
0500
0700
0900
>
332
146
158
161
191
185
490
! 199
231
i
251
>
226
213
190
190
253
188
164
174
164
176
170
160
167
188
195
180
270
205
225
201
: 271
-140-
-------
Sample No.
TABLE B-4
(Cont)
IDS RESULTS IN mg/d
SITES //I AND 92
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
TDS
Concentration,
mg/l,
1246
1252
1256
1260
1268
1272
1276
1279
1284
1236
1303
1315
1327
1339
1343
1354
1359
007
006
>
f
012
,
6/21 1100
0115
0315
0515
0915
1115
Storm #2 182
147
6/20 . 1530
i
i
f
i
1600
1630
| 1700 :
153
145
149
146
372
370
378
| 350
004 6/21 0115 ) 203
i
t
!
,
i
0315 f
! 0515
!
0715
010B 6/20 2345
i *
1362
i 6/21 0245
i 1
| 0345
f { 0445 j
1370 ! 002 i6/20 | 1540 i
\ 1,1
1371 I
1372 |
'
1373
,
f j
\
003 ;
1374
1375 j
1376
i
i
t t
t
1377 j 005 i
' 1 !
1378 i | |
i
1380 013
1384
1387
014 i
t
i
1555 |
1650 I
I 1535
(1550
J1635 |
i 1645 |
5 1535
;' t
f 1550 j
.' 1
(1525
j 1530 ! ^
t
| 264
218
217
186
I
j 190
216
1 200
! 112
j 132
i 156
! 106
j 93
j 98
104
69
59
355
398
i 1600 i 416
-141-
-------
TABLE 3-5
Sample No.
TOTAL IRON RESULTS, IN mg/£
SITES //I AND #2
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
Total Iron
Concentration,
mg/i
7
20
31
40
61
79
90
116
151
130
200
203
.220
272
288
313
327
341
348
3.57
380
386
391
402
430
433
439
443
SITE #1
Oil
Oil
010
I
009 A
Coal Pile
Oil
010
Oil
Oil
0.
1
10
Oil
Oil
Coal Pile
009A
009A
Oil
i
p
,
3/24
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/29
i
I
4/5
i
4/
'
i
16
4/18
I
1100
1400
1000
1200
1600
0115
0012
0131
2215
0800
1400
0800
1200
1000
1400
1000
1400
1140
1040
1205
1138
1239
1423
2223
0930
1030
1130
1230
Storm #1
Storm #2
i
r
Dry Weather // 1
'
i
Dry Weather // 2
>
Sto;
i
-m #5
Dry Weather # 3
^
t
0.96
1.0
3.6
2.6
2.3
51. JO
34.0
5.3
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.1
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.5
44.0
29.0
18.0
3.7
3.5
3.7
1.7
1.9
1.7
2.6
1.5
-142-
-------
TABLE B-5
(Cont)
Total Iron
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time . Sampling Event mg/;.
448
451
38
60
79
110
145
200
2*0
243
246
249
255
258
266
293
302
311
320
329
337
361
331
419
431
443
455
475
484
493
502
514
010
SITE it 2
015
010 A
004
010A
008
i
009
1
015
1
004.
>
r
010A
t
010B
004
i
r
4/18
5/.10
5/9
t
5/10
|
5/18
1
i
6/9
'
1.137
1237
1000
0400
0030
0530
0030
0300
1125
1410
1550
1140
1545
1050
1630
1030
1200
1330
1500
1630
1030
1630
1430
0930
1030
1130
1230
1345
1515
1645
1815
2015
Dry Weather #3
Dry Weather
<
8.3
4.2
0.57
0.72
0.57
0.51
0.20
0.57
1.5
| 2.2
! 1.0
0.78
1.4
0.26
0.47
1.2
.0.47
0.26
0.26
1.2
1 1.3
0.32
Storm //I
i
r
1.5
2.2
0.25
0.28
0.96
0.35
0.30
0.29
0.30
0.18
-143-
-------
TABLE B-5
(Cont)
Total Iron
Concentration ,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/Jl
519
527
542
546
554
562
570
573
583
593
603
608
618
010 A
i
I
010B
'
012
\
f
662 ! 010A
669
I
676
684
687
695
703
735
1
6/9
I
r
010B
1
008
737
740 j
t
743
746
749
752
755
759
765
843
852
859
862
865
i
1
009
i
*
»
Oil
|
013
>
t
T
0930
1030
1230
0930
1030
1130
1230
0930
1030
1130
1230
1430
1950
1515
1715
1915
2115
1515
1715
1915
1030
1215
Storm //I
1605
2315
1035
1230
1615
2315
1045
1520
1100
1530
1945
1115
1145
3.4
1.5
1.1
5.9
3.7
1.3
1.1
26.0
25.0
6.0
1.5
3.4
6.5
5.9
1.5
1.1
1.6
225.0
1.1
1.2
7.5
2.8
3,0
7.2
4.2
5.2
3.0
3.6
11.0
25.0
5.7
27.0
0.82
6.7
1.5
-144-
-------
TABLE B-5
(Cont)
Total Iron
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event rag/£
869
875
878
881
888
892
895
904
913
922
940
948
955
1000
0.14
i
f
015
.004
i
o:
i i
o:
1007 j
1010
1017 . |
1031 '
1034
1041
1048
1057
1081
1096
1129
1183
1186
1189
1192
1207
1223
1277
1285
>
t
.OA
t
.OB
r
010A
1
oc
1
)4
1
F
OIOB
004
i
I
012
*
6/9
'
5/10
6/20
1540
1935
2050
1010
2235
2225
2255
OQ25
0155
0325
0100
0300
0500
0300
Storm #1
0500 1
1550
1750
2150
1550
. 1750
1950
1440
1840
2110
1610
1545
1600
1615
1630
1745
1900
1530
1630
Storm in
\
14.0
0.95
3.2
0.89
0.95
0.68
0.45
0.68
0.40
0.38
1.1
1.3
0.93
0.74
0.80
0.93
0.90
1.2
0.98
1.0
1.1
0.29
0.22
1.2
5.9
1.3
0.18
0.35
0.41
0.22
0.38
5.7
18.0
-145-
-------
TABLE B-5
(Cont)
Total Iron
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/J.
1316
1340
1345
1381
1385
1388
1393
004
1
010B
013
014
1
015
6/21
1
6/20
0315
0715
2345
1525
1530
1600
1640
. Storm #2
0.31
0.56
1.6
16.0
11.0
3.2
0.65
i
-146-
-------
TABLE B-6
Sample No
DISSOLVED IRON RESULTS, IN mg/i
SITES //I AND in
MARCH - JUNE 1977
Outfall
Date
Time
Samoling Event
Dissolved Iron
Concentration,
mg/S,
3
89
120
147
167
183
207
217
269
287
311
324
344
352
361
379
388
403
432
441
449
54
80
lil
146
190
207
SITE //I
Oil
009A
Oil
010
010
Oil
010
>
r
Oil
Oil
Coal Pile
009A
OC
o:
>
)9A
Ll
r
010
SITE #2
010 A
004
\
010A
3/24
3/27
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/29
i
I
4/5
i
4,
i
i
16
4/18
5/
i
9
5/10
1100
2100
0225
2100
0145
0900
0900
1100
0900
1300
0900
1300
1155
1125
1415
1138
1423
2223
1030
1230
1237
0300
0030
0530
0030
0100
0500
Storm //I
Storm #2
>
'
Dry Weather #1
>
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
' O.I
Dry Weather #2 1 0.6
\
Stc
i
i 0.6
jrm #5
Dry Weather #3
1
Dry W«
i
t
iather
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
n.d.(a)
0.1
G.I
-147-
-------
TABLE B-6
(Cont)
Dissolved Iron
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/S,
241
247.
250
256
260
265
294
303 .
312
321
330
339
347
385
420
432
444
456
476
485
494
503
515 .
531
550
558
566
577
587
597
612
666
673
008
I
009
I
015
I
004
OI'OA
1
010B
004
1
010 A
01
1
)B
012
1
010A
t
5/18
i
6/9
1125
1550
1140
1545
1050
1630
1030
1200
1330
1500
1630
1130
1330
1530
0930
1030
1130
1230
1345
1515
1645
1815
2015
1100
1000
1100
1200
1000
1100
1200
1710
1615
1815
Dry Weather
i
Storm #1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
n.d. (a)
0.1
0.1
n.d. (a)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
n.d. (a)
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
-148-
-------
TABLE B-6
(Cont)
Dissolved Iron
Concentration ,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/Jl
681
692
700
708
736
738
741
744
747
750
753
756
763
768
849
863
867
876
879
883
890
893
905
914
937
952
990
1004
1014
1024
1038
1052
1058
1082
010A
010B
i
008
i
009
Oil
1
013
014
01
OC
*
5
4
010 A
1
010B
\
010 A
1
004
t
6/9
6/10
1
2015
1615
1815
2015
1030
1215
1605
2315
1035
1230
1615
2315
1205
2025
1150
1115
1145
1935
2050
1010
2235
2225
0025
0155
0000
0400
0000
0400
1650
1950
1650
2050
1440
1840
Storm //I
I
0.3
n.d. (a)
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
-149-
-------
TABLE B-6
(Cont) nj ,
Dissolved Iron
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/£
. 1097
1133
1184 .
1187
1190
1208
1224
1281
1289
1317
1382
1386
1389
1394
. 004
010B
004
012
004
013
014
015
6/10
6/20
i
6/21
6/20
1
2110
1640
1545
1600
1615
1745
1900
1600
1700
0315
1525
1530
1600
1640
Storm #1
Storm #2
!
*
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
a) n.d. - not detectable. Detectable limit is 0.02 mg/1.
-150-
-------
TABLE B-7
PHENOL RESULTS, IN mg/Z
SITES #1 AND //2
MARCH - JUNE, 1977
Samole No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
Phenol
Concentration,
nig/?-
1
9
SITE #1
Oil
19 !
27 I
30
39
48
60
77
96
109
115
122
146
155
164
178
179
199
265
233
308
; i -
_ A- -'
322
334
335
3/24
i
1000
1200
Storm //I
1400
3/24 1600
010
1
1
r
009A
Coal Pile
Oil
i
010
1
Oil
1
01
r
LO
010
Oil
C1I
Oil
Coal Pile
Coal Pile
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/27
3/28
3/30
3/29
4/5
4/ 5
1
4/16
1000
1200
1400
1600
0115
0030
2306
0131
0333
2100
2225
0145
1000
0800
1400
0900
1300
1
0.52
0.01
0.05
0.01
Storm #2
1
*
Dry Weather #1
Dry Weather //2
0900
1100
1300
1140
1155
1
Storn
i #5
. i
0.21
0.03
0.93
0.44
0.04
0.35
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
1.1
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.06
31.0
34.0
0.68
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.18
'540 009A 4/16 1.205 -1.09
360
375
384
406
428
437
445
454
462
009A
Oil
7
010
4/17
A/18
V
1415 ; 0.06
0342 |
1239
0742
0930
1130
1137
1337
1
Dry Wes
-151- i
ither #3
r
1537
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.02
25.0
16.0
23.0
-------
Sample No.
(Cont)
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event_
Phenol
Concentration,
mg/£
35
40
58
182
215
262
264
334
350
362
38 b
516
524
539
543
551
559
567
571
581
591
601
606
616
622
624
626
627
628
629
630
631
532 '
633
SITE #2
015
010 A
1
'
015
1
r
01 OA
I
010B
1
010A
1
010B
>
t
012
>
r
015
>
r
Oil
1
013
t
5/10
5/9
|
5/10
1
5/18
'
I
6/9
i
6/10
6/9
1000
0000
0400
0000
1845
1050
1630
1030
1430
1030
1630
0930
1030
1230
0930
1030
1130
1230
0930
1030
1130
1230
1430
1950
1010
2235
1145
1045
1205
1520
2025
1100
1150
1530
Dry Weather
>
Storm //I
1
f
0.02
0 . 01
n.ci. (a)
0.01
n.d. (a)
n.d. (a)
n.d. .(a)
0.01
n.d. (a)
0 . 0.1
n.d. (a)
0.01
0.0!
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0,01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
n.d. (a)
0.04
0.04
0.04
-152-
-------
TABLE B-7
(Cont)
Phenol'
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/i
634
635
636 .
637
639
' 640
642
645
647
648
649
650
651
653
656
658
1126
1142
1150
1275
1283
1290
1297
1342
1358
1366
1379
1390
T
010A
i
'
010B
i
010A
>
r
010B
>
012
1
r
0103
>
i
013
015
6/
9
1
6/10
1
'6/9
j
1
6/20
1
1
6/21
|f
6/20
t
1650
1945
1515
1715
2115
1515
1915
0100
0500
2300
0100
0300
0500
1750
1550
1950
1610
1810
1910
1530
1630
1730
1830
2345
0345
0545
1525
1640
Stor
1
m //I
»
Storm #2
1
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
n.d. (a)
0.01
0.01
0.01
n.d. (a)
0.01
n.d. (a)
0.01
n.d. (a)
0.01
n.d. (a)
0.12
0.02
0.01
0.19
0.02
n.d. (a)
n.d. (a)
0.04
0.03
(a) n.d. - not detectable. Detectable limit is 0.001 mg/£.
-153-
-------
TABLE B-8
CYANIDE RESULTS, IN mg/2
SITES //I AND #2
MARCH - JUNE, 1977
Sample No. Outfall Date Time . Sampling Event
Cyanide
Concentration,
6
25
37
51
54
82
87
95
113
121
126
153
162
171
184
198
205
222
273
289
312
326
343
356
362
383
389
47
55
SITE #1
Oil
Oil
010
'
1
-
009A
009A
Coal Pile
Oil
r
010
)
i
Oil
Oil
010
1
i
Oil
Oil
Coal Pile
009A
009A
Oil
Oil
SITE #2
01 OA
'
3/24
3/27
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/29
4/5
4/16
5/9
1100
1500
1100
1400
1500
2225
2100
0125
0022
0225
1100
2215
0040
0445
0900
1300
0900
1300
1000
1400
1000
1400
1140
1125
1415
1138
1423
0100
0300
Storm //I
Storm #2
s
i
Dry Weather //I
>
Dry We*
>
1
ither #2
r
Storm #5
'
'
Dry Weather
1
n.d. (a)
n.d
n.d
n.d
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n-d .
0.99
0.56
n.d.
n.d.
0.17
0.03
0.01
n.d.
0.01
0.01
0.01
-154-
-------
TABLE B-8
(Cont)
Cyanide
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event mg/2,
189
259
267
340
348
367
383
521 .
529
536
548
556
578
588
613
664
671
678
690
698
705
848
856
935
942
950
988
995
1002
1012
1019
1026
1036
1050
010A
015
1
010A
1
010B
1
010A
1
i
010B
|
012
I
\
010A
I
f
010B
1
' J
013
1
010A
1
t
010B
>
f
010A
t
5/10
5/18
.6/
1
9
i
6/10
1
i
0100
1050
1630
1130
1330
1130
1530
1000
1100
1200
1000
1100
1000
1100
1710
1615
1815
2015
1615
1815
2015
1150
1650
0000
0200
0400
0000
0200
0400
1650
1350
2050
1650
2050
Dry Weather
i
Storm
.
#1
-
f
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
n.d.
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.22
0.10
0.3
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.38
0.72
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
n.d.
0.01
0.01
0.01
-155-
-------
TABLE B-8
(Cont)
Cyanide
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event tng/2,
1131
1139
1282
1287
1294
1347
1355
1363
1392
010B
I
012
1
010B
) '
015
6/20
i
6/21
1
|
6/20
1640
1740
1600
1700
1800
0045
0245
0445
1640
Storm //2
\
f
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.09
0.17
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
j
(a) n.d. - not detectables. Detectable limit is 0.001 mg/£.
-156-
-------
TABLE B-9
AMMONIA RESULTS, IN
SITES #1 AND #2
MARCH - JUNE, 1977
Ammonia
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
2
10
' -14
23
34
43
84
88
92
111
117
131
148
157
165
182
190
197
206
221
266
284
309
SITE #1
o:
i
.1
1
010
010
009A
009A
Coal Pile
o:
l
.1
r
010
>
i
Oil
010
^
r
Oil
3/24
i
i
3/27
3/27
3/28
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/27
3/28
3/
1
29
4/5
1040
1200
1300
1500
1100
1300
2225
2100
0012
2306
0131
1200
2100
2225
0145
0900
1100
1300
0900
1300
0900
1300
0900
-157-
Storm //I
1
Storm //2
i
Dry
Dry
!
»
Weather //I
i
Weather #2
1
IHR/i
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.1
' 47.0
52.0
3.5
0.23
. 84.0
1.4
2.0
28.0
73.0
55.0
3.6
20.0
21.0
26.0
54.0
56.0
96.0
87.0
4.9
-------
TABLE B-9
AMMONIA RESULTS, IN mg/2.
SITES #1 AND n
MARCH - JUNE, 1977
Ammonia
Concentration,
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
2
10
' -14
23
34
43
34
88
92
111
117
131
148
157
165
182
190
197
206
221
266
284
309
SITE #1
o:
i
1
'
010
010
009A
009A
Coal Pile
Oil
>
f
010
>
1
Oil
010
1
f
Oil
3/24
3/27
3/27
3/28'
3/27
3/28
3/28
3/27
3/27
3/28
3/29
4/5
1040
1200
1300
1500
1100
1300
2225
2100
0012
2306
0131
1200
2100
2225
0145
0900
1100
1300
0900
1300
0900
1300
0900
-158-
Storm #1
*
Storm #2
r
Dry Weather #1
Dry
t
Weather #2
\f
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.1
' 47.0
52.0
3.5
0.23
8.4 ;0
1.4
2.0
28.0
73.0
55.0
3.6
20.0
21.0
26.0
54.0
56.0
9fa.O
87.0
4.9
-------
TABLE B-9
(Cont)
Samole No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
323
346
.351
359
377
385
392
405
408
429
436
438
442
446
453
455
460
463
32
42
56
195
336
SITE #1
Oil
Coal Pile
00 9A
009A
Oil
'
r
010
'
^
i
SITE #2
015
010A
\ i
4/5
4/
\
16
1
4/17
4/18
1
5/9
5/10
5/18
1300
1155
1040
1205
0842
1239
1423
2223
0742
0930
1030
1130
1230
1137
1237
1337
1437
1537
1130
0000
0300
0200
1030
Dry Weather #2
Storm #5
>
'
Dry Weather #3
Dry
Weather
t
Ammonia
Concentration,
mR/4
5.0
27.0
2.0
2.6
1.3
0.66
0.77
0.87
0.65
0.57
1.2
1.1
1.0
66.0
74.0
56.0
84.0
82.0
6.0
5.2
86.0
4.8
5.2
-159-
-------
TABLE B-9
(Cont)
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
349
360
380
518
526
534
541
545
553
569
574
584
594
604
609
661
668
675
683
686
694
702
710
762
767
845
853
882
886
889
931
SITE #2
010 A
1
010B
010 A
T
r
010B
1
1
01.2
i
i
1
010A
' -
r
010B
>
r
If
013
I
015
i
'
010A
]
.8
6/9
1330
1630
1430
0930
1030
1130
1230
0930
1030
1230
0930
1030
1130
1230
1430
1515
1715
1915
2115
1515
1715
1915
2115
1205
2025
1100
1530
1010
1145
2235
2300
Dry
>
Weather
i
Storm //I
'
r
Ammonia
Concentration,
ng/4
3.8
5.7
7.1
0.36
0.70
0.49
0.45
0.88
1.3
0.60
0.41
1.0
0.79 '
0.73
0.56
0.17
0.10
0.22
0.21
0.28
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.23
0.43
31.0
39.0
0.20
0.39
0.51
0.12
-150-
-------
TABLE B-9
(Cont)
Ammonia
Concentration,
Sample No. Outfall Date Time Sampling Event uiR/S.
944
954
985
.992
999
1006
1009
1016
1023
1030
1033
1040
1051
1123
1132
1136
1140
1144
1152
1280
1288
1295
1344
1356
1364
1383
1395
SITE #2
010A
1
010B
>
i
010 A
J
010B
>
r
'012
>
01
i
f
OB
r
013
015
6./ 10
1
6/9
6/10
i
6/20
-
6/21
|
6/20
t
0200
0500
2300
0100
0300
0500
1550
1750
1950
2150
1550
1750
2050
1610
1640
1710"
1740
1810
1910
1600
1700
1800
2345
0245
0445
1525
1640
Storm #1
-. 1
'
Storm #2
f
0.23
0.33
0.11
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.14
0.10
0.10
4.1
1.2
0.50.
1.6
0.39
0.40
1.3
1.6
1.6
0.18
0.18
0.23
18.0
0.28
-161-
-------
TABLE B-10
Sample No.
SULFATE RESULTS, IN mg/SL
SITES #1 AND #2
MARCH - JUNE, 1977
Outfall Date Time Sampling Event
Sulfate
Concentration,
36
41
46
55
149
152
166
204
SITS //I
010
T 1 1
., Li
::i9 ';
267
I
276
285
3/24
i
3/27
3/27
1100
1200
1300
1500
2100
2215
3/28 0145
3/29 0800
Storm //I
\ '
Storm #2
Dry Weather '/I
3/29 iOOO
7 l 'MO
4/5 0900 ; Dry We
270
303
260
303
490
380
ISO
360
***
\ 1*30 ."*
.; J ..
acher ^2 [ A;:0
, ^ ' ,
4/5 1100
f 1300
294 4/5 1500
218
257
263
575
580
585
595
605
610
615
620
758
761
844
851
855
1278
1380
SITE #2
0.15
T
i
012
i
Oil
J
013
i r
012
5/10
5/18
l
1
6/9
i
6/20
1845
1050
1630
09.30
450
' 1580
475
Dry Weather
i
j
Storm //I
i
1000
1030
1130
1230
1430
1710
1950
1045
1205
1100
1530
1650
1530
013 | t J 1525
>
Storm #2
t
-162-
20
20
20
63
70
79
100
128
52
54
70
195
270
160
190
36
85
128
-------
APPENDIX C
CALCULATIONS FOR TABLES 7-2 THROUGH 7-5
-163-
-------
CALCULATIONS FOR TABLES 7-2 THROUGH 7-5
Example: Site iTi Outfall Oil
Operations: 1/2 of Coke Ovens and Coke By-Products Area
_ , ,. .,-... ton . N .-365 days.. fn <-\ 0 ,,
Production: (1,079 -. coke) (-: - *) (0.5) = 2.0 x
day 1 year
tons coke
year
This assumes that if one half of the operation is located in the basin, then
one half of the production from this operation will take place in the basin.
REGULATIONS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKE SUBCATEGORY (BAT)
Effluent Characteristic
Maximum for Any One Day
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) of Product
Thirty day average effluent limitations will be used.
Average of Daily
Values for Thirty
Consecutive Days
Shall \7ot Exceed
Cyanide A
Phenol
Ammonia
TSS
0.0003
0.0006
0.0126
0.0312.
0.0001
0.0002
0.0042
0.0104
Parameter
Cyanide A: (0.0001 lb/1000 lb coke) (2QOQ lb)
I ton
(2.o x 10s tons C°ke) =
year
Phenol: (0.0002 lb/1000 lb coke) (2°?°,lb)
ton
(2.0 x
tons coke
vear
Ammonia: (0.0042 lb/1000 lb coke) (200° lb)
1 ton
(2.0 x 105
tons cokes
year
Average Annual Loadings
from Operations
40 Ib/year (18 kg/year)
SO Ib/year (36 kg/year)
1700 Ib/year (800 kg/year)
-164-
-------
Parameter
TSS: (0.0104 lb/1000 Ib coke) (200° lb)
1 ton
(2.0 x
Average Annual Loadings
from Operations
4100 Ib/year 1850 kg/year
Acreage =70.5
Average annual rainfall = 52 inches/year (132 cm/year)
Average runoff coefficient = 0.25
52 inches rain] 1 ft /
i year / \12 inches / x
year
ear
3.259 x 105 gal
- L acre_ft* ) =
Runoff
Rainfall
= Runoff coefficient
?U"°ff.nH r-r = 0.25. Thus Runoff = 2.5 x 107 &L. (9.4 K 107 _L_
1.0 x iO° gal/year year \ year
Parameter
TSS
Ammonia
Phenol
Cyanide
Parameter
TSS: (2.5 x 107 S*L.) (3.785
year 1 ~-
1 "" ->
Mean Runoff Concentration from Table 5-9, mg/£
35.0
3.4
0.086
0.002
(35 mg/x.)
mg
kg
Average Annual Loadings
from Runoff
7290 Ib/year (3315 kg/year)
-165-
-------
Parameter
Average Annual Loading
from Runoff
-, ffal 3 78S 5
Ammonia: (2.5 x 107 *^-) ( .' . ) (3.-
year 1 gal
mg' v 1 kg
Phenol: (2.5 x 107
year
..I kg > r2.2
; v
10° mg' v 1 kg
i
Cyanide: (2.5 x 107
(0.086 mg/£)
7RS ?
(, . ) (0-002 mg/£)
, .
year 1 gal
700 Ib/year (300 kg/year)
20 Ib/year (9.0 kg/year)
(0'2
Parameter
*Cvanide A
Parameter
TSS
Cyanide**
Ammonia
Phenol
Average Annual
Loading from Operations
Based on BAT Effluent Limitations,
kg/yr (Ib/yr)
Average Annual Loading
from Operations Based on
30 Day BAT Effluent Guide-
lines, kg/yr (Ib/yr)
1850 (4100)
18 (40)
800 (1700)
36 (80)
Average Annual
Loading from Runoff,
kg/yr (Ib/yr)
TSS
Cyanide*
Ammonia
Phenol
1350 (4100)
18 (40)
800 (1700)
36 (80)
3315 (7290)
0.2 (0.4)
300 (700)
9.0 (20)
Average Hourly*
Loadings for Operations
Based on 30 Day BAT Effluent
Guidelines, kg/hr (Ib/hr)
0.2 (0.4)
0.002 (0.004)
0.08 (0.18)
0.004 (0.008)
*A11 values calculated as follows:
**Cyanide A.
1850 kg. (1 year . .1 day ,
i. O U* V, / V o / r i /\o/i / U j
year J65 days 24 hours
Jss.
hr
-166-
-------
Average Hourly Loadings*
Based on Maximum 1 Day
Parameter BAT Effluent Guidelines, kg/hr (Ib/hr)
TSS 0.6 (1.3)
Cyanide** 0.01 (0.02)
Ammonia 0.25 (0.55)
Phenol 0.01 (0.02)
*A11 values calculated as follows:
Ib
TSS
: (2.0 , 105
year ' \ 365 days/ \24 hours/ \ 1 ton / \ 1000 Ib coke
°'6tl
**Cvanide A
-167-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA -600/2 -79-046
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Assessment of Surface Runoff from Iron and
Steel Mills
5. REPORT DATE
February 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
G. T. Brookman, B. C. Middles worth, and J. A. Ripp
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2133, Task 4
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 4/76 - 6/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer is Norman Plaks , MD-62, 919/541-2733
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of a program to determine if surface runoff from
iron and steel mills is an environmental problem. It includes a compilation of data
available before this program, information gathered from plant tours, and results of
a field survey at two fully integrated mills on tidal rivers. Data collected at the two
sites indicate that coal/coke storage piles and handling areas have the highest poten-
tial for contaminating stormwater. The data also indicate that total suspended solids
(TSS) runoff concentrations are typical of urban runoff concentrations, while total
dissolved solids (TDS) values are about 1 to 2 times the typical urban runoff concen-
trations. From plant tours it was found out that current stormwater controls in the
steel industry are limited. The only system specifically designed for stormwater
control is at Armco's Houston Works, where coal piles have been diked to control
Doth fugitive air emissions and stormwater runoff. Some mills collect stormwater
runoff with process wastewater for subsequent treatment at a terminal plant. Met-
hods applicable to the industry include rainfall detention ponding rings for flat roofs,
swirl degritters, and retention basins or sedimentation ponds. It was concluded that,
except for runoff from coal/coke storage areas, stormwater runoff is not a problem
when compared to point source control.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Runoff
Iron and Steel Industry
oal Coal Storage
oke Dust
oal Handling
Measurement
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Non-Point Sources
Coke Handling
Coke Storage
Particulate
13B
11F,05C
08G,21D
15E
14D
08H,
081
11G
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
175
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-168-
------- |