United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/2-79-138
Laboratory July 1979
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
Integrated Steel Plant
Pollution Study for Total
Recycle of Water
-------
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-600/2-79-138
July 1979
Integrated Steel Plant Pollution Study
for Total Recycle of Water
by
Harold Hofstein and Harold J. Kohlmann
Hydrotechnic Corporation
1250 Broadway
New York, New York 10001
Contract No. 68-02-2626
Program Element No.1BB610
EPA Project Officer: Robert V. Hendriks
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
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of an engineering ;
study of five integrated U.S. steel plants so that each
might achieve the total recycle (zero discharge) of water.
Conceptual engineering for the facilities required to reach
that goal, as a next stage after achieving BAT compliance, was
performed in two stages. Stage one, considering waters that are .
contaminated by chemicals, suspended solids, etc. and stage two,
the contaminated waters plus non-contact cooling water. Capital
and operating costs were estimated and energy requirements were
developed. Technologies were compared and the most promising,
although not all of them proven on the scale required at inte-s
grated steel plants, were selected as being applicable.
Additional water related air pollution control facili-
ties were considered as being installed and the use of contami-
nated water for coke and slag quenching was considered as being
replaced by uncontaminated water.
Problems identified as requiring investigation before
implementation of total recycle could be met were: development
and verification of the technologies selected to insure perfor-
mance of each on the individual wastes and combinations of wastes
being treated; determination of the environmental impacts of
increased off-site power generation, additional fuel require-
ments, and solids disposal; cost-benefit analyses of total re-
cycle of water; sociological effects of possible plant closings;
meteorological and hydrological effects of increased water
losses, especially in water short areas; and the effects of to-
toal recycle on plant production during and after construction
of the facilities.
It is estimated that implementation of total recycle
of water, including non-contact cooling water, would increase the
cost of steel by 4 to 5 percent, create an energy demand of
over 1,000 MWe and require the use of over 25 million kkg (28
million tons) of coal.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-02-2626 by Hydrotechnic Corporation under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The cooperation of the American Iron and Steel Insti-
tute, its assigned task force, and the corporate and plant
staffs of Kaiser Steel Corporation, Fontana Works; Inland Steel
Company; National Steel Corporation, Weirton Steel Division;
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Indiana Harbor Works; and the
United States Steel Corporation, Fairfield Works, is gratefully
acknowledged. Their cooperation in permitting the contractor to
visit their plants and freely discuss the air and water facili-
ties, both by correspondence and frequent telephone conversa-
tions, greatly facilitated the preparation of this report.
The helpful suggestions and comments from R. Hendriks,
Project Officer and N. Plaks, Branch Chief, Metallurgical Pro-
cesses Branch, Industrial Processes Division, U.S.E.P.A., IERL,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. were sincerely appreciated.
The work was performed by Harold J. Kohlmann, Harold
Hofstein, Joseph Schechter, Vincent Stromandinoli, Edward
McAniff and Thomas Hartman of Hydrotechnic Corporation.
Portions of this report relating to air pollution
control are based on information provided by Mr. Richard Jablin
of Richard Jablin & Associates.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Number
TITLE PAGE
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION II-l
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT II-l
2.2 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT II-l
3.0 SOURCES AND QUANTITIES OF POLLUTANTS III-l
3.1 AIR EMISSION III-l
3.2 WATER USAGE AND DISCHARGES III-3
3.2.1 Coke Making and By-Product Plant Water Use III-3
3.2.2 Water Use for Sintering III-6
3.2.3 Iron Making Water Use III-6
3.2.4 Steel Making Water Use 111-10
3.2.5 Hot Forming Water Use 111-12
3.2.5.1 Continuous Casting 111-12
3.2.5.2 Primary Hot Rolling 111-13
3.2.5.3 Secondary Hot Rolling 111-17
3.2.6 Cold Finishing Water Use 111-17
3.2.6.1 Pickling 111-17
3.2.6.2 Cold Reduction Mills 111-18
3.3 SOLID WASTES 111-20
3.3.1 Coke Making 111-20
3.3.2 Sintering 111-20
3.3.3 Ironmaking 111-20
3.3.4 Steelmaking 111-23
3.3.5 Hot Forming 111-23
3.3.6 Pickling 111-24
3.3.7 Cold Rolling 111-24
3.3.8 Annealing 111-24
3.3.9 Coating 111-24
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS 111-24
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Number Page
3.4.1 General Regulations for Discharges from 111-24
Integrated Iron .and Steel Plants
3.4.1.1 Air Emission Regulations 111-24
3.4.1.2 Wastewater Discharge Regulations - 111-25
3.4.1.2.1 Coke Making - By-Product Operation 111-31
3.4.1.2.2 Coke Making - Beehive Operation 111-31
3.4.1.2.3 Sintering Operations 111-33
3.4.1.2.4 Blast Furnace Operations 111-33
3.4.1.2.5 Steelmaking Operations 111-33
3.4.1.2.6 Continuous Casting 111-33
3.4.1.2.7 Hot Forming Primary 111-33
3.4.1.2.8 Hot Forming - Section 111-33
3.4.1.2.9 Hot Forming/Flat-Hot Strip and Sheet 111-33
3.4.1.2.10 Hot Forming/Flat-Plate 111-34
3.4.1.2.11 Pipe and Tubes - Integrated and Isolated 111-34
3.4.1.2.12 Pickling - H2S04 and HCl - Batch and Continuous 111-34
3.4.1.2.13 Cold Rolling - Combination and Direct Application 111-34
3.4.1.2.14 Hot Coating - Galvanizing and Terne 111-34
3.4.1.2.15 Electroplating 111-34
3.4.1.2.16 Miscellaneous Runoffs 111-34
3.4.1.2.17 Conclusions 111-34
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL METHODS 111-34
3.5.1 Air Emission .Control 111-34
3.5.1.1 Particulate Matter Control Methods 111-35
3.5.1.2 Gas Control Methods 111-37
3.5.2 Wastewater Control 111-37
3.5.2.1 Suspended Solids Removal 111-38
3.5.2.2 oil Removal 111-48
3.5.2.3 Inorganic Dissolved Solids Removal 111-52
3.5.2.4 Organic Dissolved Solids Removal 111-60
3.5.2.5 Chemical Oxidation 111-64
3.5.2.6 Combined Biological - Carbon Treatment 111-67
3.5.2.7 Solvent Extraction 111-67
3.5-2.8 Miscellaneous Oxidative Destruction 111-67
3.5.3 Cooling 111-68
3.5.3.1 Cooling Ponds 111-68
3.5.3.2 Cooling Towers 111-68
3.5.3.3 . Dissolved Solids Control 111-70
3.5.4 Solids-Water Separation 111-71
3.5.4.1 Thickening ......_„
3.5.4.2 Sludge Digestion and Composting
3.5.4.3 Drying Beds
3.5.4.4 Sludge Conditioning
3.5.4.5 Vacuum Filtration
3.5.4.6 Filter Presses III 75
VI
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Number
3.5.4.7 Filter Belt Presses 111-75
3.5.4.8 Centrifuges 111-76
3.5.4.9 Screening 111-76
3.5.4.10 Solvent Extraction - 111-77
3.5.4.11 Combustion 111-77
REFERENCES III-70
4.0 SUMMARY OF FIVE PLANTS IV-1
4.1 PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF STEEL PLANTS IV-1
4.2 SUMMARY OF THE FIVE PLANTS STUDIED IV-11
4.2.1 Kaiser Steel Corporation - Fontana Works IV-12
4.2.2 Inland Steel Company - Indiana Harbor Works IV-15
4.2.3 National Steel Corporation - Weirton Steel ,„
Division
4.2.4 United States Steel Corporation - Fairfield Works IV-22
4.2.5 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company - Indiana TV-?*.
Harbor Works
4.3 PROBLEMS EXPECTED TO BE ENCOUNTERED IV-27
4.3.1 Common Problems IV-27
4.3.2 Specific Plant Problems IV-29
5.0 . TECHNIQUES FOR ACHIEVING BAT AND TOTAL RECYCLE V-l
5.1 RECYCLE AND REUSE V-l
5.2 TREATMENT OF ORGANIC COKE PLANT WASTES V-6
5.3 SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL V-8
5.4 DISSOLVED SOLIDS REMOVAL V-9
5.4.1 Review of Possible Processes V-10
5.5 COOLING V-18
5.6 FINAL SOLIDS DISPOSAL V-19
5.7 POSSIBLE PLANS FOR PLANTS TO MEET BAT AND ~~
TOTAL RECYCLE
5.7.1 Kaiser Steel Plant - Fontana, CA V-24
5.7.2 Inland Steel Company - Indiana Harbor Works v-25
East Chicago, IN
5-7.2.1 BAT Systems V-26
5.7.2.2 Total Recycle V-27
5.7.3 National Steel Corporation - Weirton Steel v-30
Division, Weirton, WV
5.7.3.1 BAT Systems V-30
5.7.3.2 Total Recycle V-32
5.7.4 United States Steel Corporation - Fairfield Works V-34
5.7.4.1 BAT Systems . V-34
5.7.4.2 Total Recycle V-36
5.7.5 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company - Indiana v-37
Harbor Works
5.7.5.1 BAT Systems V-37
vn
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Number
5.7.5.2. Total Recycle V-38
REFERENCES V-42
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS VI-1
6.1 IN-PLANT EFFECTS VI-2
6.2 EXTRA-PLANT EFFECTS VI-3
6.2.1 Power Generation VI-3
6.2.2 Water Loss VI-5
6.2.3 Meteorological Effects VI-5
6.2.4 Energy Consumption VI-8
6.3 SUMMARY OF COSTS VI-8
6.3.1 BAT Costs VI-10
6.3.2 Total Recycle Costs VI-10
6.3.3 Increase in the Cost of Steel VI-11
6.4 SUGGESTED RESEARCH VI-11
6.4.1 By-Product Coke Plant Wastewaters VI-11
6.4.2 Blast Furnace Gas Washer Slowdown Treatment VI-12
6.4.3 Dissolved Solids Removal VI-12
6.5 POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM VI-13
REFERENCES VI-17
Vlll
-------
FIGURES
Number Title Page
3-1 By-Product Coke Plant - Water Use Diagram III-5
3-2 Sinter Plant - Water Use Diagram III-7
3-3 Blast Furnace - Water Use Diagram III-9
3-4 EOF - Water Use Diagram III-ll
3-5 Continuous Casting - Water Use Diagram 111-14
3-6 Primary Rolling - Water Use Diagram 111-15
3-7 Secondary Rolling - Water Use Diagram 111-16
3-8 Pickling - Water Use Diagram 111-19
3-9 Cold Reduction Mill - Water Use Diagram 111-21
4-1 Plant Selection Process - Logic Diagram IV-6
4-2 Locations of Selected Integrated Steel Plants IV-10
5-1 Dissolved Solids Removal Processes V-15
5-2 Cumulative Cost of Dissolved Solids Removal V-17
5-3 Cooling Methods V-20
5-4' Comparison of Cumulative Annual Costs of v-21
Cooling Systems
6-1 Schedule for Total Recycle Project VI-15
IX
-------
TABLES
Number Title rage
3-1 Principal Air Pollution Sources III-2
3-2 By-Product Coke Plant - Water Application III-4
Quantities
3-3 Solid Waste Sources 111-22
3-4 State Air Pollution Regulations 111-26
3-5 State Air Pollution Regulations 111-27
3-6 Michigan - Particulate Emissions Regulations 111-28
3-7 BAT - Effluent Limitations Guidelines I 111-29
3-3 BAT - Effluent Limitations Guidelines II 111-30
3-9 BAT Discharge Volumes 111-32
4-1 List of Possible U.S. Integrated Steel Plants IV-2
(4 Sheets)
4-2 Ranking Procedure IV-8
4-3 Final List of 14 Plants for Possible Future IV-9
Study
4-4 ' Kaiser Steel - Fontana Works Treated Wastewater IV-17
Discharges
4-5 Inland Steel - Water Discharge Qualities IV-20
4-6 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company - Indiana IV-28
Harbor Works Treated Wastewater Discharges
5-1 Procedures to Maximize Water Quality for Reuse V-3
5-2 Dissolved Solids Removal - Summary of Costs V-16
and Energy Requirements
5-3 Inland Steel Company - Summary of Costs for BAT V-31
and Total Recycle
5-4 Weirton Steel Division - Summary of Costs for V-35
BAT and Total Recycle
5-5 U.S.S.C. - Fairfield Works - Summary of Costs V-39
for BAT and Total Recycle
5-6 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company - Indiana V-41
Harbor Works - Summary of Costs for BAT and
Total Recycle
6-1 Summary of Energy Requirements to Meet BAT and VI-4
Total Recycle
6-2 Water Requirements of Five Plants Studied VI-6
6-3 Water Requirements per Unit of Production VI-7
6-4 Costs to Meet BAT and Total Recycle VI-9
-------
APPENDICES
A. Kaiser Steel Corporation - Fontana Works
B. Inland Steel Company - Indiana Harbor Works
C. National Steel Corporation - Western Steel Division
D. United States Steel Corporation - Fairfield Works
E. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company - Indiana Harbor Works
F. Cost Estimate Summaries
G. The Integrated Iron and Steel Plant
XI
-------
SECTION 1.0 - SUMMARY
Five integrated steel plants were studied to determine
the facilities needed for each of the plants to achieve total
recycle of water with facilities to meet BAT requirements being
installed as a first stage. Based on this study the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. A typical plant does not exist. Due to process re-
quirements, location, etc., each plant is a unique
and individual entity and only generalized findings
can be transferred from one plant to another.
Studies of more plants would most probably rein-
force this conclusion.
2. Significant in-plant problems would be created if
the requirement of total recycle is imposed on the
steel industry. These problems include possible
disruption of production facilities during and after
construction, increased in-plant traffic, broader
safety requirements, and the need for more extensive
monitoring of water quality and control of water
systems to reduce the chance of outages of produc-
tion facilities due to water system failure.
3. An additional 1,183 MWe (Megawatts electric) of
offsite electrical power generation will be required
over the next ten years if total recycle, including
non-contact cooling water is applied to integrated
steel plants. This represents 0.5 percent above the
predicted 10-year growth of U.S. generating capacity
and an increased 0.8 percent of the total usage of
electricity by all manufacturing industries in the
U.S.
4. Water consumption, water lost to evaporation, etc.,
will increase by almost 100 percent over the present
consumption for the five plants studied if total
recycle, including non-contact cooling water, is im-
plemented. The water consumption under total recycle
averaged 11 m3/kkg (2,794 gal/ton) for the five
plants studied with a range of from 3.2 to 16 m3/kkg
(839 to 4,215 gal/ton). Present consumption for the
five plants averaged 4 m3/kkg (1,048 gal/ton) with
1-1
-------
a range of from 1 to 6.1 m3/kkg (405 to 1,550 gal/
ton) . The total estimated increase in water consump-
tion" for all U.S. integrated steel mills is estimated
to be 996 x 106 m3/year (270,000 x 10° gal/year).
While relatively unimportant in most water rich areas,
this loss of water could have serious impact on the -
more arid regions.
5. For total recycle, in-plant energy requirements would
increase considerably. If natural gas were used ap-
proximately 205 m3/kkg (6,590 ft3/ton) of gas would
be required. Coal usage would be 0.25 kkg/kkg (0.25
ton/ton). If these fuel requirements are expanded
to the entire U.S. integrated steel industry, 29
x 109m3 per year (1,030 x 10^ ft3 per year) of gas
would be required or 35 x 106 kkg (39 x 106 tons)
of coal would be required.
6. Cost estimates were prepared to construct and operate
facilities to comply with the requirements of BAT
and the two stages of total recycle. The cost to
construct facilities to comply with the BAT require-
ments as a first step towards total recycle ranged
from $1.91/kkg to $3.95/kkg ($1.73/ton to $3.58/ton)
with an average of $2.67/kkg ($2.42/ton). The total
estimated cost to attain total recycle, excluding
non-contact cooling water, ranged from $7.63/kkg to
$32.11/kkg ($6.92/ton to $29.13/ton) with an average
of $13.15/kkg ($11.93/ton). The total estimated cost
to attain total recycle, including non-contact cool-
ing water, ranged from $10.77/kkg to $33.21/kkg
($9.77/ton to $30.13/ton) with an average of $16.91/
kkg ($15.34/ton). The Kaiser-Fontana plant was not
included in these ranges or averages since it present-
ly is very close to compliance with BAT requirements
and, therefore, would require considerably fewer fa-
cilities than the other plants.
If the averages, excluding Kaiser-Fontana, are
applied to the U.S. integrated steel industry the
cost to attain BAT would be in excess of $380,000,000.
The total amount to attain total recycle, excluding
non-contact cooling water, would be $1,847,000,000
and $2,030,000,000 including contact cooling water.
Average numbers should be used with caution, however,
since there are large differences in the amounts of
wastewater treatment equipment presently installed
from plant to plant.
1-2
-------
The estimates are based on 1978 dollars and provisions
have not been included for escalation over the period
of time required to meet the desired goals. The cost
of necessary research and development has not been
included in the total costs.
7. Based on current price and not including escalation
'or the costs of research and development, it is esti-
mated that the cost per kkg (ton) of steel could in-
crease by 3 to 4 percent for total recycle, excluding
non-contact cooling water, and 4 to 5 percent including
non-contact cooling water.
8. Before any commitment is made to implement total re-
cycle of water, research projects, environmental
assessments and economic studies should be initiated
to:
A. Determine the effectiveness, reliability and
verified costs for the treatment of by-products
coke plant wastewaters and blast furnace gas
washer system blowdown, as well as systems for
the removal of dissolved solids from individual
waste streams and various combinations of waste
streams.
B. Determine whether there is any commercial value
for, or alternative environmentally acceptable
methods of disposal of dissolved solids removed
from the final waste streams.
C. Assess the meteorologic and hydrologic effects
of grossly increasing the evaporation of water
from integrated steel plants.
D. Evaluate the environmental effects of the re-
quired increased power generation in highly in-
dustrialized areas such as the Monongehela Valley
and Southern Lake Michigan.
E. Evaluate all other economic and socialogical
aspects which would be affected by total recycle.
9. It is estimated that from the time a decision is made
to implement total recycle until a plant is construc-
ted will take up to thirteen years.
1-3
-------
SECTION 2.0 - INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The purpose of the project reported on, herein, was to
perform engineering studies of at least five and not more than
nine integrated U.S. steel plants and to prepare conceptual
engineering designs for each which would enable them to achieve
total recycle (zero discharge) of water. Also to be included
were water related aspects of air pollution, i.e., additional
water required to reduce existing air pollution and prevent air
pollution that might occur as a result of water treatment or
disposal. Total recycle was to be achieved as "add-on" steps
subsequent to meeting BAT requirements.
2.2 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
A literature search of technologies applicable to
achieve the goals of BAT compliance and total recycle of water
within an integrated steel plant was performed. Included in
Section 3 and Appendix G. are the results of the literature
search and descriptions of the various manufacturing processes
encountered in an integrated steel plant.
The American Iron and Steel Institute and its member
corporations provided information used in the selection of the
five integrated steel plants studied. Section 4 describes the
methodology used in the selection of the steel plants to be
studied and the descriptions of the water and waste treatment
systems of the plants selected. Appendices A, B, C, D and E
contain detailed descriptions of the plants studied.
From the initial list of available technologies,
seventeen were considered in more detail. Section 5 describes
the rationale for the selection of the technology applicable and
ultimately used in developing systems for each plant to meet BAT
and total recycle. Section 5 also describes the suggested BAT
and total recycle systems for each of the five integrated steel
plants. Appendices A, B, C, D and E contain more detailed
descriptions of the five plants. Cost estimates for each of the
systems are contained in Appendix F.
II-l
-------
Section 6 presents the conclusions drawn and recommen-
dations are made for further study to more firmly establish the
economic, energy, environmental, and sociological effects of
attaining total recycle in U.S. steel plants.
II-2
-------
SECTION 3.0
SOURCES AND QUANTITIES OF POLLUTANTS IN AN INTEGRATED
IRON AND STEEL PLANT AND POSSIBLE METHODS FOR THEIR REMOVAL
This section discusses, in general terms, discharges
of wastes to the atmosphere, water uses and wastewater dis-
charges, and solid waste discharges from typical integrated
steel plants. For a discussion of the iron and steel making
processes see Appendix G.
3.1 AIR EMISSIONS
An integrated steel plant discharges wastes to the
atmosphere from various operations, especially during the pro-
duction processes of coke making, sintering, iron and steel mak-
ing. Table 3-1 is a list of the principal sources of air pollu-
tion (1) (2) (3) (4). Other points and air emissions contribu-
ting minor amounts of contaminants include heating furnaces,
coke oven charging, raw material handling operations, storage
piles and blast furnace bleeders.
Many of these sources of air emissions can complement
total recycle systems by combining their disposal with water
system discharges such as blowdown (5). Air emissions contain-
ing significant sensible heat which could be cooled by use in
the evaporation of blowdowns include those from slag handling
and steelmaking furnace gases. Certain other air emissions re-
quire wet scrubbing which could employ certain blowdowns or
other treated wastewaters. Coal preparation systems and pug
mills represent sources of suitable dusty emissions. Any waste-
waters used should not contain significant volatiles or other
contaminants which could create environmental pollution, damage
or health hazards by discharge to the air during such evapora-
tive or scrubbing uses. An important example of such unaccept-
able disposal combinations is coke quenching with by-product
wastes such as ammonia liquors. This is discussed in Section
3.2.1.
Dry coke quenching is a potential solution to the
problem of emissions from coke quenching. Systems have been de-
veloped for coke cooling by inert gases within an enclosure.
The gases are cooled for reuse by circulating through waste heat
boilers which produce steam as a useful by-product. The air
emissions are readily controlled by dry pollution control
III-l
-------
TABLE 3-1
INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT PRINCIPAL AIR POLLUTION SOURCES
Source Description
Principal Contaminant
COKE MAKING
Coke Preparation
Coke Pushing
Coke Quenching
Coke Screening
Coke Charging
Door Leaks
Final Cooler Water C.T.
Coke Gas Desulfurizing
SINTERING
Feed Handling
Pug Mill
Windbox Gases
Sinter Handling
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Vapors and Particulates
Drift & Vapors
H2S gas
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
SO2 gas
Particulates
IRON MAKING
Skip Filling
Blast Furnace Gases
Recirculation Cooling Tower
Slag Handling
Cast House
Particulates
Particulates
Drift
HZS & so2
Particulates
EOF STEELMAKING
Furnace Gases
Molten Iron Reladling
Charging, Tapping, Slagging
Flux Handling
Slag Handling
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE
Furnace Gases
Charging, Tapping, Slagging
Slag Handling
ELECTRIC FURNACE
Furnace Gases
Charging, Tapping, Slagging
Flux Handling
Slag Handling
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
Hot Scarfing
\ Cold Mill Fumes
Pickling Fumes
Galvanizing Fumes
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Particulates
Oil Vapor
Mineral Acids
Zinc Oxide
III-2
-------
devices and it is reported there is an improved coke quality and
reduced loss in coke fines when using the dry quenching process
(6). These systems have been extensively developed in Russia,
Japan and England (7) (8).
3.2 WATER USAGE AND DISCHARGES
An integrated steel plant uses water for many pur-
poses; indirect cooling, descaling, rinsing, air cleaning, pre-
paration of chemical solutions, sanitary uses, etc. Each pro-
duction process has its own particular requirements for water
quality and quantity. The water uses can be generally classi-
fied as non-contact or contact. Non-contact water is used only
for indirect cooling and is not applied to any material or sur-
face which can contaminate the water except for rise in tempera-
ture. Water conditioning chemicals are usually added to recir-
culation systems. Non-contact systems which are improperly
designed or operated may, however, become contaminated. All
other water uses are classified as (direct) contact uses and
-generally become contaminated, requiring some form of treatment
before discharge or reuse. In a typical integrated steel plant
the largest volume of water use is for indirect cooling while
direct cooling contributes the largest volume of contaminated
wastewater.
The water use diagrams, Figures 3-1 to 3-9, presented
in this section show typical non-contact and contact water sys-
tems, points of application and treatment. It is not the inten-
tion of these figures to be considered as the recommended prac-
tices or conclusions of this study; the recommended water sys-
tems are fully developed in Section 5 where the description of
treatment facilities and operating practices will be described
in detail for each of the five plants.
3 . 2..1 Coke Making and By-Product Plant Water Use
Total water use at a coke plant is a function of the
extent of by-product recovery, design of specific units, and
degree of water recycling. Total demand is as low as 1150 m-^/hr
(5,000 gpm) and upward to 10,225 mVhr (45,000 gpm) for a very
large plant have been reported. Of this total from 70 to 95
percent is normally used for indirect cooling and for condensing
steam with no contamination other than temperature change. The
various areas requiring water are shown on Figure 3-1 and the
quantities applied, per ton of coke produced, are given in Table
3.2.
III-3
-------
TABLE 3.2
BY-PRODUCT COKE PLANT - WATER APPLICATION QUANTITIES
Primary Coolers
Quenching
Final Coolers
Benzol Plant
Desulfurization Plant
Total
1/kkg
gal/ton
6250 to 18750
2100 to 6250
2100 to 8330
2100 to 6250
2100 to 8330
14600 to 47900
1500 to 4500
500 to 1500
500 to 2000
500 to 1500
500 to 2000
3500 to 11500
The heat absorbed by water (from all indirect cooling
operations ranges from 3780 to 5040 kcal/hr (15,000 to 20,000
Btu/hr) per ton of coke produced.
The coke operations and by-product facilties vary
from plant to plant and so, consequently, does the volume and
quality of the wastewater streams. For typical coke and by-
products plants the main sources of contaminated liquid wastes
are excess ammonia liquor, final cooling water overflow and
light oil recovery (benzol plant) wastes. Minor wastewater
sources" include coke wharf drainage, quench water overflow and
coal pile runoff. Critical contaminants include ammonia, cya-
nide, oil, phenol, sulfide, BOD and suspended solids.
Methods of treatment of wastewater streams are dis-
cussed in Section 4 but it is appropriate here to discuss one
method of wastewater disposal that is unique to coke plants,
i.e., use of wastewater for coke quenching. The concept of
coke quenching for the evaporative disposal of coke plant waste-
water was based on the assumption that the potential water and
air contaminants, from ammoniacal liquor, were burned by the
heat from the coke. However, it has been determined that
serious manufacturing and environmental problems may arise from
this method of wastewater disposal.
1. Air pollution is created by the volatile
constituents which, instead of being
destroyed, are simply distilled and dis-
charged to the atmosphere.
2. Some of the materials in the quenching
wastewater are entrained in-the coke and
carried over to the blast furnace. The
high chloride content of the waste de-
teriorate the structural components at
the blast furnace.
III-4
-------
H
I
01
MAKF-UP .
~WAT Iff
1
L
1
T T
DECANTER I
PHENOL
EXTRACTOR
AMMONIA 1
STILL 1
INTEGRATED SltEL PL*NT POLLUTION STUDT
FOR T01AL RECYCLE OF WATER
BY-PRODUCT PLANT
WATER USE DIAGRAM
-------
3. Quenching mist can cause extensive
corrosion to neighboring areas by salt
deposition of chlorides and oxides of
sulphur.
3.2.2 Water Use for Sintering
Sinter plants require relatively low quantities of
water, as shown on Figure 3-2, for sinter mix preparation,
cleaning the air and exhaust gases and for indirect cooling of
the sinter and equipment. Most wastewater is discharged from
the air and gas cleaning operations, as non-recycled cooling
water and the balance is evaporated. If the procedure used for
air and gas cleaning is dry, such as bag collection or dry
electrostatic precipitators, contaminated water discharge is
virtually eliminated. However, if mill scale is used as a part
of the sinter mix, difficulty has been experienced with the use
of bag filters or electrostatic precipitators in that volatil-
ized oils clog the filter cloth or may cause explosions. .
Therefore, hign energy water scrubbers are generally used at
these installations.
Wastewater from the air scrubbers is treated, either
alone or in combination with blast furnace scrubber wastes, for
suspended solids removal and is either discharged directly or a
portion if recycled. The settled solids are dewatered for re-
use in sintering and the separated water is returned to the
thickener.
Where dry dust collection systems are used, water is
added to the dry solids at a pug mill to allow them to be con-
veniently blended as part of the sinter mix. The water is
completely evaporated in the sintering process.
Contact water applications for air cleaning have been
reported to be from 434 to 1420 1/kkg (104 and 340 gal/t) of
sinter produced with associated wastewater suspended solids
concentrations of 4340 and 19500 mg/1 and oil grease concen-
trations of 504 and 457 mg/1, respectively.
The non-contact cooling water is either cooled and
reused with blowdown, or discharged directly without treatment.
3.2.3 Iron Making Water Use
Water is used in the blast furnace area of the steel
plants for non-contact cooling of furnace and stove walls and
for contact cooling and cleaning of blast furnace gases. Lesser
amounts are for cooling slag, production of steam for turbo-
blowers, and steam condensation. Additional water enters the
area as a result of runoff from raw material storage piles.
III-6
-------
MAKE-UP WATER
VACUUM FILTER
HYDROTECHN1C CORPOI7AT ON
NEW YORK. NY.
INTEGfiflrtD SIEU PLflNT POUUTWN STUDY
FOR TOTAL RFCYCII Of VWTER
SINTER PLANT
WATER USE DIAGRAM
••••— FIGURE 3-2
-------
Figure 3-3 indicates the major water systems.
Non-contact cooling water quantities of approximately
21,000 1/kkg (5030 gal/t) of iron produced are generally applied
at the blast furnace. Depending upon furnace design, the water
temperature increase can be from 1-8 C°(2-15 F°) . Lesser
quantities of water are required for cooling stoves and turbo-
blowers with quantities and temperature increases dependent upon
individual design. The method of non-contact cooling water dis-
posal varies at different plants. In most plants the water is
utilized on a once-through basis, the complete flow is dis-
charged at an elevated temperature to a receiving body of water
and the makeup water supplies the total applied flow. At other
plants the water is recycled after being cooled in atmospheric
cooling towers with only a small percentage discharged as cool-
ing tower blowdown or lost by evaporation. The amount of blow-
down is dependent upon the cycles of concentration (dissolved
solids) in cooling system, which in turn is a function of the
makeup water quality.
Blast furnace gases are cleaned first by dry dust
catchers, followed by wet processes which may include venturi
scrubbers, gas washers, disintegrators and electrostatic pre-
cipitators. Depending upon the gas, water application for
cleaning can range from 6300 to 17,000 1/kkg (1500 to 4100
gal/t) of iron produced. The wastewater is characterized by
high suspended solids concentration, the major portion of which
is removed by settling in thickeners before the wastewater is
recycled or finally discharged. The settled sludge is de-
watered and either disposed at landfills or recycled to the sin-
tering plant. The water from dewatering operations is returned
to the thickener. Additional contaminants in the water include
phenol, cyanide and ammonia.
Blast furnace slag is cooled in slag pits either by
slow air cooling with limited water sprays or by slag granula-
tion with large amounts of water. If the use of water is
strictly controlled, it all evaporates within the pit. If ex-
cess water is used, it is either discharged or is drained to a
basin for recycling. When required, water is sprayed on the
Blast Furnace burden to insure optimum moisture content when it
is charged into the furnace. All water used for this purpose
is lost to the system and no wastes are produced.
Steam driven turbo-blowers commonly compress air for
injection into the blast furnace via the stoves. To protect the
boilers and turbine blades, the water used for the production of
steam must be of very high quality and makeup is usually de-
mineralized by ion exchanger units. The concentrated regenerant
fluids discharged from the exchangers are small in volume but
must be treated. The steam, after use, is condensed to water
III-8
-------
MAKE-UP
WATER
H
I
vo
DISCHARGE
OR TO
CENTRAL
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
SOLIDS RETURN
FOR REUSE
VACUUM FILTER
.DISCHARGE
HYDnOTtCHNtC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
INTEGHATEO STEEL PUNt POUUTION STUDV
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF WATER
BLAST FURNACE
WATER USE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 3-3
-------
and recycled with a portion blown down to prevent the buildup of
dissolved solids in the system. Blowdown is generally character-
ized by a high pH. Additional wastes may be infrequently dis-
charged from steam generating facilities due to boiler cleaning.
Significant quantities of contaminated wastewater
occur as runoff from precipitation, especially from the areas
of material storage. The runoff may have high suspended solids
and other contaminants depending on the particular runoff area.
Runoff from limestone storage areas would contain suspended
solids, have an high pH and be extremely hard due to dissolved
calcium; ore storage runoff would contain high amounts of iron,
and is dependent upon the surface area and slope, the intensity
and duration of the storm antercedent conditions and the poro-
sity storage piles.
3.2.4 Steel Making Water Use
Water used in steel making processes is generally for
three purposes: indirect cooling of furnaces and equipment, gas
cooling and cleaning and, where vacuum degassing is installed,
steam condensing, and cooling of seals and barometric condensers.
Figure 3-4 illustrates typical EOF water systems.
Gas cooling in the EOF is via waste heat boilers and
quenching sprays which may evaporate completely or produce a
residual effluent which is added to the scrubber recirculating
system. In the open hearth and electric furnaces gas quenching
may not be separate from cleaning; the open hearth gases usually
pass through a waste heat boiler before cleaning. Gas cleaning
is accomplished by dry, semi-wet and wet methods. The dry method
does not require contact water and the semi-wet method operates
on an exact water balance whereby there is no direct water dis-
charge from the system after evaporation. The wet method
utilizes solids separation and discharge or system recirculation
and blowdown. Therefore, water use for gas cooling and cleaning
at EOF installations ranges from 209 to 3700 1/kkg (50 to 890
gal/t). Semi-wet systems are not used for open hearth furnaces
and the water use for gas cooling and cleaning ranges from zero
for dry systems to 2810 k/kkg (675 gal/t) for wet systems.
Electric arc furnace installations utilize the dry, semi-wet and
wet methods of gas cooling and cleaning with reported water use
ranging from zero to 12,000 1/kkg (2880 gal/t).
Contact water use at vacuum degassing facilities is
from the 1300 to 2900 1/kkg (310 to 695 gal/t).
All of the above contact wastewaters can be charac-
terized as containing suspended solids, iron oxide and some
trace metals (e.g., zinc, cadmium, etc.) and fluorides. The
wastewaters are discharged to thickeners where the major portion
of the entrained solids settle and the supernatant water over-
111-10
-------
H
H
H
I
DEMORALIZED
WATER
SOLIDS RETURN
FOR REUSE
VACUUM FILTER
HYOROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW VOffK. H. V.
nil ' • » r
INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF W/.TEK
B.O.F. WATER
USE DIAGRAM^
"YJ^r- ]' '•.•'•--"" FIGURE 3-4
-------
flows for either recycle or discharge.
Additional contact water may be used in slag cooling
and in the ingot casting areas. The slag is usually air cooled
and any water used is evaporated on site. The water used for
ingot mold preparation and cooling normally represents a very
small quantity and is mostly evaporated during use.
Non-contact water application varies greatly according
to the type of steelmaking furnace employed, modes of individual
plant operations and individual design requirements. In all
three types of steelmaking furnaces cooling water is required
for hood or charging door cooling and for oxygen lance cooling.
At open hearth furnaces additional cooling water is required at
the dampers, at electric arc furnaces for the gas exhaust elbow,
the transformers and the electric cables and at EOF installa-
tions the trunnion ring requires cooling. At vacuum degassers;
transformer and seal cooling water is required.
The total volume of water required for these non-
contact cooling uses varies widely. Reported applications in
terms of quantity per unit of production ranged from 1920 to
47,800 1/kkg (460 to 11,470 gal/t). The water experiences tem-
perature increases from 11 to 28 C° (20 to 50 F°). There is no
uniform practice in the industry with respect to reuse of cool-
ing water. At some plants all of the water, except for a small
amount of blowdown, is cooled and recycled. In some plants a
portion is cooled and recycled with the balance being discharged
at the elevated temperature; other plants operate on totally
once-through systems. The EOF non-contact cooling water systems
generally use high quality water, especially in the lance cool-
ing system as indicated in Figure 3-4. The extremely high tem-
peratures incurred during oxygen blowing require demineralized
water for lance cooling to avoid mineral deposits and corrosion
at lance heat exchange surfaces. The demineralized water recir-
culates in a closed system; the cooling water from the tube side
of a shell and tube heat exchanger is usually once-through or
interconnected with the hood cooling water system.
3.2.5 Hot Forming Water Use
In hot forming facilities most of the water is used
for the various direct contact applications, especially cooling
and descaling, which may be in several successive applications.
Non-contact cooling water uses are of less volume but are also
significant.
3.2.5.1 Continuous Casting
Non-contact cooling water uses for a typical continu-
ous casting facility total approximately 7,500 1/kkg (1800 gal/t)
of which about 4,200 1/kkg (1,000 gal/t) is required for mold
111-12
-------
cooling and 3,300 1/kkg (790 gal/t) is used for machine cooling.
As shown on Figure 3-5, these waters are cooled and
reused with a small blowdown, the discharge volume depending
upon makeup water quality and operational cycles of concentra-
tion. The mold cooling system may use demineralized water recir-
culating in a closed system with the cooling side of the system
heat exchanger tied into the machine cooling system as in the
EOF lance and hood cooling systems (Figure 3-4).
Most contact water at continuous casting facilities
is used for spray cooling the cast product as it exits from the
mold. The water is sprayed only while a cast is in progress and
it is characterized by high suspended solids and oils concentra-
tions.
As shown on Figure 3-5, other contact water uses are
roll cooling, descaling, etc. The wastewaters flow to a scale
pit and settling basin for coarse solids removal and are then
filtered and cooled prior to reuse.
3.2.5.2 Primary Hot Rolling
Contact water is used at the primary hot rolling mills
for five basic purposes: descaling, table roll cooling, flume
flushing, mill stand cooling and scarfer sprays and fume scrubb-
ing. Water applications may range from 2,500 to 8,530 1/kkg
(600-2,050 gal/t) for scarfing and from 1,250 to 8,775 1/kkg
(300-2,110 gal/t) for other contact uses, excluding flume
flushing.
A contact water system for a typical modern primary
mill is shown on Figure 3-6. The water enters a flume running
the entire length of the mill and discharges to a scale pit,
often located outside of the mill building. The scarfers often
have a separate water system. Large volumes of water must be
recycled from the pit for flume flushing to maintain a high
water velocity and prevent scale accumulation. The water is
heavily laden with iron oxide mill scale and oils, most of which
is removed in the scale pit. The clarified wastewater is then
discharged to receiving waters at most mills while in other
mills it is further treated by chemical coagulation or filtra-
tion prior to discharge or cooling for recycle at the mill.
Non-contact cooling water is used for reheat furnace
cooling, motor room and lube cooling. These systems are usually
once-through but in some mills are recycled, either totally or
partially, as shown in the scheme for secondary hot rolling,
Figure 3-7.
111-13
-------
H
H
H
I
INTEGRATED'STEEL PUNT POLIUT'QN SIUDT
FOR TOTAL RFCfClI Cf .',A1[R
-------
r
SOAKING
PITS
DESCALING
MILL
STANDS
TABLE
ROLLS
SCARFER
H
H
I
H1
cn
1
1 ' 1
, FLUME-i f V
FLUME
i
FLUSHING
i
^ m MJit {* p /
' ^3) p
r
kLE 1— KOIL
: 1
^
OIL^ SETTLING TANKS JpF
SOLIDS -4
^•i
f T ^K) ^ FILTERS 1
- /9\ BACKWASH \.
SCALE
PIT
EVAP.
BASINS
CHEMICALS
TO CENTRAL
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
SHEAR
I MAKE-UP WATER
HVDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. H r.
INTEGRATED STEEL PUNT PCI H'TIIN STUt"
FOR TOT/1 RECfClF. OF WATER
PRIMARY ROLLING
SLABBING,BLOOMING 8 BILLETS
WATER USE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 3-6
-------
H
H
H
I
HVOROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. M 1.
SECONDARY ROLLING
WATER USE DIAGRAM
"" | FIGURE 3~7
-------
3.2.5.3 Secondary Hot Rolling
The various secondary rolling mills require water for
the same general purposes as for the primary mills but in great-
er amounts increasing with mills producing more finished prod-
ucts. Contact water uses, as illustrated on Figure 3-7 for a
hot strip mill, are for descaling, roll cooling, flume flushing
and product cooling (9). These applications occur during the
roughing, finishing and other stages of secondary hot rolling.
The required water volumes are reported to range from 5,410 to
28,000 1/kkg (1,300-6,730 gal/t) for plates, and from 21,260 to
67,620 1/kkg (5,110-16,255 gal/t) for hot strip. Water used for
roll cooling, descaling and flume flushing at the roughing
stands and finishing stands usually flow to two separate scale
pits, one for each type of operation. Runout table and coilef
wastewater is usually discharged directly, but, as shown on
Figure 3-7, it often is combined entirely or partially with
finishing stand wastewater for treatment. In most mills the
water is discharged without reuse but in many modern systems the
water is further treated by filtration and cooling prior to re-
use.
Most non-contact cooling water used at secondary hot
rolling mills is for reheat furnace cooling. Reported water
applications range from 5,200 to 23,900 1/kkg (1,250-5,750
gal/t). The furnace water systems are generally once-through
but the water may be reused for flume flushing or, as in Figure
3-6, it may be cooled for reuse at the furnaces. There are
smaller non-contact cooling systems for the motor room, lube oil
and other applications; these systems are either one-through or
recirculating.
3.2.6 Cold Finishing Water Use
In the cold finishing processes all water used comes
in contact with the product, or processing material, except for
water used in minor indirect cooling applications. The efflu-
ents have three distinct forms: acidic pickling wastes, spent
oil emulsions from cold reduction and clean cooling water.
3.2.6.1 Pickling
In both continuous and batch pickling operations,
water is used in two basic processes: pickling, and rinsing.
Many installations, especially continuous picklers, also have
wet fume scrubbing systems. In the case of continuous strip
pickling, some water is also needed for the uncoilers, looping
pit and coilers.
The effluent water from the pickling tanks (waste
pickle liquor) consists of an acid solution, usually spent
111-17
-------
hydrochloric or sulfuric acid and iron salts. The waste hydro ...
chloric liquor contains about 0.5% to 1% free HCl and 10% dis-
solved iron. The production of waste hydrochloric pickle liquor
per unit product pickled is about 82 1/kkg (20 gal/t) or about
1 kg/kkg (2 Ib/t) free HCl and 10 kg/kkg (20 Ib/t) dissolved Fe.
In waste sulfuric acid pickle liquor there is about 8% free acid
and 8% dissolved iron, resulting in a production of about 10 kg/
kkg each of free H2S04 and dissolved Fe from the 103 1/kkg (25
gal/t) waste pickle liquor. Waste pickle liquor may also con-
tain relatively small amounts of other metal sulfates, chlorides,
lubricants, inhibitors, hydrocarbons, and other impurities.
Rinse water contains the same pollutants in a diluted form. The
reported rinse volumes range from 209 to 2,080 1/kkg (50-500
gal/t; the smaller volumes are for cascade rinse systems. The
fume scrubbers have water applications ranging from 10 to 190
1/kkg (2.5-46 gal/t); the higher applications for the more vola-
tile HCl pickling processes.
Generally, as shown on Figure 3-8, the waste pickle
liquor dumps, the rinsing wastewaters and fume scrubber efflu-
ents are combined for treatment in an equalization tank, which
discharges to reactors where the equalized wastes are mixed with
lime or other alkaline agents to raise the pH to about 8.5. The
water then flows to an aerator for oxidation followed by set-
tling before discharge. In some plants the treated water may be
recycled for fume scrubbing and some plants have systems to re-
generate the waste pickle liquor and recover the iron as an
oxide, sulfate or chloride.
3.2.6.2 Cold Reduction Mills
Water of good quality is mixed with rolling oil to
form an emulsion which is used to lubricate and cool the steel
as it passes through the reducing stands. Since the pickled
product being rolled is free from rust, and no scale if formed,
the contaminants added are oil, increased temperature, and sus-
pended solids which may have accumulated on the steel in storage.
The quantity of water used varies greatly depending on whether a
once-through, a recycle system or a combination system is used.
Water applications can vary from less than 100 1/kkg (24 gal/t
to over 3,000 1/kkg (720 gal/t). Even total recycle systems
have wastewater discharges from leaks, solution dumps and from
the maintenance and roll finishing shops.
The high cost of rolling oils has increased the trend
toward emulsion recycling and treatment of waste emulsions for
oil recovery. Once-through or combination systems with continu-
ous discharges may have an oil recovery facility. The basis of
most oil recovery systems is the breaking of emulsions into
separable oil and water phases. Emulsions are usually broken
by a combination of heat and acid treatment. Oil content in the
spent rolling solutions can be as high as 8 percent with sus-
111-18
-------
H
H
I
| RECOVER a j
(RECYCLE ACiq
I(ALTERNATE)!
COAGULANT
AID ADDITION
j DEEP WELL j
DISPOSAL
I (ALTERNATE)|
AERATION FLOCCULATION
MIX TANK TANKS
CLARIFIER
SOLIDS RETURN
FOR REUSE
VACUUM FILTER
HYDHOTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW VORK. H. V.
PICKLING PROCESS
WATER USE DIAGRAM
v Fiounc 3-8
-------
pended solids ranging from 100 to 1,000 mg/1. Figure 3-9 illus-
trates treatment or disposal methods practiced for waste emul-
sion dumps and continuous discharges.
3.3 SOLID WASTES
An integrated steel plant produces a variety of solid
wastes; most are inorganic and can be reused within the plant or
elsewhere, after suitable processing. The major tonnages of
solid wastes are as slags, coke and raw material fines, iron
oxide scale and dust, metal scrap and dewatered sludges. Much
of the scale, the dust and sludges are solids from water and air
pollution control systems. Table 3-3, summarizes the solid
wastes generated at the different areas of production and their
reuse destination. Solids removed from air emissions are not
listed, but are included for discussion below. Most of the
solid wastes are presently not reused but hauled to landfills.
All solid wastes containing significant iron or iron oxides have
a potential for reclamation and reuse (9, 10).
3.3.1 Coke Making^
Coke which is too fine for direct use in blast fur-
naces is called "coke breeze". It contains more ash and mois-
ture than blast furnace coke and is sent to the sintering plant
for agglomeration or is used as fuel in boilers for steam gen-
eration. Minor amounts of solid wastes are from the by-products
plant and include sludges from wastewater treatment and coal
tar. The tar can be directly sold, processed within the plant
or used as fuel in the open hearth furnaces.
\
3.3.2 Sintering
One function of a sinter plant is to recycle solid
wastes, i.e., fines from raw material handling (ore and lime-
stone) , coke breeze, iron oxide dusts from blast furnace and
steelmaking furnace emissions, and hot mill scale. The fines
are agglomerated to a size suitable for blast furnace feed; any
dust or fine product is resintered.
3.3.3 Iron Making
The blast furnace area generates large amounts of slag
which consists of ore and coke mineral impurities (silicates and
aluminates) combined with calcium oxide from the flux. The air-
cooled, granulated or expanded slags each have different physical
characteristics which, together with chemical composition, de-
termine their eventual use. The processed slag is used mostly
for road beds and landfill, but is also used as a component in
paving material, concrete, cement, building blocks, tile, insula-
tion, soil conditioning and even cooking ware.
111-20
-------
COLO REDUCTION
MILL
STAND
No. I
OIL
CONCENTRATION
8 STORAGE TANK
EQUALIZATION
TANK
H
I
K>
r-ru
SKIMMINGS
OIL
SOLUTION
, DUMPS
TO RECOVERY, INCINERATION
OR OTHER METHOD
OF DISPOSAL
STAND
N..2
STAND
N..3
STAND
N..4
CONTINUOUS OILY
WASTE FLOW
TO
PICKLING
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
HYDROTECMNIC CORPORATION
INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT POUUTtON STUDT
(OR TOTAL RECYCIt OF IK11P
COLD REDUCTION MILL
WATER USE DIAGRAM
HOUSE 3-9
-------
TABLE 3-3_
INTEGRATED STEEL PLANTS SOLID WASTE SOURCES*
Production Facility
Coke Plant
Coke Screening
By-Product Operation
Waste Description
Coke Breeze
Wastewater Sludge
Solids Reuse
Sintering
None
Raw Material Handling
Fines
Sintering
Iron Making
Blast Furnace
Slag
Construction, Road
Beds, etc.
Steel Making
Steeimaking Furnaces
Slag
Agriculture, Landfill,
etc.
Hot Forming
Hot Rolling
Acetylene Scarfing
Scale
Scrap
Slag
Sintering
Steeimaking
Iron Recovery, Landfill
Pickling
WPL Disposal
WPL Regeneration
Iron Hydroxide Sludge None.
Iron Oxide Sintering
Cold Mill
Oil Skimmings
Oil Reclamation, Fuel
Note: *Particulate emissions which also generate solid wastes
are listed in Table 3-1.
111-22
-------
The cleaning of blast furnace gas produces from 70 to
250 kg/kkg of iron oxide wastes. About 60 percent of the total
comes from dry dust catchers, the balance is dewatered sludge
from wet scrubbing. These wastes are reclaimed by sintering or
pelletization for reuse in the blast furnace. Some iron scrap
is also reused in the BF.
3.3.4 Steelmaking
All furnaces in the Steelmaking area generate consider-
able slag similar to the BF. Generally, electric arc furnaces
produce the least slag and the EOF is the biggest producer. The
cooled processed slag has more limited use than blast furnace
slag; with its high lime and phosphorous content, and much is
used as an agricultural soil conditioner.
Iron oxide is produced as dust and sludge from the dry
and wet gas cleaning units at the Steelmaking furnaces. Solids
production ranges from 5 to 20 kg/kkg with the EOF the largest
source. Zinc oxide (from galvanized scrap feed) and carbon dust
(kish) are minor components of gas cleaning solids. The iron
oxide wastes are sintered or pelletized for use in blast fur-
naces or in open hearth furnaces.
All Steelmaking furnaces accept large amounts of steel
scrap as normal components of the charge and some EOF units take
mill scale in small portions.
3.3.5 Hot Forming
Iron oxide scale is the major solid waste from this
area. Generally, mill scale production is from 8 to 10 percent
of the steel product tonnage at the primary and secondary roll-
ing operations. Continuous casting operations produce about 2%
scale or 20 kg/kkg product. Most of this scale is sufficiently
coarse to be removed by the scale pits and about 10-20 percent
is recoverable from the sludge of further wastewater treatment
processes. Oil and greases are also a significant waste assoc-
iated with the mill scale. At each hot rolling operation, the
waste oil and grease production is up to 0.5 kg/kkg. Most oil
is skimmed off the wastewater and stored for periodic disposal
or recovery, usually by an outside contractor.
Scarfing operations produce solid wastes from 2 to 3
percent of the steel product. Most of the waste is slag pro-
duced by the acetylene torches melting the hot steel. The slag
is often processed to reclaim the metal.
Steel scrap is produced by cropping or shearing ends
and sides of hot shapes. Casting wastes and rejects, are also
recycled to the Steelmaking furnaces. Generally, scrap produc-
tion ranges from 8 to 12 percent of the product tonnage at each
111-23
-------
rolling stage with lesser amounts produced by continuous casting
and hot strip production.
3.3.6 Pickling
Significant amounts of oxidized iron wastes, in dif-
ferent forms are produced in the treatment of waste pickle
liquor and rinses. The pickling process removes from 0.2 to 2
percent of the metal from steel shapes, the loss depending on
the surface area to volume ratio. Modern pickling lines incor-
porate pickle liquor regeneration facilities which generate iron
oxide dust or granules which may be recycled at the sinter plant.
Much pickle liquor and rinses are still being disposed of by
neutralization and clarification to produce a sludge of iron hy-
droxides and sulfates which resists effective dewatering. Re-
covering of the iron for reuse is usually not feasible if iron
oxide is not produced.
3.3.7 Cold Rolling
The largest source of organic waste from a steel plant
is waste oil emulsions from the cold mills. The oily waste dis-
charge is generally less than 3 kg/kkg steel product, but it can
be more from mills using a once-through emulsion system with a
reported loss of 25 kg/kkg from one mill.
3.3.8 Annealing
Solids wastes are not generated in significant amounts
from the annealing process.
3.3.9 Coating
Except for cutoffs and some scrap, solids wastes are
not generated in significant amounts in the coating processes.
3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
3.4.1 General Regulations for Discharges from Integrated
Iron and Steel Plants.
This section presents existing state and federal dis-
charge regulations which apply to integrated steel plants. For
wastewater discharges federal regulations have been established
but for air emissions only individual states have promulgated
comprehensive regulations. No specific federal regulations have
yet been established for disposal of industrial solid wastes.
3.4.1.1 Air Emission Regulations
Federal regulations have been established by the EPA.._.
for only a few specific steelmaking facilities and these are
111-24
-------
discussed below. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 present air pollution regu-
lations established in states having integrated steel plants (5)
As federal guidelines specific for steel plant emissions become
established, they will augment these state regulations.
Michigan has established guidelines for specific
sources of particulate emissions and are shown on Table 3-6.
In the EPA development document (1 and 2) , some gen-
eral conclusions have been made on the expected quality of treat-
ed emissions from various facilities. For the sinter plant, EOF,
open hearth and electric furnaces, the particulate loadings are
expected to be about 0.1 kg/kkg of exhaust gas. This loading is
the same as the Michigan regulations for the steelmaking facili-
ties but one-half that allowed for the sinter plant.
Federal regulations have been established by the EPA
for treated emissions from electric art furnaces (11). A pro-
posed limitation on EOF emissions is 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf)
and 10 percent opacity except for a maximum 20 percent opacity
once per steel production cycle (12). It should be noted that
the proposed particulate concentration from the EOF has the same
value as similar limitations established by Colorado and
Kentucky, while the Federal limitation for the relatively clean
electric furnace emissions is significantly less than these
state levels.
3.4.1.2 Wastewater Discharge Regulations
The federal regulations most relevant to this study
are the effluent limitations guidelines (ELG's) according to the
use of the Best Available Technology. These regulations were
prepared for many industrial categories, including iron and steel
manufacturing, and are to be implemented for new and existing
facilities by 1984. The Federal Court has remanded certain of
these limitations, which are presently under further study, but
for the purposes of this report the present ELG's have been used
as discussed in this section. They generally represent the
effluent loadings attainable by the highest degree of treatment
and water recycling deemed achievable industry-wide, using exist-
ing economical technology.
Tables 3-7 and 3-8 present a summary of the present
BAT limitations for the various production subcategories estab-
lished by the EPA for integrated steel plants. The limitations
for the steelmaking facilities (13) are designated Phase I for
the steel forming and finishing facilities (14), Phase II. The
effluent limitations represent values not to be exceeded by any
30 consecutive day average. The maximum daily effluent loads
per unit of production should not exceed the ELG values by a
factor of more than 3. Most ELG's are presented on a gross
basis. The ELG's do not specifically limit on discharge flow,
111-25
-------
TABLE 3-4
H
H
H
I
to
AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS FOR STATES HAVING INTEGRATED STEEL PLANTS
Allowable Particulate
Emissions from Overall
Plant ( Ibs/hr)
Allowable Particulate Allowable Sulphur Dioxide
Particulate Emissions from Combustion Emissions from Combustion
Concentration Sources (Ibs/million DTy) Sources (Ibs/million BTU)
Production Capacity— tons/hr Grains per
State 5 50 500 DSCF
Alabama
Class 1 County 9.7
Class 2 County
Colorado 9. 7
niinois-
New source 6. 0
Indiana 12.0
Kentucky 9. 7
Michigan 12. D
New York 1'j. J
Ohio 12.0
Pennsylvania
Iron making 9. 6
Steel making 7. 1
Sintering 5. 3
Texas 15.2
West Virginia 10.0
32.2 46.
32.2 46.
20.5 67.
44. 6 69.
32.3 46.
44. 6 69.
50.0 71.
44.6 69.
25.5 74.
10.9 50.
10.4 38.
78.1 151.
33.0 50.
7
6 0. 022
0
0
7 0.022
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
Million BTU per hr.
1 10 100 1000
0.5 0.5 0.18 0.12
0.8 0.8 0.21 0.12
0.5 0.27 0.15 0.19 Liquid fuel
Solid fuel
0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 Liquid fuel
Solid fuel
0.6 0.6 0.42 0.29
Region 1 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.19 Liquid fuel
Solid fuel
Pulv. coal 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.36 Liquid fuel
Other coal 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.45 Solid fuel
Region I 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1
Region II 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.15
0.4 0.4 0.27 0.1
6.3 for solid fossil fuel
0.05 for utility boilers
Million BTU per hr
1 10 100 1000
1.8
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.8
6.0
(1.2
3.0
5.0
1.7
2.4
1.0
1.0
(0.6
1.8 1.8 1.8
0.8 0.8 0.8
1.2 1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0 0.8
1.8 1.8 1. 8
6.0 1.7 1.7
above 3 mm BTU/hr)
3.0 1.2 0.8
5.0 1.8 1.2
1.7 1.7 1.1
2.4 2.4 1.6
1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 0.9 0.66
above 2000 MBTU/hr)
0.09 per other furnaces
boilers
-------
TABLE 3-5
State
AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS
FOR
STATES HAVING INTEGRATED STEEL PLANTS
Carbon Monoide
Nitrogen Oxides
Mineral Oxides
Alabama
H
H
H
I
NJ
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
West Virginia
Blast furnace requires
afterburner (0. 3 seconds)
200 PPM max.
Flares etc. , required
Same as Alabama
Boilers over 250 MBTU/hr
Coal - 0. 7 Ib/MBTU Max.
Oil - 0. 3 Ib/MBTU Max.
Gas -0.2 Ib/MBTU Max.
Same as Alabama
Same as Alabama
Same as Alabama
Sulphuric mist-35 PPM
max.
Nitric mist-70 PPM
max.
Hydrochloric mist-
210 PPM max.
Phosphoric mist-
3 PPM max.
-------
TABLE 3. 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Particulate Emissions Limitations
Source of Particulates kg/kkg (lbs/1000 Ibs) Gas
Sintering 0.20
Steelmaking Furnaces 0. 10
Blast Furnace 0. 15
Heating Furnaces 0. 30
111-28
-------
TABLE 3-7
BAT - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES I
BAT. LIMITATIONS (kg/kkg or lb/1000 Ib product) *
H
H
H
I
Production Facility
(Sub- category}
By-Product Coke
Sintering
Blast Furnace (iron)
EOF (semi-wet APCS)**
EOF (wet APCS)
Open Hearth
Electric (semi-wet APCS)
Electric (wet APCS}
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Suspended Oil &
Solids Grease Cyanide Ammonia Sulfide Phenol Fluoride Nitrate Lead Manganese Zinc
104.-4 42-4 1-4 42-4 12-5 21-5 -
53-4 21-4 - - 6-5 - 42-4 -
130-4 - 13-5 52-4 16-5 26-5 104-4 -
No Discharge of Pollutants
52-4 - - - 42-4- -
52-4 - - ... 42-4' 84-4 - - 1 01, 4 *
No Discharge of Pollutants
52-4 - - - 42-4. - 10.4
26-4 - - - - - - 47-4 5-5 52-5 52-5
52-4 52-4 - ........
NOTE:
* Limitations values in exponential notation, eg. 104-4 is 104 x 10" or 0.0104
** APCS is air pollution control system (gas cleaning system)
-------
DAT
TABLE 3-8
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES II
H
H
H
I
CO
O
Production Facility
(sub-category)
Hot Forming-
Primary
Hot Forming-
Section
Hot Forming-
Strip
Hot Forming-
Plate
Pipe and Tube
Suspended Oil & Iron
Solids Grease Cyanide Fluoride Diss.
BAT Limitations (hg/kkg or lb/1000 Ib product)*
11-4
64- 4
Pickling H2 SO
(Acid Recovery^
Picklinc H SO
(Acid NeutAliz. ) 52-4
Pickling-HCl*** 83-4
Cold Rolling
Recirculation 26-4
Combination 417-4
Direct Applic. 1042-4
Galvanizing**** 104-4
Terne Coating***** 104-4
Wire Coating fc Pickling 1043-4
Cont.Alk. Clean. 52-4
Chromium Chromium
Total Hexavalent
Chromium, Copper, Nickel,
Lead Tin Zinc Diss. Dissolved Dissolved
11-4
64-4
21-4**
34.4 «*
104-5
167-4
417-4
42-4
42-4
417-4**
No Discharge of Pollutants
No Discharge of Pollutants
Ni Discharge of Pollutants
No Discharge of Pollutants
21-5
34-5
104-6** -
167-5** -
42-4** -
84-6
10-4 626-4 42-4
2-4
104-6
83-5
83-5
21-4
1-4
10-4
10-4
5-5
n- 4
* Limitations values in exponential notation, e.g. 11-4 is 11 x 10 4 or 0.0011.
** Only when pickling wastes and cold rolling wastes are treated in combination.
-•';:.'-'- If line has a fume hood scrubber, allow these additions: SS: 52-4, O. & G. ; 21-4, Fe: 21-5.
*-:•** If line has a fume hood scrubber, allow these additions: SS: 156-4, O. & G. : 63-4, Zn: 125-5, Cr(tot): 126-6, Cr(Hex) 13-5.
. ;••:-:* If line- h;ts a fume hood BC rubber, allow these additions: SS: 156-4, O. & G. : 63-4, Lead: 156-6, Tin 125-6.
-------
type of technology or concentrations to be achieved. However,
they are generally based on a specified direct contact water dis-
charge flow per unit product and concentrations of the various
pollutant parameters achievable by BAT treatment technologies.
Tables 3-7 and 3-8 indicate that several production
facilities are to operate on a basis of zero discharge of pro-
cess pollutants. The discharge volume per unit production which
were used to determine the ELG values (when multiplied by treat-
ed wastewater concentrations) are contained in Table 3-9.
These discharge rates are much less than the applied
flows in each case and represent a high degree of water recy-
cling after treatment. A goal of total recycle would be the de-
sign of integrated steel plant water systems to allow reuse of
the blowdowns from these systems.
As an interim step toward total recycle, the U.S. EPA
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) for the Iron and Steel Industry
proposed in 1976 were considered as standards for allowable dis-
charges of water and waterborne contaminants. However, since
the guidelines have been remanded by the courts and all are
under study and review for possible revision, a brief review was
made of the proposed guidelines to determine which technologies
would be used as BAT for purposes of this report. The selection
of technologies considers the original proposed BAT, technical
points outlined in the court remand, and the authors' knowledge
of alternate technologies. This is not meant, however, to be a
complete technical review of proposed BAT Guidelines nor a rec-
ommendation for new proposed BAT Guildelines.
The information available for this review was limited
but the evaluation does reflect the best engineering judgement
of many individuals with years of iron and steel industry water
and wastewater experience. In order to be consistent, the
following review is in the same format as that presented in the
Guidelines.
3.4.1.2.1 Coke Making - By-Product Operation
Alternate No. 2 which utilizes free and fixed ammonia
stills, a dephenolizer and two stages of biological treatment,
is selected because of its potential lower cost than Alternate
No. 1, a physical/chemical treatment system.
3.4.1.2.2 Coke Making - Beehive Operation -
Not discussed since so few are in operation in inte-
grated mills.
111-31
-------
TABLE 3-9
BAT DISCHARGE VOLUMES FOR ELG DETERMINATION
Discharge
Production Facility
By-Product Coke
Sintering
BF (Iron)
EOF (semi-wet APCS)
BOF (wet APCS)
Open Hearth
Electric (semi-wet APCS)
Electric (wet (APCS)
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Hot Forming - Primary
Hot Forming - Section
Hot Forming - Strip
Hot Forming - Plate
Pipe and Tube
Pickling - H SO - (Acid Recovery)
Pickling - HZSO^ - (Acid Neutr. )
Pickling - HC1 - (Recovery or Neutr. )
Cold Rolling - Recirculation
- Combination
- Direct Appl.
Galvanizing
Terne Coating
Wire Coating & Pickling
Cont. Alk. Cleaning
1/kkg
730
209
522
0
209
209
0
209
104
522
1-04
0
0
625
0
0
209
333
104
1668
4170
417
417
4170
209
gal/t
175
50
125
0
50
50
0
50
25
125
25
0
0
150
0
0
50
80
25
400
1000
100
100
1000
50
111-32
-------
3.4.1.2.3 Sintering Operations
The sintering model consisting of clarification chemi-
cal addition and sludge dewatering is selected.
3.4.1.2.4 Blast Furnace Operations
The settling, alkaline chlorination, pressure filtra-
tion and activated carbon system proposed is costly. The use of
blast furnace gas washer water system blowdown as coke plant
biological treatment plant dilution water should be investigated
since this blowdown is similar to dilute coke plant wastewater.
A two-fold benefit could be achieved, namely, treatment of the
blast furnace system blowdown at basically no additional cost
and the savings of dilution water. It is assumed that the use
of blast furnace blowdown in the coke biological plant can be
successfully developed and this technology is selected.
3.4.1.2.5 Steelmaking Operations
The model consisting of thickening, polymer addition,
sludge dewatering and recycle is selected.
3.4.1.2.6 Continuous Casting
The model shown does not present the latest technology.
Primary settling followed by filtration and cooling prior to re-
circulation with blowdown from the cooling tower "cold" side is
selected.
3.4.1.2.7 Hot Forming Primary
The use of filters instead of clarifiers represents
the latest technology since clarifiers, even with chemical
treatment, cannot guarantee an effluent of 10 mg/1 suspended
solids and oil and grease. On new installations clarifiers are
not required since filters can do the entire treatment job.
3.4.1.2.8 Hot Forming - Section
Filters should be used instead of clarifiers on new
installations for the reasons stated in 3.5.1.2.7 above. In
addition, a blowdown is required to control dissolved solids in
the system. In the evaluation of the model, existing blowdowns
must have been missed or the discharge to the sinter plant was
low in percent solids which acted as a blowdown. In this re-
port, it is assumed that a blowdown is required.
3.4.1.2.9 Hot Forming/Flat-Hot Strip and Sheet
Same comments as 3.4.1.2.7 and 3.4.1.2.8, above.
111-33
-------
3.4.1.2.10 Hot Forming/Flat-Plate
Same comments as 3.4.1.2.7 and 3.4.1.2.8, above.
3.4.1.2.11 Pipe and Tubes - Integrated and Isolated
Same comments as 3.4.1.2.7 and 3.4.1.2.8, above.
3.4.1.2.12 Pickling - H2S04 and HCl - Batch and Continuous
The models presented should produce the effluents
desired.
3.4.1.2.13 Cold Rolling - Combination and Direct Application
The models presented should produce the effluents
desired.
3.4.1.2.14 Hot Coating - Galvanizing and Terne
The models utilizing acid regeneration and/or neutral-
ization with settling and sludge dewatering are selected.
3.4.1.2.15 Electroplating
The standards proposed for use in the steel industry
are a transfer of technology from small plating shops. Since
the integrated iron and steel industry plates steel mainly using
continuous, high production operations the small shop electro-
plating guidelines may not apply. However, the proposed guide-
lines, which call for no discharge of water are selected for use
in this report.
3.4.1.2.16 Miscellaneous Runoff
Each individual site must be considered.
3.4.1.2.17 Conclusions
The ELG's were remanded because such factors as: age
of plant, makeup water quality, climatic conditions, difficulty
in separating sewers, etc. were not considered. These factors
are site specific and could significantly influence the allow-
able discharge rates in 1/kkg and in the cost of facilities
needed.
3-5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL METHODS
3.5.1 Air Emissions
Discharges to the atmosphere can be classified into
two basic categories: gases and particulate matter. Particulate
111-34
-------
matter may be further subclassifled as smoke, dust, fumes and
mists. Smoke consists of colloidal size solids, usually less
than one micron resulting from incomplete combustion. Dusts are
solid particles, larger than colloidal, formed by a physical
disintegration process. Fumes are solid particles of submicron
size generated by the sublimation of vapors or by chemical re-
actions. Mists are liquid particles created by vapor condensa-
tion or chemical reactions. Particulates and gases are produced
during the different operations of iron and steelmaking and are
to be controlled.
3.5.1.1 Particulate Matter Control Methods
Selection of the method for particulate removal de-
pends upon the sizes and concentrations of the particles and the
efficiency desired. Following is a brief discussion of the most
common particulate air pollution control devices with particular
emphasis upon those methods that require water for operation.
a.- Settling Chambers
This device operates on the principle of gravita-
tional settling of particulates when the velocity of the carrier
gas is reduced, usually to less than 3 meters per second (10 ft/
sec). The settling chambers' primary application is as the
first stage of dust and fume recovery. Removal of smaller par-
ticulates requires subsequent treatment by high energy scrubbers
or electrostatic precipitators.
b. Inertial Separators
Cyclone separators are the most common type of
inertial separators and are basically composed of a cylinder
with a tangential inlet and an inverted cone attached to a base.
The gas stream enters the cyclone through the tangential inlet,
and the resulting circular motion will cause the particles to
impinge upon the cylinder wall. The particles then agglomerate
and slide into the cone for discharge to a collecting device.
These separators can effectively remove particles
5-200 urn in size, although high efficiency cyclones can remove
particles as small as 2 urn. Pressure drops range from 125 to
1500 Pa (0.5 - 6.0 inches of water).
c. Filters
There are two types of particulate filters in
current use. Deep bed filters contain a fibrous medium, but due
to their limitation for only light dust loads, they are not em-
ployed in the steel industry.
111-35
-------
Cloth filters remove dust and fumes from gas
steams by means of a fabric medium shaped as an envelope or
tubular bag. The bag filters are very efficient devices, re-
moving greater than 99 percent of all particulates, even sub-
micron sizes, and must be cleaned periodically by shaking the
bags to dislodge the dust into a collection hopper. Another
method is by reversing the flow direction.
Bag filters have definite limitations with gas
streams of high temperature or with very large dust loads and
are also restricted from use on gases containing vapors which
may condense on the bags. A sintering plant processing oily
mill scale would produce such vapors.
d. Magnetic Collectors
If the air stream contains ferromagnetic or even
weakly magnetic particulates in sufficient concentration, a
magnetic device may be effective. A dry, high gradient magnetic
separation device is under investigation by the EPA, Office of
Research and Development. The magnetic fields utilized range
1,000 to 20,000 gauss (17). However, this device has not been
used on a full scale installation in the steel industry.
e. Wet Collectors
These devices use a liquor medium, usually water,
for removal of gases and particulate matter with spray chambers
and assorted scrubbers being the most common. Collection effi-
ciency varies widely with the design and except for the high
energy scrubbers are generally ineffective when the particle
size is less than 1 urn.
Wet collectors all operate by passing the air
stream througn a fine spray of water droplets which dissolve the
gases and collide with the particles and adhere to them. The
droplets subsequently agglomerate until they drop out of suspen-
sion carrying particulates and soluble gases from the air stream.
The resulting wastewater flow is then treated for disposal or
product recovery and water recirculation.
The disadvantages inherent in all wet collectors
include corrosion, scaling and plugging. Water mist, carrying
gases and particulate matter, may escape the collectors and mist
eliminators are usually required at the discharge.
f. Electrostatic Precipitators
Electrostatic precipitators remove particulates
from gas streams by creating an electric field with high voltage
electrodes. As the gas flow passes through the electric field,
111-36
-------
the particles precipitate on the positive electrode.
The electrostatic precipitation process is very
efficient, achieving 80-99 percent removal in most cases, and
at times achieving over 99.9 percent removal. The precipitators
can remove a wide range of particle sizes, 0.1 urn to 200 um, and
generally operate best in the smaller size range.
Advantages of electrostatic precipitators are that
the energy requirements are generally less than scrubbers, and
they can be a dry operation, thereby avoiding a wastewater
stream.
The chief disadvantages are their large sizes,
high initial cost, and dependence upon particle resistivity for
efficient operation. The resistivity problem is particularly
serious on such applications as the collection of oil mists and
the collection of particulates from the making of high flux
sinter.
g. Mist Control Methods
Mists may be eliminated from gas streams by caus-
ing the droplets to coalesce by impingement on each other or on
a surface. Various proprietary mist eliminator systems are
essentially coarse filters for mist impingement. When enough
droplets have coalesced, they are of sufficient weight to flow
into a collector. Other mist eliminators are essentially solids
separators removing mists by the same processes, i.e., inertial
separators and electrostatic precipitators.
3.5.1.2 Gas Control Methods
Gases such as oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur are pri-
marily controlled or stripped from the air stream by wet collec-
tors such as spray chambers or scrubbers. Scrubbing may be
simply by dissolving the gas in a water stream or by solution
and reaction of the gas with additive chemicals. Examples of
reaction processes are the use of alkaline agents such as lime-
stone, ammonia, caustic or lime slurry to scrub sulfur dioxide
from combustion stack emissions. In these processes, gases are
collected by water streams and then treated as a water pollution
problem for disposal or product recovery.
3.5.2 Wastewater Control
Water normally contains both dissolved and suspended
impurities and any specific use of a water stream is dependent
on the types and concentrations of impurities. For example, a
high concentration of suspended matter may cause erosion or
clogging of equipment, or a high concentration of chlorides may
cause metal corrosion. Therefore, the removal of impurities
III-37
-------
where required is essential for the consideration of any water
use or reuse. This section describes methods available for the
treatment of wastewater streams from the operations of the iron
and steel industry. Combinations of treatment methods will pro-
duce virtually any water quality; the products of ultimate treat-
ment being soluble waste solids, reusable materials and deminer-
alized water. However, costs can be prohibitive.
3.5.2.1 Suspended Solids Removal
Inorganic suspended solids constitute the major part
of all contaminants in steel plant wastes. These solids are
usually composed of iron oxide particles ranging from submicron
sizes in gas scrubber effluent to coarse scale.
a. Sedimentation
Sedimentation, in general terms is a treatment method
which reduces the water velocity and turbulence so that sus-
pended matter may be removed by gravitational settling. Plain
sedimentation is treatment without chemical addition, while
coagulation or flocculation with sedimentation employs one or
more chemical aids.
A sedimentation unit should allow a maximum detention
time, a minimum horizontal velocity, and have an inflow distri-
bution and outflow collection system design so that the solids
have a sufficient settling time and not be subject to short-
circuiting causing scour and resuspension. Overall basin size
may be limited by factors such as area restrictions and sub-
surface conditions.
In some cases, sedimentation can produce, without
chemical additions, treated water containing 50 mg/1 or less of
suspended matter depending upon the particle size distribution
of the solids.
Sedimentation units are constructed in various con-
figurations; they may be simple earthen basins or lagoons lined
basins or tanks of various shapes. Rectangular units, commonly
settling basins, are used in the steel industry for plain sedi-
mentation prior to water recycling. The settling may be the
only treatment, e.g., coke quenching water, or an intermediate
step, as in removal of scale from hot mill coolinq water h^fnrP
filtration or clarification. Scale pits are rectangular'units
with a short detention time to remove only coarse particle of
hot mill scale. Lagoons are large settling basins with detention
times of up to several days and may be used for fi^ i 1 ueteivclon
of combined wastewaters. Y f°r flnal treatment
111-38
-------
In settling basins or rectangular tanks the flow is
longitudinal from one end and the discharge is at the opposite
end over weirs. Overflow conditions may be improved by use of
finger weirs to increase the weir length. Depending on the
amount and characteristics of the settled solids, various methods
are utilized for their removal from the basin. If the solids
are coarse and dense, they may be directly removed by overhead
clamshell buckets, or may be dragged toward the influent end by
an automatic scraper for removal by another scraper, bucket or
pump. If the solids are light but compact, they may flow by
gravity into a hopper at the bottom of the tank and be removed
by a sludge pump. Where scraping mechanisms are used, they are
usually constructed so that on their return they skim any float-
ing oils and solids towards the effluent end for removal.
If the flows to be treated are large or extremely
variable, multiple sedimentation units are constructed in para-
llel so that one cell can be taken out of service without a great
reduction in solids removal efficiency.
Circular or square tanks are usually constructed with
conical bottoms and are referred to as clarifiers or thickeners.
They are typically used in the steel industry for sedimentation
with or without chemical aids, such as treating gas cleaning
wastewaters, or in clarification of treated coke plant by-
products wastewater.
Clarifiers are usually designed with a central inlet
and the clarified water discharges over v-notch weirs installed
around the periphery of the basin. Constantly rotating rake
mechanisms are employed to plow the settled solids toward a cen-
ter well from where they are withdrawn by sludge pumps. There
may also be a surface skimmer provided to remove floating oils
and solids.
On some circular units the wastewater is introduced
near the bottom, and allowed to rise in an upflow pattern. The
change in cross-sectional area as the water disperses reduces
its upflow velocity to a point where solids begin to settle.
The settling solids contact with solids in the upflow water,
agglomerate, and experience enhanced settling. The result is
the formation of a sludge blanket or bed through which the waste-
water must pass and undergo solids removal. In practice, chemi-
cals or coagulants may be added to the wastewater to help pro-
duce an effective sludge blanket.
Coagulation and flocculation are employed with sedi-
mentation to improve the removal of very fine suspended or
colloidal solids which settle poorly, if at all, and cannot be
effectively removed from wastewater by plain sedimentation or
other physical treatment. Such methods are used in steel plants
111-39
-------
especially for treatment of blast furnace or steelmaking furnace
gas cleaning effluents and to maximize solids removal from direct
contact wastewaters prior to recycling.
Coagulation specifically is the addition of certain
ionic chemicals to neutralize the repelling charges on the
colloids in the wastewater which can then combine to form larger
settleable solids aggregates. Flocculation, when employed,
follows coagulation and involves the chemical bridging or physi-
cal enmeshment of the solids to form very large aggregates
called "floe". The resulting floe mass has an enormous surface
area and further adsorbs suspended solids, colloids and bacteria
as it settled to the bottom of the clarifier. In the complete
process, chemicals are added and rapidly mixed to insure thorough
dispersal in the wastewater. The mixing time is short so that
any initial floe is not broken or sheared. Flocculation then
occurs by a gentle agitation of the wastewater over an extended
period (10-30 minutes) to increase the number of contacts be-
tween solids particles and promote floe formation.
Coagulants are metal salts such as aluminum sulfate
and iron chloride or organic polyelectrolytes which dissolve in
the wastewater to form charged ions for destabilization of the
colloidal dispersion. Coagulant aids such as silica, clay and
organic polyelectrolytes stimulate coagulation and flocculation
and improve solids settling. The most common coagulant is alum,
but the newest and most versatile coagulants are organic poly-
electrolytes which are water soluble, high molecular weight
polymers which form ions of multiple charge in the water.
The metal salts and polyelectrolytes, when added in
proper dosages, readily form large floe masses on gentle agita-
tion. Each waste must have small-scale treatability tests per-
formed to determine the most effective coagulant and optimum
dosage. Preliminary tests are especially important when using
the more costly polyelectrolytes. Small differences in the
wastewater characteristics can determine the effectiveness of a
given coagulant. For some wastes, addition of two or more chemi-
cals may be required in a specific sequence.
Many clarifier designs combine coagulation, floccula-
tion, and sedimentation in one tank. Designs of this type (often
called flocculator-clarifiers) usually produce a better quality
effluent than the conventional approach of using separate treat-
ment units. The combined process is also more effective for the
removal of emulsified or floating oils as well as suspended
solids. In this case, a surface oil skimmer must be utilized
either integral with, or following the flocculation/clarification
step.
Where lack of space is a consideration or where waste-
water flows are increased above the intial design capacity, there
111-40
-------
are devices that can be added to a settling unit. One design
is multiple arrays of tilted plates or tubes that decrease par-
ticle settling distances to increase the efficiency of a small
basin (18). Another is a wedge wire settler that employs para-
llel wire screens suspended below and parallel to the water sur-
face so that wastewater must pass upward through the screen for
improved solids settling. It thus acts like a mechanical sludge
blanket (19). Prior to application of these devices, it should
be determined whether clogging will take place on the plates or
tubes when used with wastewater containing both oil and suspend-
ed solids or with a potentially heavy sludge production.
Hydrocyclones separate solids from fluids by use of
centrifugal force and gravity. This method is especially useful
for separating denser solids from water. There is no great re-
duction in flow velocity, instead separation is promoted by in-
troducing the waste stream tangentially into an inverted cone-
shaped vessel to allow the solids to migrate to the bottom and
water to swirl out the top. One Steel Plant is reported to be
using a hydrocyclone in the recycling of EOF gas scrubber water
(94). These devices can also be used in solids classification
by modification of the hydrocyclone structure and flow pattern
to allow separation of solids of various densities and particle
sizes (20). Effective oil removal with these devices is usually
impossible.
Sedimentation is a process with low costs and very low
energy requirements. Mechanical energy is required only for
pumping, mixing and sludge collection. Proper designs can make
use of gravity flow to minimize these energy requirements. For
a given size, clarifiers will have a slightly higher power re-
quirement than conventional settling basins. The total power
required for a 1,600 m3/hr (10 mgd) system using coagulation,
flocculation and sedimentation will typically be 30-150 kw (17).
For plain sedimentation, power requirements are reported to be
1.5 kw for 158 m3/hr (1 mgd) to 31 kw for 15,800 m3/hr (100 mgd)
capacity (21).
b. Air or Gas Flotation
In the air or gas flotation process, suspended wastes
are removed from a process stream by attachment to small air
bubbles allowing the resultant buoyant mass to rise and separate
under quiescent conditions. In some cases chemical flocculation
or other chemical aids must be used to promote air attachment.
The floating sludge is collected by skimming equipment; a bottom
sludge collector is often required to remove grit and other
dense solids.
Two basic methods are dispersed air and dissolved air
flotation. In dispersed air flotation, bubbles are generated by
111-41
-------
either mechanical shear of mixers, diffusing air through a po-
rous medium or by introduction of a homogenized air and liquid
stream. Dissolved air flotation is accomplished by precipita-
ting air out of the wastewater flow by first supersaturating the
water under pressures of 1.8 to 4.2 kg/cm2 (25-60 psig), and
then releasing the pressure in the flotation tank and allowing
the air to disperse into fine bubbles. Alternate schemes are to
recycle a portion of the effluent, supersaturate it with air
under pressure and mix with the pressurized or unpressurized in-
fluent just before admission to the flotation tank. Larger or
more concentrated flows, including sludges, are usually more
effectively treated by recycling.
Another method, more properly called vacuum flotation,
is to introduce the wastewater into a closed flotation tank and
apply a vacuum to cause the precipitation of air dissolved under
atmospheric conditions. The vacuum flotation system is not in
general use due to the limit of a one atmosphere pressure drop,
the costs of constructing vacuum facilities and the oxygen de-
pletion in the wastewater. ;
A new technique, actually a variant of electrolysis,
uses electrode grids to generate a very uniform finely dispersed
mixture of H2 and 03 in the water for flotation, however, there
are safety problems inherent in the generation of free hydrogen
and nitrogen. Pilot plant testing at 75 m3/hr (0.5 mgd) has
shown it effective in treating steel rolling mill wastes (22)
(23).
Bubbles generated by dispersed air systems are in the
order of 1,000 microns diameter, whereas, bubbles generated by
dissolved air systems are only about 80 microns generally allow-
ing more effective flotation of fine particles.
For optimum operation, the wastewater solids concen-
tration and flow rate should remain constant, therefore, a flo-
tation unit should be preceded by equalization facilities.
There are several advantages of air flotation over
conventional gravity sedimentation. The flotation sludge has a
greater dry solids content, yet has a lower density and is, in
itself, amenable to thickening by air flotation or by gravity
separation. Also the amount of chemical flocculants required
is usually less than those for settling. Disadvantages are that
the operating costs for power will generally be higher due to
the need for recycle pumps or compressors and, where certain
oily waters or detergents are present in the waste stream, froth-
ing may occur which makes the sludge difficult to handle in sub-
sequent steps.
111-42
-------
Air or gas dissolved flotation can be applied to treat
specific wastewater flows containing suspended solids of low
specific gravity including chemical floes and cold mill wastes.
((This method is being used in a 20 gpm pilot plant for treat-
ment of coke plant wastewater (85).))
EPA estimates (2) of energy requirements in flotation
treatment of cold mill wastes from recirculation or direct appli-
cation emulsion system are as follows:
Direct
Recirculation Application
Flow (m3/hr) 12 160
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 200 80
Oil and Grease (mg/1) 600 200
Energy (kw/l,0003m /day) 330 155
Energy (kw/mgd) 1,250 585
c. Filtration
Filtration is the passage of a fluid through a packed
bed of granular or fibrous material (media) to remove particu-
late matter. The process of filtration is the retention of par-
ticles larger than the interstices, adsorption on the surface of
the media at any depth, the coagulation, agglomeration, or
coalescence of solids within the bed or any combination of these
phenomena. Replaceable cartridge filters have not been con-
sidered due to the impracticality of handling the relatively
large flows associated with steel plant water systems.
Generally, wastewater filtration follows treatment for
coarser solids removal because the suspended solids loading on a
filter should not be so high that it clogs rapidly and requires
frequent cleaning (backwashing). The water discharging from a
properly designed and operated high rate filter can consistently
contain 10 mg/1 or less of suspended solids. Water of this
quality is suitable for recycle or reuse for direct contact uses.
There are three general types of filters in current
use: granular media (GMF), flat bed filter and precoat filters.
Granular media filters may be of the gravity or pres-
sure type; the former are open to the atmosphere and operate
under the hydraulic head created by the influent. GMF can also
be enclosed in pressure vessels and operate under pressure.
Addition of coagulant aids into the filter influent stream can
materially increase the efficiency of colloidal and suspended
solids removal. A separate flocculation step may precede fil-
tration or the chemically dosed and mixed wastewater may be
111-43
-------
directly filtered. These filters use granular media such as
anthracite coal, sand and gravel, singly or in combination. Cur-
rent trends are to use mixed media or multi-media which is graded
coarse to fine in the direction of the water flow. The specific
gravity of the media is selected so that backwashing does not
upset the distinct layering of the multi-media in the bed.
Multi-media filtration systems have certain inherent advantages
(24).
1. Greater solids and flow rate capacity per
unit of surface - flow rates of 20-60 m/hr
(8-24 gpm/ft2) are used in filtration of hot
mill effluents.
2. Ability to handle a wider range of influ-
ent suspended solids concentrations - to
300 mg/1 with relatively constant effluent
concentrations.
3. Longer filter runs - 8 to 16 hour runs be-
tween backwashes are common in hot mill
effluent treatment.
GMF are most commonly used in steel plants for treat-
ing descaled water from hot rolling mills for recycling. They
also are used for polishing various treated and clarified efflu-
ents, such as from continuous casters and cold rolling mills.
Careful selection of the type of filter used is imperative since
a misapplication may prove extremely expensive to correct.
Energy requirements for gravity GMF (influent pumping
and backwashing) are about 2.5 kw per 1,000 m^/day capacity (10
kw/mgd capacity). For high rate pressure filters the energy re-
quirements are higher but the pressure head available after the
filters eliminates the need for pumping the effluent for further
treatment (cooling) or reuse (24).
Filters are cleaned by backwashing when a specified
head loss has been reached or on a predetermined time cycle.
Backwashing is the operation of reversing the flow of water
through the filter media at a high rate to remove the entrapped
solids from the bed. The water that is used to backwash is
usually filtered water. If dirty water is used, a short (for-
ward) wash may be required before the filter goes back into the
filtering mode. Backwashing is usually supplemented by mechani-
cal, or air agitation to remove solids and other impurities
lodged in the filter media by creating a scrubbing action. The
amount of backwash water required to effect adequate cleaning
may vary from 1 to 10 percent (3 percent average) of the filter
throughput. The backwash water must be treated for solids re-
moval, usually by discharging into a settling basin or thickener
which then returns clarified overflow to the sedimentation basins
111-44
-------
or tanks that precede the filter. Although the backwash solids...
had originally passed through the sedimentation basins without
being removed, they readily settle as a part of the backwash be-
cause they have been agglomerated in the filtration process.
Granual or media filters are widely used in steel
plants. One Canadian Company has a 9 ,500 m^/hr (60 mgd) filtra-
tion plant (98). Another plant has deep bed, dual media horizon-
tal pressure filters capable of operating at 25 m/hr (10 gpm/ft2)
(99). Still another plant, using polyelectrolyte, treats 10,000
iVhr not strip mill waste in a dual media filter system at 40
i/hr (16 gpm/ft2) (100) .
m
m
Flat bed filters use single, very shallow media, such
as, paper or a fine screen. The influent may be under pressure
or a vacuum applied at the discharge end. Flat beds generally
are used for rough filtration of suspended solids and oils fol-
lowing coarse solids settling. They do not remove fine solids
and are thus not used for final effluent polishing (1). They
are used in steel plants for treatment of contact water from "" '"
continuous casters or pressure slab molding units. A system to
permit the recycling of coolant water in a continuous casting
operation incorporates a 320 m^/hr (1,400 gpm) flat bed filter
system (101).
Precoat filters utilize a base or septum upon which is
deposited a layer of fine filtering material such as diatomaceous
earth (precoat). The fluid to be filtered is then passed through
the filter, under vacuum or positive pressure. In some instances
there is a constant feed of the filtering material (body feed)
or filter aid to the fluid being filtered. When a specified
head loss is reached, the filter is taken out of service and
backwashed. During the backwash, the entire amount of filtering
or precoat material is discarded. The low filtration rates and
high costs of these types of filters preclude their use, in most
cases, for large flows.
A moving bed filtration process shows potential for
certain wastewaters and municipal sewage. Buoyant granular media
is added with the influent to an upflow filter column. The media
is removed from above the wastewater effluent port and washed
for reuse. There are no operational systems at present. The
main advantage of moving bed systems is continuous operation
without backwash interruptions (25) but power costs would seem
higher than for other filter systems.
d. Microstraining
The microstrainer has beem employed since 1950,
principally in England. It was developed for potable water
treatment as a mechanical "tertiary" treatment for the removal
111-45
-------
of algal growths before sand filtration. This process has been
used to replace sand filters, in some cases, for treatment of
industrial process water and wastewater.
In principle, the system consists of a revolving drum
or disc with an attached micropore stainless steel mesh screen.
The mesh pores range from 60 to 23 urn (24-9 x 10~4 inches). The
upstream side of the drum is open to receive wastewater. As the
drum rotates on a horizontal axis, it collects solids on the
mesh which are backwashed, out of the pores at the top of its ro-
tation cycle. Water for backwashing is taken from the down-
stream side of the drum and pumped by a row of self-cleaning
adjustable jet nozzles through the back of the mesh. The back-
wash is discharged into a hopper attached to the hollow axle of
the drum and is then handled similarly to filter backwash water.
Since the backwash slurry is produced at a more uniform rate,
intermittent storage requirements may not be as critical as is
the case of filter backwash water.
The high cost and short life of the finer meshes pre-
cludes the use of this type of solids removal device for many
steel mill applications. Energy requirements are low.
e. Magnetic Separation
In recent years there has been increasing interest in
the use of magnetic methods to remove both ferromagnetic and
weakly magnetic suspended solids from wastewater streams.
Various proprietary methods of utilizing magnetics have been de-
veloped and they may be classified as three general types:
magnetic flocculation, magnetic filtration and magnetic removal.
Magnetic flocculation is a well established method of
increasing the size of particles to enhance settling by exposing
the wastewater to a magnetic field to cause induced magnetism in
the ferromagnetic solids and particle attraction for floccula-
tion. The magnetic exposure is accomplished by passing a waste
system through oppositely charged permanent magnets. The ex-
posure of the stream to the magnetic field is very short and the
velocity is high enough to scour attracted particles off the
permanent magnets. The floe created by magnetic flocculation
can trap non-magnetic material and thus provide effective sett-
ling of both magnetic and non-magnetic solids. Magnetic floc-
culation can be utilized in conjunction with chemical floccula-
tion by adding a small amount of a flocculating agent such as a
polyelectrolyte and by seeding the stream with a small amount of
magnetic material so that the suspension would be amenable to
magnetic flocculation.
With magnetically flocculated wastewater, due to the
increased size of the particles, higher overflow rates can be
used and thus decrease the size of settling facilities. In
111-46 _
-------
addition, magnetic flocculators are relatively low in price.
This process is being used in steel plants for treatment of"gas
scrubber effluents from the steelmaking furnaces (26) . It is
especially useful, in conjunction with chemicals, for waste-
waters from high energy scrubbers (102, 103). This method
performs most efficiently with wastewaters containing high con-
centration of iron bearing materials.
Magnetic filtration, often called high gradient mag-
netic separation (HGMS), is a relatively new development which
utilizes a high density electromagnetic field to remove par-
ticles as small as 1 urn (4 x 10~4 inches) from the wastewater
onto a magnetized filter medium. The core of the treatment de-
vice is generally a steel filtering media, such as steel wool,
contained within the coils of a powerful electromagnet creating
high intensity fields of 1,000 to 20,000 gauss (G). This in-
tense field creates strong induced magnetic properties even in
small, weakly magnetic particles which then adhere to the sur-
face of the medium. Nonmagnetic solids can also be removed by
filtration or physicochemical association with trapped magnetic
floe. After the filtration cycle has reached a predetermined
point (either time or pressure drop) the power is shut off and
the magnetic field is reduced to zero. Water is flushed through
the filter to wash off the entrapped solids. The solids, due to
their induced magnetism, are flocculated and readily settle in a
thickener for subsequent dewatering. The steel media are sus-
ceptible to corrosion and when oils are present difficulty may
be experienced in thoroughly cleaning the media. No full-sized
installation are presently in operation. However, high gradient
magnetic separation has been tested on a bench scale in the
United States (104) and Sweden (105).
HGMS has advantages especially with very fine iron
oxide particles of low concentration and high flow rates (27).
High installation cost and power consumption are definite dis-
advantages. An estimate of energy requirements for removal of
erromagnetic material using a lOkG field is 50kW for 55 m3/hr
(0.35 mgd) capacity (17).
Magnetic separation utilizes a moving permanent magnet
which is partially immersed in the waste stream to attract ferro-
magnetic particles from the waste stream. The magnet is often a
rotating disc and as it emerges from the stream, the adhering
particles are scraped off and removed to disposal. Magnetic
fields are usually less than 1,000 G- Non-magnetic particles
may be separated by use of flocculant, if necessary in combina-
tion with a magnetic seed. Units have been successfully tested
in large flows from steel rolling mills (26). Rotating magnetic
discs are in use at a hot rolling mill in Sweden (106, 107).
Wear and anticipated high costs are disadvantages.
111-47
-------
3.5.2.2 Oil Removal
Oily waste discharges from steel mills are a major
treatment problem and can be classified into four categories:
1. Free oils, which usually are a mixture of
gear oil, bearing oil, hydraulic leakage,
some coating oil, and demulsified rolling
oil.
2. Oil coated on solids, which consist of small
particles of metal or oxide coated with an
oil film.
3. Insoluble oil wastes, which consist pri-
marily of various oils in the effluent from
skimming tanks of rolling mills, plus small
quantities of oily wastewater from dirty-water
sumps. They may occur as free floating or
settled oils or as unstable emulsions which
are relatively easily broken.
4. Soluble oily wastes or stable emulsions are
discharged from the tanks and sumps of the
roll shops, electrostatic precipitators, chem-
ical cleaning lines, oil skimming tanks under-
flow and rolling solution or oil coolant tanks
of cold rolling mills.
These emulsions show no tendency to separate without
treatment. Two basic types of chemical emulsifiers are used
either separately or in conjunction with each other. These are
anionic types which create emulsions that usually require special
emulsion breaking techniques.
In general, the treatment of oily wastes is a specific
problem for each manufacturing area or mill, and may be subject
to change with variations in oil formulations, the state of re-
pairs of the equipment, and the type of product produced. The
removal of oil from wastewater can be effected by the following
techniques used separately or in combination with each other,
depending on the nature of the waste stream.
a. Gravity Separation
With the exception of filter techniques, all gravity
oil removal processes are based on density separation. This
process is applicable for the removal of both floatable (free
oil and greases, fine oil coated solids) and non floatable sub-
stances. The choice of a particular type of separator could
range from the simple API separator, in which floatable sub-
stances are removed, to the more complex dual function scale
111-48
-------
pits and clarifiers (with or without chemical treatment) in
which both the floatable and heavier-than-water phases are re-
moved .
Emulsions may be broken, physically, thermally or
chemically to permit gravity separation. Physical emulsion
breaking is more applicable to mechanically created emulsions
such as might be created by high shear pumping of oily water. -
Chemical and thermal emulsion breaking are more applicable to
chemically created emulsions.
The physical breaking of an emulsion is similar to
filtration in that the water stream containing the emulsified
oil is passed through a fine media (fiberglass, steel wool,
synthetics) that permits water to pass but retain the very small
(less than 10 urn) oil globules. As the oil globules collect on
the surface of the media they coalesce and when large enough
they separate and float to the surface. In some coalescers the
trapped oil is removed by flushing with a solvent or steam and
the media must be periodically replaced (29 and 30) .
Chemical breaking of emulsions is accomplished by the
acidification of the wastewater to at least pH 2 and/or by addi-
tion of iron or aluminum salts to inactivate the emulsifying
agent. The salts also increase the density of the water rela-
tive to the oil phase. The required dosages must be determined
by testing the individual streams. Emulsions are broken ther-
mally by heating in a tank to about 60° C (140° F). The tank
may be heated or steam may be injected into the oily wastes.
Heating is often combined with chemical methods.
After the oil and water are deemulsified, the floating
oil may be removed by conventional physical means such as by
skimming, and pumped to storage for eventual in-plant disposal
in an incinerator, for use as a fuel or trucked away for recla-
mation or disposal.
Oil skimming of broken emulsions or simple gravity oil
separation is accomplished mechanically in large installations
or by manually in small installations. Devices for continuous
oil skimming are:
i. Slotted pipes are devices with a lengthwise
slot, installed partially submerged and
parallel to the water surface of a gravity
separation tank. As the pipe is rotated
around its horizontal axis, the top layer of
oil flows into the slot and drains into a
collection tank. This device is for gross
removal and the collected oil, mixed with
water, usually requires further gravity
separation. This separation may be in a
111-49
-------
holding tank with vertically oriented
ports for drawing off the floating oil and
removing the aqueous phase from the bottom.
ii. Belt, drum, or hose skimmers operate by con-
tinuously passing an oil layer for selective
oil removal. The conveying material passes
through a set of squeegees at the other end
of the treatment loop and the removed oil
flows into a collection container. At U.S.
Steel's Loraine, Ohio plant (108), oil is
recovered from lagoons by this method.
Proper physical placement can markedly en-
hance the operation of these devices.
iii. Clarification skimming uses a skimming blade
moving on the water surface to push floating
oil into a container installed at water level.
For clarifiers, the skimmer reaches from the
tank center to the perimeter, rotating from
the center axis. For settling basins, the
skimmer reaches across the basin and moves
down the length of the basin. This type of
device is also for gross removal and the
skimmings usually require further separation.
Free floating, non-emulsified oils from some steel
plant facilities may be grossly removed by inertial separation
in hydrocyclones. The wastewater is introduced tangentially
into the circular tank and the oils will tend to swirl out the
topmost discharge point with solids settling to the bottom (32).
b. Air Flotation
Removal of oil by air flotation is the same as de«
scribed for suspended solids in Section 3.5.2.2.1b. Air flota-
tion may be used with or without chemical aids but testing is
required to determine whether chemical addition is required,
and at what dosages.
c. Granular Media Filtration (GMF)
In general, granular media filtration, employing little
or no chemical pretreatment, is applicable for the removal of
all forms of oil and oil coated suspended solids from waste-
water. While the removal efficiency will vary with the nature
of the waste, variation of influent concentrations, within
limits, will have little effect. The filter flux rates and op-
eration between backwashes are as discussed in Section 3 . 5. 2. I.e.
Because of their limited waste holding capacity, filters should
always be preceded by a gross solids and oil removal stage, such
as primary and secondary scale pits, API separators and clari-
111-50
-------
fiers, in which chemical treatment may or may not have been
utilized.
Conventional granular media filters are sometimes sub-
ject to oil fouling of the filter media if proper backwashing
techniques are not used and may have to be routinely cleaned with
steam or hot water at the termination of the backwash cycle.
New filters have been designed using a radial configuration (non-
uniform gradient), synthetic (plastic) media, and an external
regeneration or cleaning cycle. These units require approximate-
ly one-fourth the filter depth of conventional granular media
filters, and have been shown to be effective in oil removal
treatment.
Electrochemical coalescence of dilute oil emulsions
has been proven effective in tests with porous media consisting
of bimetallic or carbon-metal couples (32). The granules of
carbon and an active metal such as aluminum or iron are intimate-
ly mixed in the treatment bed. As the emulsion enters the beds
oil microdroplets, being negatively charged, are electro-
deposited for coalescence on metal anodic surfaces. The alumi-
num or iron ions thus liberated are neutralized by hydroxyl ions
liberated at the destabilization of the oil emulsion by promot-
ing flocculation and filtration of the oil, metal and other solid
material. In a test series, bed lives ranged from 8 to 20 hours
at emulsion flux rates of 7 - 22 m3/hr/m2. The beds are not
easily regenerated but large units are expected to operate up to
several weeks between regenerations. Bed depths and porosity
must be adjusted to provide optimal residence times.
Electrolytic processes have been patented for removal
of oils along with heavy metals and organic matter at acid pH
conditions (34) .
d. Ultrafiltration
Systems are now in operation using ultrafiltration to
reclaim floating and emulsified oils from rolling mill waste-
waters (34) (35). It also is being used in such industries as
chemicals and pharaceuticals, food processing and electronics
(108, 110). The ultrafiltration process is described in Section
3.5.2.2.3 (g) along with the related reverse osmosis process for
removal and concentration of dissolved solids. For oil reclama-
tion, pretreatment is necessary to skim most floating oil and
settle most suspended solids before passing the water through
tubular ultrafiltration membranes. The treated (permeate) water
may need further treatment before reuse to remove soluble organ-
ics. The oily filter concentrate can receive further treatment
by acid-thermal cracking and the separated water and solids re-
turned for treatment. Ultrafiltration is more flexible than
most physical-chemical processes in treating variable oil waste-
II1-51
-------
waters. Costs are relatively high. Capital costs for an Ultra-
filtration system may be about $l/liter/d ($4/gpd) and operating
costs may approach 0.26C/1 (IC/gal) (17). However, these high
costs can possibly be offset by the reuse of salvalged materials.
3.5.2.3 Inorganic Dissolved Solids Removal
A variety of chemical and physical processes are em-
ployed in individual process waste streams for the selective
removal of dissolved inorganic species for recovery or to facili-
tate water treatment and reuse. Wastewaters from the coke plant,
plating and pickling lines contain the greatest amounts of dis-
solved species that are selectively removed by combinations of
the processes described below. Other processes described are
non-selective in partial or complete removal of total dissolved
solids from recycled water including non-contact cooling water.
a. Chemical Precipitation
There are several general methods used for selective
removal of dissolved solids as insoluble precipitates easily
separated from the water by sedimentation, filtration or flota-
tion. Addition of chemicals may cause precipitation by; 1) di-
rect combination with the dissolved species, 2) pH adjustment to
the degree necessary to form precipitates or 3) oxidizing or re-
ducing the dissolved species to an insoluble form. Electrolysis
is a common method to precipitate metals by oxidation-reduction.
Oxidation is promoted by high heat and/or pressure in the pres-
ence of air as in the processes for removal of iron oxides to
regenerate hydrochloric acid pickling baths by spray roasting
and other processes (36, 37, 38). Aeration is another method to
induce oxidation of wastewater components (39). Ultrasonic wave
treatment has been successfully tested to promote precipitation
of metals in contaminated baths (40).
Crystallization is a useful method for selective re-
moval when the dissolved species is in high concentration and
may be caused to form crystals by further concentration or by
changes in temperature or pressure. Methods to regenerate
sulfuric acid pickling baths use vacuum or evaporative crystalli-
zation to remove the ferrous sulfate contaminant (41).
b. Neutralization
Neutralization is a basic treatment practice in which
the pH of an acidic or caustic wastewater is adjusted to approxi-
mately 7, or any other desired value, in the range pH 6-9. As
previously discussed, it is used to reduce the solubility of
dissolved contaminants contained in caustic or, especially,
acidic wastewaters so they can be removed by stripping, pre-
cipitation or other means. Wastewaters are generally neutralized.
before discharge. In steel plants, acidic wastewaters requiring
111-52
-------
extensive neutralization before discharge are pickling baths and
rinses, metal finishing and plating wastewaters. Basic wastes
include those from the by-product coke plant and some cleaning
and plating operations. Lime or caustic soda is generally used
for acid neutralization and sulfuric acid for alkaline neutral-
ization and sulfuric acid for alkaline neutralization. Also,
acidic and alkaline wastewaters may be combined for gross neu-
tralization which is a form of wastewater equalization.
c. Equalization
A general unit operation in wastewater treatment is to
collect one or more waste streams in a tank or basin sized for
several hours or days detention. Equalization is often used to
allow uniform treatment of intermittent or varying wastewater
flows; the discharge from the equalization basin is controlled
according to the demands of the treatment process. Use of
equalization for direct wastewater treatment is an important
method for removal of inorganic dissolved solids. Equalization
of acidic and alkaline wastes, such as plating baths, pickle
liquors and other metal finishing baths and rinses can allow
neutralization and precipitation of inorganic solids, including
metals for recovery (43). Cold rolling wastes are commonly
equalized with pickling wastes for emulsion breaking and neutral-
ization (2) .
d. Gas Stripping
Dissolved gases may be separated or stripped from
wastewaters within packed towers by mass transfer methods. An
upward flowing carrier gas is passed through the down flowing
water to strip the gases. A variant useful for high gas concen-
trations is stream stripping which is essentially a fractional
distillation because of the high termperatures vaporizing many
(organic) solutes. Species such as Ni^and H2S in coke plant
wastewater are dissolved in ionic and free forms and must be
stripped after changes in pH, temperature and/or pressure to re-
duce gas solubility. Such mass transfer processes between a
liquid and a liquid solution is better labelled a solvent ex-
traction.
Energy requirements for air stripping of ammonia from
treated sewage is reported to be 19 kw per 1,000 m3/hr capacity
(28 kw per mgd) (21).
e. Solvent Extraction
Certain inorganic species can be reacted, usually by
formation of a complex, to become more soluble in solvents other
than water ana thus allow extraction. Frequently, the complex-
ing chemical together with the solvent, which is immiscible in
water, is mixed with the wastewater in a countercurrent flow
111-53
-------
within a vertical column. The dissolved inorganic species is
complexed and passes from the water to the extracting solvent.
A process has successfully been used for recovering nitric and
hydrofluoric acid from spent pickling baths (43) . The complex-
ing agent, tributyl phosphate, is dissolved in kerosene to ex-
tract the acids while flowing upward through the extraction
column. The acids are removed from the extractants by distilla-
tion and a secondary extraction. A similar process uses high
molecular weight quaternary amines, dissolved in a carrier
solvent, to complex and extract cyanide and metal cyanides from
plating waste streams (44) . Many new extractants are being de-
veloped to recover metals (45). Such processes are also called
liquid ion exchange processes since they are similar to counter-
current ion exchange discussed below.
Energy costs for the extraction process are low,
similar to ion exchange, since the driving force for the process
is chemical and chemical costs are considerably below (about one
half) the costs of ion exchange for the same treatment (17).
Energy costs increase considerably with systems for recovery of
the solvent and inorganic species.
Flotation processes for inorganic species extraction
are still in the development stage. One process uses ferric
ions to complex cyanide followed by flocculation with an organic
surfactant (46). A similar process, has been successfully test-
ed to remove small concentrations of chromium ions which attach
to bubbles in the aerated wastewater. The concentrated floe is
removed at the water surface (47, 48).
f. Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is the process of displacing one ion by
another and can be used for selective ion removal or general
demineralization of water. The source of the exchange ion is a
solid exchange medium that readily exchanges certain ions in its
structure with ions in the water. With certain types of ex-
change media, control of conditions in the water such as pH, will
determine which type of ions will be removed from solution to
attach to the solid medium.
The exchange medium may be a natural or synthetic
zeolite, a carbonaceous exchanger or a synthetic resin. Three
types of exchangers are in general use; cation exchangers which
replace cations or positively charged ions, anion exchangers
which replace anions or negatively charged ions and mixed bed
exchangers which contain layers of cation and anion resins and
are used for polishing or removing residual cations and anions.
The operation of fixed bed ion exchangers is much the same as a
filter, i.e., the liquid being treated is passed through a po-
rous bed in which the exchange takes place. Since ion exchange
is a surface phenomenon, the stream being treated must be essen-
111-54
-------
tially free of suspended matter that might coat the surface of
the medium and render it ineffective.
Besides demineralization, for removal of dissolved
solids, ion exchange processes are important in selective removal
of contaminant cations or anions of individual process waste-
waters. Metal cations from pickling and plating wastewaters may
be removed for reuse of the baths and rinses and for recovery of
the metal after regeneration of the exchange medium (49). Cool-
ing tower blowdowns are treated for recovery of chromium and
zinc ions (50) . Ion exchange resins are being used to scavenge
the contaminant cations in order to regenerate sodium dichromate
solutions at one steel plant (111). It also finds extensive use
in recovery of expensive materials, such as silver (112) and in
treatment of mine wastes (113). Techniques have been developed
for the selective removal of cyanide from wastewaters (51) .
When the exchange medium is exhausted (it no longer
contains ions to exchange) it is taken out of service and regen-
erated. Cation and hydrogen zeolite exchangers are regenerated
by washing with an acid to replace the surface cations with
hydrogen ions. Anion exchangers are regenerated with a caustic
solution whereby the anions on the surface are replaced by hy-
droxide ions. Sodium zeolite exchangers are regenerated with
brine as sodium replaces the cations to renew the sodium zeolite.
In the regeneration process, wastewater of a smaller volume than
the initial treated wastewater is generated which requires treat-
ment. No sludge is produced directly during regeneration, how-
ever, further treatment processes may produce sludge.
The costs of regeneration are most significant in the
ion exchange process. New resins are being developed to allow
regeneration by weak electrolytes, including brackish water and
even heated water (52). The most important advanced technique
is continuous countercurrent regeneration (49) (53). Such sys-
tems create the lowest regeneration wastewater down to 1% of the
original untreated volume. Since all portions of the exchange
medium are used continuously for ion exchange, there is a much
greater wastewater feed rate per volume of exchange resin. Con-
tinuous countercurrent systems are much more complicated and
capital costs are higher than fixed bed systems.
Energy requirements are low for all types of ion ex-
change systems since only pumping is required and all other
processes are chemical. Power costs are only 2-5 percent of
total operating costs while regeneration chemical costs are about
50 percent of the operating costs (17).
g. Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is the application of a solution under
pressure to one side of a semipermeable membrane whereby the
111-55
-------
natural osmotic pressure is overcome and there is a flow of^water
through the membrane from the concentrated solution to a dilute
or pure water side. Various membranes and configurations of
membranes have been in use since cellulose acetate was discover-
ed to be applicable as a reverse osmosis membrane in the early
1950's. Although reverse osmosis has been primarily used to
purify water for potable purposes and from production of ultra
pure water, it has been shown to be applicable in many instances
for the treatment of wastewater from metal finishing operations
(54) .
Reverse osmosis produces both high quality water suit-
able for reuse and a lower volume concentrated waste stream that
may be reused or further treated in smaller subsequent treatment
facilities. Pretreatment of the waste stream is necessary to
prevent blinding of the membrane by suspended solids and the
concentration of precipitable ions, especially Ca,Mg,Fe and Mn,
should be monitored so that the solubility limit is not exceeded.
Reverse osmosis processes operate at feed side mem-•-<
brane pressures of 2,070 - 10,350 kPa (300-1,500 psi). Ultra-
filtration is a similar membrane process operating at 70 - 690
kPa (10-100 psi) pressure range. Ultrafiltration can separate
only larger molecules and colloids (2-10,000 nanometers) and the
separation is based primarily on solute size. In reverse os-
mosis, separation of the smaller molecules (0.04-600 nanometers)
is based on chemical and electrical forces as well as solute
size (55).
The primary use of reverse osmosis today is in desali-
nation of water for municipal and commercial use (114). The
process is being used in wastewater treatment, primarily in the
electroplating industry (115). It is seeing limited use in
other industries (116).
Treatment units presently are generally quite small,
less than 160 m^/hr (1 mgd capacity). For reverse osmosis,
energy requirements are estimated at about 250 kw for 160 m3/hr
(1 mgd) capacity and about 4 kw for 7 m3/hr (10,000 gpd) capa-
city (17) (21) .
h. Electrodialysis
Electrodialysis is the demineralizing of a waste
stream by the use of a direct current to cause ions to migrate
towards an oppositely charged electrode. An electrodialysis
unit is composed of a series of cells separated by alternative
membranes that permit the passage of either cations or anions.
Alternate cells created by the membranes contain either fresh
water or a concentrate. Electrodialysis units can be operated
on either a batch or a continuous basis but in either system,
as with reverse osmosis, the water being treated must be free
111-56
-------
of suspended matter to prevent blinding of the dividing mem-
branes and care must be taken not to permit precipitation of
solids that also might cause blinding. The continuous process
may be operated with cells in parallel or in series. If the
cells are in parallel the system can take proportionate increase
in flow.
Electrodialysis has good potential in the removal and
concentration of ionic contaminants. It is generally effective
at a greater ionic concentration range than ion exchange or re-
verse osmosis processes. Testing has indicated some potential
in treating metal finishing wastes and rinses (57) but more
promise is in its use for treating cooling tower blowdown (57) .
Electrodialysis has been successfully tested in the laboratory
for regeneration of spent sulfuric acid pickle liquor (118).
Laboratory and pilot plant tests have been successful in a num-
ber of other industries (117). Energy consumption is signifi-
cant; a rule of thumb is about 5 kw hr for each 1000 mg/1 reduc-
tion of salt in each 3.78 m3 (1,000 gal) of product water (17)
excluding pumping.
i. Evaporation
Evaporation is the oldest method of separating dis-
solved solids and water. It is accomplished by vaporizing the
water to be treated and then capturing and condensing the vapor
in a separate container. Ideally, the water after returning to
the liquid state will be free of dissolved solids and the resi-
dual solids will be dry. However, in practical use the liquid
is not absolutely pure and the product residue is a concentrated
liquid stream.
There are three general types of evaporators in use
today; the multiple effect, the multistage flash and vapor com-
pression. Each type is designed for maximum conservation of
energy. The design of the heat transfer surfaces are the most
important factor in efficient evaporators.
In the multiple effect evaporator the waste to be
treated is heated in the initial effect or stage by an external
source of steam to vaporize part of the wastewater. The steam
is recovered and the vaporized water is used to heat the remain-
ing wastewater in the next effect at a lower pressure; the vapor
is the condensed. The wastewater that is not vaporized is
transferred to the third effect for the same procedure and to as
many effects as are required. After the last effect, the vapor
is passed through a condenser and the concentrated waste is dis-
charged. In each effect vaporization occurs at a lower tempera-
ture. There is a steam economy, to a limit, with increasing
numbers of effects. Large evaporators of 6 to 10 effects are
common, especially in the pulp and paper industry. Designs for
seawater desalination consider 20 effects (17).
111-57
-------
In multistage flash evaporation the wastewater is heat-
ed by an external source of steam in a heat exchanger and passed
to a vessel that is kept at a pressure lower than atmospheric.
A portion of the waste vaporizes and the balance of the water is
passed to a vessel at a lower pressure where additional wastes
vaporize. The vaporized water is used to preheat the raw waste
before it enters the heat exchanger. This heat recovery or pre-
heating serves to condense the vapor and permit it to flow out
as demineralized water.
Vapor compression evaporation is the simplest but
least energy conserving process and utilizes mechanical energy
rather than steam to cause water to evaporate from the waste
stream in a single effect. The waste is preheated by hot prod-
uct water and enters the single vaporizing chamber. The vapor
is drawn off and compressed thus raising its temperature to
about 6°to 12°C (11 to 22°F) above that of the heated waste.
The compressed vapor is then used to further heat the waste in
the vaporizing chamber before it is discharged as product water
through a heat exchanger where the raw waste is preheated.
Evaporation is also used in specific process flows to
concentrate wastewaters for effective treatment and to recover
purified solids and condensed vapors for recycling. The latter
use is important in processes for regeneration of waste pickle
liquors and metal plating baths (81).
Evaporation is a high energy consumer, mostly for gen-
eration of external steam for the initial heating. Annual steam
costs are generally several times the initial capital investment
for the evaporator unit and requirements range from 2 x 105 to
3 x 106 J (200-2,500 Btu) per kg of liquid evaporated, the lower
range for multiple effect units (17).
j. Freezing
Freezing is another method of separating inorganic
dissolved solids from water. In this operation the water con-
taining dissolved solids is partially frozen and the ice crys-
tals are separated from solution with solid-liquid separation
equipment. These ice crystals are washed clean of impurities
and melted, resulting in pure water. A concentrated solution
remains for further treatment.
Three methods of freezing have been used successfully.
In indirect contact freezing the transfer of heat takes place
indirectly through a metal wall. The treated water is cooled
until a slurry or mixture of ice crystals is formed. This
slurry is then processed in a continuous centrifuge where ice
crystals are separated from the slurry after which they are
washed and sent to the melter tank. The heat for melting can be
111-58
-------
obtained by pre-cooling the incoming feed stream, thereby reduc-
ing the load on the refrigeration unit.
In the direct cooling process, the water comes direct-
ly in contact with a refrigerant, such as butane. After the
feed water crystallizes in a direct contact unit, the slurry
proceeds to a wash column where the ice crystals, due to their
buoyancy, float and are skimmed off the surface. These ice
crystals are then washed and melted by the compressed refrig-
erant to produce demineralized water.
In the hydrate process a solid hydrate (complexion) is
formed between the water to be treated and a secondary refrig-
erant such as carbon dioxide or propane. After a slurry of hy-
drate crystals has been formed in the hydrate reactor, the
slurry goes to a wash column, after which the crystals are melt-
ed. It should be noted that the hydrate crystals are mushy and
therefore are difficult to separate from the mother solution.
Water purification by the freeze process has been
successfully tested for waste streams ranging from 30 ppm to
100,000 ppm total dissolved solids. Pilot plant tests have in-
vestigated removal of heavy metals from plating rinses and treat-
ing cooling tower blowdown (59) (60) .
Energy requirements for the freeze processes are esti-
mated at 20 kwh/m^ product water (17). This is generally less
than evaporation requirements. Also freezing has advantage in
avoidance of corrosion problems in heat transfer surfaces and
needs little or no waste pretreatment. The capital cost of
these systems is significantly higher than other methods.
k. Drying
All the above processes discharge the separated solids
in a more or less concentrated wastewater stream. For the com-
plete separation of the initial dissolved solids from the resi-
dual water, the waste must be completely evaporated to dryness.
There are two methods used in industry for complete
solids-water separation, spray drying and freeze drying. In
spray drying the concentrated stream is sprayed into a stream of
hot gas in a tower which vaporizes the water and leaves the
solids to drop to the bottom hopper. The spray can be counter
to or concurrent with the stream flow of the hot gas. The vapor
can be collected and condensed for reuse or allowed to pass into
the atmosphere. The solids are collected for disposal or reclam-
ation. This basic process is used in the spray roasting regen-
eration of spent hydrochloric pickling baths by recovering HCl
from the vapor and iron oxide in the solids (61) . Energy con-
sumption is high but the process allows continuous recovery of
111-59
-------
pickling acids and iron and has been accepted by the steel in
dustry. In freeze drying a thin film of liquid is frozen on a
moving bed which passes into a vacuum chamber. The vacuum per-
mits the water to evaporate from the frozen sheet and, at the
end of the chamber, the residual on the tray is the dry solids.
This method allows chemically reactive substances to be recover-
ed in their original form by avoiding the high temperatures and
oxidative (or reduction) conditions which occur in spray drying.
Energy consumption is high and, in its present development,
freeze drying is slow and batchwise; thus its use is confined to
laboratories and commercial freeze drying of foods.
3.5.2.4 Organic Dissolved Solids Removal
Compounds that are found in some steel plant wastes,
particularly in wastes emanating from coke and by-products plants
and from blast furnace areas, contain dissolved organic compounds
and other solids oxidizable by either chemical or biological
means or a combination of both methods. These wastes contain,
typically, phenols and inorganics, such as; cyanides, sulfides
and ammonia.
a. Biological Treatment
Biological oxidation utilizes the metabolic processes
of micro-organisms to oxidize these compounds and incorporate
them into settleable solids or biological sludge. Biological
treatment is commonly called secondary treatment whan applied to
mixed sewage.
However, not all biological organisms can utilize all
organic compounds as they are applied. A period of acclimatiza-
tion is required to generate biological species that can meta-
bolize each of the specific compounds applied as a substrate.
There must be a certain amount of basic nutrient substances,
besides hydrocarbons, in the waste. Nitrogen (as in ammonia)
and phosphorus are always required for biological action.
The organic compounds are oxidized first for the sat-
isfaction of the first stage or carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and then nitrogen compounds are oxidized in the
second or nitrogenous stage for satisfaction of ultimate BOD.
Denitrification may be required as an additional stage to con-
vert nitrites and nitrates by anaerobic biological metabolism
to nitrogen gas.
Typically, aerobic biological oxidation is used in one
of several variations, described in the following sections. The
biological systems must be protected, to some degree, against
overloading and shock or toxic loads. Equalization basins or,
for coke plant wastes especially, dilution of wastewaters is
often necessary before effective biological oxidation.
111-60
-------
1) Oxidation Ponds
Oxidation ponds, also referred to as lagoons or stabi-
lization ponds, are designed to treat biologically oxidizable
wastes by micro-organisms interacting with the natural forces of
sunlight, algae and wind. In some instances, where there are
toxic constituents present in a waste stream, pretreatment is
necessary to prevent their entering the system and killing the
active organisms.
Typically, the waste to be treated is introduced at
one point into the ponds, which are deep enough to prevent weed
growth but shallow enough to allow complete mixing by wind. The
ponds are aerobic throughout the entire depth and anaerobic in
the bottom sludge layer. They usually provide several days re-
tention time to allow sufficient tratment. Mechanical aeration
equipment is often provided to speed treatment, reduce the area
required and to eliminate the complete dependence upon algae
and wind mixing for free oxygen. Some ponds have a portion of
the effluent recirculated to improve mixing. - -
Oxidation ponds are sometimes designed with several
cells operating in parallel to permit better distribution of
the waste, avoid localized zones of high oxygen demand caused by
uneven deposits of sludge, and reduce problems that can be en-
countered by wave action in large single ponds. Ponds are some-
times placed in series to permit the first treatment pond to
treat strong wastes, to improve satisfaction of BOD by separate
stages and to permit the last pond to act as a final settling
unit and thereby reduce the high suspended solids loads in the
effluents that occur because of algae discharges.
Oxidation ponds are simple to construct, operate and
maintain. They are low in construction costs and in some cases
have no mechanical equipment to maintain. However, because of
the relatively large space requirements for conventional ponds
they are not often suitable for large industrial waste volumes.
They have not been shown to be effective in the oxidation of
ammonia.
2) Activated Sludge
The activated sludge process is the aerobic oxidation
of organic compounds by a concentrated mass of micro-organisms.
In this process air is constantly added by mechanical agitation
or diffusers to maintain a residual concentration of dissolved
oxygen and thus keep the system aerobic and well mixed. Addi-
tional suspended solids are created by the reproduction of the
micro-organisms which are kept in a state of rapid growth.
111-61
-------
After a controlled aeration period, the solids are re-
moved in a settling tank and the clarified wastewater is dis-
charged. Most of the settled solids are returned to the aera-
tion unit to maintain the required mass of oxidizing organisms
and the balance of the settled solids may be discharged to a
digester where the organic matter is broken down into simple
stable compounds. Digestion can be accomplished under either
aerobic or anerobic conditions, and the digested sludge can be
incinerated or landfilled. Variations of the basic activated
sludge process are used to attempt to improve treatment effi-
ciency of specific wastes. The most commonly used variations
are conventional, tapered aeration, contact stabilization,com-
plete mix and extended aeration. The extended aeration varia-
tion is basically the same as oxidation pond treatment and does
not produce sludge to be disposed of due to the autolysis and
disintegration of the micro-organisms. The specific system to
be used is dependent upon the characteristics wastes to be
treated, the flexibility desired within the system, and the area
available for installation of the system.
Energy requirements for a typical activated sludge
plant, excluding digestion, are mainly for aeration, and are
estimated at 26 kw for 160 m3/hr (1 mgd) and 2,375 kw for 16,000
m3/hr (100 mgd) capacity. Addition of a nitrification system is
estimated to require another 26 kw per 160 m^/hr and just 0.5 kw
per 160 m^/hr for dentrification (21) . Although single stage
bioxidation is relatively routine, multiple stage treatment has
not been successfully demonstrated in the iron and steel indus-
try.
3) Trickling Filters
A trickling filter is not a filter per se but a pro-
cess where biological growths are built up on a bed of solid
media and the nutrient containing wastes come into contact with
the growths by trickling down the bed after an even distribution
over the surface. Excess growths slough off and are settled in
a succeeding settling facility. The settled solids exert an
oxygen demand and must be digested.
In a high rate trickling filter a portion of the treat-
ed wastes are recirculated to maintain a required hydraulic
loading and prevent clogging of the filter by the biological
growth.
Trickling filters can withstand shock loads and over-
loads without breaking down and require a minimum of operator
attention. However, removal rates for soluble industrial wastes
are generally low and it is more suitable for biological pre-
treatment.
111-62
-------
Energy requirements for a typical
kw for 160 mVhr (1 mgd) and 675 kw fll l^
capacity or less than one third of the requirements for the
activated sludge process (21).
4) Rotary Biological Contactors
A recent development is the rotating biological con-
tactor (RBC). This method of treatment is similar to the trick-
ling filter in that the biota are allowed to grow on a medium
that is exposed to a waste stream. However, in the RBC the
medium with the attached growth moves through the wastes rather
than the waste passing through the medium. The medium is a
series of discs or porous cylinders attached to a shaft that ro-
tates slowly and immerses approximately 40 percent of the medium
area into the waste which continuously moves along the disc rows
or through the cylinders. The turbulence caused by the rotation
keeps the sloughed floe in suspension so that it is carried out
and settled in a subsequent settling facility. The RBC surface
area is often increased by corrugations or dimples on the discs
or fillings the cylinders with various types of loosely spaced
media.
The system is based on the hydraulic loading per unit
media surface area and the treatment is staged so that carbona-
ceous BOD is removed closest to the influent and the nitrifica-
tion and denitrification is accomplished at the latter stages.
Advantages of the RBC system are, similar to the trick-
ling filter, low maintenance, lower power requirements and pro-
cess stability, but it also shows potential for higher BOD re-
moval rates.
5) Fluidized Bed
Another recent development is fluidized bed biological
treatment. In this system sand or activated carbon is used as
the medium for biological growth attachment within a reactor
column. A large surface area is provided for bacterial growth
which results in a high rate of reaction. The waste is intro-
duced at the bottom of the column at a rate that will allow the
upward flow to keep the medium with attached biological solids
in suspension, thus allowing for maximum exposure of the biomass
to the waste, and also alleviate the need for backwashing since
the sloughed growths are flushed out the column top. This type
of biological waste treatment has been successfully pilot test-
ed to aerobically remove the carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen
demand and in anaerobic wastewater denitrification (63) (119).
If insufficient carbon compounds are present for denitnfication,
additional easily biodegradable organic carbon compounds such as
methanol must be added.
111-63
-------
This method of biological waste treatment is reported
(63) to provide complete treatment in a fraction of the time re-
quired by other suspended growth systems and thus require a frac-
tion of the area.
6) Anaerobic Filter
This biological treatment system uitlizes an upflow
reactor column with a fixed bed of rock or synthetic medium.
The anaerobic process has been successfully pilot tested on high
temperature and high strength industrial wastes with little
sludge production. It shows a capacity for shock loads and thus
may be suitable as a pretreatment process ahead of another bio-
logical or chemical process (64). Other testing has demonstrated
the feasibility of denitrification of wastewater in anerobic
filters using autotropic bacteria which requires only additions
of inorganic carbon and sulfide in the wastewater feed (65) .
Anaerobic filters also have been tested in combination with
extra-cellular enzymes (120).
3.5.2.5 Chemical Oxidation
a) Ozonation
Ozone, although primarily considered a disinfectant,
has been used to oxidize organic material and other compounds
amenable to oxidation with varying degrees of success. It has
been used to oxidize phenols, sulfides and cyanides but has not
been demonstrated to oxidize ammonia efficiently (65) (121).
Ozone is produced by passing air or oxygen through a
narrow gap separating high and low tension electrodes where a
portion of the oxygen (62) is dissociated and forms ozone (03).
The instability of ozone (a half life of approximately 30 min-
utes) necessitates onsite production so that it can be produced
as it is required. Ozone has a low solubility in water and must
therefore be utilized in specially designed contact chambers to
maximize the reaction of the ozone with the compounds to be ox-
idized (66). These chambers may operate in various configura-
tions such as bubbling ozone through porous diffusers, injecting
ozone into a venturi throat or using a packed column with coun-
tercurrent flow of the ozone and water.
The main advantages of ozonation are its broad appli-
cability, it is a continuous process and there is no residue
added to the wastewater. It is reported to be a competitive
process for polishing treated effluents such as from the coke
plant. However, it has not been shown effective in nitrifying
ammonia.
Ozonation is an energy intensive process, generally
111-64
-------
SU30nm3/h;2(nkRhmP^ k<3 23 ^eneration. For a system oxidiz-
ing 130 mVhr (0.8 mgd) wastewater with 0.38 rag/1 phenol, total
energy requirement was estimated at 160 kw (17).
b. Chlorination
When added in excess, chlorine may destroy, by oxida-
tion, sulfide, cyanide, phenolic and ammonia compounds. The
chlorine is supplied either as elemental gas, as a hypochlorite
solution or as chlorine dioxide gas. Generally, the chemical
reactions take place fairly rapidly in a turbulent alkaline at-
mosphere, however, careful pH control is important to optimize
oxidation of specific contaminants (85). Alkaline Chlorination
is the most common method of cyanide destruction by either chlo-
rine gas or hypochlorite (122 (123).
Very high dosages of chlorine must be used so that the
breakpoint of ammonia Chlorination is passed. A disadvantage to
oxidation using chlorine is that there is a generation of chlo-
rides which produces a residual in the treated wastewater stream
with an increase in residual as more chlorine is added to reduce
the phenol concentration. Methods are available to remove this
residual chlorine but at additional cost.
Energy requirements are low for Chlorination, required
only for pumping the waste and oxidant and for mixing.
c. Activated Carbon Adsorption
Adsorption of organic compounds on the surface of car-
bon which has been activated (i.e., treated by steam or air to
remove hydrocarbons and greatly increase the surface area and
pore sizes) has been shown to be successful at steel plants as a
final polishing treatment removing up 99 percent of organics
present in pretreated coke plant wastes.
In the adsorption process, dissolved organics adhere
to the surface of the carbon granules as wastewater passes
through the carbon bed. The effluent, relieved of organic wastes
frequently can be reclaimed or reused.
After the carbon can no longer adsorb the organics
from the waste stream, it must be regenerated or reactivated,
before reuse.
In general, carbon adsorption can operate in one of
two modes: Fixed bed or moving beds. In the fixed bed method of
operation the waste is passed through the stationary bed and the
carbon must be removed from the bed for regeneration In the
moving bed, there is a continuous removal and replenishment of
carbon and there are no inoperative periods.
111-65
-------
When the fixed bed mode is used the carbon column will
function as a filter and the carbon bed is subject to blinding
due to the deposition of suspended matter. Therefore, the waste-
water should be treated for suspended solids removal prior to
application on the carbon bed. When the moving bed mode is used,
the carbon bed is fluidized and suspended matter will freely
pass through and no pretreatment for suspended solids removal is
generally necessary.
Carbon is reactivated by several methods. Thermal re-
generation in a furnace or kiln is most common. The adsorbent
materials undergo pyrolysis and oxidation in a controlled atmo-
sphere to minimize carbon oxidation and loss. If a thermal re-
activation system were to be included as part of a carbon ad-
sorption installation, air pollution control facilities might be
required to prevent or minimize discharges of residual organics
and particulate material.
Other carbon reactivation systems do not require the
transfer of carbon and do not destroy the adsorbed material.
These regeneration techniques include using a pH change to elute
certain adsorbed chemicals including phenols. Steam is often
used to nondestructively reactivate carbon, either alone or pre-
ceded by application of a solvent to desorb the material from
the carbon. These in-place, non destructive reactivation tech-
niques can be further modified to allow recycling of the regen-
erant solvent and/or to recover the adsorbed material (55).
Besides coke plant wastes, carbon adsorption polishing
is applied to blowdowns, especially from blast furnace waste-
water recycling. Testing for removal of cyanide and chromium
from electroplating wastes has shown potential (67) (68).
Energy requirements for an activated carbon system
treated sewage plant effluent are about 15 kw per 160 m3/hr
(mgd) capacity with another 0.75 kw for regeneration (21).
These costs represent about 11% of total operating cost for the
carbon system. Other system estimates are for 10-25% of total
operation costs, especially if the wastes are concentrated. If
non-thermal or no carbon regeneration is practiced, energy costs
will be 5% or less of total operation costs (17) . Carbon loss
and replacement must also be considered.
Noncarbon adsorption systems are being tested using
synthetic media or activated alumina for treating individual
process wastewaters. Activated alumina most effectively adsorbs
hydrophilic and strongly polar compounds which are types of com-
pounds least effectively treated by activated carbon (69). Re-
generation practices may, however, be extremely costly.
111-66
-------
3.5.2.6 Combined Biological-Carbon Treatment
u- v, ...?everai. systems have been put into operation or tested
which utilize activated carbon to aid biological oxidation by
concentrating the biodegradable material on a fixed surface as
well as adsorption removal of nonbiodegradable matter.
Biofilters with fixed beds of granular carbon loaded
with micro-organisms have been tested to provide high rate bio-
logical oxidation similar to fluidized beds (70). Addition of
powdered carbon to activated sludge units is used in several
systems to stabilize and improve biological treatment of indus-
trial wastewaters including those containing high concentrations
of cyanides. The powdered carbon can be economically reactivat-
ed by systems which could include oxidation of the biological
sludge (55) (71).
3.5.2.7 Solvent Extraction
Organic compounds, having a general low water solubil-
ity, are very amenable to separation from wastewaters by extrac-
tion into a nonaqueous solvent. The general process is similar
to that described in Section 3.5.2.2.3 j, except with organic
solids treatment, the alternate name is liquid-liquid extraction.
Systems for recovery of phenols from coke plant wastes have been
operational since 1940 (73). These systems include recovery of
the solvent from the phenol and from the dephenolated wastewater
so that it may be continually reused.
Energy costs are similar to ion exchange or liquid-ion
extraction and less than steam stripping, a competing process.
An estimate for a 20 m3/hr (90 gpm) system treating concentrated
phenol wastes is just 8 kw for the extraction (17) .
3.5.2.8 Miscellaneous Oxidative Destruction
Oxidation is promoted in many cases by the action of
various catalysts of which more are continuing to be discovered
(124). Metals are often catalysts and tests have shown sulfides
to be more readily oxidized by using iron, copper or nickel
catalysts (73) (74) . Iron salts have been shown to promote ox-
idation of phenolic wastes by hydrogen peroxide (75). There
are several processes tested for the catalytic oxidation of
cyanides. A process using copper as a catalyst has been proven
to decompose cyanide in coke plant wastewaters. A copper-
cyanide complex is absorbed on activated carbon and is decom-
posed by oxygen (76) (77). A Japanese plant is using a process
for the catalytic decomposition of ammonia (125).
Electrolytic processes may use chemical intermediaries
such as chloride to destroy cyanide by electrochlorination (78).
A proven method for concentrated cyanide solutions is oxidation
111-67
-------
in an electrochemical cell packed with a steel wool catalyst
(79). Such destructive electrochemical methods also allow re-
covery of heavy metals from plating baths. Electrolytical pro-
cesses are very energy intensive with percentages of total di-
rect operating costs ranging from 10 percent for high metal
concentrations to 35 percent for dilute baths and cyanide de-
struction (17) .
Incineration systems have been commercialized which
burn liquids having high concentrations of compounds with sig-
nificant calorific values. Wet air oxidation processes decom-
pose larger molecules and cyclics by heat and pressure so that
the products are more easily treated by biological or other
treatment methods (80). Combustion systems are being used to
completely decompose gases rich in ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
which have been stripped from coke plant wastewaters (81).
3.5.3 Cooling
In the production of iron and steel numerous direct -*
contact and indirect cooling processes are required. Water used
for direct contact cooling process pick up other impurities in
addition to heat. Indirect or non-contact cooling water re-
ceives only heat transferred through an intermediate wall as in
heat exchangers, condensers and furnace walls. The water that
has been heated is either discharged to a receiving stream in
its heated state or is cooled for either reuse or discharged to
meet regulations limiting thermal discharge.
Water cooling may be accomplished in a completely
closed system using a liquid refrigerant or air or cooling may
be in an open system. In an open system the cooling mechanism
is evaporation, utilizing the latent heat of vaporization in
the water. The degree of evaporative cooling is dependent upon
the temperature of the water being cooled, the temperature of
the air and the relative humidity of the air. Various methods
are used to accomplish the required cooling.
3.5.3.1 Cooling Ponds
Where very large volumes of water require cooling, the
heated water may be discharged into a shallow pond at one end
and withdrawn from an opposite end. The pond must be designed
so that there is thorough mixing and minimum short-circuiting
between inlet and outlet. Water evaporates from the pond sur-
face cooling the remaining water. Spraying some of the water
will accelerate cooling and mixing and allow smaller pond areas,
but will entail higher energy costs.
3.5.3.2 Cooling Towers
a. Induced draft towers are installations where air
\
111-68
-------
is mechanically forced into contact with the water being cooled
by the creation of a partial vacuum. There are two types of in-
duced draft towers. In the counter flow type, the water is in-
troduced at the top and falls through the tower while a fan,
mounted above the points of water distribution, draws air upward
from the open sides of the tower. In the cross flow tower, the
cool air flows across the entire area of water trickling down
through the tower packing.
Energy requirements are for influent water pumping and
fan operation. For cooling a 3,000 m3/hr (19 mgd) flow from 38°
(100°F) down to 32°C (90°F) at a wet bulb temperature of 24°C
(75°F) a two cell induced draft tower would be required. Power
for pumping with a 8 m (26 ft) hydraulic head would be 85 kw and
fan power requirements 75 kw (82).
b- Forced draft towers are similar to the induced
draft towers except that the cool air is blown into the tower.
The forced draft tower may actually be a combination of cross
flow and counter flow.
c. Natural draft or hyperbolic cooling towers do not
use mechanical means for cool air contacting. Instead they use
a chimney effect where heated air and water vapor rises and
draws cool air in through the base of the tower. Of necessity
these installations are very tall and occupy large land areas.
d. Dry cooling towers are installations where the
water to be cooled does not come into direct contact with the
air but is contained in finned pipes and cool air is drawn over
the surface thereby dissipating the heat radiated from the fins.
(As an alternate to dry cooling towers, the water can be pumped
through a heat exchanger to be cooled by another water stream
which, in turn, is either discharged or recirculated through an
open (draft) cooling tower.) Dry cooling towers are closed sys-
tems and are limited to cooling relatively high temperature
water producing cold water temperatures in excess of ambient dry
bulb temperature. For a water/water heat exchanger with a 3,000
m3/hr (13,000 gpm) capacity and a 17°C (30°F) temperature drop,
power required for cold side water pumping is 280 kw. The
energy required to cool this water, in an open cooling tower,
would be an additional 75 kw (82).
e. Spray ponds are facilities where water is sprayed
over a large surface area through many nozzles. A spray pond is,
in effect, a combination of a cooling pond and a wet cooling
tower.
f. Evaporation coolers are used on indirect cooling
water systems where the water in the closed system must be
cooled to a temperature approaching the wet bulb temperature.
111-69
-------
The closed circuit water passes through finned tubes in a cool-
ing tower and spray water is recirculated over the tubes. A fan
is used to force air over the wetted tubes and evaporation of
the spray water indirectly reduces the temperature of the water
in the tubes. To cool a 3,000m3/hr (13,000 gpm) flow from 60°C
to 50°C (140 to 120°F) at a 24°C (75°F) wet bulb would require
about 400 kw in an evaporation cooler including spray water cir-
culation (82). The example, however, utilizes a very large
approach to the wet bulb temperature. Closer approaches would
in all probability require more power.
3.5.3.3 Dissolved Solids Control
In the operation of a cooling system care must be
taken that scale does not form on the interior of the cooling
surfaces, the cooling surfaces do not corrode and that biological
growth is accomplished by the addition of biocides to the cir-
culating water. Biocides are fed to cooling tower systems on a
continuous or shock basis to kill any growths that may have
formed. The growths, if any, will slough off the surfaces with-
in the system and settle in the cooling tower basin.
The tendency of circulating water to either form scale
or cause corrosion are functions of the chemistry of the water
within the system. With indirect cooling systems it is a func-
tion of the chemistry of the makeup water whereas for direct
cooling systems it is a function of both the chemistry of the
makeup water and the material which contacts the water. In ad-
dition, the chemical composition of the ambient air can affect
the scaling and corrosion potential of the cooling water.
Due to the evaporation of water during the cooling
process and during cooling treatment, dissolved solids such as
chloride and sulfates in the water are concentrated to corrosive
levels. In addition, bicarbonate alkalinity originally present
is converted to the scaling carbonate form after the increase in
pH caused by the loss of carbon dioxide during any aeration of
the cooling water. Oxygen and other gases or vapors in the
ambient air are dissolved into the water as it passes over a
cooling tower. Examples of these corroding gases are sulfur
dioxide and ammonia.
Control of scaling and corrosion is usually effected
by discharging a portion of the circulating water (blowdown) and
making up a quantity equal to the blowdown and other losses due
to evaporation and cooling tower drift. Blowdowns control the
cycles of concentration in the circulating water; one cycle is a
100% increase of makeup water dissolved solids concentration.
The makeup water or circuit water side streams may receive a
high degree of treatment including complete softening or partial
demineralization to permit higher cycles of concentration.
111-70
-------
To conserve water by reducing the required blowdown
volume, chemicals may be added; acid to control scaling and pH
and commercial inhibitors to control corrosion. The commercial
chemicals often contain compounds which must be removed prior to
discharge of the blowdown. Studies have indicated that certain
brackish waters, when used for cooling circuit makeup, will need
less chemical additives (83) and even blast furnace gas cleaning
effluent, which has been treated, has potential for use as make-
up water to cooling circuits (84). The ammonium salts in the
makeup act in controlling scale and pH and thus problems caused
by two wastewater discharges and a required water supply could
be alleviated by one application.
The problem of discharges from cooling water circuits
can only be solved by the ultimate treatment of the blowdowns.
Solar ponds are an evaporative disposal method for blowdown but
require an arid climate for significant blowdown volumes. The
use of reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, or evaporation-condensa-
tion allow recovery of the water for reuse and a minimal amount
of blowdown which may be evaporated in less arid climates (85).
3.5.4 Solids-Water Separation
Large quantities of sludge are produced in many of the
water and wastewater treatment processes. Whether or not the
solids content of the sludge has commercial value, the sludge
should usually be dewatered to the maximum practical extent
prior to disposal or reuse. If the sludge is to be hauled to a
disposal point, the solids to water ratio should be maximized to
reduce the dry weight cost of disposal, and to make the sludge
more manageable (i.e., less liable to spills). If the solids
are to be reused, reducing the water content conserves energy
required for drying at the point of use.
Dewatering of sludge can be accomplished by either
mechanical or natural means. Natural methods utilize sludge
lagoons or drying beds where the water is removed by evaporation
and/or seepage. Mechanical means are generally some form of fil-
tration or centrifugation.
The optimum dewatering system to be used will depend
on the characteristics of the sludge, the treatment space avail-
able and the final solids content achieveable or desirable at
the least cost (87) (88). The greatest tonnage of sludges from
steel plants is composed of inorganic materials, especially iron
oxides, from descaling and gas cleaning operations. These
sludges are relatively easy to dewater to a high solids content.
Organic sludges, especially from biological treatment, and chem-
ical sludges are more difficult to dewater and, in most cases,
are disposed of by landfill or incineration.
111-71
-------
3.5.4.1 Thickening
Prior to dewatering a sludge, it is commonly thickened
to increase the solids to water ratio and reduce the load on the
subsequent dewatering facility.
Thickening can be accomplished by allowing the solids
to settle in a basin for a long period of time and the weight of
the sludge surface layer will force out the water entrained in
the lower layers. Another common method is to use a facility
similar to a clarifier where a rake, often with horizontal mem-
bers called pickets, moves very slowly and forces the solids to
press horizontally to discharge air bubbles, prevent bridging,
squeeze water out and move the sludge towards the center well
from where the thickened solids are pumped to a dewatering fa-
cility. Chemical aids are often added to increase settling
rates.
Power requirements for the gravity thickeners are re-
lated to thickener dimensions and increase slowly with volume
treated. For a thickener treating 2 percent solids sludge at
5 m3/hr (0.3 mgd), the power requirement is 0.9 kw. For a
thickener handling 500 m3/hr (30 mgd), the necessary power is
only 3 kw (21).
Other methods of thickening are applicable to floccu-
lant suspensions or lighter particles than would ordinarily be
found in many steel plant waste sludges. These methods are air
flotation and elutriation.
Air flotation has been described earlier (3.5.2.2.1b)
and has similar advantages and higher power requirements than
simple gravity treatment. Elutriation is more applicable to
biological sludges where substances that interfere physically
or economically with chemical conditioning (such as increasing
the demand for acid in conditioners) and filtration (such as
very fine solids) are washed out of the sludge and returned to
the wastewater treatment facilities.
3.5.4.2 Sludge Digestion and Composting
Thickened biological sludges are especially unstable,
odorous and difficult to dewater. They are usually treated by
anaerobic or aerobic digestion before dewatering. These pro-
cesses have been discussed in subsection 3.5.2.2.4c. Power
requirements for anerobic digestion are approximately 50 kw for
a 16 m3/hr (70 gpm) unit (21). Power needs are higher, at least
double, for aerobic units because of the requirements for an
air supply.
111-72
-------
Sludge composting has not been used to a great extent
in the United States but it is in widespread use elsewhere in
the world. The various methods have great potential for biolog-
ical treatment of sludges and other organic solid wastes in-
cluding degradation of many toxic or biologically resistant ma-
terials. The product, in many cases, can be used as a soil con-
ditioner.
Dewatered sludges may be combined with other degrad-
able solid wastes for composting. The materials are mixed to-
gether and placed in windrows (furrows), pits or containers for
a digestion period of several days or weeks. Temperatures of up
to 70°C (160°F) are achieved in rapid decomposition and the mass
is kept aerobic by periodic or continuous mixing. The water
content and carbon to nitrogen ratio are important factors. A
final curing period of several weeks at lower temperatures com-
pletes the solids treatment.
Power requirements are low, associated mostly with
preparing materials for composting, but overall costs are rather
high and land requirements are extensive (88).
3.5.4.3 Drying Beds
The dewatering of solids on a drying bed is accomplish-
ed by surface evaporation and percolation into a bed below the
sludge. The bed itself is composed of a sand layer underlain by
a gravel layer. Percolating water is collected by a system of
perforated tiles and pumped back to the treatment system. After
a given accumulation of dewatered sludge in the bed, it is re-
moved for disposal. Removal from the surface of the sand bed
may be by scraping with a bulldozer or a front end loader or, if
the bed has a short dimension, by a dragline. Of necessity, in
the removal of the sludge, a portion of the uppermost sand layer
is removed because this layer is usually saturated with sludge
and must be replaced.
In some areas the drainage is allowed to percolate
directly to the ground and it is not collected. This method of
disposal of water is becoming increasingly more restrictive due
to the application of more stringent requirements for the pro-
tection of ground water resources.
3.5.4.4 Sludge Conditioning
Thickened sludge often requires treatment to increase
the efficiency of machanical dewatering. Various methods have
been studied but chemical conditioning is most commonly prac-
ticed.
Chemical conditioners such as ferric chloride, lime or
a polyelectrolyte are added in the dewatering feed system to
111-73
-------
improve filterability of biological sludges or increase the size
of solids particles so the fines do not pass through the medium.
There have been several pilot plant studies of electrolytic
sludge conditioning (88). This process may be competitive with
the chemical conditioning if power costs are low. Electrolytic
treatment of 14 m3 (3,650 gal) of sludge required 181 kwh.
Artificial freezing techniques have been studied and determined
to be technically effective for conditioning many kinds of
sludges but not economically practical for most cases (88).
Natural freezing for sludge dewatering is practiced in some
areas with frigid winters.
Heat treatment is gaining acceptance as a feasible
alternative to chemical conditioning of difficult sludges.
Various processes are in operation using combinations of steam
heat and pressure (100-210°C and 1,025 kg/cm2) and generally
produce sludges with much superior dewatering characteristics
than chemical treatment (89) (90). Heat treatment systems are
relatively complex and have higher power requirements. A unit
of 25 m3/hr. (110 gpm) capacity treating waste activated sludge
may have electrical requirements of 120 kw and boiler fuel re-
quirements of 3.7 x 10* j/hr (3.5 x 106 Btu/hr) (82). Further
digestion of sludge is, however, eliminated in most cases.
3.5.4.5 Vacuum Filtration
Vacuum filtration is accomplished by the application
of a vacuum to a rotating, hollow, horizontal drum which is
covered with a removable filter medium of cloth, metal mesh or
tightly wound coil springs. There are three phases to the
vacuum filtration cycle; forming, drying and discharging. The
drum is initially partially immersed in a tank which contains
the sludge to be dewatered. As the vacuum is applied sludge ad-,
heres to the drum and water is withdrawn from it (forming) . As
the drum rotates it emerges from the sludge with a reduced
vacuum applied and additional water is removed from the formed
sludge cake (drying) . The medium with the dried cake separates
from the drum and is rolled over a discharge bar where a portion
of the dried cake drops off and the balance is scraped off into
a conveyor or directly into a collection box. The medium is
then reunited with the drum for a new cycle.
The parameters that must be considered in the design
of a vacuum filtration system are: vacuum intensity, form time,
drying time sludge characteristics and the filter medium.
Chemical conditioners are usually added to biological sludges
and significantly increase filtration costs. Power requirements
for vacuum filtration of 5.75 m3/hr (25 gpm), 4 percent solids
sludge are 18 kw for the system (17).
111-74
-------
3.5.4,6 Filter Presses
Pressure filtration is a batch process in which the
sludge is fed into spaces between vertical media covered plates,
then hydraulic pressure is applied to force the entrained water
out through the media while retaining the solids. When the en-
tire space is filled with dewatered solids and the flow of water
from the filter is reduced, the pressure is released and the
plates are separated to allow the caked solids to drop out onto
a conveyor or directly into a truck. It is usually necessary to
precoat the filter medium with a releasing agent such as lime to
allow cake release. Some operations add a conditioning agent
such as fly; ash to the sludge to reduce the precoat stage re-
quirements .
Filter presses are constructed in a series of inter-
connected plates which enables larger volumes of sludge to be
dewatered during a filtering cycle. The plates are mechanically
separated when the pressure is withdrawn, and usually the cake
drops down onto a breaker bar. Periodically the filter medium
must be washed to eliminate blinding and maintain efficiency.
Filter presses produce a drier cake than most other
dewatering devices, often up to 40 percent sludge solids (86).
This method generally requires more operator attention and main-
tenance than vacuum filtration and power requirements are the
same or less.
3.5.4.7 Filter Belt Presses
Filter belt presses are relatively new dewatering de-
vices. The filter belt press operates in three sections: feed,
gravity dewatering and machanical dewatering. The sludge, which
may or may not be chemically conditioned, is fed at a uniform
rate onto a moving porous belt which acts as a filter medium.
As the belt moves some water drains through the belt by gravity.
The sludge then enters the two stage mechanical dewatering sec-
tion. An impervious belt applied pressure to the top of the
sludge layer to squeeze water out through the filtering belt.
The sludge then passes to a shear stage where it is further
dewatered by the application of shear forces. After the de-
watered sludge exits from the mechanical dewatering section, it
is scraped off the bottom belt for removal to a container.
Power requirements are reported to be about 4 kw for
5.5 m3/hr (25 gpm) unit (90).
Another dewatering system consists of two separate
rotating drums covered by a continuous filter. The sludge is
thickened to the first cell, and is then carried over the sep-
arator into the second chamber where it is continuously rolled
and formed into a cake. The weight of the cake presses addi-
111-75
-------
tional water from the partially dewatered sludge and as the
grows, excess quantities are discharged over the side of the
cell onto a conveyor. This sludge can either be disposed of or
can be further dewatered by a secondary rolling device. The
secondary rolling device consists of dual endless belts on
rollers and covered by special filter cloth. Sludge cake, con-
centrated by the continuous filter is fed by rotating blades to
the space between the belts and graduated pressure is applied by
the rollers to squeeze additional moisture through the cloth
into the grooved support belt and thence into a drip pan. This
dewatered cake is carried by the bottom cloth to the discharge
point. This entire process reportedly does not require chemical
conditioning or thickening prior to use (88) . Power require-
ments are given as 8 kw for a 7 m3/hr (30 gpm) and are signifi-
cantly less than for conventional thickening and pressure fil-
tration (91) .
3.5.4.8 Centrifuges
Centrifuges utilize artificially increased accelera-.:...,
tion forces for sludge dewatering or general solids-water sep-
aration. Various types of centrifuges are available but the
most common one used for dewatering is the solid bowl which con-
sists of a horizontal rotating bowl, tapered at one end, inside
of which is a screw conveyor rotating at a slower speed. The
sludge is introduced at one end and the centrifugal forces cause
the solids to be deposited on the sides. The screw conveyor
moves the solids toward the tapered discharge end where further
solids dewatering takes place as the solids are moved up the
taper (beach) above the liquid depth (pool) and discharged
through solids outlet ports. The liquid level is maintained by
allowing the clarified liquid (centrate) to overflow from ports
at the end of the bowl. Solid bowl centrifuges are designed so
that the direction of solids removal is either concurrent with
or countercurrent to the flow of centrate.
Parameters that affect the efficiency of solids de-
watering are bowl length/diameter ratio, beach angle, bowl
speed, conveyor speed, pool volume, sludge feed rate and sludge
characteristics. Sludge conditioning by chemicals or polymers
may increase dewatering efficiency.
Power requirements are generally from 1 to 4.5 kw per
m3/hr influent sludge (0.33 to 1.2 HP per gpm) (17).
3.5.4.9 Screening
Various types of multistage screening devices have
recently been developed for sludge dewatering. The screens are
staged from coarse to fine in series and are vibrated in three
dimensional motion at up to 1,200 rpm by electromagnets. A
single stage unit has radial and tangential motion to move the
111-76
-------
sludge from a center feed point to the outer rim. Chemical con-
ditioning is usually required for biological sludges but effi-
ciency of fine solids capture remains low.
Screening units serve to thicken or to dewater sludge
and are relatively simple devices, requiring little space and
low power requirements (88).
3.5.4.10 Solvent Extraction
A new solvent extraction process, called the "Basic
Extractive Sludge Treatment", uses an aliphatic amine solvent to
extract essentially all of the water and oil from inorganic and
organic sludges. The water extraction process is reversible
with temperature, the solvent extraction from the solids (in
centrifuges) occurring at about 10°C (50°F) and the solvent is
freed from oils by side stream distillation and the solids are
dryed to recover residual solvent. A mobile pilot scale system
has demonstrated efficiencies of 99 percent in solids-water sep-
aration of digested anaerobic municipal sludge (92)» Another
similar solvent extraction process was determined impractical
after testing at a municipal treatment plant (88).
3.5.4.11 Combustion
Incineration or pyrolysis is a viable alternative to
land disposal for many types of dewatered sludges especially
those with higher organic content. Various types of incinera-
tion equipment include multiple hearth furnaces, flash-drying
incinerators, rotary kilns, fluidized sand bed incinerators,
atomized spray units and conventional boiler furnaces. Wet com-
bustion is being used in processes similar to that of heat con-
ditioning but at higher temperatures and pressures. Each method
of incineration has its advantages and optimal feed characteris-
tics; many also accept municipal solid waste. Pyrolysis has
advantages in the recovery of degradation by-products and better
control of air emissions.
Energy requirements for combustion are high and depend
greatly on contents of water and organics in the sludge. Sludges
with solids contents greater than 35 percent and 60 percent or-
ganic material often can be incinerated without external fuel
requirements other than for initial combustion (86). For a
fluidized bed unit handling 25 m3/hr (110 gpm) of lime sludge
with 10 percent solids content, fuel requirements were 7.9xlOy
J/hr (7.5 x 106 Btu/hr) (17).
111-77
-------
REFERENCES (Section 3)
1. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Steel Making Segment of the Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-440/1-74-
024-a, E. L. Dulaney, Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Washington,
B.C., 1974. 461 pp.
2. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document for
Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Proposed
New Source Performance Standards for the Forming, Finishing
and Specialty Steel Segments of the Iron and Steel Manufac-
turing Point Source Category. Volumes I and II. EPA-440/1-
76/048-b, E.L. Dulaney, P.E. Williams, J.G. Williams, Pro-
ject Officers, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 1976. 819 pp.
3. United States Steel Corp., H.E. McGannon, ed. The Making,
Shaping and Treating of Steel. Herbick and Held, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, 1971, 1,419 pp.
4. American Iron and Steel Institute. Source Data for Steel
Facility Factors, (undated).
5. Task Group on "Steel Industry Impact on Air Quality".
Report of meeting in Pittsburgh, Pa., January 13-18 to dis-
cuss preliminary draft of Control Program Guideline for
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions by PED
Co., dated December 10, 1976.
6. American Wagner Biro Co., Inc. Economics of Dry Coke Cool-
ing.
7. Voelker, F. A Contemporary Survey of Coke Over Air Emis-
sions Abatement. Iron and Steel Engineer, 52(2):57-64,
1975.
8. Kulakov, N., et al. Kokschim. (l):22-28, 1975.
9. Akerlow, E.V. Economical Uses of Steel Plant Wastes. Iron
and Steel Engineer. 52(2):39-41, 1975.
111-78
-------
10. Mathias, W. M. and Dr. A. Goksel. Reuse of Steel Mill Solid
Wastes. Iron and Steel Engineer. 52(12):49-51, 1975.
11. Environmental Protection Agency. Electric Arc Furnaces in
the Steel Industry, Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources.
12. Environmental Protection Agency. Basic Oxygen Process
Furnaces. Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources. March 2, 1977, Federal Register (42 FR 12130).
13. Environmental Protection Agency, Iron and Steel Manufactur-
ing Point Source Category, Effluent Guidelines and Stan-
dars, Part II. June 28, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 24114).
14. Environmental Protection Agency. Iron and .Steel Manufactur-
ing Point Source Category, Effluent Guidelines and Stan-
dards, Part III. March 29, 1976, Federal Register (41 FR-
12990).
15. Dunlap, R.W. and F.C. McMichael. Reducing Coke Plant Efflu-
ent Environmental Science and Technology, 10 (7):654-657,
1976.
16. Perl, L.J. How to Talk Business to the E.P.A. New York
Times, January 29, 1979.
17. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Physical, Chemical and Biological
Treatment Techniques for Industrial Wastes. Draft Report to
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste Management Programs C-78950,
dated November, 1976.
18. Forsell, B. The Lamella Separator, A. Definition and Result
of Pilot Studies in the Pulp and Paper and Steel Industries.
Proc. 26th Indust. Waste Conf. Purdue Univ., 1971.
pp. 867-873.
19. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual
for Suspended Solids Removal. EPA 625/l-75-003a. U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer Office, Washington, D.C. January, 1975.
20. Zanker, A. Hydrycyclones: Dimensions and Performance.
Chemical Engineering, 84(10): 122-125, 1977.
21. Smith, Robert. Electrical Power Consumption for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment EPA-R2-73-281, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1973. 89 pp.
22. Kuhn, A. Electrochemical Treatment of Aqueous Effluent
Streams. In: Electrochemistry of Cleaner Environments,
J.O.M. Bockris, ed. Plenum Press, New York, 1972. Chap. 4.
111-79
-------
23. Chambers, D., and W.R.T. Cottrell. Flotation: Two Fresh
Ways to Treat Effluents. Chemical Engineering, 83(16):95-98,
1976.
24. Nebolsine, R., and G. San Roman. Ultra High Rate Filtration.
Theory and Applications. In: Proceedings of the Proaqua-
Provita, 1977, Basel, Switzerland, 1972.
25. Mixon, F. 0. Moving Bed Filter Performance Studies. Chemi-
cal Engineering Progress, 71(12):40-46, 1975.
26. Bramer, H.C., and W.L. Gadd. Magnetic Flocculation of Steel
Mill Waste Waters. Proc. 25th Indust. Waste Conf., Purdue
Univ., 1970, pp. 154-165.
27. Oberteuffer, J.A., et al. High Gradient Magnetic Filtra-
tion of Steel Mill Process and Waste Waters. IEEE Trans-
actions on Magnetics, 11(5): 1591-2, 1975.
28. Anon. Revolving Magnetic Disks Remove Particles from Steel
Mill Effluent. Iron and Steel Engineer, 51(8):80-86, 1974.
29. Chieu, J.N., et al. Coalescence of Emulfified Wastes by
Fibrous Beds. Texas Univ. Center Research Water Resources
Tech. Report CRWR-126, 1975.
30. Shah, B. et al. Regeneration of Fibrous Bed Coalescers for
Oil-Water Separation. Environmental Science and Technology,
11(2) -.167-170, 1977.
31. Ikehata, T, Treatment of Waste Oil at the Keihin Works-
Nippon Kokan. Iron and Steel Engineer. 52(2):65-70.
32. Ghosh, M.M. and W.P. Brown. Oil Removal by Carbon-Metal
Granular Beds. Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation
47:2101-2110, 1975.
33. Ayuzawa, S. Electrolysis of Oily Wastewater. Patent, Japan
Kokai 75-151-772
34. Weinstein, N.J. Waste Oil Recycling and Disposal. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 670/2-74-052, 1974.
35. Lisanti, A.F., and R. Helwick. Ultrafiltration Oil Recla-
mation Process. Iron and Steel Engineer 54(3) :60, 1977.
36. Rupay, G.H. The Regeneration of HC1 from WPL using the
Keramechamiel Lurgi Fluidized Bed. Can. Mining Met. Bull.
68(754):89, 1975.
111-80
-------
37. Grulke, C.A. Grulke Process. Patent, Can. 983,672, 1976.
38. Burtch, J.W. Hydrochloric Acid from Industrial Waste
Streams - the PORI Process. Can. Mining Met. Bull.
68(753):96, 1975.
39. Krikau, F.G. Hydrochloric Waste Pickle Liquor Disposal -
~ New Process. Iron and Steel Engineer, 46(l):71-73, 1969.
40- Takayasu, K. Ultrasonic Wave Treatment of Metal Surface
Treating Liquor. Patent, Japan Kokai 75 98 440, 1975.
41. Reicher, H. Closed Loop Regeneration of Waste Pickle
Liquor, Iron and Steel Engineer, 52(5):47-49, 1975.
42. Cochran, A.A. and L.C. George. Waste Plus Waste Process
for Recovering Metals. Plating and Surface Finishing.
63(7):38-41, 1976.
43.~ Cochran, A.A. and L.C. George. Waste Plus Waste Process for
Recovering Metals. Plating and Surface Finishing.
63(7):38-41, 1976.
44. Dempster, J.H. and P. Bjoerklund. Operating Experience in
Recovery and Recycling of Nitric and HF Acid from WPL.
Can. Mining Met. Bull. (68(754):94, 1975.
45. Anon, Cyanide Tamer Looks Promising. Chemical Week, April
14, 1976, p.44.
46. Bailes, P. et al. Liquid-Liquid Extraction:Metals.
Chemical Engineering 83(183):86-94, 1976.
47. Grieves, R.B., D. Bhattacharya. Flotation of Complexed
Cyanide. Proc. 24th Indust. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.,
1969, p. 989-997.
48. Environmental Protection Agency. Ion Flotation Separation
of Chromium. Report 12010 EIF, March, 1971.
49. Rubin, A.J. et al. Comparison of Variables in Ion and
Precipitate Flotation. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.
5(4), 1966.
50. Higgins, I.R. Total Recycle System for Steel Pickle Liquor.
In: Proc. 64th Meeting Am. Inst. Chem. Eng., San Francisco,
1971 U.S. Patent # 3,468,707.
51. Chemical Separations Corp. The Chromix Process. Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1975.
III-81
-------
52. Avery, N.L., and W. Fries, Ind. Eng. Chem., Prod. Res.
Devel. 14(102), 1975.
53. Gold, H., and A. Todisco. Wastewater Reuse by Continuous
Ion Exchange. In: Complete Water Reuse, AIChE Conference,
ed. L.K. Cecil, April, 1973, p. 96.
54. Lake, M., and S. Melsheimer. Donnan Dialysis - A Continuous
Exchange Membrane Process. In: Complete Water Reuse, AIChE
Conference, 1973, p. 918.
55. Robinson, G.T. Plating Waste Treatment: In-Plant Ingenuity
Pays Off. Product Finishing. August, 1975.
56. Mulligan, T., and R. Fox. Treatment of Industrial Waste-
waters. Chemical Engineering, 83(22):49-66, 1976.
57. Leitz, F.B. Electrodialysis for Industrial Water Cleanup.
Environmental Science & Technology, 10 (2) :136-139, 1976.
58. Jordan, D.R., et al. Blowdown Concentration by Electro-
dialysis, Chem. Engr. Progress, 71(7):89-94, 1975.
59. Obrzut, J. Climbing Film Evaporator. Iron Age, 218(7):30-
32, 1976.
60. Campbell, R., and D. Emmermann. Freezing and Recycling of
Plating Rinsewater. Industrial Water Eng., 9(4):38-39,
1972.
61. Frazer, J. and H. Davis. Laboratory Investigation of
Concentrating Industrial Wastes by Freeze Crystallization.
Report No. 13, AHCO Corporation.
62. Conners, A. Hydrotechnic Acid Regeneration as Applied to
the Steel and Mineral Processing Industries. Can. Mining
Met. Bull. 68(754):75, 1975.
63. Famularo, J. Rotating Biological Contactors. In: 21st
Summer Institute on Biological Waste Treatment, Manhattan
College, New York, 1976.
64. Jeris, J. Pilot Scale, High Rate Biological Dentrification.
Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation, 47:2043-2050,
1975.
65. Mueller, J., and J. Mancini. Anaerobic Filter Kinetics and
Application. In: Proc. 30th Industrial Waste Conf., Purdue
Univ., 1975, pp. 423-447.
111-82
-------
66. Rosen, H. Ozonation and Its Current Applications in
Industrial Water and Wastewater Treatment. In: Water and
Wastewater Equip. Manuf. Assoc. 3rd Pollution Control Con-
ference, p. 145.
67. Mathieu, G. Film Layer Purifying Chamber Process to Destoy
Cyanide in Wastewater. In: Int'l Symp. on Ozone for Water
Wastewater Treatment, 1st Proc., 1975, p. 533.
68. Environmental Protection Agency. An Investigation of
Techniques for Removing Cyanide From Electroplating Wastes.
U.S. EPS Water Pollution Control Research Series No. 12010
EIE, November, 1971.
69. Smithson, G. An Investigation of Techniques for the Removal
of Chromium from Electroplating Wastes. U.S. EPA Water
Pollution Control Research Series No. 12010 EIE 03/71, 1971.
70. Eberle, S. et al. Study on the Adsorption Properties of
Solid Aluminum Oxides. Conference on Special Problems of
Water Technology, Karksruhe, W. Germany. EPA 600/9-76-030,
1976, p. 38.
71. Eberhardt, M. Experience with the Use of Biologically
Effective Activated Carbon. Karlsrube, W. Germany, EPA-
600/9-76-030, 1976, p. 331.
72. Anon. Putting Powdered Carbon in Wastewater Treatment.
Environmental Science & Technology, 11(9):854-855. 1977.
73. Lauer, F., et al. Solvent Extraction Process for Phenols
Recovery from Coke Plant Aqueous Wastes. Iron and Steel
Engineer, 46 (5) :99-102, 1969.
74. Wilson, I. The Treatment of Chemical Wastes, Waste Treat-
ment. Issac PCG Editor, Pergamon Press, London, 1969,
p. 206.
75. Duffy, J. U.S. Patent 3,576,738, April 1971.
76. Eisenhauer, H., Oxidation of Phenolic Wastes. Jour. Water
Poll. Control Fed. 36:1116, 1964.
77. Van Stone, G. Treatment of Coke Plant Waste Effluent.
Iron and Steel Engineer Yearbook, 1972, pp.190-193.
78. Bernardin, F. Cyanide Detoxification Using Adsorption
and Catalytic Oxidation on Granular Activated Carbon.
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. 45:221, 1973.
111-83
-------
79. Hillis, M. Treatment of Cyanide Wastes by Electrolysis.
Trans. Inst. Metal. Finishing, Vol. 53, Summer 1975, p. 62.
80. Chin, D., and B. Ekert, Destruction of Cyanide Wastes with
a Packed Bed Electrode. Plating and Surface Finishing,
63(10)38, 1976.
81. Kalinske, A. Handling of Solids and Liquid Sidestreams.
In: Complete Water Reuse, AIChE Conference, 1973, p. 140-
146.
82. Chemical Abstracts. 85, 166064d (1976)
83. Hydrotechnic Corp. estimates.
84. Roffman, H., and A. Roffman. Water that Cools but does not
Pollute. Chemical Engineering, 83(13):167-174 , 1976.
85. Chemical Abstracts. 84, 95447X (1976).
86. Westbrook, G. Coding Tower Salinity Optimization, Power
Engineering, 81(8):64-69, 1977.
87. Jones, J., et al. Municipal Sludge Disposal Economics.
Environmental Science & Technology, 11(10) :968-972 , 1977.
88. Nova, K.R. et al. How Sludge Characteristics Affect In-
cinerator Design. Chemical Engineering, 84 (10) :5131-136,
1977.
89. Burd, R. A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal. U.S. EPA,
Water Pollution Control Research Series, Report No.
WP-20-4, 1968. 369 pp.
90. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manufal for
Sludge Treatment and Disposal. EPA 625/1-74-006, U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer Office, Washington, D-C., October 1974.
91. Beloit-Passavant Corporation. "Sludge-All" Filter Belt
Press.
92. The Permutit Div. of Sybron Corporation. "DCG" for Gravity
Sludge Dewatering, 1972.
93. Ames, R. K. Sludge Dewatering/Dehydration Results with
Mini-B.E.S.T. In: Proc. 30th Industrial Waste Conference.
Purdue Univ. 1975, p. 897.
94. Thompson, Ronald - Water Pollution Control Program at
Armco's Middletown Works. Iron and Steel Engineers
49 (8), 43, 1972.
111-84
-------
95. Schroeder, James N. & Naso. A. Charles - A New Method of
Treating Coke Plant Waste Water. Iron and Steel Engineers
53 (12), 60, 1976.
96. Daniels Stacy L. - Chemical Treatment and Dissolved Air
Flotation of Oxidation Pond Effluent AIChE Symp. Ser
73,358, 1977.
97. Woodward, Franklin E., Hall, Millad W., Sproul, Otis J. &
Ghosh, Mriganka M. - New Concepts in Treatment of Poultry
Processing Wastes. Water Resources 11 (10), 873, 1977.
98. Air and Water Quality Control at Stelco's Hilton Works -
Iron and Steel Engineers 53 (11), 75, 1976.
99. Patton, Richard S. Krikau, Fred G., and Wachowich, Richard
J. Deep Bed Pressure Filtration of Hot Strip Mill Efflu-
ents - Iron and Steel Engineers 48 (3), 98, 1971.
100. Gravenstreter, James P. & Sanday, Rudolph J. - Waste Water
Treatment Facilities at Gary's 84-Inch Hot Strip Mill -
Iron and Steel Engineers 46 (5), 1969.
101. Filter System Features Simplified Design - Iron and Steel
Engineers 45 (5), 149, 1968.
102. Bartnick, J.A. Magnetic - Chemical Flocculation Improves
Operation Iron and Steel Engineers, 46 (3), 106, 1968.
103. Peck, D.F. & McBride, T.J. Treatment of Paramagnetic
Slurries from Steel Mill Operations by Double Floccing -
Iron and Steel Engineers 46 (10), 79, 1969.
104. McNallan, Michael J.,; Russell, Kenneth C.; Oberteuffer,
John A. and Sec., J. Bruce - High Gradient Magnetic Fil-
tration of Steel Plant Waste Water Iron and Steel Engineers
53 (1), 40, 1976.
105. Harland, J.R.; Nilsson, L. and Wallin, M. Pilot Scale High
Gradient Magnetic Filtration of Steel Mill Wastewater.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 12 (6), 904, 1976.
106. Revolving Magnetic Discs Remove Particles from Steel Mill
Effluent - Iron and Steel Engineers - 5 (8), 80, 1974.
107. Hedwall, Per & Haggstrom, Aki. Magnadisc - A New Industrial
Waste Water Treatment System for Use in the Iron and Steel
Industry ASEA J. 50 (6), 141, 1977.
108. Hillyard, Harold E. Recovery of Waste Oil Using Floating-
Type Skimmers - Iron and Steel Engineers - 45 (8), 77,
1968.
111-85
-------
109. Connelly E.J. Cleaning Water by Ultrafiltration. Plant Eng.
31 (23), 145, 1977.
110. Rostain, Philippe, Le Procedi de Traitement des Huiveles
Solubles per Ultrafiltration - Rev. Alum 467, 533, 1977.
111. Rupay, G.H. Operation of a Cold Mill Waste Treatment Plant-
Proc. Ont., Ind. Waste Conf. 29th - p 155, 1977.
112. Marsh, Daniel G. Removal of Residual Silver from Processing
Wastewaters by Ion Exchange - J. Appl. Photogs. Eng. 4
(1), 17, 1978.
113. Gott, Richard D. & Laferty, John, M., Jr.,; Development
of Waste Water Treatment at the Climax Mine. Ind. Water
Eng. 15 (2), 6, 1978.
114. Cruver, J.E. Reverse Osmosis - Where It Stands Today -
Water and Sewage Works, 120 (10), 1973.
115. Robinson, G.T. Plating Waste Treatment: In-Plant Ingenuity
Pays Off Product Finishing - August 1975.
116. Lightly, Fran S. Reverse Osmosis Utilized in the Zero
Discharge System at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois - Proc.
Ont. Ind. Waste Conf. 63, 1975.
117. Korngold, E., Hocke, K. and Strathmann, H. - Electrodialy-
sis in Advanced Waste Water Treatment - Desalination - 24
(1-3), 1978. Proc. Int. Symp. on Membr. Desal and Waste-
water Treatment 129, 1978.
118. Heit, A. H. & Caiman, C. - Electrodialytic Recovery of
Sulfuric Acid and Iron Content from Spent Pickle Liquor -
Proc. Symp. Membrane Process Ind. Biomed Plenum Press,
New York 1971.
119. Weber, W.J., Jr., Integrated Biological and Physico-
chemical Treatment for Reclamation of Wastewater - Ind.
Water Eng. 14 (7), 20, 1977.
120. El-Sayed, Nefaat (Sweden) Bilogically Active Filter Com-
bined with Enzyme Treatment AIChE Symp. Sec. 73 (167),
1977.
121. Bollyky, L. Joseph, Ozone Treatment of Cyanide and Plating
Wastes Int. Symp. on Ozone for Water and Wastewater Treat-
ment 1, 522, 1973.
122. Ceresa, Myron and Lancy, Leslie E. Metal Finishing Waste
Disposal Metal Finishing - 66 (6), 112, 1968.
111-86
-------
123. Myatt, R.T., et al - The Treatment of Blast Furnace Gas
Washing Effluent Iron Steel Int. 46 (5), 421, 1973. -
Environ. Poll. Management 3 (43), 45, 1973.
124. Farha, F.G., Dunn, R.O.; Huerston, R.D. & Box E.G. Liquid
Phase Catalytic Oxidation of Waste Water - Am. Chem. Soc.
Div. Pet. Chem. Prep. 23 (1), 1978 - Gen. Pap. Am. Chem.
Soc., Dev. Pet. Chem., Meet Anaheim, California 93, 1978.
125. Agawa, H., et al. Operation State of the Carl Still Ammonia
Decomposition Plant - Aromatikkusu 29 (6), 224, 1977.
111-87
-------
SECTION 4.0 - SUMMARY OF FIVE PLANTS STUDIED
4.1 PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
STUDIED
There are 50 or more steel plants in the United States
which are characterized by the iron and steel industry as being
integrated. For the purpose of this study an integrated steel
plant was defined as one that has, as a minimum, the following
facilities:
blast furnace(s)
coke 'and by-product plant (s)
sinter plant(s)
steelmaking (must include EOF)
hot forming (primary and secondary)
cold finishing (must include pickling and cold
rolling)
Due to the absence of various production facilities, a
great many plants had to be eliminated from consideration in
this study of truly integrated steel plants as defined in this
study.
Table 4-1 (four sheets) presents the initial list of
plants considered with identification of the major production
facilities incorporated in the individual plants. This listing
of the integrated plants is based on a list as published by the
Institute for Iron and Steel Studies. (1).
Based on the working definition various plants were
eliminated from consideration, as shown on Fig. 4-1. One addi-
tional criterion was added in the process of elimination. It is
anticipated that there will be required, to achieve the goal of
total recycle, reuse of water by cascading wastes from one pro-
duction facility to another. Therefore, it was determined that
3 or more integrated steel plant elements must be contiguous.
Of the listed plants, 14 were determined, using the
definition established in the report, to be truly integrated.
Selection of the plants, from the 14 remaining, for further
study was based on a ranking procedure. This procedure consisted
of establishing various criteria such as quantity of the produc-
tion facilities known to be in place, number of processes for
IV-1
-------
H
<
ML
'
.
•
t
1
f
1
•
I*
II
f j
tl
COUP A NT
AND
PLANT
ABMCO 1TEEL CO,
AlHLJtND VOIK3
AIUCO ntei.cc.
Houston VOBIB
ABHCO STEEL CO.
MUWLTTDVTI -WLMK3
BETHLEHEM STIEL CO.
BETKLCHEM PLANT
BET-NUKEM nTCl, CO.
BCTKLXIlEU STEEL CO.
UACKA WANNA
BETHLJCHCU STEEL CO.
JOHNSTOWN
BETKLCHEM 9TCKL CO.
ci-M.ttii.eo,
PUEBLO PLANT
INLAND IT EEL CO.
IMD1ANA HA* SO* WOBn
WTE1 NATIONAL
KAivftirirji co.
OUTH CHICAGO
cut) t L^HCHUH
TCCLCO.
tTT)B>HDH »C*KJ
OKU * LAM1NUM
It!. CO,
LOCATION
P.O. BOX If 1
ASHLAPD. BT 41ttl
P.O. BOX HIM
HOI STOW. TEXAS rntl
P. O. BOX tO*
MIDDLKTOWM,
OiDCHJM)
BETtUXHCU. PA I»OIi
9PAIIOWX POMT,
MABTLANDZlllt
UtCKAVANHA, NT 1411
IOHNSTOWH. PA 119*1
CKcrraTON, am «*>M
COLORADO IHOI
i>ir CHICAVO.
WDIANA 4i)tl
•OUTH ctncATO,
COOK CO.. ILL
ITt'f I. CABSON *T.
PTTTIBUICH, PA Mil)
P.O. KOB 4M
4UDUIPPA. PA tMBt
• AW STEEL
CAPACITT
10* NET TON/TB
1.1
I.»
J.t
...
1.*
4.1
»
4.1
l.tl
,,
I.I
...
1.*
LIST OF POSSIBLE
TABLE 4-1
U. S. INTEGRATED STEEL PLANTS
SHEET OF 4
I
I
O
•
•
•
•
i
O
•
•
•
•
n
•
o
•
•
o
1
; i
o
•
•
•
« 1
3 S
iQ h
•
•
•
•
•
5
i°
o
•
0
•
o
E
s&e
5 S 3
• Ob
n
0
•
•
o
•
0
o
•
o
ELECTBIC
ARC
niiNACE
o
o
o
•
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
ill
0
•
•
•
0
•
o
o
o
o
•
•
0
ll
o
0
•
0
o
o
o
•
•
•
0
•
i
I
•
o
•
•
•
•
o
o
o
0
It
o
o
•
0
•
o
o
•
o
o
o
h
— LI —
o
o
•
•
•
o
o
•
o
•
h
0
o
o
o
•
•
o
•
o
o
h
o
•
•
o
•
•
t
c
• J
! a
o
o
o
o
o
I
o
o
o
o
o
8
h
o
o
o
o
o
I
o
o
o
o
o
i i
i I
o
•
•
o
o
o
o
h
I 5
o
o
•
o
•
0
•
OOMMIMTI
LEGEND:
0 FACILITY INSTALLED
O FACILITY MOT INSTALLED
-------
H
<
LO
"to.
>•
"
u
11
11
"
M
11
JI
1)
It
t)
tl
11
1*
COMPAMT
AND
PLANT
ONU » LAUGHLBI
tTCEt.ce,
CLEVELAND wean
•ABE* nixt.cc*?.
r ON TANA WOBKS
uc LOUTH rrctL COIF.
T*CNTON WCBK3
WCIK TOM PLANT
KATICWAI. JTIEt COP.
CIANIT1 CtTT
NATIONAL ITEELCnr.
eco»SE Dcnon
• CPU9UC TTEEL CO*P.
TOUHoaTown wo* a
• EPfBUC ITeXLCMP,
WAHftCM WC*n
*tPC»l-IC ITEXL CO*P.
C LEY! LAND PLANT
• IPL'I LIC (TILL CO* P.
•O1TTK CHICAGO .
CDLTfTCEL WOBU
• CPUVUC ITECL COB p.
• t/rrALQ WCMU
• •FURL4C ITULCOBP,
CIHTIA1, ALLOT O»T,
trUKX |TCILCO«r.
rutitu. PLANT
U.*. I1UL CO**,
CI4E>tDH VOBO
ruH-r
LOCATION
f.O. BOS M»t
)Mf JEN .VINOS BO,
CLEVELAND, O, 441*1
P.O. BOX (IT
rtWTAKA, CAL ttm
THCNTOf4. MICK
TtLEX 11 lit*
WEST VA 1M4I
intH ESTATE ST.
CHANirC CITY,
iLLwots Kate
&ET»on, MICH «ti«
OID044M1
*A*KEM * HtLta,
OIUO 44411
i1C« TVMSCOM AVI,
CLCVCIJtND, O. 41111
SOUTH CKJCAOO,
nojMOn Mt"
OtDBOCH, ALA 11M1
Hit 1. PAIK *vt.
hlTfALO. ITT 14tlfl
CAHTOM. 0*00 44«l
rjiipiLU PA uiti
CLAKtOM, PA Milt
•AW iTIEL j
CAPACITY ;
10* WET rcH/VK !
1,*4
1.1
1.1
1.1
I.I
1. 1
».*
I,t
1.4
»,*
1.1
1.*
r,i
t.*
*.*
COKX PLANT
O
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
•
0
•
^
*
O
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
•
O
•
EI
•
•
•
•
•
O
•
•
0
•
O
O
O
O
ME
•TO* ACE
•
•
•
•
•
O
•
•
•
•
O
•
•
O
n
* b
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,•
•
•
h
d
.•
0
•
•
•
•
O
•
•
0
•
•
O
e
O
E
Is
III
O
•
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
•
0
O
O
0
0
TABLE 4-1
(CONTINUED)
SHEET Z OF 4
ELECTI1C
A*C
rtaiNAcc
•
O
•
O
O
•
O
•
O
•
•
O
•
•
O
VACUUM
DEGAUWO
PUNT
O
O
O
•
O
O
O
0
O
0
0
O
•
•
O
I 3
O
O
•
•
O
•
O
0
0
0
0
O
•
0
O
I
I
•
•
•
O
•
*
0
O
•
0
0
0
•
•
O
i
h
O
•
O
•
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
•
§ d
: 9
O
O
O
O
0
•
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
O
O
H
O
O
•
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
0
h
O
0
•
•
•
O
h
•
O
O
O
O
£
•
0
0
O
O
I
s
2
S 9
•
O
O
O
0
j
*
O
0
O
O
0
I!
•
O
O
•
O
,
O
Is
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
coMMBtrr
l>t>KT HOT CONTKUOUI
PVAHT NOT C
-------
<
"
»
••
11
1«
1.
4>
..
41
"
COMPAHT
PLAHT
u.i. mxLCcwp.
BOuraTc*B ve>K*
•P.*. KTCELCOKP.
EDCJH iHotaCH .mvw vattu
v.*. CTCCL eo>p.
FAIILKB WCMK*
u.i. mil. cap.
KATICNAL-DUQUXSNC WO* O
u.i. iTttLcc*P.
[XIIKIH -CUT* HOG* VOKK*
ir.i. ITCEL COBP.
TO WGJTOtfd VO1KI
v.i. ITULCOBP.
IOUTM *C«K1
V.I. JTEILCOBP.
coir WC«KI
V.I. ITULCOBP.
corv« won
U.I. ITULCCVP.
TumriiLB rtrnn
wiitriji«o-pTrTiBtaaN
»Tt 1 1- CO.
(ItUBCHVILU
VKtcuNC PTTTIBIMOM
Till. CO,
wofuiDi, r»
TOiKcircrr* trtrt
AMrtCLi »o»w
AIT emc«co
Oiwaiavo ITKL
Ittlt fc t »l (0.
Ill* MILL*0»M
PljlNT
LOOITICtl
HOU£5TUO, PA 11110
BKADDOCK. PA 11144
r*nu3a HXUJ,
PEHN3TLV*NIA 1*0)*
MC KCdPOItT, PA
IH1 EAST ItTH IT.
1XMAIN, OHIO *««tl
411 SALT 9PHD4C3 ID.
TOlWrJIOWK.
otao 44M*
MU t»*T MTM IT.
CHICAOO. 114. Will
OABt, fflDUHA 4Mal
.O. I0t *l«
MOVD, UTAH Mwt
.0. »0»>**
4i>ruui, JU tun
TCUBCWVILLX,
H10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
k
0;
•
0
•
o
•
o
•
o
•
•
o
o
I
k
pi
dot.
•
0
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE 4-1
(CONTINUED)
SHEET 3 OF 4
e s
H 5 t.
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
VACUUM
DECAKma
PUNT
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
•
h
o
o
0
0
o
•
•
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
i
•
•
•
o
o
•
•
•
•
•
o
o
•
o
J
S j
5 9
•
o
o
o
0
o
•
o
•
o
o
o
0
o
h
o
o
•
•
0
o
o
0
o
•
•
•
•
ll
o
o
o
o
o
•
•
o
o
0
o
0
n
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a
t
H
•
0
•
o
•
o
•
o
£
•
o
o
o
o
0
•
o
I
h
•
o
o
o
o
o
•
o
I
!
o
•
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
I '
8 E
o
0
•
•
•
o
•
o
o
0
§ !
o
•
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
•
o
couuzwn
PLAMT MOT CCMTKUOM
PUHT HOY CfmiKOOlM
PLAMT MOT catncuaui
PLANT i«n ccHTicuouk
PLAMI HOT cawnwxM»
~.,-,»™«.
-------
TABLE 4-1
(CONTINUED)
SHEET 4 OF 4
MO.
-•
"
41
«
„
COUPAHT
AMD
ru.nl
ALAM WOOD JTTEL CC.
COHCHOMOCUrN PU1ST
CK'JCIBLC INC.
ALLOT » STAINLESS S1ITL MY.
CTCLOPS COUP.
PO«TS MOUTH PLAr*T
FO«D MOT OH CO.
TIEtL O! VISION
«»TCjii>KE me.
• i»t.»nAij; ptA-
•
o
9
•
O
iy
o
0
o
o
9
*J u
3s;
®
0
8
O
0
o
a5
> O b,
0
O
O
0
o
1 COCTINU>tJ3
I CASTING
0
O
O
O
o
I SLAB MILL
O
0
0
'o
o
{sraucTUHAL
MILL
0
o
O
O
O
BILLET
WILL
0
0
0
•
0
h
o
o
0
o
o
bLOOufrtc 1
MILL j
«
O
0
0
O
e>
h
0
•
©
«
0
o
a
•
•
0
0
o
O J
i 5
o
0
0
e
o
a
0
O
0
0
O
OIYCD*
PLANT
•
O
o
«
o
h
O
o
o
0
0
o
COMMENTS
Ptjnl NOT CCNTtT.l'CI-S
PLANT NOT COHTKI'OUS
H
<
I
U1
-------
RETAIN FQR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION
INITIAL LIST FROM TABLE 4-1
(PLANTS NUMBERED 1-50}
I -28, 30-SO YES
2-13. IS, 17-24,28,3). S3.38-44,46-30 YES
2,4-11,13 15. IT, 18,19,21.22,24,3), 33, 36-44,49,50 YES
4-11. 13,19,17,18.19.21.22,24,33.36,38.39,40.42.44,49 YES
4-lt, 13,19.17, ie,r9,2l.22.?4,33,3*,Se,39,40,42,44,4& YES
4-10,13,19,17. 18.19.21,22.24,33,38,38,39, 40,42.44. 49 YES
9,6,8.10, 13.13,IT, 18.19,21.22,24, 36,38,39.42.44.49 YES
3,6,8,10, 13,13, 17, 18,21,22.24,36,38.42 YE
EXCLUDE FROM
FURTHER CONSIDERATION
I, 14, f»,29.2«.2r. 30.3Z.34.3S.4S
4.7,9,33,40
19.39.44.49
NOTE'
* ASSUMPTION -IF PLANT HAS StCONDABY
HOT ROLLING AND COLO ROLLING IT ALSO
INTEGRATED STEfL PUNT POLLUTION StUQT
FOR ZERO WATER *N0_Ml^iMU« *lfi DISCHARGE
F\.ANT SELECTION PROCESS
LOGIC DIAGRAM
- ••,"•'-"-- FIGURE
IV-6
-------
producing similar products (e.g., is steelmaking solely by EOF
or by EOF plus open hearth) , diversity of operations within the
same area. Each criterion was assigned a weighting factor. As
more information was received and evaluated, additional rankings
were prepared so that a final selection could be made.
Each plant was ranked under each criterion in numerical
order with the lowest number being the most desirable. Each
ranking was then multiplied by the weighting factor and all
weighted rankings summed for a final ranking.
Another consideration that affected the rankings was
the desirability of there being at least two of each type of
production facility such as electric arc furnaces and vacuum de-
gassers. If a plant had a low ranking but had a required facili-
ty it may have been upgraded. Table 4-2 presents the ranking
procedure and Table 4-3 lists the 14 plants in order of prefer-
ence.
When this list was prepared a meeting was held with
the AISI to discuss the final selection of the plants which
would be studied further. Based on this meeting, five plants
were selected:
Inland Steel Corp. - Indiana Harbor Works
USSC - Fairfield Works
Kaiser Steel Co. - Fontana Plant
National Steel Corp. - Weirton Steel Division
Youngs town Sheet & Tube Corp. - Indiana Harbor Works
Figure 4-2 shows the geographic location of the plants.
These were chosen based on additional reasons used by the AISI
and Hydrotechnic Corp. to eliminate higher ranking plants and
are as follows:
1. The desire not to burden any one corporation ex-
cessively by studying more than one of its plants.
2. The extensive use of salt water in a plant made it
too atypical.
3. Production planning changes were such that modifi-
cations in progress would make it impossible to
obtain up-to-date water use information.
4. Degree of cooperation that could be expected from
each company.
The plants selected were then visited to obtain the
following information:
"IV-7
-------
TABLE 4-2
Basis of
Ranking
Corporation Plant
Weight
Inland - Indiana Harbor
USS - Fairfield
- Gary
Bethlehem - Sparrows Point
H
p - Burns Harbor
00
- Lackawanna
National - Weirton
- Granite City
Republic - Cleveland
- Gadsden
- Warren
Kaiser - Fontana
Youngstown - Indiana Harbor
Jones & Laughlin - Aliquippa
C
o
No. of Product!
Facilities
(From Table 1)
1
1
2
1
3
5
5
4'
7
4
5
6
3
3
6
3 rt
Production Faci
Less Oxygen PI
& Cont. Anneal.
3
1
3
2
4
6
5
5
8
5
6
7
4
4
6
RANKING PROCEDURE
No. of Types
of Steelmaking
Facilities
i
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
No. of
Primary
Rolling
Facilities *
2
I
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
a)
4
3
2
2
No. of
Secondary
Rolling
Facilities
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
" £ «j
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Is There
Vacuum
Degassing **
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Points
14
27
20
33
45
40
38
57
39
45
51
33
33
44
Ranking Based
on Points
1
3
2
4,
H.
9
7
14
8
11,
13
4,
4,
10
5,6
12
12
5,6
5.6
* Continuous Caster considered as primary rolling
#* Yes = 1 No = 2
-------
TABLE 4-3
FINAL LIST OF 14 PLANTS FOR POSSIBLE FURTHER STUDY
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Corporation
Inland Steel Company
United States Steel
United States Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Kaiser Steel
Young stown Sheet & Tube
National Steel
Republic Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Republic Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Jones & Laughlin
Republic Steel
National Steel
Plant
Indiana Harbor
Gary Works
Fairfield Works
Sparrows Point Plant
Fontana
Indiana Harbor Works
Weirton Steel Division
Cleveland Works
Lackawanna Plant
Gadsden Works
Burns Harbor
Aliquippa
Warren
Granite City
IV-9
-------
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET a TUBE-
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
INLAND STEEL
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
i-1
o
NATIONAL STEEL
WEIRTON STEEL DIV.
-KAISER STEEL
FONTANA WORKS
UNITED STATES STEEL
FAIR FIELD WORKS
LOCATIONS OF SELECTED INTEGRATED PLANTS
FlG.4-2
-------
- water, air and production process flow diagrams of
each production facility
- plot plans of the plants on which would be indicated
what areas would be available for the construction
of pollution control facilities
- an indication of what facilities" the plant has
planned for future installation or deletion
- efficiencies of water pollution and air pollution
control facilities presently installed
- any constraints that may be placed on future pollu-
tion control facilities
These visits were for a period of from one to three
days. All requests for confidentiality were and are being re-
spected.
After the initial visit, the data collected were
analyzed and process water flow diagrams were prepared. Where
data voids were identified, a listing of such voids was prepared
and submitted to the plant personnel. In some cases the answers
were provided by return letter and in other cases an additional
visit was made to the plant or to the corporate offices. A
short report was prepared for each plant using the final data
and submitted to each plant or corporation inviting comments.
After the comments were received the report was finalized and
submitted to EPA. These finalized reports are incorporated in
this report as Appendices A, B, C, D and E.
The primary purpose of the plant reports was to obtain
factual data with respect to each plant. A second purpose was
to get opinions from the industry on treatment processes that
would be applicable for achieving BAT and total recycle of
water. Another purpose of the individual plant studies was to
determine areas of typicality (and atypicality) of the various
plants.
4.2 SUMMARY OF THE FIVE PLANTS STUDIED
The five selected integrated steel plants were studied
to determine: similarity of wastes and production processes be-
tween integrated steel plants, problems that would be encoun-
tered with respect to site specifics, water uses in various
plants, degrees of treatment currently practiced and applicabil-
ity of retrofit of treatment processes to plant production op-
erations and plant waste treatment processes.
IV-11
-------
Detailed descriptions of the plants are included in
the reports that were prepared for each plant studied and in-
cluded in Appendices A through E.
4.2.1 Kaiser Steel Corporation - Fontana Works (Appendix A)
4.2.1.1 Processes and Facilities
The Kaiser Steel Corporation operates a completely
integrated steel plant located in Fontana, California on approx-
imately 607 hectares (1,500 acres). The production facilities
as of December 1976 consisted of:
Production Facility
One by-products coke plant
One sinter plant
Four blast furnaces
One-eight furnace open hearth
shop (3 presently operating)
- One basic oxygen steelmaking shop
(BOP)
A slabbing mill
- A 46-inch blooming mill
- A 86-inch hot strip mill
- A merchant mill
A structural mill
A continuous weld pipe mill
- Two continuous pickling lines
Three alkaline cleaning lines -
one of which is contiguous with
a continuous annealing line
Four cold rolling mills, including
tin plating and galvanizing
Average Daily
Production
kkg/t
3,720/4,100
3,493/3,850
6,386/7,040
1,497/1,650
3,480/3,836
6,153/6,783
not operational
4,997/5,508
not operational
not operational
447/ 493
2,831/3,120
1,637/1,805
2,151/2,375
Since 1976 the blooming, merchant and structural mills
have ceased operation. A second Basic Oxygen Steelmaking shop
and a continuous caster presently are under construction. Plans
are to operate only two of the three presently operating open
hearth furnaces after the new BOP and caster are in operation.
4.2.1.2 Water Systems and Distribution
Water for the steel plant (KSP) is obtained from two
sources: approximately 7.47 x 106 m3 (two billion gallons) per
year are purchased from the Fontana Union Water Company and the
balance of the plant requirements, approximately 3.78 x 106 m3
(one billion gallons) per year are obtained from two 245 meter
(800 feet) deep wells located on KSP property. The purchased
IV-12
-------
water and, when necessary, well water is stored in a main reser-
voir with a capacity of 17,000 m3 (4.5 million gallons) or
enough water to supply the plant with water for about 12 hours.
Due to the average total dissolved solids of the water entering
the plant (about 230 mg/1) and a hardness of about 150 mg/1 (as
CaCOs) all water is softened in reactor-clarifiers. The water
is then carbonated, chlorinated, and filtered and stored in do-
mestic and industrial reservoirs.
The domestic water and fire protection systems use the
same distribution network. This water is stored in a 1,890 m3
(500,000 gallon) covered reservoir, and pumped to a distribution
system with an elevated tower to supply domestic, fire, and other
plant uses requiring high quality water.
The industrial water system as shown on Figures A-l
and A-2 (Appendix 4) has four quality levels and is supplied
from an open 4,500 m3 (1,200,000 gallon) reservoir. The general
concept is that water cascades through a number of systems, with
the blowdown of one system becoming the supply of the ensuing
system. The systems are sequenced in order of quality require-
ments, with the first system having the highest quality and the
last system the poorest.
The highest orders of use (highest quality) are the
motor room systems, where electrical equipment is cooled, and in
the reheat furnace cooling systems. These are recirculating non-
contact cooling systems utilizing open cooling towers. KSP has
three such non-contact systems equipped with cooling towers
capable of handling 12,500 m3/hr (55,000 gpm). Each system is
equipped with an elevated storage tank to maintain a uniform
pressure and provide an emergency supply in case of power fail-
ure. Steam or gasoline driven emergency pumps provide a minimum
flow to protect the equipment in case of a long power outage.
The modernization program presently in progress will
add two new high quality water systems. The new BOP will have a
completely closed hood and lance cooling system with water-to-
water heat exchangers. The hot side water in this enclosed sys-
tem will be of boiler quality while the cold side heat exchanger
water will be of the highest quality industrial water. The
other high quality cooling water system will be for the continu-
ous slab caster.
The second quality level systems provide water to the
rolling mills for bearing cooling, roll cooling and some scale
flushing. KSP has two of these systems equipped with cooling
towers capable of handling 11,800 m3/hr (52,000 gpm). Elevated
storage tanks provide pressure control and reserve capacity.
After the water is used in the rolling mills it is treated for
reuse or recycle.
IV-13
-------
The third quality level systems supply cooling water
to the Open Hearth steelmaking furnaces, Basic Oxygen steel-
making furnaces, a portion of the Coke Plant and the four Blast
Furnaces. Water in these systems picks up heat and solids,
mainly iron graphite. KSP has five of these systems which, when
originally installed, were equipped only with cooling towers.
In the past few years all but one have had clarifiers added to
remove suspended solids. The rated capacity of the third level
system is 13,400 m3/hr (59,000 gpm) and is tied together through
two elevated storage tanks.
The fourth and lowest quality level system serves the
Blast Furnace gas washers. Large amounts of dust removed from
the gas by the water is, in turn, removed in treatment facili-
ties. After treatment the water is pumped over a cooling tower
and returned to the blast furnace gas washers for reuse. Dis-
solved solids are controlled by blowing down a portion of the
water to spray-cool molten slag. This blowdown is closely con-
trolled to prevent excess water from accumulating in the slag
cooling system. The rated capacity of the gas washer systems
is 3,230 m3/hr (14,200 gpm).
Sludge from the treatment system clarifiers is pumped
to sludge beds, which are cleaned periodically and the sludge
hauled to a dump site. Supernatant water is returned to the gas
washer system.
Other cooling tower systems serve special functions in
the plant. The power house water system uses 10,100 m3/hr
(44,300 gpm) and is equipped with cooling towers and a return
pump station. Heat is the only contaminant involved so that
only cooling is required. Three cooling tower systems are in-
stalled in the Coke Plant which indirectly cool the coke oven
gas produced when coal is coked. The total rated capacity of
these systems is 4,200 m3/hr (18,500 gpm) .
The total capacity of all of the cooling towers in the
entire plant is between 54,540 and 54,800 m3/hr (240,000 and
250,000 gpm).
4.2.1.3 Waste Treatment Facilities
KSP has three separate treatment facilities for waste-
waters generated in the plant. These include: a sanitary sewage
treatment plant, an acid neutralization plant and, a wastewater
treatment plant for all non-acid, non-domestic wastewaters
(WWTP).
The domestic sewage treatment plant has two stages
consisting of aclarifier and a digester in the first stage and
two pairs of trickling filters, a clarifier and a chlorine con-
tact chamber in the second stage. The sewage plant effluent is
IV-14
-------
returned for reuse in the plant to the first water quality level
system.
Waste hydrochloric acid (HC1) pickle liquor is dis-
posed of by sending the acid to an on-site contractor who con-
verts it to ferric chloride for sale. HC1 rinse water and waste
sulfuric acid are neutralized with anhydrous ammonia in an acid
neutralization plant. This neutralized waste is combined with
excess wastes from the WWTP and discharged to the Chino Basin
Municipal Water District for further treatment by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation District before final discharge to the
Pacific Ocean. The total discharge from the plant is approxi-
mately 402 m3/hr (1,770 gpm).
The WWTP receives the major portion of its wastes from
the cold rolling and plating mills and the balance from the hot
strip mill sludge pond and furnace cooling water blowdown. When
the new BOP is operational it will also discharge to the WWTP.
The WWTP consists of an elevated surge tank, a two section
float-sink separator and a clarifier. Mixing tanks are in-
stalled for chemical addition, but at present, are not being
utilized. After addition of the new BOP wastes, the WWTP will
treat approximately 285 m^/hr (1,255 gpm). Approximately 63 m3/
hr (275 gpm) is recycled for use at the coke plant, the tin mill
and the slag processor. The balance is discharged to the acid
neutralization plant for combination with the neutralized acid
rinse water for ultimate discharge to the Chino Basin Municipal
Water District.
A temporary waste storage facility receives chromic
acid and chromate wastes from the tinning lines. The purpose of
the facility is to store the wastes until such time as a method
of acceptable disposal or chrome recovery is developed. There
is no discharge from this storage facility.
4.2.1.4 Discharge Qualities
The reported qualities of the various discharges to
the WWTP and the Chino Basin Water District are shown on Table
4-4.
4.2.2 Inland Steel Company - Indiana Harbor Works
4.2.2.1 Processes and Facilities
Inland Steel Company operates a completely integrated
steel plant on a 650 hectare (1,600 acre) site on a manmade
peninsula stretching 3.2 km (2 miles) into Lake Michigan. The
corporate disignation of the plant is the Indiana Harbor Works,
East Chicago, Indiana. As of 1977 production facilities con-
sisted of:
IV-15
-------
Maximum Daily Production
kkg ton
Two by-product coke plants:
Plant No. 2 4,990 5,500
Plant No. 3 2,540 2,800
One sinter plant 4,080 4,500
Two blast furnace facilities:
Plant No. 2 (6 furnaces) 11,340 12,500
Plant No. 3 (2 furnaces) 5,450 6,000
One open hearth shop 6,800 7,500
Two basic oxygen steelmaking
shops:
No. 2 5,900 6,500
No. 4 12,700 14,000
One slab caster 4,170 4,600
One billet caster 1,240 1,370
One slabbing mill 9,700 10,700
Two blooming mills:
No. 2 3,900 4,300
No. 3 5,720 6,300
Three hot strip mills:
80-inch 12,700 14,000
76-inch 4,080 4,500
44-inch 3,630 4,000
Four A.C. power stations
(No. 1 A.C. not generating) NA
A plate mill 1,080 1,200
One electric arc furnace shop 1,630 1,800
Four bar mills:
10-inch 1,810 2,000
12-inch 1,900 2,100
14-inch 1,810 2,000
24-inch 900 1,000
A 28" secondary mill 1,900 2,100
A 32" secondary mill 1,900 2,100
A spike mill 45 50
Three cold strip mills:
40-inch (No. 1 C.S.) 1,630 1,800
56-inch & 80-inch 8,440 9,300
(No. 3 C.S.J
A mold foundry 900 1,000
Five pickling lines:
No. 1 C.S. 4,540 5,000
No. 3 C.S. 8,530 9,400
44-inch sheet 900 1,000
12-inch bar 130 140
10-inch & 14-inch bar 725 800
Five galvanizing lines:
Plant No. 1 - Lines 1-4 1,810 2,000
Plant No. 2 - Line 5 900 1,000
One alkaline cleaning line 900 1,000
Miscellaneous shops NA
IV-16
-------
TABLE 4-4
KAISER STEEL CORPORATION - FONTANA WORKS
Parameter
TREATED WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
All units, except pH, inmg/1
Discharge from
WWTP
pH
P. Alkalinity (as
M. O. Alkalinity (as
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness
Non-Carbonate Hardness
Chloride
Sulfate
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Pho sphate
SiO
Nitrate
Oil & Grease
9.8
112
276
1250
80
1000
16
0
16
65
150
6
0
0.7
40
0.9
105
- 11.2
- 390
- 810
- 2020
- 710
- 1200
- 112
- 200
- 150
- 455
34
6
4.6
- 155
4.8
- 550
Discharge to
CBMWD
6
0
24
2010
840
1160
18
0
60
170
110
7
0
9.5
280
2120
- 28600
- 3850
- 24840
168
118
- 10900
695
480
54
6
IV-17
-------
m^ x 106
0.400
0-543
0.789
0.594
0.290
0.629
gal. x 106
105.7
143.4
208.6
156.9
76.6
166.3
4.2.2.2 Water Systems and Distribution
The water for the plant is drawn from Lake Michigan
through two intakes and is distributed through the plant by six
pumping stations. The average daily quantities of water dis-
tributed through the plant during the first six months of 1977
were:
Pumping Station Daily Average Flow
1
2
3
4
5
6
All pumping stations, with the exception of No. 4 are
interconnected and supply the entire plant with water. Pump
Station No. 4 supplies one power station, one EOF shop, one open
hearth shop and the mold foundry. Upon completion of the north-
ward expansion the No. 4 pumping station will also supply the
new coke plant, boiler house and blast furnace. No treatment
other than screening at the intakes is provided. The distribu-
tion of the water in the plant is as shown on Figures B-l, B-2
and B-3 (Appendix B). A detailed discussion of the water uses
within the plant is given in Appendix B.
4.2.2.3 Waste Treatment Facilities
The Inland Steel plant has installed facilities to
treat wastewaters prior to discharge at some of its outfalls.
Other treatment facilities are installed at the individual pro-
duction facilities. Waste pickle liquor is disposed of by deep
well injection. Biologically degradable wastes from the coke
plants and partially treated sanitary wastes from two sanitary
treatment plants are discharged to the East Chicago Sanitary
District.
Extensive recycle systems are installed in the plant.
Discharges to receiving waters consist of treated cooling tower
blowdown from all the blast furnaces, the 12-inch bar mill, the
electric furnace and the billet caster. The Slab Caster No. 1
blowdown is filtered prior to discharge.
Two combined waste treatment plants are installed for
treating the discharge to three outfalls. One plant treats the
wastewater from the hot forming mills, two cold strip mills and
BOF No. 2 for the removal of oils and suspended solids prior to
discharge at two outfalls. The second treatment plant treats
the wastewater from the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill and Cold Strip
IV-18
-------
Mill No. 3 prior to discharge at one outfall. Detailed descrip-
tions of the waste treatment facilities are included in Appendix
B.
4.1-2.4
Discharge Qualities
The reported qualities of the various discharges from
the Inland Steel Company plant are presented in Table 4-5.
4.2.3
National Steel Corporation - Weirton Steel Division
4.2.3.1 Manufacturing Processes and Facilities
The Weirton Steel Division, of National Steel Corpora-
tion, is a completely integrated steel plant located approxi-
mately 60 km (37 miles) west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on the
east bank of the Ohio River in the Town of Weirton, West
Virginia. It is at the confluence of the Ohio River and Harmon
Creek and occupies a 142 hectare (350 acres) site oriented
north-south. The integrated facilities located on the site to
produce finished and semi-finished products consist of:
Daily Capacities
in kkg/ton
Ore Coal and Flux Storage Areas
Coal Washing Facilities
Two By-Product Coke Plants
One Sinter Plant
Four Blast Furnaces
One BOP Shop
Two Vacuum Degassers
One Continuous Casting Shop
A Blooming Mill
A Hot Scarfer
A Structural Mill
A 54-inch Hot Strip Mill
Three Pickling Lines (Hydrochloric
Acid)
Five Tandem Mills (Cold Reduction)
Two Weirlite Mills (Cold Reduction)
Eight Temper Mills
One Sheet Mill Cleaning Line
Two Tin Mill Cleaning Lines
One Tin Mill Chemical Treatment Line
Three Tin Mill Continuous Annealing Lines)
A Strip Steel and iSheet Metal Batch Annealer NA
NA
7,516/8,275
6,690/7,375
8,948/9,864
11,343/12,500
5,983/6,595
3,969/4,375
8,682/9,570
NA
Ceased Operations
8,340/9,193
8,499/9,369
9,918/10,933
2,056/2,267
NA
5,923/6,529
A Tin Mill Batch Annealer
Four Hot Dip Galvanizing Lines
One Electrolytic Galvanizing Line
Three Electrolytic Galvanizing Line
)
)
One Electrolytic Plating Line (Chrome )
or Tin) )
NA
1,714/1,889
NA
IV-19
-------
TABLE 4-5
H
<3
1
K>
O
SOURCE FLOW
m /hr (gpm)
LAKE
OUTFALLS
001 llU
(500)
002 20960
(92200)
003 1300
(5700)
005 1770
(7800)
007 6l82
(27200)
008 95^5
(It2000)
Oil 25900
(111(000)
012 3068
(13500)
013 13600
(60000)
01*1 18200
(80000)
015 5680
(25000)
017 26820
(118000)
018 181(55
(81200)
DISCHARGES TO
EAST CHICAGO
SANITARY DISTRICT
FROM COKE PLANTS
No. 2 (200)
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
WATER DISCHARGE QUALITIES*
pH T SS OIL IDS ALK-M HARDNESS SOl, Cl
°j(0j,j (as CaCOj) (as CaCOs)
8. It 80 172 103 131! 22 10
10 2.3 84 20
5.5 8.2 185 100
(10)
7.8 10 3.8 28 52
8.2 lit It. 3 26 11
8.9
(16)
li.lt
(8)
6.7
(12)
19.1)
(35)
8.1 3.9 18 3.3 90 ifco 31 16
(7)
8.1 3.9 17 3.li 90 ll(0 30 16
(7)
12.2
(22)
8.5 20 O.1* 2U 16
8.5 8.2 0.1 185 105 35
100-200
NH^ PHENOL CM F KEMARKR
0.1 0.003 0.01 0.2
0.2
0.2 0.01 0 0.17
0.1 0.00>l 0 O.lP
Lake Water
Quality
_"_
n
-"-
0.6 0.017 0.01 0.2
0.6 0.017 0.01 0.2
Lake Water
Quality
0
50-100 300-POO Vli Er.timntctl
nullity
flo.3 (160)
liril.tory 11
-------
Daily Capacities
in kkg/ton
- A Boiler House
A Power House
A Hydrochloric Acid Recovery Plant
- A Palm Oil Recovery Plant NA
An Acetylene Plant
4.2.3.2 Water Systems and Distribution
Most of the water used at the plant is drawn from the
Ohio River. A pump station on the river provides approximately
38,700 m3/hr (170,300 gpm) of service water to the plant. Pot-
able water, for sanitary purposes, is supplied by the City of
Weirton or from the Weirton Steel Division potable water treat-
ment plant. All sanitary wastewaters discharge to the City of
Weirton Sewage Treatment Plant located south (downstream) of
the steel plant.
The water use at the plant is shown on Figures C-l and
C-2 (Appendix C). Generally, a small portion of non-contact
cooling water is recycled or reused. However, the plant will,
in the near future, place in operation an extensive gas washer
recycle system at the blast furnaces.
Discharges from the plant are through four outfalls,
two to the Ohio River and one to Harmon Creek, a tributory of
the Ohio River. The fourth outfall discharges the treated
wastes from the Browns Island Coke Plant biological treatment
plant. The discharges from "A" Outfall to the Ohio River are
from the blast furnaces, the power and boiler houses, the sin-
ter plant, a portion of the primary and secondary hot forming
mills, some of the cleaning lines and the temper mill. The
second outfall, to the Ohio River, identified as "B" Outfall,
receives water from the demineralizer plant, the tin plating
lines, the continuous annealing lines and the "Weirlite" (cold
reduction) lines. The outfall to Harmon Creek ("C" and "E"
Outfalls) receives all of the other plant discharges through
two sewer systems (Sewers "C" and "E"). The flows to "C" sewer
are from a major portion of the secondary hot forming mills,
the rinse and fume scrubbing water from the continuous picklers,
the acid regeneration plant, an oil recovery facility and the
carbide and diesel shops. The flows to "E" sewer are from the
balance of the cleaning lines, the BOP and vacuum degassing
shop, the continuous caster, the detinning plant and the coal
washing facility. The two sewers join for common treatment in
two lagoons and then discharge to Harmon Creek.
Details of the water system are described in Appendix C.
IV-21
-------
4.2.3.3 Waste Treatment Facilities^
The Weirton Steel Division treats most of its waste-
water, to some degree, prior to discharge.
All flows from "A" Outfall will be from two parallel
lagoons which are presently under construction for the removal
of suspended solids and oil. The waters are treated, to some
degree, prior to discharge to the lagoons. The blast furnace
recirculation system discharges pass through suspended solids
removal and cooling facilities. Boiler house waters, including
the feed water softener discharge have suspended solids removal
facilities. All of the contact water discharges from the pri-
mary and secondary hot forming mills, in the "A" sewer area,
pass through scale pits prior to discharge to "A" sewer. Sinter
plant wastes are treated for solids removal in rotoclones. Oil
from the Temper Mill is collected and not discharged.
All flows to "B Outfall" pass through a lime neutral-
ization facility and then through two parallel lagoons for the
removal of suspended solids and oil. In addition, prior to dis-
charge to "B" sewer wastes from the cold reduction "Weirlite"
lines are treated for oil removal.
The flows to "C" sewer, from the hot forming mills,
are treated in scale pits prior to discharge. The flows to "E"
sewer, from the BOP and vacuum degassing facilities, are settled
prior to discharge and the major portions of the solids from the
continuous caster are removed in flat bed and pressure filters
before blowdown. Coal washing solids are removed by settling.
Detailed descriptions of the water treatment facili-
ties are given in Appendix C.
4.2.4 United States Steel Corporation - Fairfield Works
4.2.4.1 Processes and Facilities
United States Steel Corporation's, Fairfield Works is
a completely integrated steel plant located on a 790 hectare
(1,950 acres) site approximately 5 km (3 miles) southwest of
Birmington, Alabama. The integrated facilities located on the
site, which produce finished and semi-finished products, consist
of:
IV-2 2
-------
Facility
Daily Production Capacity
kkg/ton
Ore, Coal and Flux Storage
Areas
A Four Battery By-Products Coke
Plant
Four Blast Furnaces
One Three-Vessel Q-BOP Shop
A 46-inch Slab Mill
A 45-inch Blooming and Slab Mill
A 140-inch and 110-inch Plate Mill
A 21-inch Billet Mill
A 11-inch Merchant Mill
A 24-inch Structural Mill
A 68-inch Hot Strip Mill
Two Strip Pickling Lines
One Rod Batch Pickling
Two Cleaning Lines
One Continuous Annealing Line
Three Cold Rolling Mills
Three Temper Mills
One Wire Drawing Mill With Pickling
Three Strip Tinning Lines
Three Strip Galvanizing Lines
One Wire Galvanizing Line
One Paint Line
24 ha (60 acres)
5,960/6,570
9,767/10,766
6,050/6,669
4,666/5,143
3,418/3,768
1,666/1,836
1,241/1,368
612/675
1,059/1,167
5,051/5,568
4,049/4,458
509/561
1,424/1,569
822/906
4,812/5,307
NA
480/529
1,268/1,398
1,525/1,680
267/294
313/345
A sinter plant is located approximately 9.6 km (6
miles) away.
4.2.4.2 Water Systems and Distribution
Water for the plant is drawn from the City of
Birmingham, Alabama water supply system. Approximately 3,955
m3/hr (17,400 gpm) are required as makeup to the plant. Almost
80 percent of the water applied at the plant production pro-
cesses is recirculated, 5 percent of the water used is dis-
charged to Oppossum Creek and the balance is lost to evaporation
or disposal of sludge.
All plant wastes are subjected to some degree of
treatment prior to final discharge to Oppossum Creek. A de-
tailed description of the water systems is presented in Appendix
D, and is schematically shown on Figures D-l and D-2.
Non-contact cooling water at the blast furnace is
cooled and recycled in two cooling systems and the blowdowns are
IV-2 3
-------
used for the makeup to the two gas cleaning recirculation sys-
tems. The Q-BOP system recirculates most of the gas cleaning
water and the non-contact cooling water is used as makeup to one
blast furnace non-contact cooling water recirculation system.
The primary and secondary hot forming mills discharge their
wastes, after passage through scale pits, to a two pond system
for recirculation. Portions of the wastes from the cold reduc-
tion, plating and service facilities also are discharged to the
two ponds. A portion of the blast furnace spray pond water is
combined with the pond recirculation water. All other wastes
are discharged to the final effluent control pond prior to dis-
charge.
The sinter plant, located remotely from the plant,
receives 77 m3/hr (340 gpm) from the Birmingham City Water Sys-
tem for use in the sinter process and 53 m3/hr (235 gpm) for
sanitary uses. Approximately 55 percent of the water is recir-
culated water and the plant discharges approximately 125 m3/hr
(550 gpm) to Valley Creek.
4.2.4.3 Waste Treatment Facilities
All wastewaters from Fairfield Works are treated prior
to discharge from the plant. Discharges from the blast furnaces
(blowdowns from the gas cleaning system) are settled in three
clarifiers for solids removal and the solids are sent to the
sinter plant. A portion of the blowdown is used for slag
quenching.
Solids are removed from the Q-BOP gas cleaning water
in a desilter and a clarifier. Coke plant wastes are treated
for removal of pollutants in a proprietary process followed by
biological treatment, settling in two clarifiers and treatment
in a .final settling basin.
Approximately 40 percent of the wastewater from cold
rolling finishing and plating operations is treated for oil and
metal removal in.lagoons followed by a chemical treatment system
prior to discharge. Solids are dewatered and sent to a land-
fill. The remaining 60 percent of the wastewaters are discharged
to a pond system together with all of the waste from the primary
and secondary hot forming mills.
The wastes from each of the hot forming mills pass
through scale pits prior to discharge to the primary and secon-
dary settling ponds, which operate in series. Of the total
wastes discharged to the ponds approximately 90 percent of the
secondary settling pond effluent is recirculated back to the hot
mills and the blast furnaces. The remaining ten percent is
directed to the final effluent control pond prior to discharge
to Opposum Creek. Waste pickle liquor is disposed of in a deep
well.
IV-2 4.
-------
Detailed descriptions of the waste treatment systems
are given in Appendix D.
4.2.5 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company - Indiana Harbor Works
4.2.5.1 Processes and Facilities
The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company's, Indiana
Harbor Works is a completely integrated steel plant located on
a 525 hectare (1,300 acre) site on the southern shore of Lake
Michigan in East Chicago, Indiana. Production facilities at the
plant area:
Daily Capacity
kkg/ton
- One By-Product Coke Plant 3,629/4,000
- One Sinter Plant 3,625/4,000
- Four Blast Furnaces 9,525/10,500
One Eight-Furnace Open Hearth Shop 6,895/7,600
One 2-Vessel Basic Oxygen Furnace Shop 9,525/10,500
- A Slabbing Mill 8,165/9,000
- A Blooming Mill , 3,810/4,200
- An 84-inch Hot Strip Mill 10,200/11,250
- A Seamless Tube Mill 635/700
- A Continuous Butt Weld Tube Mill 757/834
Three Continuous Pickling Lines 8,400/9,260
- Two Cold Reduction Sheet Mills 3,295/3,630
- Two Tin Mills 2,295/2,530
- A galvanizing Shop 895/984
Support facilities at the plant include a boiler house
and a power plant; The boiler house, in addition to supplying
steam for the power plant operation, supplies steam for other
in-plant uses.
4.2.5.2 Water Systems and Distribution
A water supply of approximately 38,300 m3/hr (168,400
gpm) is drawn from Lake Michigan through three intakes for the
Indiana Harbor Works. An additional 1,820 m3/hr (8,000 gpm) is
supplied, by the plant, to the nearby Sinclair Oil Company
refinery. Four pumping stations distribute the water to the
plant and to Sinclair Oil. Of the total 84,300 m3/hr (371,000
gpm) water required approximately 52 percent is recycled within
the plant. A flow diagram illustrating the Indiana Harbor Works
water system is shown in Figure E-l, Appendix E.
Process wastes from the coke plant are pumped to the
East Chicago treatment plant. Non-contact cooling water is
cooled and recycled back to the coke plant and the cooling tower
IV-2 5
-------
blowdown is used for coke quenching. Non-contact cooling water
from the sinter plant and blast furnaces is on a once-through
basis. Gas cleaning waters are recirculated at the blast fur-
naces and the system blowdown is used for slag quenching.
All other plant wastes, with the exception of waste
pickle liquor and cooling water, pass through a treatment plant
prior to discharge. Waste pickle liquor is trucked to a shallow
well for disposal and cooling water is discharged to Indiana'
Harbor.
All water from the Seamless Pipe Mill is discharged to
the intake of Pumping Station No. 2. All wastes from Cold Strip
Mill No. 3 and Hot strip Mill No. 3 are recycled to Pumping
Station No. 3.
Wastes from all other facilities are discharged after
some treatment.
A detailed description of the water systems is given
in Appendix E.
4.2.5.3 Waste Treatment Facilities
Waste treatment facilities are located at various
points in the plant, at or near production facilities, to treat
specific wastes or at outfalls to treat combined wastes prior
to discharge or recycle.
Wastewater from the Flat Rolling Mills are treated
chemically and physically for oil and metal removal. Blast fur-
nace gas cleaning water is treated for solids removal and is
cooled prior to recirculation. Wastewater from the Continuous
Butt Weld Mill passes through a scale pit and is then filtered
prior to discharge. The filter backwash is discharged to the
main scale pit for further treatment. The Wastewater from the
open hearth shop is passed through grizzlies, classifiers and
thickeners and then discharged to the main scale pit.
Wastewater from the Seamless Pipe Mill is discharged
to a lagoon and then to No. 2 Pump Station intake where it is
mixed with lake water and distributed to the plant via Pumping
Station No. 2 and the low head pumping station. The wastewater
from Cold Strip Mill No. 3 and Hot Strip Mill No. 3 are treated
at a chemical treatment plant and a scale pit and then filtered.
The filtered wastes, together with the non-contact cooling
waters from both mills, are discharged to a lagoon and then dis-
charged to Pump Station No. 3.
Detailed descriptions of the waste treatment facili-
ties are given in Appendix E.
IV-2 6
-------
4.2.5.4 Discharge Qualities
The reported qualities of the various discharges from
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company's Indiana Harbor Works are
presented in Table 4-6.
4.3 PROBLEMS EXPECTED TO BE ENCOUNTERED
4.3.1 Common Problems
Generally speaking, steel plants in the United States
are from 40 to 80 years old and most were constructed on the
basis of changing demand, requirements of wars and technological
advances. As a technology became obsolete a facility was torn
down and the new facilities were sometimes built upon the old
foundations. Sewers are usually combined, mainline railroad
tracks run through the centers of many plants and the plants
usually occupy large tracts of land. Thus, in many cases, like
production facilities are separated. In other cases plants are
"shoe-horned" between a river and the cliffs of the river valley
with very little room for expansion or installation of addition-
al support facilities. The realities of steel plant site speci-
fic configurations cause considerable problems in a steel plant
when major plant-wide programs are envisioned. At some plants
storm water from residential areas outside of the plant is
carried in through the plant and the plant storm water is added.
In many cases, process waters are combined with storm flow and
discharged through common plant outfalls.
Segregated sewers were basically unheard of until the
1950's when separate sanitary sewer construction was required
of the plants. These sanitary sewers were small because of the
small domestic flows, but their installation proved, even in
1950 dollars, to be extremely costly and the construction
severely interfered with the normal production cycles in the
mills. Envisioning the further segregation of industrial waste-
water from storm sewers presents a picture which could indicate
the complete shutdown of a mill during the segregation period.
Alternately, construction of separate industrial wastewater
force mains is also a tremendous task, for where will these
force mains be located and how will obstructions of the normal
production operations be avoided during their installation? If
these force mains run above ground some means of freeze protec-
tion may also be necessary.
Infiltration of sewers and sumps by ground water is
another problem. During shutdowns, due to strikes or other
reasons, it has been noted that even though process water lines
have been shut off sump pumps are continuously needed and sewers
are never dry. The old sewers and sumps, and some of the new
ones, are subject to groundwater infiltration and it would be
IV-2 7
-------
Parameter
PH
Temp
S.A.
Oil
IDS
NH3
CN
Cl
S°4
Fl
Tot Cr
Zn
Tin
Phenol
Alk
TABLE 4-6
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TREATED
001
7.6
65
15
6
641
2.2
0.07
41
140
0.5
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.006
WASTEWATER DISCHARGES*
002
7.7
65
10
4
272
1.8
0.05
39
38
0.4
-
-
-
0.005
Outfalls
009
8.0
70
6
4
243
1.5
0.05
30
35
0.3
-
-
-
0.006
010
8.2
64
10
4
253
1.9
0.25
35
47
0.3
-
-
-
0.006
To E. Chicago
Treatment
01 1 Plant
8.1 9.0
60
15 55
5 43
344
2.5 195
0.55 10
50 1650
42
0.4
-
-
-
0.006 80
940
* With the exceotion of discharges to East Chicago Sewage Treatment
Plant all data are from plant computer printouts.
IV-2 8
-------
virtually an impossible task to restore infiltration free integ-
rity to these installations.
Information availability is also a problem since many
steel plant installations were and are partially "engineered" in
the field and the existing drawings do not reflect the actual
location and, in some cases, the size of pipelines and sewers.
In many cases, drawings of any kind do not exist because they
have been lost or were never made. Extensive investigatory
excavation is needed for most plants just to find pipelines or
sewer locations, sizes and elevations.
If recirculation and/or cascade of treated or untreated
waste flows to the industrial water mains is contemplated,
thorough hydraulic investigations are necessary to insure that
pipeline capacities are adequate. In many cases large portions
of the existing piping networks may have to be replaced.
4.3.2 Specific Plant Problems
During the course of this study of the five steel
plants, as would be expected, specific problems were identified
that would be encountered at each that may or may not be encoun-
tered at others. Some examples are:
1. The Inland Steel Company plant, at Indiana Harbor, is
actually three steel plants that were constructed side by side
as the needs arose. Due to this stepwise expansion similar pro-
duction facilities producing like wastewater discharges are
separated by many thousands of feet. The collection of these
similar wastewaters for joint treatment at common treatment
facilities would be extremely expensive and impractical. The
plant also has the problem of infiltration into underground
sumps and sewers. Although sumps may be reconditioned and made
watertight it would be virtually impossible to create watertight
integrity to the miles of the sewer networks in the plant. The
age of the plant would preclude the availability of accurate up-
to-date drawings of the sewer systems. In the older sections of
the plant space for the construction of waste treatment facili-
ties is at a premium either because of the close proximity of
buildings to each other or the location of railroad tracks be-
tween buildings.
2. United States Steel's, Fairfield Works is located on
a large site and all of the wastewaters eventually discharge
into drainage ditches which also receive storm waters from
the plant area and roof runoff. Segregation of storm water,
process water and non-contact cooling waters for discharge and
treatment would necessitate the installation of extensive flow
diversion and collection systems. In addition, a separate storm
water collection system would be required for runoff from ma-
terial storage areas.
IV-2 9
-------
3. National Steel Corporation's, Weirton Steel Division
occupies a long narrow compact site which is bisected by a main
highway. Land is at a premium within the plant and land outside
of the plant that may be available for purchase is located in
topographically unfavorable areas, i.e., at a higher elevation
than the plant. All sewers in the plant are combined and segre-
gation would entail the construction of an extensive above
ground piping network to transport wastes to and from treatment
facilities. The segregation of wastes within the individual
mills in the plant would require periods of mill shutdown for
the installation of the required facilities.
4. Kaiser Steel Corporation.' s Fontana plant is located on
a compact site which would make segregation of sewers difficult.
Climatic conditions at Fontana favor solar evaporation of some
wastes but this method of disposal is unique to Fontana. Fontana
is also fortunate in having the presence of a contractor, on the
plant site, who can use a waste (waste pickle liquor) that other
plants have to undergo capital and operating expenses to dispose
of. Due to the short intensive periods of precipitation experi-
enced at Fontana disproportionately larger storm water storage
ponds are required to retain material storage pile runoff.
Kaiser Steel has a contractual agreement with the
Chino Basin Municipal Water District, whereby, they are to pay
a standby user charge of approximately $41,000 per year for the
sewer leading to the County of Los Angeles treatment plant. This
charge is levied whether or not the sewer is used and, if the
plant were to achieve total recycle and not discharge any wastes
to the sewer, they would still be required to pay the charge.
The contract extends to the year 2025.
5. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company's Indiana Harbor
Works occupies a large spread-out site where long runs of segre-
gated sewers would be required to reach treatment facilities.
Although all of the plants studied have problems in
common and problems specific to each, they do not all have the
same types of production or waste treatment facilities. There-
fore, in the evaluation of each plant, their specific production
facilities over and above those that meet the basic definition
of an integrated steel plant have to be evaluated with respect
to treatment unit operations required to achieve the desired
effluent goals. The existing waste treatment facilities also
have to be evaluated to determine their compatibility with any
system anticipated to meet the desired goals. Specifically,
some of the differences between the plants are: all but one of
the steel plants studied have electrolytic tinning lines; one
plant has oil recovery and hydrochloric acid regenerations on
its site; two plants discharge coke plant wastes to a municipal
biological treatment plant and two plants operate their own
IV-30
-------
biological treatment plants, all plants have galvanizing proces-
ses, either hot dip or electrolytic or both; two plants utilize
water for air pollution control at the coke plant during pushing
operations for a portion of the batteries.
IV-31
-------
SECTION 5.0 TECHNIQUES FOR ACHIEVING BAT AND TOTAL RECYCLE
In preparing this study, a basic question that had
to be resolved was what could be considered proven technology
and what was applicable or available technology. Applicable
technology did not present as much of a problem as did proven
technology. The definition of proven technology used in the
analyses in this report was that if a full-sized system is
operating or has operated successfully for a reasonable period
of time under any circumstances, it was considered as proven.
For example, if a two-stage biological oxidation system was
operated treating coke plant water successfully by engineers
and graduate chemists for a 24-hour a day basis for a month,
it can be considered as proven. The fact that a routinely
operated plant does not normally operate with engineers and
graduate chemists is indicative of the training required of
operators and the degree of instrumentation required to be
incorporated in the plant design. In addition, proven tech-
nologies were not considered to be only those technologies that
had operated successfully at steel plants, but those that
operate successfully in other types of industries treating
similar wastes.
5.1 RECYCLE AND REUSE
The primary method for conserving water and reducing
the quantities to be discharged is by the recycle and reuse of
as much water as possible. Recycle, within a steel plant, is
the use of water more than once within a given production
facility and reuse (also referred to as cascading) is the use
of water discharged from one facility to another facility.
The governing criterion is the minimum quality of water
required at each facility.
Water cannot be indefinitely recycled at any facility
because of the decrease in water quality in each passage
through a process. Certain completely "bottled-up" systems do
not have quality decreases but they represent a very small
portion of water use in steel plants and are considered to be
an exception. The quality may be degraded due to a pickup of
contaminants by contact with the product, by concentration of
contaminants due to evaporation of water, or both. An example
of recycle is blast furnace gas cleaning recycle systems where,
by contact with the blast furnace gases, both of the described
phenomena occur. As the gas is cleaned, solids are scrubbed
V-l
-------
out and small amounts are dissolved when added to a solution_of
some gaseous constituents from the gas stream being cleaned in
the water. In addition, as the gas is being cooled there is
some evaporation loss which creates a concentration of dis-
solved solids that were initially present in the water and also
loss of water droplets to the gas. The bulk of the suspended
solids are separated from the stream and the water is recycled.
When the concentration of dissolved solids has reached a level
which is determined by the plant operator to be a maximum, a
portion of the water is discharged and water is added (either
continuously or intermittently) from another source which has
a lower dissolved solids concentration. The quantity of make-
up water is equal to the sum of the water lost through evapora-
tion, tower windage, and intentionally discharged (blowdown)
less the quantity of water condensed from the gas stream due to
the moisture content of the burden.
Another example of recycle is the use of water at a
hot rolling mill. Water applied for bearing and roll cooling
and the descaling operation is usually partially recycled to
flush the solids that are deposited in the flume to the scale
pit (flume flushing). (21).
Examples of reuse can be seen in the blast furnace
area where water is required for furnace cooling. The heated
water is usually cooled in a cooling tower or spray pond. The
increase in contaminant concentration is due to evaporative
losses during cooling and dust pickup and the dissolved solids
levels are controlled by discharging a portion of the water.
Makeup is with water with a lower dissolved solids concentra-
tion. The water blown down from the furnace cooling facility
may then be used as makeup to -the gas cleaning system where a
lower quality water can be tolerated.
It can be seen from the above discussion that the
quality of water required at each facility is the factor that
governs the degree of recycle and reuse. In some facilities,
water with low suspended solids is required, in others low
dissolved solids is the only basic requirement. (22).
Table 5-1 illustrates the procedures that may be
required prior to use of water at various production facilities
and the required uses of that water.
When the type of treatment to be utilized is being
determined consideration must be given to the consequences of
the treatment process used. If a system is designed with the
goal of complete recycle, it must not include the addition to
the water stream of any substance that would preclude the use
of the water at some other point in the plant, and must assure
that the consequences of the treatment will not place an added
burden on other facilities that might be required further
V-2
-------
TABLE 5-1
PROCEDURES TO MAXIMIZE WATER QUALITY FOR REUSE
Procedure
Improve water recycle at production
facility or reduce water use
Regeneration
Filtration, SS removal
Ultra filtration
Cooling
Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Treatment
Membrane Treatment
Facility or Type of Wastewater
Blast furnace gas cleaning
Pickling rinse
Hot forming
Acid at Pickling
Chrome plating
Virtually all wastes
Preceding all membrane treatment
processes
All non-contact cooling waters and
some contact waters
Coke Plant wastes
Blast furnace gas cleaning wastes
Coke Plant wastes
Oily wastes
Between successive membrane
processes
Ash sluice recycle
Blast Furnace gas cleaning wastes
All wastes with high dissolved solids
concentrations.
V-3
-------
downstream of the reuse cycle.
When the goal of BAT is met, if total recycle is
anticipated to be realized at some later date, some facilities
that would be required to meet BAT may have to be abandoned at
that time because treatment to effect complete recycle may
require different unit operations to perform totally different
functions. These unit operations for complete recycle may not
be necessary or compatible with the unit operations required
to achieve BAT. For instance, if lime precipitation is
installed for BAT, then when total recycle is required and
facilities must be installed to remove dissolved solids, the
lime precipitation operation may no longer be required.
Guidelines established for the Iron and Steel
industry consider pollutants that can be classified into
various groups and sub-groups. Specifically these are:
Suspended solids, dissolved solids, and oils and grease. The
dissolved solids may be subclassified as: those amenable to
biological treatment, those amenable to physical treatment, and
those amenable to chemical treatment. Chemical treatment is
used for breakage of oil emulsions, reduction of metals,
precipitation of metals, and treatment of regulated compounds
for conversion to a compound that is not regulated. For
example, ammonia, a nitrogenous compound normally present in
coke plant waste is a regulated parameter. Nitrites and
nitrates are not regulated. Therefore, by oxidizing ammonia
to nitrite or nitrate, an alternative, non-regulated compound
of nitrogen would be formed and permitted to be discharged.
Biological treatment takes advantage of the metabolic
activity of microorganisms to utilize pollutants as a food and
oxidize organics and some inorganics to the energy required for
existence and reproduction, and thereby effectively removes the
pollutants.
In physical treatment, the waste stream is altered
without chemical changes. Examples are the cooling of heated
water and the removal of suspended solids or oils in filters
or gravity separation facilities.
The basic unit operations required at each plant to
maximize recycle and reuse of water are suspended solids remov-
al facilities.
It is virtually impossible to hypothesize typical
integrated steel plant operations unless a greenfield plant
were built with the goal of total reuse of water integrated in
the planning of production facilities. Existing steel plants
each have their own unique production configurations which, at
the time of individual production unit construction, may have
been decided upon due to prior existing facilities, size of the
V-4
-------
new facility, existing production units relying on the facility
being built, storage areas required, and transportation both
existing and required. Therefore, a single integrated water
use system may not be feasible at an existing individual
integrated steel plant and two or more satellite systems may be
required within the plant.
Of the integrated steel plants investigated in this
study, the Kaiser Steel Plant at Fontana, CA. is the closest to
maximizing the use of water both in original concept and actual
application. The concept of the plant is to first use all
incoming plant water where the highest quality is required,
with subsequent users receiving water from a previous user,
either treated or untreated, until the water is of a degraded
quality, usually too high in dissolved solids, to preclude its
further use without adversely affecting either product quality
or the proper operation of equipment. When the water reaches
this stage of degraded quality, it should be treated in more
sophisticated operations to produce reusable water and to
reduce the quantity of reject to a minimum. These operations
will produce water with dissolved solids levels low enough for
reuse, and a brine material which will require disposal.
A result of treating this brine is dry soluble solids
requiring further disposal. Due to the wide variety of solids
removed from the brine, a market for their disposal, at this
time, cannot be envisioned.
Therefore, a complete investigation of a water system
at an integrated steel plant, or any industrial water user
must, of necessity, include determination of: the source(s) at
the plant boundary, the users, the quantities of water required,
the treatment required prior to use, the treatment required for
reuse, the plant hydraulics, the unit operations for ultimate
disposal of the final water stream, ground water protection,
disposal of the solids remaining after the brine stream is
eliminated, the power requirements, the fuel requirements and
disposal of stormwater runoff from material storage areas. The
investigation must be approached from the standpoint of techni-
cal applicability with regard to cost.
The following sections present the procedures used
for the selection of treatment processes for the three types of
waste streams in an integrated steel plant that may be the most
controversial. These are: treatment of coke plant and blast
furnace water, treatment for the removal of dissolved solids
from a residual waste stream and disposal of the residual
solids and the methods of cooling water prior to reuse.
All costs cited are based on quotes obtained from
vendors of the equipment or processes cited, standard
estimating procedures and in-house data.
V-5
-------
5.2 TREATMENT OF ORGANIC COKE PLANT WASTES
Developing possible processes for the treatment of
coke plant wastes to meet the provisions of BAT and total
recycle required the investigation of various existing treat-
ment systems and a thorough search of the available literature.
Removal of phenol by physical-chemical systems has
not been reported to reliably reduce the phenol concentration
to that required for discharge (2), however, properly
acclimated biological systems can produce effluents with phenol
concentrations of 0.025 ± 0.01 mg/1.
Removal of cycanide in biological treatment plants
has been shown to be accomplished, but with a penalty.
Destruction of cyanide and thiocyanate produce ammonia as a
by-product which would be added to the initial ammonia loading
to a biological system. However, some cyanide will not be
destroyed in the treatment system but will be discharged in low
concentrations of complexed cyanide which has been reported not
to be toxic (4). Others have reported metal cyanide complexes,
specifically zinc and cadmium complexes, which are toxic,
whereas others, nickel and copper cyanide, are not. However,
the most recent studies (2, 3) have shown that biological
treatment will remove cyanide to the required BAT levels.
The consensus of the literature is that biological
oxidation is the most promising route to follow to remove the
regulated parameters not removed by physical-chemical means.
Regulated parameters that can be treated biologically include
cyanides, phenols and ammonia.
Ammonia appears to be the most difficult of the BAT
regulated parameters to remove. Ozonation and activated carbon
adsorption do not exhibit any appreciable removal of ammonia.
Although biological treatment will remove ammonia from the
waste stream, it has been reported that ammonia concentrations
in excess of 2000 mg/1 will inhibit the phenol oxidation rate
(1). Other investigators also refer to the requirement for the
pre-treatment of coke plant waste for ammonia removal prior to
biological oxidation (2, "3).
In addition, unless biological systems are specific-
ally designed to remove ammonia, an increase in the ammonia
discharged over the ammonia entering the system will be
experienced due to the cyanide and thiocyanate oxidation.
Therefore, pretreatment is necessary to permit
sufficiently low loadings of ammonia to enter the biological
system. This pretreatment should be applied to the weak
ammonia liquor prior to combining this waste with benzol wastes
and other wastes from the by-products coke plant.
V-6
-------
Removal of ammonia from the weak ammonia liquor in
ammonia stills is reported to produce effluents from free and
fixed ammonia stills of from 50 to 460 mg/1 of NH3. A method
of ammonia stripping has been developed to discharge 50 mg/1
total ammonia (5). Another alternative is to prevent the
ammonia from entering the waste stream initially and thereby
eliminate the requirement for nitrification of ammonia. Such
a method has reportedly been developed, in which ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide are completely eliminated from coke oven
gases, their condensates, desorption gases and vapors (6).
Biological nitrification has successfully been
accomplished in operating municipal and industrial waste treat-
ment facilities by activated sludge and extended aeration
processes. Rotating biological contactors show promise and
manufacturers claim that they are applicable to this type of
treatment. In addition, laboratory studies have indicated that
nitrification of ammonia can be accomplished and indications
are that greater removal efficiencies are attainable (2, 3).
Municipal wastes utilizing two stage biological treatment in
which the nitrification efficiency approaches 100 percent under
proper operating conditions has been documented (3) .
Recently, an industrial waste treatment plant has
demonstrated its ability to achieve nitrification of ammonia to
less than 1 mg/1 on a mean raw waste load of 75 mg/1 in a
single stage operation (8).
On the basis of the available data (and the in-house
data of the contractor), ammonia stills followed by biological
oxidation of coke plant wastes is the most feasible path to
follow at this time.
Wastes discharged from Blast Furnace gas cleaning
systems have the same potential pollutants as are present in
coke plant wastes, i.e., ammonia, cyanide, phenol and sulfide,
albeit in the lower concentrations. It is reasonable to
assume, therefore, that these wastes would be amenable to
biological treatment in the same facilities that are to be used
for coke plant wastes (9). It must be pointed out, however,
that blast furnace gas cleaning wastes may contain heavy metals
which can be toxic to the biological organisms that would
oxidize the wastes (10). Therefore, before instituting a
program wherein blast furnace and coke plant wastes are com-
bined for treatment, bench scale and pilot scale studies should
be performed, preferably at each plant under consideration.
There is also a limitation on the discharges from
blast furnaces with respect to fluoride. Lime precipitation is
V-7
-------
the recommended method to precipitate the relatively insoluble
calcium fluoride. However, further studies are recommended to
determine the effect of the increased pH due to the lime
addition. These studies could determine if the pH increase will
also precipitate the heavy metals, thus eliminating their toxic
effect on the biological system, or if the increased pH
inhibits the biological process.
In many biological systems presently treating coke
plant wastes, dilution water is added to lower the concentra-
tion of substances that may be toxic or inhibitory to the
functioning biomass in their natural high concentrations.
Dilution in an equalization facility preceding the bio-plant
aids in assuring the uniformity of wastes fed to the biological
treatment system and, therefore, minimizes upsets. Blast
furnace gas cleaning wastes, with their low concentration of
similar pollutants, are a reasonable source of dilution water
providing other constituents of the water would not prove toxic
to the system, as discussed above.
In summary, biological oxidation with lowering of
ammonia levels presently shows the greatest potential for the
treatment of coke plant wastes and is also a possible alterna-
tive for the treatment of blast furnace wastes. The treatment
methodologies are applicable for treatment to meet BAT guide-
lines. However, for total recycle, the biological treatment
process may be considered as pre-treatment in that there must
be a succeeding stage, i.e., removal of dissolved solids. In
that event it may not be necessary to attempt to oxidize
ammonia biologically since the ammonia would subsequently be
removed physically in the succeeding stage.
5.3 SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
The removal of suspended solids is required when
water is to be reused directly at facilities, such as hot mills
sprays, where abrasion and erosion would be a problem.
Suspended solids removal is also necessary when the presence of
suspended solids could inhibit the efficiency of a subsequent
treatment step. Examples are ion exchangers, carbon absorption
columns and membrane type facilities.
Suspended solids removal is a well established tech-
nology and is given minimal consideration in this study.
Removal of suspended solids concentrations down to levels of
10 mg/1 have been accomplished in many steel plants by proper
use of removal facilities. If the waste water contains large
particles of high specific gravity, plain sedimentation in
properly designed sedimentation basins will accomplish the
desired removal. An example of this type of treatment is a
scale pit usually installed at a hot mill.
V-8
-------
If, due to stricter treatment requirements, an increase
of flow to an existing settling facility is to be experienced
which would create excessive_turbulence, reducing the efficiency
of particulate settling, modifications may be made in most cases
to accomplish the desired removal. These modifications could be'
the installation of tilted tubes or plates to reduce the length
of the path of the particulates1 travel facilitating removal
from the water. Modifications of this type would entail a capi-
tal cost with little operating costs if cleaning of the plates or
tubes, due to adherence of oil and solids, is not a chronic
problem.
Removal of suspended solids with a low specific gra-
vity or very small solids of high specific gravity may be
enhanced by the addition of chemical aids. The addition of
polyelectrolytes may allow the use of existing settling faci-
lities by permitting higher overflow rates due to the enhanced
settling characteristics of agglomerated solids.
Filtration in either pressure retaining or gravity
granular media filters is a well established and much used
means of removal of suspended solids from wastes that arise at
various mills in steel plants.
After water has been recycled and reused to a point
where the concentrations of dissolved solids are so high that
there is no point in the plant that it can be reused effective-
ly, it must be treated to remove these dissolved solids.
5.4 DISSOLVED SOLIDS REMOVAL
After water has been used and reused to the point
where it cannot be used any further without some detrimental
effect on the water system, the product, or the production
facilities, it must either be disposed of or treated in some
ultimate treatment facility to upgrade it to a quality fit for
reuse. The governing parameter is the removal of dissolved
solids to a concentration which permits the water to be reused.
An alternative to treatment for reuse is complete disposal.
Since the objective of this study is the total recycle of water,
disposal either via discharge or evaporation without recovery,
is not considered further.
Various technologies which permit the reuse of water
having high dissolved solids concentrations were considered.
Not all technologies examined are presently being used in the
iron and steel industry, but are considered here because, with
adequate research and development, as well as transfer of
technology from other industries, these technologies may be
applicable.
V-9
-------
Seventeen possible pretreatment and treatment
processes were considered for application for the removal of
dissolved solids from waste streams. Certain processes,
because of their specificity for removing only certain types
of dissolved solids, were eliminated, leaving only four
processes to be considered in detail. In the detailed consi-
deration, pretreatment requirements were included as a part of
the total operation. Therefore, treatment systems, rather than
individual unit operations, were compared. Comparisons were
based on an assumed influent to the system of 2270 mj/hr
(10,000 gpm) with a dissolved solids concentration of 1500 mg/1.
The water quality after treatment was assumed to contain a
dissolved solids concentration of 175 mg/1.
5.4.1 Review of Possible Processes
The initial seventeen processes considered for
pretreatment and treatment were:
Air Stripping
Biological Oxidation
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Oxidation
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
Flotation
Freeze Crystallization
Freeze Drying
High Gradient Magnetic Separation
Ion Exchange
Ozonation
Precipitation, Flocculation, Sedimentation
Reverse Osmosis
Steam Stripping
Ultrafiltration
Consideration has been given only to the removal of
inorganic dissolved solids in this section. Removal of organic
dissolved solids has been discussed in a previous section of
this section. The removal of organic compounds will produce
inorganic compounds which will, in turn, require removal using
the methods studied.
V-10
-------
Of the seventeen methodologies listed above -
filtration, flotation, high gradient magnetic separation and
ultrafiltration are applicable only for suspended solids
removal and are discussed as a pretreatment operation.
Chemical oxidation, biological oxidation, carbon adsorption
and ozonation are primarily applicable to organics and are not
further considered in the removal of inorganic dissolved
solids.
Precipitation, flocculation and sedimentation,
although actually three separate unit operations, are
considered as one operation with respect to the removal of
dissolved and suspended solids. Precipitation will remove
some dissolved solids by virtue of selective chemical reac-
tions, but there will always be a residual of excess reactants
and ions not entering into the reactions. Therefore, the total
dissolved solids concentration would not be appreciably reduced
and would usually be increased. Flocculation and Sedimentation
are usually required for removal of fine particulate matter
that may result from precipitation reactions.
Steam stripping or air stripping are methods that are
applicable for the removal of some organic compounds and a few
inorganic compounds. Since air and steam stripping are tech-
nologies that could not be universally useful for removal of
all dissolved solids, they were not considered any further.
Freeze drying and freeze crystallization are
exceedingly energy intensive and require high capital costs.
Preliminary estimates have shown that the capital costs are in
the order of five orders of magnitude higher (100,000 times)
than other methodologies considered and were eliminated from
further consideration.
Therefore, the technologies remaining for removal of
inorganic dissolved solids are evaporation, electrodialysis,
reverse osmosis and ion exchange. The latter three methodolo-
gies each require pretreatment for the removal of suspended
solids to as close to zero concentration as is possible for
protection of the systenu The suspended solids removal systems
considered were: sedimentation, high gradient magnetic
separation, granular media filtration and ultrafiltration.
The efficiency of sedimentation is dependent upon the
size and specific gravity of the particulate matter introduced
into the system and is susceptible to upsets due to thermal
effects, mechanical breakdown of equipment and the efficiency
of the sludge removal process. While efficiencies can be
increased by the use of chemicals, the same chemicals may place
an added burden on the succeeding dissolved solids removal unit
operations and add to the dried soluble solids disposal
operations, which will be discussed later.
V-ll
-------
High gradient magnetic separation is a methodology
which is applicable only to solids influenced by magnetic
fields. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon to effectively
or adequately pretreat all streams and has only been used on
bench scale or pilot plant sized operations.
Granular media filtration is applicable as a pre-
treatment system for ion exchange facilities but does not
appear applicable for pretreatment prior to membrane processes
such as electrodialysis or reverse osmosis where zero suspended
solids are required to prevent blinding of the membranes.
However, granular media filtration is applicable as a first
stage of pretreatment. Ion exchangers may act as filters and,
by judicious selection of the granular media in filters
preceeding ion exchange units difficulty with solids fouling of
the ion exchangers should not be experienced. Total evapora-
tion will not require pretreatment unless the suspended solids
present will create erosion problems in the liquid injection
system.
Of the four dissolved solids removal processes
considered, three, namely; ion exchange, electrodialysis, and
reverse osmosis, are concentrating processes producing waste
streams with a high dissolved solids content, and product
streams which are suitable for reuse within the plant (11, 12).
The residual high dissolved solids stream must then be disposed
of. The fourth dissolved solids removal process, evaporation,
is, in fact, a stream disposal system producing both dried
soluble solids for disposal, and steam. The steam has not been
considered in the report as being recovered.
The four systems were evaluated on the basis of
capital and operating costs including the necessary pretreat-
ment steps required. In keeping with the national energy
policy, coal has been considered as the source of heat for
evaporation.
To produce water that is reusable within a plant by
means prior to application on ion exchangers, the waste stream
must first be filtered to remove suspended solids. The
filtered waste stream is then passed through the appropriate
anion and cation exchangers to remove sufficient ions other
than hydroxide or hydroxyl. After the resin capacity to
exchange ions is exhausted, the cation exchangers must be
regenerated with acid and the anion exchangers with alkaline
solutions. The regenerants are then mixed for equalization
and, if necessary, the pH is further adjusted. Regenerative
waste for disposal is approximately 15 percent of the total
flow through, and would be evaporated to dryness. Capital
costs include filters, exchange columns, exchange resins,
chemical storage, dilution and feed facilities, equalization,
evaporators, fuel storage, and solids collection equipment.
V-12
-------
Operating costs include power fuel, labor, chemicals,
maintenance, amortization, and solids disposal.
If ion exchange is used for demineralization, the
quantity of dried soluble solids to be disposed of, based on a
waste stream of 2273 mj/hr (10,000 gpm), is 121,000 kkg
(133,000 tons) per year. Of this amount 94,300 kkg (104,000
tons) per year is due to the chemicals added to the system for
regeneration, pH adjustment, etc. Only 26,900 kkg (29,600 tons)
per year would be removed from the waste stream containing the
original 1,500 mg/1 of dissolved solids. The average quantity
of regenerant water to be evaporated would be approximately
340 m3/hr (1500 gpm).
The capital cost of a complete system to treat 2273
(10,000 gpm) would be approximately $27,330,000 and the
annual cost would be approximately $45,600,000 per year. Of
the annual cost approximately $17,600,000 would be due to the
hauling of solids. If the solids were to be stored on site,
the capital cost would be increased by approximately
$27,800,000 and the annual hauling costs reduced by $1,340,000.
The dried solids to be disposed of for a twenty year period
would require a lined storage area 3 meters (10 feet) deep and
occupying approximately 83 ha (205 acres).
Power requirements for a total ion exchange facility
would be 12.2 x lO^3 Joules (34 x 10° kWh) per year and annual
fuel requirements would be approximately 7.6 x 1015 Joules
(7.2 x 1012 BTU) which translates into 476,000 kkg (525,000
tons) per year of coal. An additional 67 ha (170 acres) would
be required for ash storage, plus sludges produced due to flu
gas desulfurization, if required. If natural gas were to be
used approximately 3.4 x 108 m3 (1.2 x 1010 ft3) per year
would be required with no ash disposal problems.
The use of electrodialysis and/or R/0 is predicated
on membranes that are not subject to deterioration or disinte-
gration due to contact with low concentrations of organic
compounds. The pretreatment requirement selected for each of
these methods is ultrafiltration to prevent the blinding of
the semi-permeable membranes by suspended or colloidal parti-
cles. To reduce the gross solids loading to protect the
ultrafiltration stage the suspended solids must be removed for
consistency of product stream using granular media filters.
The total residual waste stream from the ultrafiltration and
reverse osmosis stages of treatment is expected to be
approximately 25 percent of the total throughput. When
electrodialysis is used, the residual waste stream is expected
to be approximately 20 percent of the total throughput.
The capital costs of these membrane processes include
granular media filtration, ultrafiltration, the reverse osmosis
V-13
-------
or electrodialysis facilities, evaporators, fuel storage, and
solids collection. Annual operating costs include power, fuel,
labor, maintenance, chemicals, amortization and solids
disposal.
The dried solids from the reject stream to be dis-
posed of would amount to approximately 27,000 kkg (29,800 tons)
per year from electrodialysis, or 27,200 kkg (30,000 tons) per
year from reverse osmosis, and the water to be evaporated
would be 455 m3/hr (2,000 gpm) and 568 m3/hr (2500 gpm) ,
respectively.
It is estimated that the capital cost would be
$34,430,000 for electrodialysis and $39,017,000 for reverse
osmosis, with respective annual operating costs of $36,890,000
and $44,530,000.
Flow Diagrams of the three systems are shown on
Figure 5-1.
Table 5-2 summarizes a comparison of the capital and
operating costs and the energy requirements of the three
systems.
In addition, a system for total evaporation of the
entire 2,273 m3/m (10,000 gpm) waste stream is presented. It
should be pointed out here that none of the comparisons include
facilities for condensing the water evaporated for possible
reuse. Such facilities would require additional condensing
equipment and a condenser cooling water system. These facili-
ties would add significantly to the already high capital and
operating costs and add to the volume of wastes requiring
treatment due to the cooling system blowdown. The possibility
of utilizing the steam for power generation has not been
considered because of the unknown purity of the steam produced
and its possible effect on turbines.
The major portion of the operating cost associated
with all the systems is the ultimate disposal of the dried
soluble solids and, when coal is used as a fuel, the cost of
bottom ash, fly ash, and flue gas desulfurization sludge
disposal. In this analysis coal has been assumed as the heat
source.
Figure 5-2 presents, graphically, the costs of the
three systems over six years of operation. For comparison, the
costs using gas as a heat source has been shown. This
comparison vividly shows the effects of coal handling, flue gas
desulfurization and excess costs of coal ash disposal on the
costs of dissolved solids removal systems.
V-14
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. M.Y.
FILTER BACKWASH
PLANT USE
ELECTRODIALYSIS
OR
REVERSE OSMOSIS
TO DISPOSAL
MEMBRANE PROCESS
BACKWASH
FILTER t
*r\J
BACKWASH
CATION ! ANION
EXCHANGERiEXCHANGER
i ACIDIC
} j ALKALINE I
REGENERANTS
->• TO
PROCESS
REGENERANT
EQUALIZATION
DRIEDV
SOLIDS i
• EVAPORATION
COAL
ASH
TO DISPOSAL
ION EXCHANGE PROCESS
DISSOLVED SOLIDS REMOVAL PROCESSES
FIGURE 5-
V-15
-------
TABLE 5-2
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Ion Exchange
Pretreatment
Costs
($ x 106)
Treatment Evaporation Solids Disposal Total System Annual Energy
Costs Costs* Costs** Costs Requirements
($ x 106) ($ x 106) ($ x 106) ($ x 106)
Capital Annual Capital Annual Capital Annual Capital Annual Capital Annual J x 10* J x 10
____ (kWhxlO6) (BTUxlO12)
1.15 0.25 14.0 8.78 12.18 18.99
\-> Reverse Osmosis 9.95 1.83 10.1 2.63 19.12 29.87
Electrodialysis 9.95 1.83 9.0 3.08 15.48 23.53
Total Evaporation
73.29 103
17.6 27.33 45.62 12.24 7.635
(34) (7.23)
10.2 39.17
44.53 18.97 12.776
(52.7) (12.1)
3.45 34.43 36.89
40.8 73.29 143.1
11.41 10.18
(31.7) (9.64)
9.4 511.104
(26.1) (484)
* Includes cost of flue gas desulfurization.
** Assumption is that land would not be available on site and that solids would be hauled 5 miles off site.
Annual costs include amortization at 10 percent over 15 years plus operations and maintenance.
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
CUMULATIVE
COST OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS REMOVAI
300
200
100
V-17
-------
Although the capital costs of installing a membrane
process system is significantly higher than an ion exchange
system, the operating costs are lower. Operating costs of
reverse osmosis is marginally lower and those for electrodialy-
sis is significantly lower. However, the solids disposal costs
for an ion exchange system is significantly greater. Although
not included in the estimated costs, the availability and cost
of land for the solids disposal should be considered. Less than
one quarter of the area required for ion exchange dissolved
solids disposal is required for membrane process dissolved
solids disposal.
Ion exchange was eliminated from further consideration
on the bases of annual costs and off-site land requirements.
Thus only reverse osmosis and electrodialysis remain for further
consideration. At this time, reverse osmosis enjoys a
broader technological base (13, 14, 15) and has been used in
more applications than electrodialysis. Reverse osmosis
has, therefore, been selected as the possible dissolved solids
removal treatment unit operation for our analyses, in spite of
the considerably higher capital and operating costs.
5.5 COOLING
There are many places in steel plants where water is
presently used on a once-through basis for cooling, either
contact or non-contact, and then discharged. To meet the goal
of total recycle these waters would have to be reused after
cooling.
Three types of cooling systems were compared using the
following assumptions:
Flow rate: 2,273 m3/hr (10,000 gpm)
Temperature drop AT: 11.1 C° (15 F°)
Dissolved solids in makeup water: 175 mg/1
Dissolved solids in blowdown: 600 mg/1*
*Maximum to be tolerated in cooling system.
Included in the comparisons are reverse osmosis
systems for treating any blowdown to permit further recycle and
to minimize the quantities for evaporation.
The three cooling systems compared were:
1. Open cooling towers (wet)
2. Closed air cooling systems (dry)
V-18
-------
3. Wet/dry cooling systems.
Flow diagrams of these systems are shown on Figure 5-3.
The costs of construction and operation of these three
types of cooling systems were evaluated on the basis of cost of
the cooling system itself plus the cost of blowdown treatment
systems where required. These costs are illustrated graphically
on Figure 5-4. Various references (16, 17) indicate that the
capital cost of a dry cooling system is from two to four times
that of a wet cooling tower and that the operating cost of a dry
system is approximately twice that of a wet tower. However,
these analyses did not account for the cost of makeup water or
the treatment of wet and semi-wet tower blowdowns that would be
required when striving for total recycle. When these treatment
costs, including the costs of hauling the dried solids and ash
are included, it can be seen that the operating costs of wet and
semi-wet systems increase significantly and thus, after approxi-
mately 2-1/2 years, the total cost of a dry system has a cost
advantage over a wet or semi-wet system and, after approximately
6-1/2 years, the semi-wet system has a cost advantage over the
wet system.
Wet cooling towers were considered to be the
applicable cooling method to be used in the analysis due to the
fact that additional cooling systems required would have to be
retrofitted. Dry systems require more area than do wet ones andf
in most cases small areas of land are available for retrofitting,
usually between existing structures; Therefore on the basis of
universal applicability wet cooling systems were used.
Care must be taken, however, in the selection of the
system to be used at any plant. The cooling requirements to be
met by any system is dependent upon the ambient dry-bulb and/or
wet bulb temperatures. Any analysis made by a plant must
include the seasonal variation to reliably reach the required
temperatures in the cooling water system.
5.6 FINAL SOLIDS DISPOSAL
A search of the available literature reveals that the
subject of disposal of solids resulting from the ultimate
evaporation of a final residual waste stream presents a problem
that has not been studied to any degree.
The basic problem in their disposal is that these
solids are, by virtue of their source, soluble. Initially
disposal of the brine streams by cooling molten slag or incan-
descent coke was considered which would leave the solids on the
cooled slag or coke. However, it has been reported (18) that
the use of water with high dissolved solids for quenching
V-19
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N.Y.
.EVAPORATION
- MAKEUP
WET SYSTEM
AIR
DRY SYSTEM
EVAPORATION
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
REMOVAL WITH
PRETREATMENT
SEMI-WET SYSTEM
COOLING METHODS
FIGURE 5-3
V-20
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. T.
A COMPARISON OF
CUMULATIVE ANNUAL COSTS OF COOLING SYSTEMS
FIGURE 5-4
V-21
-------
results in high particulate emission rates. Conversations with
EPA, IERL at Research Triangle Park have indicated that the
cooling or quenching of hot material with water containing high
dissolved solids may not be permitted in the future due to this
particulate emission potential.
Other means were then sought for disposal of these
solids. Discharge of dried solids into molten slag was consi-
dered and eliminated due to the possibility that the soluble
solids would leach from the slag during and after precipitation.
Disposal of the solids in concentrated solutions into receiving
bodies of water was eliminated as an alternative because of
potential adverse environmental effects by creating "hot spots"
of concentrated solids.
The only apparent reliable method of disposal of the
solids is perpetual storage in waste storage ponds which would
have to be lined to prevent leaching into the ground, since the
solids would all be soluble and create a potential for ground
water contamination.
Salt (NaCl) stored on unlined ground areas for snow
removal purposes in municipalities has been reported to contam-
inate domestic well water supplies (19). Covering the dry, .
soluble solids storage areas should also be given consideration
for two reasons; first, in areas of storage where precipitation
exceeds evaporation rate provisions would have to be made to
return the excess water to the treatment facilities for re-
removal of the solids from the waste stream and second, the
dried solids would be fine particulates and be susceptible to
being blown off the surface of the stored areas by winds.
Capital costs for lined and covered storage areas would be
approximately $15 per ton stored (19) and uncovered lined
storage ponds would be approximately $10.50 per ton stored. The
lined areas would also require the installation of monitoring
wells to determine if the integrity of the linings was being
maintained (20).
5.7 POSSIBLE PLANS FOR PLANTS TO MEET BAT AND TOTAL
RECYCLE
Studies were prepared for the five plants under con-
sideration and plans were developed to achieve the objectives
of both BAT and total recycle for each. These plans are
conceptual and should not be taken as definitive. At each
plant, physical constraints may exist which will preclude the
suggested systems as presented. In addition, various mixes of
wastes were conceptualized for concurrent treatment. It is
strongly suggested that, if implementation of any of the
programs presented is planned, comprehensive bench scale tests
followed by pilot tests should be undertaken prior to detail
design of the systems. In addition, after design and
V-22
-------
construction, the operators of the facilities should be of a
competence level that will ensure proper operation of the
facilities. These operators need not necessarily be engineers,
but they would have to have some scientific training, as well as
training for operation of the specific facilities. This would
enable them to recognize not only malfunctions of the waste
water treatment systems, but also to determine the causes of
these malfunctions. They would then be able to institute
corrective measures independently of plant engineering
departments.
For each of the systems described seven basic items
were considered which contribute to the plans developed; these
are:
1. All non-contact cooling water and storm water must be
segregated from process flows to minimize the process
flows to be treated.
2. Non-contact cooling water would be permitted to be
discharged under BAT conditions. For total recycle,
except in the case of Kaiser-Fontana, two steps were
used, one allowing the non-contact cooling water to
discharge as under BAT and the other that the non-
contact water would be cooled and totally recirculated
under total recycle conditions.
3. Storm water runoff from material storage piles would
be collected and stored in lined ponds and gradually
discharged to receiving waters under BAT conditions
and to treatment facilities under total recycle
conditions.
4. Water with high levels of dissolved solids would not
be permitted for use to quench coke and slag.
5. Scrubber cars would be utilized at the pushing side of
the coke ovens.
6. The discharge of wastes to municipal treatment plants
would be discontinued necessitating their treatment at
the plant under total recycle conditions.
7. General area runoff and treated or untreated sanitary
wastes would continue to be discharged from the plant
to either receiving waters or municipal treatment
plants.
In the preparation of cost estimates, broad assump-
tions had to be made as to the costs of yard piping, both under-
ground and aboveground, since detailed knowledge of interfer-
ences that might be encountered were not available. Capital
V-23
-------
and operating costs are based on the use of purchased electrical
power and on the use of gas as the energy source for the evap-
oration of residual waste streams. Equipment costs were obtain-
ed from manufacturers, from in-house data, and personal corres-
pondence with knowledgeable persons and companies.
Following are summaries of the conceptual waste treat-
ment systems for the five plants studied. For more detailed
discussions of each of the systems and flow diagrams illustrat-
ing the systems, refer to appendices A, B, C, D and E.
5.7.1 Kaiser Steel Plant - Fontana, CA
The Kaiser Steel Plant is presently collecting and
treating all of their wastes to a degree that, with some modifi-
cations and additions, would meet the BAT requirements. However
additional facilities and practices are needed for the purposes
of minimizing air pollution. Scrubber cars could be installed
at each of the three quench towers at the coke plant to elimi-
nate pushing emissions. The scrubber cars would operate on a
recirculating system with a blowdown of approximately 54.5 m^/hr
(240 gpm) which would be treated with the balance of the coke
plant wastes.
In addition, disposal of contaminated wastes from the
coke plant by quenching of coke would also be discontinued.
Coke plant wastes would be collected and treated in a
biological treatment plant. The wastes would consist of the
wastes presently being disposed of by quenching of the incandes-
cent coke and, in addition, blowdown from the suggested pushing
scrubber system. The total waste flow would be 98 m3/hr (430
gpm) . An additional 92 m3/hr (400 gpm) of blast furnace gas
washer system blowdown would be combined with this coke plant
wastewater for concurrent treatment. The coke plant wastewater
treatment system suggested is a two-stage biological system
using rotating biological contactors followed by filters to meet
the BAT requirements and, for total recycle, a reverse osmosis
system to treat the effluent from the biological plant and
filters with evaporation of the brine concentrate. The product
water would be returned to the industrial water reservoir for
reuse in the plant.
Treatment of the wastes from the balance of the plant
would be at the existing wastewater treatment plant.
Storm water runoff from all coal and ore piles would
be collected and stored in a lined storage pond for subsequent
pumping at a controlled low rate into the wastewater collection
system. The system would include modification of the facilities
at the existing wastewater treatment plant and the addition of
some new facilities. The new facilities would consist of
V-24
-------
scalping tanks to skim non-emulsified oils from the cold rolling
mills and tinning mills wastewater in one tank and the oils from
the cleaning lines in a separate tank. The total waste flow
would be 267 m3/hr (1,175 gpm). Acid and heat, if required
would be added in a subsequent tank to demulsify the emulsified
oils. The flow would then have lime and polyelectrolyte added
in a second mixing tank. Additional flows to the second mixing
tank would be 9 m3/hr (40 gpm) of chrome wastes which have been
treated with acid and sodium metabisulf ite to reduce the hex-
avalent chrome to trivalent chrome, 11 m3/hr (50 gpm) of wastes
from the BOP shop, 7 m3/hr (30 gpm) of wastewater from the hot
strip mill decant pond, and, when necessary, 7 m3/hr (30 gpm)
from the material storage pile runoff collection pond.
The existing wastewater treatment plant float-sink
separators would be modified by the installation of flocculation
paddles and would receive the wastes from the second mixing tank.
The 308 m3/hr (1,355 gpm) of flocculated wastes would then flow
to the existing clarifier and, with the exception of 17 m3/hr
(75 gpm) which would be sent to the coke plant, then directed to
filters. The filtrate would then be treated in an ultrafiltra-
tion and reverse osmosis facility for the removal of dissolved
solids. The 218 m3/hr (960 gpm) of product water would be
recycled to the industrial water system as highest quality water.
The 73 m3/hr (320 gpm) of reject brine would be evaporated to
dryness in evaporators and the dried solids disposed of in a
lined pond.
A more detailed discussion of the facilities described
here is presented in Chapter 2 of Appendix A of this report.
The capital cost of these facilities including non-contact
cooling water are estimated to be approximately $17,717,000 and
the annual costs are estimated to be approximately $9,762,000.
5.7.2 Inland Steel Company - Indiana Harbor Works,
East Chicago, IN
Plans have been developed to permit the Inland Steel
Company to meet total recycle of water in stages by first meet-
ing BAT requirements and then progressing to total recycle.
Maximum use was made of the existing treatment systems presently
in place at the Inland Steel Plant.
It was assumed that the planned scrubber cars will be
in place at the coke ovens. Wet electrostatic precipitators are
presently planned for the hot scarfers at the No. 4 Slabbing
Mill and at the No. 2 and No. 3 Blooming Mills and were assumed
to be in place. The blowdowns from these planned recirculating
precipitator systems would be 45 m3/hr (180 gpm), which has been
included in the treatment systems described below.
V-25
-------
5.7.2.1 BAT Systems
The systems to meet BAT requirements have been
described utilizing the outfall numbers to which the flows
presently discharge.
Approximately 99 percent of the flow to Outfall 002 is
non-contact cooling water and the remaining 1 percent is the
discharge from the plant No. 3 blast furnace gas cleaning
system. The gas cleaning system wastes, after segregation from
the non-contact cooling water flow, can be treated by lime
precipitation followed by chlorination for the removal of
fluorides and nitrification of ammonia. This process would then
be followed by filtration and activated carbon absorption for
final polishing.
The 1200 m3/hr (5300 gpm) of non-contact cooling water
presently flowing to Outfalls 003 and 005 would be segregated
from the total flow and discharged separately. This would
result in only 1,860 m3/hr (8,200 gpm) of contaminated waste-
water flow to the two existing lagoons. Approximately 307 m3/hr
(1,350 gpm) would be filtered and the filtrate pumped to the
plant No. 3 blast furnace cooling system as make-up, and the
balance recycled to the mills.
The non-contact cooling waters that discharge to
Outfalls 013 and 014 would be segregated from the terminal
treatment plant, thus reducing the flow to the terminal treat-
ment plant from 31,818 m3/hr (140,000 gpm) to 25,159 m3/hr
(111,000 gpm). The flow from the treatment plant would then be
further treated in filters, cooled in cooling towers and dis-
charged to the intake of pumping station No. 6. The 5,841 m3/hr
(25,700 gpm) of non-contact cooling water from Cold Strip Mill
No. 3 would discharge to Outfalls 017 and 24N, as is the present
practice, as would the non-contact cooling water flow of 7,955
m3/hr (35,000 gpm) from the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill.
The treated wastes from the Industrial Waste Treatment
Plant would be further treated by filtration in filters, cooled
and recirculated. Chemical additions at the Industrial Waste
Treatment Plant could then be discontinued.
Storm water runoff from the ore and coal piles would
be collected and contained in lined storm water retention ponds
and pumped at a low rate to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
If quenching of coke using coke plant wastes is
eliminated, the flow to the East Chicago Sanitary District would
increase by 95 m3/hr (420 gpm). The total flow of wastes to the
East Chicago Sanitary District would then be, from all areas of
the Inland Steel Company Plant, 370 m3/hr (1,630 gpm) which
should be acceptable.
V-26
-------
Detailed descriptions of the above systems are
presented in Appendix B.
It is estimated that the capital cost of the facili-
ties described would be approximately $36,300,000 and the annual
costs would be approximately $18,823,000.
5.7.2.2 Total Recycle
In order to meet the requirements of total recycle
criteria the facilities installed under BAT must be expanded and
new facilities must be added to provide for the treatment and
elimination of waters that can no longer be treated for reuse.
The cooling tower blowdowns, presently flowing to
Outfall 001, would be pumped to the Plant No. 3 Blast Furnace
gas cleaning system cooling towers as makeup, thus eliminating
all plant water discharges from Outfall 001.
Almost 99 percent of the water discharged to Outfall
002 is non-contact cooling water. The balance is blowdown from
the Blast Furnace gas cleaning system. This blowdown of 59
mVhr (260 gpm) can be treated with the wastes from Coke Plant
No. 3. The non-contact cooling water can also be cooled and
recirculated. The blowdown would be used as makeup to the gas
cleaning system. To reduce the amount of water required for gas
cleaning the cycles of concentration within the gas cleaning
system would be increased and, therefore, reduce the amount of
blowdown.
The wastes from the Coke Plant No. 3 would no longer
be sent to the City of East Chicago under the total recycle
criteria and treatment would be necessary. Biological treatment
is proposed with the required dilution water coming from the
lime precipitation stage of the Blast Furnace gas cleaning
system BAT treatment. After biological treatment the wastes
would be filtered and demineralized in a reverse osmosis
facility. Additional wastes discharging to this reverse osmo-
sis system would be boiler blowdown from Power Station No. 3.
Approximately 83 m3/hr (364 gpm) of the R.O. unit product water
would be returned to the non-contact cooling water cooling tower
described above. The brine concentrate would be evaporated to
dryness.
Process wastes presently discharging to Outfalls 003
and 005 were eliminated under the system described for BAT. The
only changes required under total recycle would be to discharge
the filtrate from the lagoons to Pump Station No. 3 Blast
Furnace gas cooling water cooling tower, and install another
cooling tower to cool and recycle the 1205 m3/hr (5,300 gpm) of
non-contact cooling water from the 24-inch Bar Mill, Plant No. 1
Galvanizing Lines, the Plate Mill, and the Spike Mill to Pump
V-27
-------
Station No. 3. The blowdown would be to the Plant No. 3 Blast
gas cooling water cooling tower.
The total non-contact cooling water flow of 12,500
m3/hr (55,000 gpm) from Plant No. 2 Blast Furnaces presently
flowing to Outfalls 007 and Oil would be cooled in a new cooling
tower and recycled. A blowdown of 76 m3/hr (355 gpm) would be
demineralized in the reverse osmosis facility described under
Coke Plant No. 2.
The 29,091 m3/hr (128,000 gpm), presently discharged
to Outfalls 008 and Oil, would be cooled and recycled with the
blowdown directed to the reverse osmosis facility described
under Coke Plant No. 2.
The' non-contact cooling water flows from Power Station
No. 2 and Plant No. 2 Blast Furnaces would be cooled as describ-
ed under Outfalls 007 and 008. The non-contact cooling water
flow of 93 m3/hr (410 gpm) would be cooled in one of two new
Coke Plant No. 2 cooling towers. The boiler blowdown from
Power Station No. 2 would discharge directly to the reverse
osmosis facility described under Coke Plant No. 2.
The flows to Outfall 012 would be eliminated by
installing two new cooling towers. One of the cooling towers
would cool and recycle 2,841 m3/hr (12,500 gpm) of non-contact
cooling water from Coke Plant No. 2 and the second would cool
and recycle 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water
from BOF No. 2. This latter cooling tower would also cool
approximately 4,090 m3/hr (18,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling
water presently flowing to the Terminal Treatment Plant at
Outfalls 013 and 014.
The wastes from Coke Plant No. 2 presently sent to the
City of East Chicago would be treated in a biological treatment
plant. With the use of contaminated wastes from Coke Plant No.
2 for the quenching of coke discontinued, and with the installa-
tion of pushing scrubber cars, a total flow of 198 m3/hr (810
gpm) to the biological treatment plant would result. Approxi-
mately 143 m3/hr (630 gpm) of dilution water would be from the
Plant No. 2 Blast Furnace gas cleaning system. Subsequent to
biological treatment, the waste flow would be combined with the
Plant No. 2 Blast Furnace non-contact cooling tower blowdown,
Power Station No. 2 cooling tower and boiler blowdowns, to be
treated in a reverse osmosis facility. A reject flow of 136
m3/hr (600 gpm) would be evaporated to dryness and the product
water distributed for reuse and possible coke quenching.
Flows that presently discharge to Outfalls 013 and 014
from the Terminal Treatment Plant would be treated in a filtra-
tion plant and cooled prior to recirculation to Pump Station No.
6. The wastes from Cold Strip Mills 1 and 2 would be treated in
V-28
-------
a filtration-reverse osmosis system to remove approximately 75
percent of the dissolved solids present. They would then be
treated in a second stage reverse osmosis unit with a portion of
the flow from the Terminal Treatment Plant for recirculation to
Pump Stations 2 and 5.
The non-contact cooling water which was segregated
from the flow to the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant under BAT
would be cooled and recirculated and the blowdown would be dis-
charged as makeup to the contact water cooling tower. The
segregated non-contact cooling water from the 80-inch Hot Strip
Mill would be cooled and recycled to the intake of Pumping
Station No. 6. The cooling tower blowdown would be used as
makeup to the contact water system cooling tower.
The total flow from the Industrial Waste Treatment
Plant which was partially discharged via a new cooling tower
under BAT conditions would have a portion demineralized in a
reverse osmosis facility and recirculated to Pump Stations 5 and
6. Approximately 824 m3/hr (3,625 gpm) would be evaporated to
dryness and 2,474 m3/hr (10,900 gpm) of product water would be
returned.
At Outfall 015, 114 m3/hr (500 gpm) of treated sani-
tary wastes would still discharge under the definition of total
recycle, but the non-contact cooling water flow of 5,680 m3/hr
(25,000 gpm) from Open Hearth No. 3 would require cooling in a
cooling tower and 5,505 m3/hr (24,200 gpm) would be recycled.
The blowdown would then be discharged to the final treatment
system installed for Outfall 018 wastes.
Of the flows discharged to Outfall 018 under BAT con-
ditions, 18,180 m3/hr (80,000 gpm) is non-contact cooling water
which could be cooled and returned to Power Station No. 4. A
blowdown of 61 m3/hr (270 gpm), together with the boiler blow-
down of 45 m3/hr (200 gpm), the 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) from the
BOP No. 4 and the Slab Caster No. 1 system, and the 52 m3/hr
(230 gpm) from proposed Open Hearth No. 3 cooling tower, would
be treated in a reverse osmosis facility. Approximately 227
m3/hr (1,000 gpm) of product water would be returned for cooling
tower makeup and 62 m3/hr (275 gpm) returned to BOF No. 4. A
reject flow of 97 m3/hr (425 gpm) would be evaporated to dry-
ness. The fly ash sluicing system at Power Station No. 4 could
be replaced by a dry fly ash handling system.
The "Northward Expansion" slag quenching system using
alkaline chlorination system treated water from Blast Furnace
No. 7 would be discontinued and this water discharged, after
lime treatment and settling, to the biological treatment plant.
The 57 m3/hr (250 gpm) from Coke Battery 11 used to quench slag
would also discharge to the. biological treatment plant. With
these two flow additions, the biological treatment plant would
V-29
-------
be increased in size by 50 percent and would require two new.
ciarifiers. The discharge from the four clarifiers would then
be filtered and treated further in a two-stage reverse osmosis
facility. A reject stream of 71 m3/hr (315 gpm) would be
evaporated to dryness and 215 m3/hr (945 gpm) would be returned
to Coke Battery 11.
All the rainfall runoff from the material storage
piles, as described under BAT requirements, would be pumped
to the nearest pumping station intake instead of being
discharged.
Detailed descriptions of the above systems are
included in Appendix B.
The cost of the proposed systems were estimated for
total recycle without including non-contact cooling water and
total recycle including non-contact cooling water and are
presented on Table 5-3.
5.7.3 National Steel Corporation - Weirton Steel Division,
Weirton, WV
5.7.3.1 BAT Systems
The systems for the Weirton Steel Division are
described by the outfall designations to which the wastes are
presently discharged. The blast furnace recirculation system
should be reevaluated to determine if the blowdown can be
reduced from 175 m^/hr (770 gpm) to approximately 57 m^/hr
(250 gpm). If this modification is possible, then a fluoride
precipitation system would be installed and the blast furnace
wastes sent to the Browns Island Biological treatment plant for
use as dilution water. If it is not feasible to reduce the
blowdown quantity, then treatment by fluoride precipitation,
alkaline chlorination, settling, pH adjustment, filtration, and
carbon adsorption would be required prior to discharge to
Outfall "A". Non-contact cooling water would by-pass the
treatment system and discharge directly to Outfall "A".
The 836 m3/hr (3,680 gpm) flow from the power house
and boiler house thickener and decant tank would be treated by
additional, settling or filtration using polyelectrolytes. The
Blooming Mill and scarfer should have water recirculation
systems installed. Treatment facilities required to permit
recirculation would be additional settling possibly utilizing
polyelectrolytes, a filtration system, and a cooling tower.
Periodic blowdown, after filtration, would be necessary to
control dissolved solids.
The wastes from the Tin Mill cleaning lines should be
diverted from Outfall "A" to Outfall "B". A terminal treatment
V-30
-------
TABLE 5-3
Summary of Costs for BAT and Total Recycle
Inland Steel Company - Indiana Harbor Works
Capital Cost Total Annual Cost
BAT $ 36,300,000 $ 18,823,000
Total Recycle
w/o non-contact
cooling water 96,924,000 106,051,000
Total Recycle
w/ non-contact
cooling water 162,079,000 139,875,000
V-31
-------
plant should be constructed at Outfall "B". Wastes from the
various production facilities would be segregated and the
chrome wastes treated separately for chrome recovery in an ion
exchange facility. The excess regenerants would then be used
as chemical reagents at the terminal treatment plant. Heavy
metals would be precipitated, dewatered and hauled away.
A portion of the Hot Strip Mill scale pit water
should be recirculated for flume flushing and the balance
settled, in an additional settling facility, filtered, cooled
and returned to the mill for reuse. A blowdown of approximate-
ly 840 m3/hr (3,700 gpm) would be discharged to control
dissolved solids.
An additional terminal waste treatment plant is
proposed at C & E sewers. This plant would receive the rinse
and fume scrubbing water from the continuous picklers, the
carbide and diesel shop wastes, wastes from the acid
regeneration plant and the "PORI" oil recovery plant, wastes
from the sheet mill galvanizers and cleaning lines, and the
detinning plant wastes. In order to be in compliance with the
present BAT zero discharge requirements for plating wastes and
detinning plant wastes, a portion of the treatment plant flow
would be further treated in a reverse osmosis facility. The
treatment of the wastes at the C & E treatment plant would
consist of chemical treatment utilizing portions of the waste
discharges as chemical reagents, then clarification, filtration
and discharge. System blowdown should be from the continuous
caster deep bed filter discharge rather than from the flat bed
filter discharge.
More detailed descriptions of the above facilities
are in Appendix G.
It is estimated that a capital investment of
$24,051,000 would be required and annual costs of approximately
$10,298,000 would be incurred.
5.7.3.2 Total Recycle
To meet a total recycle requirement, Weirton Steel
Division would require facilities in addition to those
described under BAT.
Cooling towers to cool and recirculate all of the
non-contact cooling water would be required at the Mainland
Coke Plant. A blowdown of 270 m^/hr (1,190 gpm) would be
discharged to the Blast Furnace gas cleaning system. Two other
additional cooling towers are proposed, one for the Blast
Furnace non-contact cooling water system and one for the
Power House, which would discharge blowdowns of 334 m^/hr
(1470 gpm) and 140 m3/hr (620 gpm), respectively, to the Blast
V-32
-------
Furnace gas cleaning system. Additional makeup water to the
Blast Furnace gas cleaning system would be from the Boiler
House treatment plant installed under BAT. With the excess
makeup provided, the quantity of the blowdown from the Blast
Furnace treatment facilities would be increased. Approximately
155 m3/hr (680 gpm) would be discharged to the Browns Island
Biological Treatment Plant for use as dilution water and the
balance treated in a filtration-activated carbon-reverse osmo-
sis system. Approximately 438 m3/hr (1,930 gpm) would be
returned to -the plant supply water system and 145 m3/hr
(640 gpm) would be evaporated to dryness. The discharge from
the Browns Island Biological Treatment Plant would also require
filtration and demineralization prior to return to the plant
water system. At the Brown Island Coke Plant a cooling tower
to cool the non-contact cooling water is proposed with the
blowdown treated in the reverse osmosis facility.
Non-contact cooling waters from the Blooming Mill and
Scarfer would be cooled and returned to the mills. A blowdown
of 102 m3/hr (450 gpm) would be used as makeup at the Blooming
Mill and Scarfer contact water treatment plant proposed under
BAT. The Treatment Plant cooling tower blowdown would be
discharged to the "C" sewer system.
The treated wastes from the "C" Terminal Treatment
Plant, proposed under BAT conditions, would have a high
concentration of dissolved solids and require demineralization
prior to reuse. Approximately 2,114 m3/hr (9,300 gpm) would
be returned to the Plant water system after demineralization
and 765 m3/hr (3,100 gpm) of reject water would be evaporated
to dryness. Non-contact cooling water from the Temper Mill
would be cooled and recirculated back to the Mill. The blow-
down would be used as a portion of the makeup at the Tin Mill
Cleaning Lines.
Non-contact cooling water from the Tandem Mills
should be cooled and recirculated. The blowdown would be used
as a portion of the makeup to the Hot Strip Mill contact water
system. The non-contact water from the Hot Strip Mill present-
ly discharged should be cooled and recirculated with the
blowdown used as a portion of the makeup at the contact water
system. The 1,786 m3/hr (7,860 gpm) of blowdown from the
contact water system would join with the 83 m3/hr (365 gpm)
from the Blooming Mill and Scarfer blowdown and the 131 mj/hr
(575 gpm) blowdown from the BOP and Vacuum Degassing and
Continuous Caster and be demineralized in a reverse osmosis
facility located near the C & E Chemical Treatment Plant
installed for BAT compliance. The discharges from the C & E
Chemical Treatment Plant would also be demineralized in an
expanded reverse osmosis facility.
V-33
-------
Approximately 1,834 m3/hr (8,070 gpm) would be
returned to the plant water system from the reverse osmosis
system and 611 mVhr (2,690 gpm) would be evaporated to
dryness.
Rainfall runoff from material storage areas would be
collected in the lagoon presently used for "A" outfall wastes
and the collected water pumped at a low rate to the Plant
Water Intake.
More detailed descriptions of the systems described
above are included in Chapter 2 of Appendix C.
The cost of the proposed systems were estimated for
BAT, total recycle without including non-contact cooling water
and total recycle including non-contact cooling water and
are presented on Table 5-4.
5.7.4 United States Steel Corporation - Fairfield Works
5.7.4.1 BAT Systems
Since Fairfield Works has only one major outfall, the
treatment of the wastes produced are discussed by area source.
The flows from the finishing facilities would be
segregated. The 264 m^/hr (1,160 gpm) of wastes from Galvaniz-
ing Line No. 4, Tinning Lines 1, 3 and 4 and from Wire Gal-
vanizing would flow directly to the Tin Mill Treatment Plant
Lagoons. The other flows presently flowing to the Tin Mill
Treatment Plant would continue to flow to the Tin Mill Ditch
where acid would be added, and the wastes would then be pumped
directly to two of the three existing clarifiers for settling
and oil skimming, by-passing the existing chemical treatment.
The flows to the lagoons would continue to be treated in the
treatment plant. However, after clarification in the one
remaining clarifier, the treated wastes would be filtered and
demineralized in a reverse osmosis facility with the product
water returned to the Tin Mills and the brine reject stream
evaporated to dryness.
The Q-BOP's 123 m3/hr (540 gpm) discharge would be
diverted from the Final Effluent Control Pond and used at the
blast furnaces as makeup. Blowdown from blast furnaces 5, 6
and 7 would be limited to 136 m3/hr (600 gpm) and treated with
lime to precipitate the fluorides. The treated flow would then
be pumped to the Coke Plant biological treatment plant for
phenol, cyanide and ammonia removal. The blowdown from blast
furnace 8 would not be used to quench slag but would be dis-
charged to the Final Effluent Control Pond.
V-34
-------
TABLE 5-4
Summary of Costs for BAT and Total Recycle
National Steel Corporation - Weirtpn Steel Division
Capital Cost Total Annual Cost
BAT $ 24,051,000 $ 10,298,000
Total Recycle
w/o non-contact
cooling water 96,582,000 115,297,000
Total Recycle
w/ non-contact
cooling water 129,814,000 129,933,000
V-35
-------
The prime industrial water presently used as dilu-
tion water at the Coke Plant should be replaced by treated
blast furnace gas washer water blowdown and coke pushing scrub-
ber car blowdown after the "CY-AM" stills. The Biological
Treatment plant should be expanded and modified to provide
two stage biological treatment. Two additional clar.if iers
should be added, two serving each stage. After final settling,
filtration of 477 m3/hr (2,100 gpm) is proposed to assure
suspended solids compliance with BAT requirements. Prime
industrial water would be replaced by 80 m3/hr (350 gpm) from
the final settling basin for coal dust control.
Runoff from the ore and coal storage piles would be
collected and stored in existing Settling Pond No. 4 near the
sheet mills. The Sinter Plant, although remote from the main
body of the plant requires a separate treatment facility.
All process wastes from the sinter plant should be collected
in Pond No. 1 and treated by aeration and lime precipitation,
with final pH adjustment, prior to discharge to Pond No. 2,
together with the treated sanitary wastes and storm water
runoff for final settling and discharge to Outfall 029.
More detailed descriptions of the above systems are
in Appendix D.
It is estimated that the capital cost of the systems
proposed would be approximately $7,760,000 and the annual costs
would be approximately $5,559,000.
5.7.4.2 Total Recycle
To effect total recycle of water it would be
necessary to segregate all process waste and cooling water
flows from all storm water, after which the proposals put forth
below can be implemented.
The 170 m3/hr (750 gpm) discharged to the Blast
Furnace 5,6 and 7 spray pond from the Q-BOP would be returned
for use at the Q-BOP and additional make-up requirements drawn
from the prime industrial water line.
The dissolved solids level in the Blast Furnace gas
cleaning system would be increased so that the blowdown from
Blast Furnaces 5, 6 and 7 is 43 m3/hr (190 gpm) and the blow-
down from Blast Furnace 8 is 25 m3/hr (110 gpm). These
blowdowns would then discharge to the Coke Plant Wastewater
Treatment Plant to replace the prime industrial water that is
presently used for dilution. No additions would be required at
the Coke Plant but the filtration of the final settling basin
effluent would no longer be required.
V-36
-------
Since all flows, other than those from the Sinter
Plant, ultimately flow through the Final Effluent Control Pond,
one terminal treatment plant would be required to treat the
water discharged to a quality sufficient for reuse at the
plant. The wastes from the Final Effluent Control Pond would
be filtered and demineralized in a two-stage reverse osmosis
facility with intermediate lime softening. Approximately
1,877 m-Vhr (8,250 gpm) would be returned to the prime
industrial water system and approximately 625 m3/hr (2,750 gpm)
would be evaporated to dryness.
A filtration and reverse osmosis facility would be
installed at the Sinter Plant to treat approximately 18 m3/hr
(80 gpm) of the wastes from the pond described under BAT and
the product stream combined with the raw settled wastes and
returned to the Sinter Plant for reuse. Approximately 4.5
m3/hr (20 gpm) would be evaporated to dryness.
Detailed descriptions of the systems are in
Appendix D.
The cost of the proposed systems were estimated for
BAT, total recycle without including non-contact cooling water
and total recycle including non-contact cooling water are
presented on Table 5-5.
5.7.5 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company - Indiana Harbor ,
Works
5.7.5.1 BAT Systems
To meet the requirements of BAT at the Indiana
Harbor Works various additional treatment and recycle facili-
ties will be needed. A treatment facility consisting of a
gravity filtration plant is presently under construction at the
outfall that discharges the largest quantity of water
(Outfall Oil) .
Proposals are presented below to modify the flow to
Outfall Oil and recirculate a portion of the treated wastes
from the new filter plant and reduce the volume discharged.
The total flow to the filtration plant should be segregated to
eliminate the unnecessary filtration of non-contact cooling
water which would reduce the flow of contact water to be
filtered to 6300 m3/hr (27,000 gpm). The remaining 10,300
m3/hr (45,500 gpm) of non-contact water would be discharged
to nearby Pump Station No. 1. This volume would eliminate the
intake of water from Lake Michigan to the plant to that
pumping station. The excess capacity of this new filter plant
would then be redundant.
V-37
-------
The discharges from the Central Treatment Plant
would be treated in a reverse osmosis and evaporation facility
to eliminate all contact water discharges from the Flat Roll
Mills and the product water would be recirculated back to the
mills. Therefore, Outfall 001 would no longer discharge waste
water other than non-contact cooling water and storm water
runoff.
Outfall 010 discharges consist of non-contact
cooling water and filtered wastes from the Continuous Butt Weld
Pipe Mill. The filtrate would be returned to the pipe mill for
reuse. System blowdown would consist of the filter backwash
water discharges to the main scale pit near Outfall Oil. The
balance of the non-contact cooling water flow would be
discharged.
The blast furnace recirculation system disposes of
blowdown by quenching slag. However, due to air pollution
requirements this would no longer be permitted. The gas
cleaning system would operate at higher dissolved solids
concentrations and the blowdown would be reduced to 108 m^/hr
(475 gpm) which would be treated by alkaline-chlorination
followed by settling, filtration and activated carbon treatment
prior to discharge. Additional wastes flowing to the blast
furnace gas cleaning system would be from a high energy
scrubber installed at the Sinter Plant.
The Coke Plant would require additional water for the
control of pushing emissions. A new scrubber car system is
assumed, with a discharge of 45 m^/hr (200 gpm) which would be
sent to the City of East Chicago Sanitary Treatment Plant.
More detailed descriptions of the proposed systems
are in Appendix E.
It is estimated that the capital costs of the systems
proposed would be approximately $19,580,000 with annual costs
of approximately $23,648,000.
5.7.5.2 Total Recycle
To meet total recycle, the plant would require
additional facilities for either recirculation of flows
presently discharged or for the elimination of these waste
waters.
Four additional cooling towers would be required to
cool and recirculate non-contact cooling water from Open Hearth
No. 2 and the EOF, the Power House and the Boiler House, the
Flat Roll Mills and the four Blast Furnaces. The discharge
from the Continuous Butt Weld Mill filters would be used as
makeup to the Boiler-Power House and Blast Furnace cooling towers.
V-38
-------
TABLE 5-5
Summary of Costs for BAT and Total Recycle
United States Steel Corporation - Fairfield Works
Capital Cost Total Annual Cost
BAT $ 7,760,000 $ 5,559,000
Total Recycle
w/o non-contact
cooling water
Total Recycle
w/ non-contact
cooling water 59,192,000 69,344,000
V-39
-------
When cooling towers are installed the wastes treated
at the Outfall Oil filters would be reduced to 5,250 m-Vhr
(23,100 gpm) from the mills.
To eliminate the flows discharged to the City of East
Chicago, a biological treatment plant would be installed at the
Coke Plant and the discharges from the biological plant would
be to the Outfall Oil filters. Wastes flowing to the biologi-
cal treatment plant would consist of the Coke Plant wastes and
the Blast Furnace gas cleaning wastes. The treatment facili-
ties installed for BAT for the Blast Furnace gas cleaning
wastes would retain the lime precipitation and settling stages
but all other stages would not be utilized.
The filtered wastes from the Outfall Oil filters
would be treated in a reverse osmosis facility with approxi-
mately 236 m3/hr (1,040 gpm) being evaporated to dryness and
the product water discharged to Pump Station No. 1.
Since varying qualities of water are actually
required at various mills, Pump Station No. 1 would be divided
into two sections; one section to pump higher quality lake
water to areas where high quality water is needed, such as at
the Flat Roll Mills, for cooling tower makeup and as boiler
feed water.
The rinse tanks at the pickling lines would be
modified to utilize a counter-current cascade rinse system to
reduce the volume of waste requiring treatment. An acid
regeneration plant would be constructed to recover the 36 m3/hr
(161 gpm) of acid presently disposed of in the shallow well.
Detailed descriptions of the proposed systems are in
Appendix E.
The cost of the proposed systems were estimated for
BAT, total recycle without including non-contact cooling water
and total recycle including non-contact cooling water and are
presented on Table 5-6.
V-40
-------
TABLE 5-6
Summary of Costs for BAT and Total Recycle
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company - Indiana Harbor Works
Capital Cost Total Annual Cost
BAT $ 19,580,000 $ 23,648,000
Total Recycle
w/o non-contact
cooling water 46,300,000 35,524,000
Total Recycle
w/non-contact
cooling water 74,350,000 64,571,000
V-41
-------
REFERENCES (SECTION V)
1. Kostenbader, P.O., and Flecksteiner, J.W., Biological
Oxidation of Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor. Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, 41(2): 199-209,
1969.
2. Wong-Chong, G.M., et al., Treatment and Control Technology
for Coke Plant Wastewaters. 84th National Meeting AICHE,
February 1978.
3. Luthy, R.G., and Jones, L.D., Biological Treatment of Coke
Plant Wastewater. Submitted to the Environmental
Engineering Division, ASCE, December 1978.
4. Doudoroff, P., Some Experiments on the Toxicity of Complex
Cyanides to Fish. Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 28(8),
1020-1040.
5. Schroeder, J.W., and Naso, A.C., U.S. Patent 3,920,419,
November 1975, Assigned to Republic Steel Corporation.
-6. Wunderlich, G. , et al. , U.S. Patent 3,822,337, July 1974.
~7. EPA Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control, October
1975.
•8. Bridle, T.R., et al., Operation of a Full Scale Nitrifica-
tion and Denitrification Industrial Waste Treatment Plant.
Proceedings of Tenth Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste
Conference, June 1978.
9. Hydrotechnic in-house memoranda.
10. Discussions with British Steel Corporation (H.J. Kohlmann).
11. Morlin, O.J., Membrane Processes for Water Treatment,
Power Engineering, July 1977.
12. Gregor, H.P., and Gregor, C.D., Synthetic Membrane
Technology, Scientific American, July 1978.
13. Hauck, A.R., and Saurirajan, S., Reverse Osmosis Treatment
of Diluted Nickel Plating Solutions, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 44(7) 1372-1383.
V-42
-------
14. Wiley, A.J., et al., Concentration of Dilute Pulping
Wastes by Reverse Osmosis and Ultra Filtration, Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42(8) Part 2
R279-R289.
15. Williams, R.H., and Richardson, J.L., Complete Water Reuse
with Membranes - Reverse Osmosis for Dissolved Solids
Concentration. Proceedings Second National Conference on
Complete Water Reuse, 1975.
16. A Power Plant Even Environmentalists Like, Business Week,
July 3, 1978.
17. Larinoff, M.W., Performance and Capital Costs of Wet/Dry
Cooling Towers in Power Plant Service, Combustion,
May 1978.
18. Sommerer, D., Laube, A.H., Organic Material from a Coke
Quench Tower, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference
on Energy and Environment, 1977.
19. The American City and County, November 1978.
20. Kim, K.B., Hofstein, H., and Brogard, J.N., Handling and
Disposal of Solid Wastes from Steam Power Plants.
Proceedings Second National Conference on Complete WateRe-
use, 1975.
21. Kohlmann, H.J. and MacKay, T., Cooperation for Conserva-
tion Yields Success in Hot Strip Mill Water Systems
Design. Iron and Steel Engineer, 56(3): 35-40, 1979.
22. Danzberger, A.H. and Kohlmann, H.J., Modality of Water
Reuse by Industry. Proceedings of the Third National
Conference on Complete Water Reuse, AICHE and EPA
Technical Transfer, 1976.
V-43
-------
SECTION 6.0 ~ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Five large integrated American steel plants were
studied to determine the requirements for reaching total recycle
of water. As an interim step, the facilities required to achieve
the present requirements of the U.S. E.P.A.'s Best Available
Technology (BAT) were also studied. The term "total recycle" is
defined as the elimination of all water discharges from a steel
plant to receiving bodies of water either directly or through
municipal sewerage systems. Water consumed in the preparation
of the product, water evaporated, and water lost to the ground
are considered non-recyclible.
One of the first basic conclusions reached was that
there is a lack of typicality between steel plants. No simpli-
fied solutions can be developed that would be applicable through-
out the entire industry. Certain systems are similar but vari-
ations exist due to configuration, space limitations or, con-
versely, spread out site, locality, plant age, and other factors
too numerous to list. It is safe to conclude that there are no
typical steel plants. The atypical nature of the plants studied,
and other differences throughout the entire industry, makes it
difficult to assign standard numbers to water flows, costs, and
various other factors that would prove extremely convenient for
determining restrictions on contaminant levels and the cost of
complying with these restrictions.
The total capacity of the five plants studied was ap-
proximately 19.3 kkg (21.2 million tons) per year which repre-
sents 13.5 percent of the total present integrated steel plant
capacity in the United States. (Approximate current integrated
steel plant capacity is 142.7 x 106 kkg (157 million tons) per
year.) Based on this rather small sampling, the diversified
nature of the integrated steel plants is probably more pointed
since additional plant studies would provide further dissimilar-
ities .
The BAT compliance step study presented the most dif-
ferences in the facilities needed as well as their construction
and operating costs. This was due to the great variety in the
in-place wastewater treatment and recycle systems presently in-
stalled. These differences are mainly due to the age of the
plants studied, the availability of water for use in the plants
and, in some cases, the States in which the plants are located.
VI-1
-------
Plant age is an important consideration since the
newer plants, due to the technology not previously available and
to recent concerns for protecting the environment, installed
facilities to treat their wastewater to a degree which usually
meets the BPT requirements and, in some cases, even the BAT limi-
tations. Plant locality also has a great effect since plants
located near abundant supplies of water were more apt to exclude
facilities for wastewater treatment and reuse. On the other
hand, some plants were constructed in water scarce areas making
it mandatory to conserve as much water as possible which has the
effect of considerably reducing the amount of untreated waste-
water that is discharged.
The State in which a plant is located also has an
effect since, prior to the formation of the U.S. E.P.A., the
States were the sole governing bodies which determined the ex-
tent to which a particular plant had to reduce its discharge of
contaminants. In some States the restrictions were stricter,
thus resulting in steel plants with more treatment facilities
than those required in other States.
This "Summary and Conclusion" chapter sets forth the
findings of approximately two years of intensive study and
presents the findings only to a degree of accuracy which was
permitted by the data received and conditions observed. Although
certain minor water systems may have been omitted, all under-
ground interferences most probably have not have been identified,
and new emerging technologies may have been overlooked, the
study should still serve as a guide to the scope and ramifica-
tions of the goal of attaining total recycle of water in an in-
tegrated steel plant.
6.1 IN-PLANT EFFECTS
As will be seen, the goals of BAT and total recycle
would result in large expenditures for the construction of water
treatment and reuse systems. These large construction projects,
if implemented, will most probably have a disrupting effect on
the operations of the steel plants during construction and, in
some of the more crowded plants, even after the construction is
completed. The level of education and competence of operators
and supervisory personnel will have to be increased considerably
even though there exist today many skilled personnel associated
with water facilities in steel plants. Difficulties may be en-
countered in obtaining these personnel due to agreements between
the industry and unions and government agencies.
The transportation of chemicals, sludges, oils, etc...r
within the plants would increase with inherent increased traffic
problems. Safety requirements would require broadening to en-
compass the use of different chemicals and the use of new types
of water treatment process equipment. Monitoring of water
VI-2
-------
systems would be expanded so that water qualities of the tightly
"bottled-up" systems are not upset causing outages of production
facilities. This monitoring would require increased staffs to
handle the samples, perform the analyses, analyze the results,
and make reports with recommendations for rapid corrective ac-
tion. Contingency plans would have to be developed if a water
system had to be "dumped".
The management of sophisticated water systems in well
diversified integrated steel plants would in itself be an ex-
tremely complex problem.
6.2 EXTRA-PLANT EFFECTS
Whenever extensive and ambitious projects are under-
taken in an industrial plant or in an industry as a whole,
effects of these projects are felt not only within the plant or
industry itself but also external to the plant. Certain of
these effects produce beneficial results and others produce re-
sults which are detrimental. Following is a discussion of the
results that may be expected to affect off-site considerations.
6.2.1 Power Generation
It has been assumed that the electric power required
to operate the facilities for attaining BAT and total recycle
would be generated off-site. The electric power and thermal re-
quirements for the five plants are presented in Table 6-1. It
should be noted that these requirements are additive. An aver-
age of the KW hours required for BAT and total recycle for the
four most "typical" plants is 57.5 x 106 j per kkg (14.5 kWh per
ton) and 262 j per kkg (66 kWh per ton), respectively. If this
average is applied to the total U.S. steel industry, a total of
260 MWe and 1,183 MWe of new generating capacity will be re-
quired for BAT and total recycle, respectively. The present
forecasts for increased power generation are estimated to be an
average of 22,500 MWe per year over the next ten years and this,
if it is assumed that BAT and total recycle are implemented
within the next ten years, represents an increase in generation
needs of 0.5 percent over these predictions for the steel indus-
try alone and would account for 0.8 percent of the total indus-
trial use of electricity by the year 1987 (1).
These new offsite generating facilities will in all
probability be either nuclear or coal-fired with the additional
impact of desulfurization, ash handling, air pollution control,
and nuclear waste disposal, all of which must be considered.
VI-3
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Electrical Energy
Plant
Kaiser-
Fontana
Inland
Steel
National
Steel -
Weirton
United
States
Steel -
Fairfield
Youngs town
Sheet & Tube
Indiana
Total (less
Kaiser)
Phase
Total Recycle
BAT
Add for Total
Recycle
Total Recycle*
BAT
Add for Total
Recycle
Total Recycle*
BAT
Add for Total
Recycle
Total Recycle*
BAT
Add for Total
Recycle
Total Recycle*
BAT
Add for Total
Recycle 1,
Total Recycle*!,
kWh/yr
x 10*
32.0
110.5
611.4
721.9
98.1
462.9
561.0
18.1
238.3
256.4
84.9
194.4
279.3
311.6
507.0
818.6
Joules/yr
x 1012
115.4
397.8
2,201.0
2,598.8
353.2
1,666.4
2,019.6
65.1
857.9
923.00
305.6
699.8
1,005.4
1,121.7
5,425.1
6,546.8
TO MEET BAT
AND TOTAL RECYCLE
Thermal Energy
BTU/yr
x 101
3.027
47.93
47.93
—
53.98
53.98
2.018
30.270
32.288
10.85
14.63
25.48
12.868
146.81
159.678
Joules/yr
x 1015
3.2
_
i
50.55
50.55
—
56.93
56.93
2.13
31.9
34.03
11.44
15.43
26.87
13.57
154.85
168.42
ft3 gas/yr
x 10
@1000BTU/ft3
3.027
_
47.93
47.93
_
53.98
53.98
2.018
30.270
32.288
10.85
14.63
25.48
12.868
146.81
159.678
Equivalent to
n> gas/yr
x 10°
85.72
_
1,357
1,357
_
1,528.7
1,528.7
57.15
857.24
914.39
307. 3
414.3
721.6
364.42
4,157.6
4,504.02
ton of coal/
year
@13000BTU/«
116,100
—
1,944,000
1,944,000
_
2,076,000
2,076,000
77,600
1,164,200
1,242,000
417,300
562,700
980,000
494,900
5,647,000
6,141,900
kkg of coal/
year
x 106
105,600
_
1,764,000
1,764,000
_
1,884,000
1,884,000
70,400
1,056,500
1,127,000
378,700
510,600
889,300
449.100
5,124,300
5,573.400
* NOTE: Energy and fuel requirements include non-contact cooling water and BAT
-------
6.2.2 Water Loss
The majority of the present steel industry water sys-
tems either are once-through or utilize minimal recycle. This
results in a minimal loss of water to evaporation. However,
increasing the amount of recycle will require cooling which will
increase the amount of water lost to evaporation. This loss is
necessitated by the evaporative cooling effects required to
lower the temperature of the water recycled and, in the case of
certain systems for BAT and for total recycle, to dispose of the
waste streams from dissolved solids removal systems. The esti-
mated quantities of water for the five plants studied for make-
up, blowdown and consumption for existing conditions, BAT re-
quirements and possible total recycle are presented in Table 6-2.
This table indicates the wide variations in makeup, blowdown
and consumption for existing conditions with lesser degrees of
variation for BAT and total recycle.
The m3/kkg (gal/ton) figures for water consumption for
the five plants have been averaged and are presented in Table
6-3. Since the present water systems at Kaiser-Fontana and
USSC-Fairfield are considered atypical, their rates per unit of
production have been eliminated from the averages for the exist-
ing and BAT stages. The average increase in water consumption
between existing conditions and BAT is approximately 10 percent
while the increase from existing conditions to total recycle is
approximately 100 percent. If this is applied to the total U.S.
integrated steel production of 142.7 x 106 kkg (157 million tons)
the increase in water consumption between existing conditions
and BAT will be 38.5 x 10^ m3/yr (10,170 x 106 gal/year). The
increase from existing conditions to total recycle will be 364 x
106 m3/yr (196,500 x 1Q6 gal/year).
This additional water will be lost to users in the
immediate area of the steel plants, and recovery of the water
and at what locale cannot be predicted.
6.2.3 Meteorological Effects
In Section 6.2.2, the water consumption was predicated
on advancing from existing conditions to BAT, thence to total
recycle. Huge amounts of additional water will be consumed
under the requirements of total recycle. The loss to the atmo-
sphere of the additional amount of water may have detrimental
effects on the meteorology of the areas in question and those
areas nearby. However, these effects have not been studied in
this report. Prior to implementation of total recycle, a
thorough study should be made of this aspect.
VI-5
-------
TABLE 6-2
H
I
WATliU IttlOUlUliMIiNTS OK
FWK PLANT.'; :
ri'uumn
Water Use
Plant
Kaiser
Steel Corp.-
Fontana
Works
Inland
Steel
Corp. -
Indiana
Harbor
Works
National
Steel
Corp. -
Weir ton
Steel
Division
United
States
Steel
Corp. -
Fairfield
Works
Youngs town
Sheet &
Tube -
Indiana
Harbor
Works
Level of
Compliance
Existing (BAT)
Total Recycle
Existing
BAT
Total Recycle
Existing
BAT
Total Recycle
Existing
BAT
Total Recycle
Existing
BAT
Total Recycle
m /kkg
(gal/ton)
4.08
(1,075) *
3.2
(839)
124
(32,660)
87
(23,039)
9
(2,487)
66
(17,550)
51
(13,380)
16
(4,215)
18.2
(4,370)
15
(3,925)
12.2
(2,930)
51
(13,460)
36
(9,635)
7
(1,680)
Makeup
m3/yrxl06
(gal/yrxlOb)
14.7
(3,870) *
11.4
(3,018)
1,345
(355,250)
949
(250,600)
102
(27,056)
287
(75,675)
219
(57,700)
69
(18,176)
40
(10,650)
36
(9,553)
27
(7,130)
337
(88,900)
241
(63,655)
42
(11,100)
Slowdown
m3/kkg
(gal/ton)
1.0
(248)
0
119
(31,400)
81
(21,423)
0
65
(17,145)
48
(12,560)
0
12.1
(2,820)
10.5
(2,515)
0
45
(11,980)
29
(7,638)
0
Hi3/yrxl06
(gal/yrx!0b)
3.4
(892)
0
1,294
(341,530)
883
(233,023)
0
280
(73,930)
205
(54,155)
0
26
(6,860)
23
(6,120)
0
300
(79,135)
191
(50,458)
0
Consumption
m3/kkg
(gal/ton)
3.0
(827)
3.2
(839)
5
(1,260)
6
(1,616)
9
(2,487)
1
(405)
3
(820)
16
(4,215)
6.1
(1,550)
4.5
(1,410)
12.2
(2,930)
6
(1,480)
7
(1,997)
7
(1,680)
m3/yrxl06
(gal/yrx!0b)
11.3
(2,979)
11.4
(3,018)
51
(13,720)
66
(17,577)
102
(27,056)
7
(1,745)
14
(3,545)
69
(18,176)
14
(3,790)
13
(3,433)
27
(7,130)
37
(9,765)
50
(13,197)
42
(11,100)
Maximum theoretical use which has never been attained
-------
TABLE 6-3
WATER REQUIRED M3/KKG (GAL/TON) - AVERAGESOF FIVE PLANTS STUDIED
Water Use
Level of Makeup
Compliance m3/kkg (gal/ton)
Existing* 80
(21,223)
' BAT 58
(15,351)
Total Recycle 11
(2,794)
Blowdown
mr/kkg (gal/ton)
76
(20,175)
53
(13,873)
0
Consumption
m3/kkg (gal/ton)
4
(1,048)
5
(1,478)
11
(2,794)
* Do not include Kaiser-Fontana and USSC-Fairfield since the present level
of water recycle approaches or betters the BAT requirements.
-------
6.2.4 Energy Consumption
Aside from the high construction costs of the systems
suggested, it is also quite apparent that the goal of total re-
cycle is highly energy intensive. Huge amounts of energy will
be expended to comply with this goal either by using fuel within
the plants or at power generating stations at off-site locations.
We have assumed the primary fuel would be natural gas due to its
relatively clean burning nature. However, recent Government
regulations have mandated the use of coal in new facilities so,
in addition, the costs of using coal have been estimated.
An estimate of 145 m3/kkg (4,630 ft3/ton) of natural
gas would be required for total recycle with a cost per kkg of
steel produced of $7.66 ($6.95/ton). If coal were used, approx-
imately 0.18 kkg (0.18 ton) of coal would be required throughout
the U.S. per kkg (ton) of steel produced at cost of $12.90/kkg
or $11.91/ton. The increase in the cost of coal over gas is due
to extra handling (stocking, stoking, ash) and pollution control
facilities.
If these fuel requirements are expanded to the entire
integrated steel industry, 20.69 x 109 m3 (726.9 x 109 ft3) of
natural gas or 25.7 x 10° tons) of coal will be required per
year for total recycle.
6.3 SUMMARY OF COSTS
Cost estimates were prepared for the proposed systems
to accomplish total recycle with the interim step of reaching
the BAT requirements. Both capital and annual costs were esti-
mated using 1978 prices. Since only general designs were pre-
pared, certain site specific considerations, such as the need
for piling, obstructions, railroad crossing, etc., may not have
been taken into consideration. However, contingency factors
were added in an attempt to compensate for unknown and unfore-
seen items which would cause cost increases.
Table 6-4 presents the estimated costs for both BAT
and total recycle. As stated above, natural gas was assumed as
the fuel, and capital and annual costs are given for gas. In
addition, costs per kkg (ton) of steel produced to achieve both
BAT and total recycle are presented based on the use of coal as
a fuel.
It would be expected that the costs to achieve both
BAT and total recycle for each plant on the basis of cost per
unit of production of steel would be approximately the same.
However, noticeable differences are evident. Following is a
discussion on the possible reasons for these cost variations.
VI-8
-------
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF PLANT COSTS TO MEET BAT AND TOTAL RECYCLE
Plant
Phase
Capital
Costs $
Annual
Costs $
Plant Capacity Addl Annual
kkg/yr (ton/yr) Cost$/kkg(ton)
Kaiser-
Fontana
BAT
Total Recycle
w/o NCCW
Total Recycle
w/ NCCW
3,267,000
(3,600,000)
17,717,000
9,762,000
2.99 (2.71)
Inland
Steel
Corp. -
Indiana
Harbor
Works
BAT
Total Recycle
w/o NCCW
Total Recycle
w/ NCCW
36,300,000 13,823,000 1.91 (1.73)
94,172,000 75,235,000 9,866,000 7.63 (6.92)
(10,877,000)
162,079,000 139,875,000 14.18 (12.86)
National
Steel -
Weirton
Steel
Division
BAT
Total Recycle
w/o NCCW
Total Recycle
w/ NCCW
24,051,000 10,298,000 2.63 (2.39)
120,633,000 125,595,000 3,912,000 32.11 (29.13)
(4,312,000)
129,814,000 129,933,000 33.21 (30.13)
United
States
Steel -
Fairfield
Works
BAT
Total Recycle
w/o NCCW
Total Recycle
w/ NCCW
7,760,000
5,559,000
2,208,000
(2,434,000)
59,192,000 69,344,000
2.52 (2.28)
31.41 (28.49)
Youngstown
Sheet &
Tube -
Indiana
Harbor
Works
BAT
Total Recycle
w/o NCCW
Total Recycle
w/ NCCW
19,580,000 23,648,000 3.95 (3.58)
65,880,000 59,172,000 5,993,000 9.87 (8.96)
(6,606,000)
74,350,000 64,571,000 10.77 (9.77)
Totals*
BAT* 79,931,000 52,769,000
Total Recycle
w/o NCCW
Total Recycle
w/ NCCW
366,243,000 334,379,000
2.67 (2.42)
280,685,000 260,002,000 19,771,000 13.15 (11.93)
(21,795,000)
16.91 (15.34)
NOTES: 1. Costs shown for total recycle with and without non-contact cooling
water include costs of BAT
2. *Totals do not include Kaiser Fontana and USSC-Fairfield.
3. NCCW is non-contact cooling water.
VI-9
-------
6.3.1
BAT Costs
The following costs per unit of production were esti-
mated to achieve the BAT requirements.
Kaiser-Fontana
Inland-Indiana Harbor
National-Weirton
USSC- Fairfield
Y.S. SeT.-Indiana Harbor
Cost per kkg (ton)
No Costs Estimated
$1.91 (1.73)
$2.63 (2.39)
$2.52 (2.28)
$3.95 (3.58)
The costs for Kaiser-Fontana were not estimated for
the BAT step because this plant has facilities which, with some
modifications, would bring it into compliance. Of the costs for
the four remaining plants Fairfield, Weirton and Y.S. &T. -
Indiana Harbor are basically in agreement. The cost for Inland
Steel, however, is approximately half that of the other three
plants and this is probably due to two factors. The main factor
is that Inland does not have tinning facilities which require
high cost treatment facilities and high operating costs, since
zero discharge is required for BAT. Another reason could be the
size of this plant which produces almost twice as much steel as
the next largest plant studied, namely Y.S. &T. - Indiana Harbor
Works. The large plant would, in all probability, have treat-
ment facilities with lower unit capital and operating costs.
6.3.2
Total Recycle Costs
The following costs per unit of production for facili-
ties to achieve total recycle, with and without the inclusion of
non-contact cooling water were estimated. These costs include
the costs for the BAT step as shown in Section 6.3.1.
Cost per kkg (ton)
Without Non-
Contact Cooling
Water
Kaiser-Fontana
Inland-Indiana Harbor
National-Weirton
USSC-Fairfield
Y.S. &T.-Indiana Harbor
$ 7.63 (6.92)
32.11 (29.13)
9.87 (8.96)
With Non-
Contact Cooling
Water
$ 2.99 (2.71)
14.18 (12.86)
33.21 (30.13)
31.41 (28.49)
10.77 (9.77)
The low cost per unit of production for the Kaiser-
Fontana plant can be attributed to their presently installed
system which produces the lowest blowdown amount per unit of
production of any of the plants studied and is probably one of
the lowest in the world
VI-10
-------
6.3.3 Increase in the Cost of Steel
Presently (1978) steel products range in cost from
approximately $385 to $440 per kkg ($350 to $400 per ton). This
variation is due basically to the wide range of products offered
If a figure of $413 per kkg ($375 per ton) is used as an aver-
age, the added cost due to BAT will be approximately $2.67 per
kkg ($2.42 /ton). Total recycle excluding non-contact cooling
water will be approximately $13.15 per kkg ($11.93 per ton) and
including non-contact cooling water will be approximately 16.91
per kkg ($15.34 per ton). This represents an increase of 0.65
percent in the cost of raw steel produced for BAT, 3.2 percent
for total recycle excluding non-contact cooling water and 4.1
percent for total recycle including non-contact cooling water.
6.4 SUGGESTED RESEARCH
In the formulation of the various possible means of
attaining the BAT and total recycle, wastewater treatment
processes have been shown in this report which have not been
tested on a full scale basis and, in some cases, bench scale
tests have not been performed. Use of these processes, however,
was necessary because existing proven technology within the
steel industry to attain this goal does not exist for total re-
cycle and, although it is available for BAT in the main, certain
areas such as the tin plating process do not possess this proven
technology.
Whenever technology is suggested for application to an
industry where it has not been previously proven, there is great
and justified concern expressed. These concerns are justified
by the fact that industry cannot spend large amounts of money to
build facilities which they feel may never operate successfully.
It is, therefore, mandatory that extensive research programs be
initiated prior to any decision to impose the requirement of
total recycle. The areas of needed research are mainly in the
multi-step biological treatment of by-product coke plant waste-
waters, in the treatment of blast furnace gas washer system
blowdown, and in the treatment of wastewaters to remove dis-
solved solids. It is assumed that the zero discharge require-
ment for tinning operations will be changed in the present
review of the guidelines. If this is not accomplished, research
in this area will be needed.
6.4.1 By-product Coke Plant Wastewaters
To date, treatment of coke plant wastewater has been
limited to single stage biological treatment plants which have
had varying degrees of success in producing the desired effluent
qualities. It is safe to say, however, that a properly designed
and operated single stage biological treatment plant with ammo-
nia removal preceding it can successfully treat by-product coke
VI-11
-------
plant wastewaters to meet certain specified criteria of BPCTCA.._
The BAT treatment models generally do not represent tried and
true proven steel industry technology. While, in theory, the
proposed treatment processes should produce the desired effluent
qualities, there are no known plants of this type operating in
the U.S. steel industry.
Prior" to "implementation of multi-stage biological
treatment, extensive pilot plant tests should be performed on
the effluents of the plant under consideration. This is neces-
sary since it is extremely difficult not only to transfer tech-
nology from one industry to another, but from one steel plant to
another due to the different nature of the wastewaters under
consideration.
At present, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2671 is being ex-
ecuted for the treatment of by-product coke plant and blast fur-
nace wastes. When completed, the information obtained should be
valuable in establishing parameters for plant specific pilot
studies on this type of wastewater.
Concurrent treatment of blast furnace gas washer sys-
tem blowdown with coke plant wastes is suggested in this report.
This suggestion is made since the blast furnace blowdown is sim-
ilar to, although more dilute in quality, than the coke plant
wastewater. However, there are objections to combining these
two wastewaters. The only valid objection appears to be the
possible presence of known and unknown compounds in the blast
furnace blowdown which could impede the biological treatment
process. Certain compounds could be treated prior to the com-
bined treatment suggested.
6.4.2 Blast Furnace Gas Washer Blowdown Treatment
In the previous section, the combined treatment of
blast furnace gas washer blowdown with by-product coke plant
wastewater was suggested. This combined treatment should be re-
searched because of the possibility of large saving in construc-
tion and operating cost possible. This is especially so since
the coke plants are usually in relative close proximity to the
blast furnaces at most plants. This combined treatment is also
desirable due to the extremely high cost of the recommended
alkaline-chlorination treatment process for the removal of cya-
nide.
6.4.3 Dissolved Solids Removal
Chapter 5, deals with various methods for the removal
of dissolved solids from wastewater and the disposal of the
brines generated. The suggested teechnology has not been demon-
strated on the treatment of the volumes and types of wastewater
VI-12
-------
to be encountered. A thorough research project should be under-
taken to determine if the suggested technology is feasible and
to substantiate the estimated costs.
6.5 POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
If a total recycle program is put forth for an inte-
grated steel plant, certain steps will be necessary from the
inception of the project to its final completion and operation.
These steps include the implementation of research projects, the
reporting of results of these projects, preparation of designs
and specifications for construction of the facilities, construc-
tion of the facilities, and start-up and operator training.
The following is a brief description of the steps en-
visioned in a program to implement total recycle in a typical
integrated steel mill:
A. Install facilities to meet BPT requirements. -
It is assumed for the purposes of the program
that the facilities to meet BPT have been in-
stalled. However, at some plants the facilities
are not in place and the time for this additional
work may have to be added to the total time of
the program.
B. Install facilities to meet BAT requirements. -
This step, in .the program, will have the follow-
ing sub-steps:
1. Prepare report with cost estimate on BAT
facilities required to form a basis for
design.
2. Construct and operate pilot plant on facili-
ties to reach zero discharge from plating
facilities.
3. Prepare report on plating facilities pilot
plant studies.
4. Obtain appropriations for construction of
BAT facilities.
5. Design BAT facilities.
6. Prepare request for bids and issues.
7. Preparation of bids by contractors.
8. Review of bids and award of contract.
VI-13
-------
9. Construction - It was assumed, for simpli-
city, that the construction of facilities
for BAT could take place throughout the
entire plant. However, in order to avoid
the disruption of production as much as
possible staged construction may be required
which would extend the period of construction^
10. Startup and operator training including pro-
ducing effluents that are acceptable under
the BAT requirements.
C. Perform test work including pilot plant studies
for facilities to meet total recycle.
1., Perform analyses on BAT effluents and prepare
1 report on pilot plant requirements.
2. Design pilot plants.
3. Construct pilot plants.
4. Operate pilot plants and prepare report in-
cluding results and recommendations.
D. Install facilities to meet requirements of total
recycle.
1. Prepare designs of facilities recommended
in total recycle pilot plant study including
further segregation and retrouting of water
and wastewater flows.
2. Prepare hydraulic study of plant water sys-
tems to insure that pipe and pump sizings
are adequate or make recommendations for
changes and modifications.
3. Prepare request for bids and issue.
4. Preparation of bids by contractors.
5. Review of bids and award of contract.
6. Construction - It is assumed, for simpli-
city, that the construction of facilities
for total recycle could take place through-
out the entire plant. However, in order to
avoid the disruption of production as much as
possible staged construction may be required
which would extend the period of construction.
VI-14
-------
H
I
M
U1
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N, V.
1 f\ O l\ M
A. BPT - ASSUMED COMPLETED
B. BAT FACILITIES
1. Prepare BAT Report
2. Constr. & Oper. plating
Pilot Plant
3. Prepare plating pilot
Plant Report
4. Cbtain BAT Appropri-
ation
5. Design BAT facilities
6. Prepare
Request for Bids
7. Bid Prep, by Contractors
8. Review & Award Contracts
9. Construction
!0. Start up
C. Total Recycle R&D
-1. BAT analyses and pilot
plant report
2. Design Pilot Plants
3. Construct Pilot Plants
4, Operate Pilot Plants
and Prepare Report
D. Total Recycle Facilities
1. Design
2. Hydraulic Study
3. Prepare Request for Bids
4. Bid Prep, by Contractors
5. Review
& Award Contracts
6. Construction
7. Start x
P
1
mmmmmm
.,
2
_
_
mmm
3
mmmm
—
-
•
SCHEDULE FOR TOTAL RECYCLE PROJECT
4
•
5
6
mm
7
'
ml
mmm
—
•
8
mm
mmmmmmt
m
9
•I
mmmmmmt
10
mm
—
—
II
12
13
•
—
FIGURE 6-1
14
15
-------
7. Startup and operator training including
bringing the facilities in compliance
with the total recycle requirements.
Figure 6-1 has been prepared to graphically indicate
the various steps required and the estimated time to complete
each step.
A period of approximately 13 years is estimated from
the time a commitment is made to implement total recycle until
plants are constructed and properly operating. This schedule
does not, however, take into consideration the possible failure
of a process during the research period and the necessity to
reassess other technologies for consideration with the subse-
quent research that will be needed. If research must be repeat-
ed on other processes, then the time of completion will be
lengthened. Therefore, more than one process should be re-
searched at a time to assure that the required results are
achieved within a reasonable time frame.
VI-16
-------
REFERENCE (SECTION VI)
(1) Electric World, September 15, 1978, McGraw Hill Publica-
tions .
VI-17
-------
APPENDIX A
KAISER STEEL CORPORATION
FONTANA WORKS
A-i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction A-!
1.1 Purpose and Scope A-l
1.2 Methodology " A-l
1.3 Description of the Steel Plant A-l
1.3.1 Processes and Facilities A-l
1.3.2 Water Systems and Distribution A-2
1.3.3 Waste Treatment Facilities A-8
1.3.4 Water Discharges and Qualities A-13
1.3.5 ' Air Pollution Control Facilities A-14
1.3.6 Air Emissions A-17
1.3.7 Solid Wastes Produced and Methods of Disposal A-13
2.0 Proposed Program A-20
2.1 General A-20
2.2 Recommended Modifications to Air Quality A-25
Control to Achieve Minimum Air Discharge
2.3 Water Treatment and Recycle Facilities A-26
2.3.1 Rainfall Runoff A~26
2.3.2 Coke and By-Products and Blast Furnace A-28
2.3.3 Cold Reduction and Plating Wastes A-32
2.3.4 Modified Wastewater Treatment Plant A-36
A-iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-l Existing Water Flow Diagram A-4
A-2 Existing Water Flow Diagram A-5
A-3 Simplified Water System Diagram A-6
A-4 Plot Plan A-27
A-5 Organic Waste Treatment Flow and Quality A-31
Diagram
A-6 Biological Treatment Plant - General A-32
Arrangement
A-7 Inorganic Waste Treatment Flow and Quality A-34
Diagram
A-8 Modified Terminal Wastewater Treatment Plant - A-38
General Arrangement
A-9 Proposed Water Flow Diagram A-39
A-10 Proposed Water Flow Diagram .A-40
A-
-------
TABLES
Number Page
A-l Summary of Water Uses, Qualities and A-9 &A-iO
Quantities
A-2 Treated Wastewater Discharges A-15
A-3 Average Effluent Drainage Concentrations A-16
A-4 Solid Waste Production and Disposal A-19
A-5 Allowable Discharges as Permitted Under A-21&A-22
BAT Limitations
A-6 Plant Water Quality A-23
A-v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This appendix addresses itself specifically to the
Kaiser Steel Corporation plant at Fontana, California. It
includes preliminary engineering designs based on conclusions
reached from data supplied by the Kaiser Steel Corporation.
It does not include the identification of all environmental
control technologies considered, the evaluation of other steel
plants studied or cost estimates.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Kaiser Steel's existing recirculation systems are so
extensive that no attempt was made to investigate in detail the
qualities of water used at the in-plant water systems, unless
a potential resultant air pollution problem was indicated.
Air quality control systems were also evaluated with
respect to existing emissions and local air quality requirements,
Local air quality control agencies were contacted and data and
regulatory requirements were obtained. The plants also
provided summaries of their emissions inventories.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STEEL PLANT
1.3.1 Processes and Facilities
The Kaiser Steel Corporation operates a completely
integrated Steel Plant located in Fontana, California, on
approximately 607 ha (1500 acres). The production facilities
as of December 1976 consisted of:
Capacity - kkg/yr (ton/yr)
- One by products coke plant 3,609 (3,798)
- One sinter plant 2,109 (2,325)
- Four blast furnaces 6,087 °
- One eight furnace open 3,099 (3,
hearth shop .,
- One basic oxygen steel- 3'449 (3
making shop (BOSP)
- A slabbing mill 5'002 (
A-l
-------
Capacity - kkg/yr (ton/yr)
- A 46-inch blooming mill 362 ( 399)
- An 86-inch hot strip mill 3,708 (4,087)
- A merchant mill 66 ( ?3)
- A structural mill 147 ( I62>
A continuous weld pipe mill 265 ( 292)
Two continuous pickling lines 2,143 (2,362)
Three alkaline cleaning lines- 1,467 (1,617)
one of which is contiguous
with a continuous annealing
line.
Four cold rolling mills, includ- 2,173 (2,395)
ing tin plating and galvanizing.
- A 148-inch plate nill 1,129 (1,245)
Since 1976 the blooming, merchant and structural mills
have ceased operating. A second Basic Oxygen Steelmaking shop
and a continuous caster are presently under construction. Plant
plans are to operate only two of the three retained open hearth
furnaces after the new BOP and caster are in operation.
1.3.2 Water Systems and Distribution
In this report the flows reported and indicated on the
flow diagram were estimates by plant personnel and have not been
substantiated by measurements. They reflect the values used
for pipe sizing and can vary widely depending upon plant
operations. KSC has stated that "...the only reliable flow
meters are located at the plant raw water treatment plant and at
the plant's discharge to the non-reclaimable waste water line.
What happens in between is largely conjecture." Additionally,
some of the water qualities supplied by KSC for the preparation
of this report are KSC plant estimates and judgements.
Water for the steel plant is obtained from two sources;
presently approximately 7.57 x 106m3 (two billion gallons) per
year is purchased from the Fontana Union Water Company and the
balance of the plant requirements, approximately 3.78 x 106m3
(one billion gallons) per year, are obtained from two 245 meter
(800 feet) deep wells located on Kaiser property with a water
table approximately 120 meters (400 feet) below ground. The
purchased water and, when necessary, well water is stored in a
main reservoir that has a capacity of 17,000 m3 (4.5 million
gallons) which is enough to supply the plant with water
for about 12 hours. Due to the average total dissolved solids
of the water entering the plant (about 230 mg/1) and a hardness
of about 150 mg/1 (as CaCO^) all water is softened in reactor
clarifiers. The water is then carbonated, chlorinated, filtered
and then stored in domestic and industrial reservoirs.
A-2
-------
The domestic water and fire protection systems use the
same distribution network. The water is stored in a 1890 m3
(500,000 gallon) covered reservoir, and then pumped to an
elevated tower from where it is distributed to domestic, fire,
and other plant uses requiring high quality water.
The water system, as shown on Figures A-l and A-2
has four quality levels and is supplied from an open 4500 m3
(1,200,000 gallon) reservoir. The general concept is that
water cascades through a number of systems, with the blowdown of
one system becoming the supply of the following system. The
systems are sequenced in order of quality requirements, with
the first systems having the highest quality and the last system
the poorest. A diagram of the system is shown on Fig. A-3.
The highest order of use is the motor room systems,
where electrical equipment is cooled, in the lube cooling
systems, and the reheat furnace cooling systems. These are
recirculating non-contact cooling systems utilizing open cooling
towers. KSP has three such non-contact systems equipped with
cooling towers capable of handling 12,500 m3/hr (55,000 gpm).
Each system is equipped with an elevated storage tank to
maintain a uniform pressure and provide an emergency supply in
case of a power failure. Steam or gasoline driven emergency
pumps provide for a minimum flow to protect the equipment in
case of a long power outage.
The modernization program presently in progress will
have two additions to the high quality water systems. The new
B.O.F. will have a completely closed hood and lance cooling
system with water to water heat exchangers. The water in this
enclosed system will be of boiler quality, while the cold side
heat exchanger water will be similar in quality to that
described above. The other cooling water system will be for
the continuous slab caster.
The second quality level systems provide water to the
rolling mills for bearing cooling, roll cooling and some scale
flushing. Water in these systems picks up heat, oil, grease
and some mill scale from the rolling mills. KSP has two of
these systems equipped with cooling towers capable of handling
11,800 m3/hr (52,000 gpm). Elevated storage tanks provide
pressure control and reserve capacity. After the water is used
in the rolling mills it flows to adjacent scale pits where the
heavy scale particles settle out. The water is then pumped to
clarifiers where fine scale and other solids are removed and
the oil skimmed off. Effluent from the clarifiers is pumped
over the cooling towers for heat removal and then back to the
mills for reuse. The clarifier effluent is satisfactory for
all mill purposes except high pressure descaling. There it has
been necessary to provide additional cleaning by automatic
A-3
-------
rn
^
h
r
jf4( 60)
1
d
I
a
K
L
O
^"
't
m
O
O
o
g
p
f^J
. IKSO
•HOOD
SPRA1
LOSS
P
in
m
(0
r
a.
V
0
m
•
h
;
,ZI«lj«l J
*Logsn S
9
§
f
!
i
ii
^ 1(51
E\SP
i
1 203[B95t •
j
' 22TIKXXn
l<
1
s
I
«
IE
w
i
s
)
Li
IJ
°- u
1 ;
z *
^ u.
<5 ,
a
t
665(2929)
IK5Q
:L
t
3
V
^.
£
a>
1
1
W
ZEOLITE
REGENERATION
TO THEAT«NT
PLANT DISCHARGE
T r
NOTES:
LEGEND--
SLUDGE BED SUPERNATANT"RETURNED ro
LEVEL A SYSTEM
Z HOT MILLS CLARIFIEBS UNDERFLOW TO
SLUDOE BED SUPERNATANT RETURNED
TO COOLINO TOWER EB
* EXCESS DISCHARGE OVER SUPPLY AT COKE
PLANT DUE TO WASTE AMMONIA LIQUOR.
RECYCLED WE*
COOLING WATER
INON-CONTACT)
PROCESS WATER
CLARIFIED (S)
ELfVATED TOWER
COOLING TOWER (CT)
SLAG QUENCH
HYDROTECHNIC CORPOBATION
OOHSUlTlXa IMOmilM
«w TORE. M T
INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF WATER
KAISER STEEL PlflNT
EXISTING WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE A-1
-------
>
NOTES;
FOft NOTES AND LEGEND SEE FIG A-l
OUTFALL TO
CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
HYDBOTECHNIC CORPORATION
CONSUITINQ INQIMIUtl
HIM TORE M T
INTEGRATED S1EEL PLANT POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE Of VKAItR
KAISER STEEL PLANT
EXISTING WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
I FIGURE 4-2
-------
KI s> UVOIK]
i i
\\tLLNol vvELLNo. 2
NEW BOP i
CONTINUOUS
CASTER
i — a
INDUSTRIAL RC.
COOLING
TOWER
No. 10
i
TIN
MILL,
SHEET
GALVG.
COLDROL
SHEET
PICX11
_ "*143 1
1
'^J
5 I
5
^ . r- —
WATIRTKi: \TMINT PLAN
I
1
DO.MtSllCKtSEUVOIR
1
1 DC
!
SERVOIR '
i '
WIESIICSLKVICE
o building (hopi,
4 milts; fire [iro-
ection &. landicape
1
1
1
1 1
1
JL
1 GATE VALVE
y normally closed
IV AT C ft
SOFTCNF.R
PLANT
SLWAOL 1KEATMENT1 1 ' 1
PLANT | , |
1 ^
k - k
COOLING TOWERS No. 1\\
1
PLATE. P1?E.
iSLAB. MILLS
power room i
furnace cooling
L COLD MILL&rif
.MILL- pic kie tin
1
,
PIPE MILL
hydraulic
£
t
1
-1
1
1
1
I
1
k . , • .
POWER PLXNT
WASTE KEAT
1 COOLING I
POWER PLANT
cooling ivsirtti & rrusc.
f ^ j
(COOLING TOWERS No. 2LJ
J.
i'L/\TE. HIPE. STRUCTURAL .t
SLAB-G MILLS; HOT SCARFING MILL
1 scale Push &. geo*r:il use: p i c.iil njj
J
1
1
A i £ 1
COOLING TOWER No. 14)
motor-room cootinv wattr 1
1
HOT STRIP MILL
AIR COMPRESSOR
MOTOR ROOM
FUR-NACE
Nos. 1.2.3
•J/
ICOOLJNG TOWER No. 15J
(cvc«vi to w.iste water
trvatrrmnt plant)
, x 1
[HOT STRIP MILL
f general use
1 1
f COOLING TOWERS No. t
.. 17~
f COOLING TOWERS No.
V
BLAST FURNACE
No. 1.
COKE PLANT.
BAROMETRIC
CONDENSER
' < '
«EKT U. WIGHT "HOW IT'S DOSE AT KAISER"
FIGURE A-3
\ WASTE
1 .TREATMENT.
V DISPOSAL
I H REUSE
/ SYSTEM
A-6
-------
strainers with a fine mesh. It has been reported that this
water is of not a high enough quality and that difficulties
have been encountered in spray nozzle wear and clogging and
maintenance of the descale pumps.
Sludge underflow is pumped from the clarifiers to
sludge beds. When full, these beds are allowed to dewater and
dry. A clam shell crane then removes the sludge for haulage
to a disposal site. Supernatant from the hot strip mill sludge
bed is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
The third quality level system supplies cooling water
to the Open Hearth steelmaing furnaces, the Basic Oxygen
steelmaking furnaces, a portion of the Coke Plant and the four
Blast Furnaces. Water in these systems picks up heat and dirt,
mainly iron graphite. KSC has five of these systems which,
when originally installed, were equipped only with cooling
towers. During the past few years all but one have had
clarifiers added to remove the iron graphite and coke breeze.
Problems with plugging of some of the internal coolers made
the addition of the clarifiers necessary. Sludge from the
clarifiers is handled in sludge beds. The rated capacity of
the third level system is 13,400 m3/hr (59,000 gpm). These
five, third quality level, systems are all tied together through
two elevated towers. System balancing is difficult but due to
the potential of loss in equipment and production it is neces-
sary to have system back-up so that complete loss of water is
practically impossible. Emergency steam driven pumps are
installed at each cooling tower to continue water circulation in
the event of power failure.
The fourth and lowest quality level system serves the
Blast Furnace gas washers. Orifice scrubbers and gas washers
are used to scrub and cool the flue gas. Large amounts of dust
are removed from the gas by the water which then flows to
clarifiers where the solids settle and are removed as sludge.
After clarification the water is pumped over a cooling tower
and then pumped back to the Blast Furnace gas washers for
reuse. Dissolved solids build up quite rapidly in these
systems and are controlled by blowing down a portion of the
water to spray-cool the molten slag which runs into open pits
each time a Blast Furnace is tapped. The application of this
water is closely controlled to prevent excess water from
accumulating. In this way, all of soluble salts in the water
combine with the Blast Furnace slag which is hauled away by a
contractor. The rated capacity of the gas washer systems is
3,230 m3/hr (14,200 gpm).
The soluble salts combined with the slag is moved to
many off-site areas and used for many purposes which prevents or
minimizes entry of the soluble salts into ground water supplies.
A-7
-------
Sludge from the clarifiers is pumped to sludge beds,
which are cleaned periodically and the sludge hauled to a dump
site. The water in these beds would be in violation of the
discharge requirements and the beds are, therefore, lined to
prevent contamination of the ground water. Supernatant water
is returned to the gas washer system.
Other cooling tower systems serve special functions
in the plant. The power house system, with a capacity of
10,100 m3/hr (44,300 gpm) is equipped only with cooling towers
and a return pump station. Heat is the only contaminant
involved so treatment other than by cooling towers is not
required. The Coke Plant has three cooling tower systems which
indirectly cool the Coke Oven gas. The total rated capacity
of these systems is 4,200 m3/hr (18,500 gpm).
The total capacity of all of the cooling towers in
the entire plant is between 54,540 and 54,800 m3/hr (240,000
and 250,000 gpm).
A summary of water uses, qualities, quantities and
cooling tower systems is shown on Table A-l.
1.3.3 Waste Treatment Facilities
Kaiser Steel Corporation has three separate treatment
facilities for wastewaters generated in the plant. These
include: (a) A sanitary sewage treatment plant, (b) An acid
neutralization plant, and (c) A treatment plant for all non-
acid, non-domestic wastewaters. The last plant is generally
referred to as the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
(a) The sewage treatment plant has a primary
treatment stage consisting of a clarifier and a digester and
a secondary stage consisting of two pairs of trickling filters,
a clarifier and a chlorine contact chamber.
The sewage is generally very dilute with a low BOD
loading due to the fact that most of the water originates from
the showers during shift changes. Because of the low BOD
loading, it is sometimes difficult, because of a lack of
nutrients, to keep the trickling filters with an adequate algae
growth.
The chlorine residual of the effluent of the sewage
treatment plant is kept at a minimum of 1 mg/1 and the typical
BOD is 1-5 mg/1. Sewage plant effluent is returned to the
plant for reuse in the first water quality level systems and
is discharged into the makeup line of No. 10 Cooling Tower.
An algae growth inhibitor is necessary in the cooling tower
A-8
-------
TABLE A-l
2A
10
14
2B
15
1
18
8
12
19
17
Quality
Level
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
Rated
rr>3/hr
5340
5680
2730
3770
5455
7270
2045
1365
2045
3410
1180
Capacity
gpm Total
Hard.
as CaCO3
23,500 108
(total)**
25,000 83
12,000 126
16,600 115
(total)**
24,000 132
32,000 149
(total)**
9,000 174
6,000
9,000
15,000 80
5, ZOO 902
SUMMARY OF WATER USES, QUALITIES AND QUANTITIES
Present Qualities Data Source Water Used A>
Total TDS SS Cl Na SO4 pH
A Ik
51 283 23 53 32 49 7.4 Received from Kaiser Plate and Pipe Mills, cooling
Machine Shop
25 263 53 71 45 55 7.2 Received from Kaiser Tin Mill, She* t galvanizing,
Cold Roll Sheel cooling
36 408 96 94 60 84 7. 1 Received from Kaiser Hot Strip Mill cooling
64 284 28 37 36 69 7.7 Received from Kaiser Pipe Mill process, Slab Mill
flume flush, Plate Mill
cooling and descale
82 412 100 79 78 104 7; 4 Received from Kaiser Hot Strip Mill process
39 473 39 144 81 79 7.3 Received from Kaiser Coal Chemicals, Blast
Furnace No. 1, open hoarlh
cooling. Sinter Plant applic.
43 551 29 179 96 84 7. 5 Received from Kaiser Blast Furnace No. 4 cooling
Similar to CT#18 Blast Furnace No. ? cooling
Similar to CT#18 Blast Furnace No. 3 cooling.
open hearth
180 699 58 95 103 61 7.6 * BOSP cooling and hood sprays
219 3092 52 1123 5?7 368 7.1 Received from Kaiser Blast Furnac e No. 4 gas
11
680
680
680
3,000
3,000
3,000
Similar to CT#17
Similar to CT#17
Similar to CT#17
washing
Blast Furnace No. 1 gas
washing
Blast Furnace No. 2 gas
washing
Blast Furnace No. 3 gas
washing
-------
TABLE A-l
M
O
SUMMARY OF WATER USES, QUALITIES AND QUANTITIES
( Continued }
CTtt Duality Rated Capacity Present Qualities
Level m3/hr gprn Totai Total TDS SS
13
16
30
31
32
To
be
constr.
Cl
Na SO
3 Special 10080
System
4
568
909
2730
Hard.
as CaCO,
A Ik
44,340 381
2,500
4,OOO
12,000 641
1118
375
293
168
831
38
81 106 113
3548 293 1080 608 593
2034 ' 168 619 348 340
pH
8. Z
7.5
7.5 *
Data Source
Not
presently
known
Water Used
Power Plant cooling
Coal Chemicals cooling
Coal Chemicals cooling
Coal Chemicals cooling
* Calculated by determining cycles of concentration and multiplying that by the quality of make up.
* A total of more than one tower unit.
-------
systems involved. Sewage effluent has been used in the plant
without problems since start-up in 1943.
Since this water is completely recoverable, mill
operators divert the effluents from evaporative coolers, seal
water sources, steam traps, etc., to the domestic sewerage
system, rather than divert these flows to the more contaminated
system flowing to the WWTP.
(b) The acid neutralization plant was originally
designed for neutralization of spent sulfuric acid with lime.
The resulting sludge was stored in lagoons and the decanted
liquid reused for rinse water on the pickle line. This water
caused scaling of the pipe lines and sludge deposits in the
rinse tanks. As soon as a connection to the non-reclaimable
wastewater line was complete this rinse water was discharged
and replaced with the effluent from the wastewater treatment
plant.
The decanted liquid from the acid neutralization
process, containing partially soluble calcium sulfate, began
to form scale in the non-reclaimable wastewater line and a
different neutralizing agent was necessary. KSP now uses
anhydrous ammonia for neutralization which forms completely
soluble ammonium sulfate. The cost of anhydrous ammonia is
considerably higher than that of burnt line but the savings
from reductions in operating and maintenance costs resulted
in slightly reduced overall neutralization costs per gallon
of waste pickle liquor. In 1969 KSP converted its pickling
processes to hydrochloric acid (.HCl) and the only other
users of sulfuric acid remaining are the three electrolytic
plating lines.
KSP has contracted with a company located on plant
property to take the concentrated waste HCl pickle liquor
and use it to manufacture marketable ferric chloride, therefore,
only HCl rinse waters and waste sulfuric acid - a total of
136 mVhr (600 gpm) flow to the acid neutralization plant,
Presently, the ferric chloride manufacturer has a market
demand which exceeds KSP's capabilities to supply him with
his raw feedstock (waste pickle liquor).
Wastewater from the WWTP that is not recirculated
back to various parts of the plant passes through the neutra-
lization plant in addition to the rinse and acid wastes.
Discharges from the acid neutralization plant are directed to
the non reclaimable wastewater line and then to the Chino
Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) for further treatment by
the Los Angeles County Sanitation District before final dis-
charge to the Pacific Ocean. The current contract with the
CBMWD is for the discharge of 30 capacity units (.one capacity
A-ll
-------
unit is 10.2 m3/hr (45 gpm) ) . Because of the modernization
of the steel plant it is expected that the amount of waste-
water generated at the plant will increase and KSP has,
therefore, submitted an application to the CBMWD for the
purchase of an additional 13 capacity units. The design of an
additional sewer line which would be required has been
completed.
(c) The Wastewater Treatment Plant consists of an
elevated surge tank, a two section float-sink separator, and a
clarifier. Some mixing tanks are available to give additional
treatment at various stages of the process but, at present, are
not used. Water flowing through this plant is high in suspended
solids and oils. The suspended material is mainly free oils,
greases, very fine mill scale-, oil emulsions and colloidal
suspensions of silicates. The pH varies from 9.5 to 11.5.
The suspended solids originate in the Tin Mill,
Cold Roll and Sheet Galvanizing from such processes as electro-
lytic cleaning and cold reduction overflow, and from the hot
strip mill sludge pond.
KSP has installed "Brill" oil skimmers, at both the scale
pits and the one operating sludge bed, which remove floating
oils which are then stored and removed by a contractor for
processing and subsequently sold back to the plant as lubricants
and fuel.
At the WWTP sludge is produced in the float-sink
separator and in the clarifier due to gravity separation of
solids and oils. The design flow rate of the float-sink
separator was 170.5 m^/hr (750 gpm) per section but discussions
with KSP personnel indicate that the design capacity per section
should actually be 114 m^/hr (500 gpm). Before the diversion of
Mulberry Ditch the float-sink separator had operated occasional-
ly at 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) per section. Sludge is collected
in hoppers and vacuumed out for disposal at a Class I dump
site. The sludge consists of 8 to 15 percent metallic solids,
65 to 70 percent water and the balance various oils and greases
consisting mainly of tallow from the cold reduction mills.
KSP is studying the effects of oily sludge on coke oven
operations and on the quality of the coke and by products. If
successful, the oily sludge may be metered on to the coal
stocker belt when coal unloading operations are in progress.
The quality of liquid effluent from the WWTP varies
widely and at times has a milky appearance. The disposition
of the water from the WWTP has been estimated by the plant to
be as follows with the caution that the figures given are only
estimates: Approximately 62.5 m3/hr (275 gpm) of the total
278 m-Vhr (1,225 gpm) discharged from the WWTP is recycled back
to the Coke Plant (17 m3/hr (75 gpm)) and to the Tin Mill
A-12
-------
Pickling Lines (45 m3/hr (200 gpm)). An additional 216 m3/hr
(950 gpm) is discharged to the acid neutralization plant
together with the pickle rinse waters for subsequent discharge
to the CBMWD. In the recent past an additional 34 m3/hr
(150 gpm) was recirculated back to the BOSP for cooling but
problems of scaling due to the reuse of this water was
encountered and its use was discontinued and replaced by blow-
down from Cooling Towers 19 and 2.
(d) An additional temporary waste disposal system
is located on the landfill area near the Waste Pickle Liquor
evaporative ponds. This system consists of two 26,500 nr
(seven million gallons) lined ponds which were constructed to
store waste chromic acid and sodium dichromate which originates
as dragout from the tinning lines. These ponds receive an
average of 3.2 m3/hr (14 gpm) of chromic acid wastes and will,
in the near future, receive an additional 5.9 m3/hr (26 gpm) of
sodium dichromate wastes. At the total rate of 9.1 m3/hr
(40 gpm), and allowing for net evaporation, KSC estimates that
the ponds would be sufficient to contain the wastes produced
during a two-year period. No treatment is provided other than
evaporation. The purpose of the ponds is to store the wastes
until such time as a method of acceptable disposal or chrome
recovery is developed.
1.3.4 Water Discharges and Qualities
The major portion of the water supplied to the steel
plant is lost through consumptive and evaporative processes in
the various recycle systems described in Section 1.3.2 above.
By far the greatest losses occur at the numerous cooling
towers. This loss is conservatively estimated to be 1,216 m3/hr
(5,350 gpm). Other estimated identifiable losses are or will be:
steam production and discharge of 218 m3/hr (960 gpm), slag
cooling at the blast furnaces - 91.0 m3/hr (400 gpm), the BOSP -
11.4 nH/hr (50 gpm) , coke quenching - 51 m3/hr (225 gpm),
domestic uses such as lawn watering and food preparation -
45 m3/hr (200 gpm), miscellaneous mill losses such as runout
table spray evaporation, machine shop losses, and water retained
in sludges and 23 m3/hr (100 gpm) which is sent to Heckett Slag
Co. for their slag quenching operation.
The volume of liquid wastes discharged to the CBMWD,
after the plant modifications are complete may be as high as
432 m3/hr (1900 gpm). It is not anticipated that, if present
treatment and recirculation practice are to continue, the
quality will vary from that presently discharged.
Data was obtained for the month of April 1977 showing
the range of water quality discharged from the WWTP to the
reclaimed wastewater line and the wastes as discharged from the
A-13
-------
WTP and the acid neutralization plant to the CBMWD. These
data are shown in Table A-2.
Wastewaters produced at material storage piles are
due to rainfall runoff. Literature pertaining to coal storage
indicates that the runoff would require treatment prior to
discharge or reuse at a steel plant. Runoff also occurs from
ore storage and flux storage piles. The quantity of runoff is
highly specific with respect to the porosity of the material
storage pile and antecedent conditions. In the area of the
Kaiser Steel Plant the average total annual rainfall of 381
mm (15 inches) is not distributed over a 12-month period but
is concentrated over a short period of the 3 months of
January, February and March. The quality of the runoff from
coal piles is specific to the source of the coal. The average
effluent drainage concentration is shown in Table A-3.
No data has been available as to the characterization
of the runoff from limestone and ore storage piles. It has
been assumed that runoff from the limestone and ore storage
areas may be high in suspended solids.
KSC has reported that heavy metals or sulfides have
not been found in the discharges through the plant drainage
system which includes material storage pile runoff. The
conductivity is reported as 500 uS/cm indicating low dissolved
solids.
1.3.5 Air Pollution Control Facilities
Because of the air quality control requirements
imposed upon KSP at the open hearth shop, a decision was made,
after an economic analysis, to construct the new BOP and
continuous caster and shut down operations at six of the eight
open hearth furnaces. Steel will be produced at the remaining
open hearths without the use of oxygen injection. Equipment
will be included in the new system for the external desulfuri-
zation of molten iron.
The new BOP shop, presently under construction, will
use suppressed combustion, a closed hood and a wet scrubber
and the clean gas will be flared. Facilities will also be
provided for the full control of fugitive emissions including
"Pecor" doghouses around the vessels. Softened water will be
used for cooling the lance and the hood and will be supplied
from the power house boiler system without steam generation.
The existing BOSP utilizes dry electrostatic
precipitators, and conditioning water at the top of the furnace
is adjusted so that gases to the precipitator are not over-
heated and no water runs into the furnace.
A-14
-------
TABLE A-2
Parameter
TREATED WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
(All units, except pH; in mg/1)
Discharge from
WWTP
pH
Phenolphthalein Alkalinity
Methyl Orange Alkalinity
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Total Hardness
Non-Carbonate Hardness
Chloride
Sulfate
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Pho sphate
SiO
Nitrate
Oil & Grease
9.8
112
276
1250
80
1000
16
0
16
65
150
6
0
0.7
40
0.9
105
- 11.2
- 390
- 810
- 2020
- 710
- 1200
- 112
- 200
- 150
- 455
34
6
4.6
- 155
4.8
- 550
Discharge to
CBMWD
6
0
24
2010
840
1160
18
0
60
170
110
7
0
9-5
280
2120
- 28600
- 3850
- 24840
168
118
- 10900
695
480
54
6
A-15
-------
TABLE A-3
AVERAGE EFFLUENT DRAINAGE CONCENTRATIONS^)
Source of Coal
Parameter
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Free Silica
Cyanide
BOD
COD5
Nitrate
Total Phosphate
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Thallium
Chloride
Total Organic Carbon
Southwe stern
83 Percent
1538
356
190
5.5
0.04
NDL (2)
NDL
7.5
769
0.16
NDL
6.5
4.1
NDL
NDL
NDL
0.02
0.05
0.03
21.5
NDL
0.04
0.002
NDL
6.60
NDL
158.7
Western
17 Percent.
2486
1900
240
8.2
0.4
NDL
NDL
2.5
1826
1.8
NDL
14.0
5.6
NDL
0.005
0.04
NDL
0.07
0.05
15. 0
NDL
0.15
0. 005
NDL
7.24
NDL
318.4
Average
1700
618
198
6.0
0.1
NDL
NDL
6.6
949
0.44
NDL
7.8
4.4
-
-
-
-
0.05
0.03
20.4
-
0.06
0.002
_
6.7
-
185.8
(1) All concentrations except pH expressed as g/m .
(2) No detectable level.
Water Pollution from Drainage and Runoff from Coal
Storage Areas; Wachter, R. A. ;
NCA/BCR Conference 1977
A-16
-------
Gas scrubbers and coolers are utilized at the four
blast furnaces to clean the blast furnace gas prior to its use
as a fuel. The solids laden water is clarified and the water
is reused. Solids are disposed of in a dump site and stored
for possible recycle.
Emissions from the sinter plant windbox are controlled
by a baghouse and the catch recycled to the sinter plant feed.
Discharge end emissions are controlled by water sprays which
also serve to cool the sinter. There are no water discharges
from sinter plant air cleaning systems.
The ingot mold foundry is equipped with a wet fume
control system using "Rotoclones." The "Rotoclone" underflow
discharges to one of the clarifiers in the second quality level
of the water systems.
The hot scarfer at the 46" x 90" slab mill is equipped
with a wet electrostatic precipitator for fume control. This
water is also discharged to one of the clarifiers in the second
quality level of the water systems.
Fumes from the pickle and plating lines are cleaned by
.scrubbers. The discharges of the scrubber waters are directed
to the respective production line wastewater streams.
A "TRW-CDS" unit had been installed to control
emissions from one of the coke oven stacks. Its operation is
not successful and it has been abandoned.
1.3.6 Air Emissions
Observations at the plant indicated relatively few
emissions from leaking doors at the coke ovens.
The plant personnel have investigated dry and wet
electrostatic precipitators, as well as bag filtration at the
coke oven stacks and, as a result, KSC has committed itself to
the installation of baghouses at four coke oven stacks.
The air quality management district, in February,
1977, conducted a test of emissions from the quench tower and
reported that emissions were 43.02 mg/m3 (0.0188 grains per
SCF) and 0.12 kg/hr (20.12 Ibs/min).
The personnel at Kaiser stated that they had no other
test results at any of the other air pollution control
facilities. The original data sheets for these facilities may
not be valid since most of the pollution control facilities
have been modified or amended to suit changing process
requirements. It was difficult to obtain a visual evaluation
of emissions from various sources in the plant because of the
A-17
-------
prevailing smog and haze. It did appear, however, that
emissions from the various sources were not severe.
Piles of sludge were observed in the slag disposal
area which appeared to be quite dry. There are no provisions
for watering the piles and, at certain times of the year when
the winds in the area are high, dusting from the piles create
fugitive emissions.
1.3.7 Solid Wastes Produced and Methods of Disposal
Solid wastes are produced as a by-product of the
manufacturing processes or remain as a residual of the air
or water cleaning processes. Table A-4 presents the sources
of these solid wastes, the quantities produced and the present
means of disposal.
A-18
-------
TABLE
A-4
Source
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces -
From Dry Dust Catchers
From Scrubbers
Slag
External Desulfurization
BOSP -
Dust
Slag
Open Hearth -
Dust
Slag
New BOP
From Scrubber
Slag
New Continuous Caster
Plate Mill Scale Pits
46 x 90 Slab Mill Scale Pits
86" Hot Strip Mill Scale Pits
Fretz Moon Pipe Mill Scale Pit
Pig Casting Scale Pit
Mill Sludge Beds
Water Treatment Plant
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Acid Neutralization Plant
Sewage Treatment Plant
SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL
Quantity Produced (1)
Ultimate Disposal
399klcg(440 tons) per day (4)
109kkg(120 tons) per day
32kkg(35 tons) per day
(2 )
28 kkg(31 tons) per day (4)
86kkg(95 tons) per day
(2 )
10. 6kkg(ll. 7,tons) per day
(2 )
183 kkg(202 tons) per day
(2 )
54kkg(60 tons) per week
231kkg (255 tons) per week
I6l5kkg(1780 tons) per week
757kkg{835 tons) per week
0. 8kkg(0. 9 tons) per year
Negligable
726kkg(800 tons) per year (wet)
No record
No record
3. 6kkg (4 tons) per day (5)
Negligable
Sinter Plant
Sinter Plant
Slag Pile
Sold to Slag Contractor
Slag Pile
Sinter Plant
Sold to Reclaimer
Sold or to Slag Pile
Sold to Reclaimer
Sinter Plant
Sold to Reclaimer
Stockpiled (3)
Stockpiled (3)
Stockpiled (3)
Part Stockpiled (3)-Part to Sinter Plant
Stockpiled (3)
Slag Pile
Slag Pile
Sprayed on Coal Pile
To CBMWD with Water
(1) Quantities Based on 1976 Plant Production Data
(2) No Records Available
(3) Stockpiled for possible future reclaim of metallics
(4) Estimated by Hydrotechnic
(5) Based cm Plow of 386 m3/hr (1 700 'gpm) @4QOmg/l
Suspended Solids
-------
2.0 PROPOSED PROGRAM
2.1 GENERAL
Although the Kaiser Steel Plant has achieved the
highest degree of water recirculation of any integrated steel
plant within the United States, the purpose of this report is
to study methods to achieve total recycle of water. It is
recognized that to achieve total recycle of water, methods
must be used for the disposal of water that cannot be further
recirculated. Presently, disposal of the waters is by one of
five methods: evaporation by quenching incandescent coke,
quenching of molten slag, discharge of waste pickle liquor to
an on-site ferric chloride manufacturer, retention of water in
sludges produced during the treatment of water and wastewater,
and discharge through the non-reclaimable wastewater line to
the CBMWD. Water is also consumed by the evaporation from
cooling towers, cooling of product such as on the runout table
and in the generation of steam at power plants. The latter
consumptive uses produce concentrate waste streams, whereas
the disposal processes consume the water and the contained
wastes.
If total recycle is shown to be impractical the plant
may still have to provide some degree of treatment even though
the waste flows to an off-site waste treatment facility. The
off-site treatment facility, in the case of KSC, is operated
by the county of Los Angeles, which is presently permitted to
establish its own pretreatment standards. In the interest of
conservatism, Hydrotechnic has assumed that future pretreatment
standards will be identical to BAT. Waters that are discharged
by the plant directly, even though meeting current NPDES permit
requirements, are assumed to have to meet BAT limitations
after expiration of the present permits. See Table A-5 for the
allowable discharges under BAT. Table A-6 presents the present
plant water quality.
If zero discharge is to be achieved, all water, with
the exception of rainfall runoff from areas other than raw
material storage, must be recycled. In this study the flow
quantities described are plant estimates, based on pipe and
pump sizing, and are, therefore, conservative and may vary
widely. The methods of treatment determined and areas required
should not be considered as the optimum until flows are firmly
established.
A-20
-------
TABLE A-5
>
Production
Facility
Coke Plant
Sinter Plant
Blast Furnaces
Open Hearths
BOSP
Slab Mill
86" Hot Strip
Mill
148" Plate
Mill
Tin Mill
Cleaning
Cont. Clng. 81
A nnealing
Cold Sheet
Cleaning
<,Z" Pirklc
50" Pickle
Average Daily
Production
3720/4100
3493/3850
6386/7040
1497/1650
3480/3836
6153/6783
4997/5508
2193/2417
937/1033
595/656
1042/1149
719/792
2112/2328
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BA TEA LIMITATIONS
Daily Allowable Discharges ibV/tf/v
Susp. Oil & Dissolved Dissolved
Solids Grease Cyanide Ammonia Phenol BOD5 Fluoride Sulfide Nitrate Iron Chromium Nickel Zinc
15.6 15.6 0.37 15.6 0.78 30.9 0.45
34.4 34.4 0.82 34.4 1.72 68.1 0.99
18.5 7.3 14.7 0.21
40.8 16.2 32.4 0.46
33.2 0.83 33.2 1.66 66.4 1.02
73.2 1.83 73.2 3.66 146 2.25
7.8 6.3 14.1 1.5
17.2 13.9 31.1 3.3
18.1 14.6
39.9 32.2
6.8 6.8
14.9 14.9
0 0
0 0
14.0 14.0
30.9 30.9
4.9 0.19 0.09 0.05
10.7 0.42 0.20 0. 11
3.1 0.12 0.06 0.03
6.8 0.26 0. 13 0.07
5.4 0. 21 0. 10 0. 05
11.9 0.46 0.22 0. 11
9.8 4.0 0.40
21.4 9.7 0.87
28.8 11.7 1.17
62.9 25.6 2. 5£>
-------
TABLE A-S_
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BATEA LIMITATIONS
( Continued )
1
N)
to
Production Average Daily
Facility Production
Cold Reduction 813/896
3 Stand dbl red
Tin Mill 5 Std. 1358/1500
Galv. Sht Mill 793/875
Susp.
Solids
2. 1
4. 7
3.5
7.8
Z. 1
4.5
Daily Allowable Discharges IbV/cf/v
Oil &
Grease Cyanide Ammonia Phenol BOD5 Fluoride Sulfide Nitrate
0.8
1. 8
1.4
3. 1
0.8
1.8
Dissolved Dissolved
Iron Chromium Nickel Zinc
0.08
0. 18
0. 14
0.31
0.08
0. 18
Continuous Weld
Pipe Mill
447/493
NOTE: New BOP and Continuous Caster must be added.
Open Hearth should be reduced to reflect the shut down
of four furnaces.
BOSP data should be revised to reflect changes in plant production split.
-------
TABLE A-6
PLANT WATER QUALITY*
Parameter
m3/hr
Flow (gpm)
pH (units)
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO,)
Total Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Chloride
Sodium
Sulfate
Domestic
Water
748
(3291)
8.2
60
133
6
61
13
17
18
Industrial
Water
1355
(5960)
7.2
145
201
29
146
13
17
19
Final Plant
Discharge
336
(1480)
6.0-9-5
24-2120
1160-24840
840-3850
18-168
60-10900
110-480
170-695
* All parameters unless otherwise indicated in mg/1.
A-23
-------
Five flows presently enter the wastewater treatment
plant.for treatment: the BOP - 11.3 m3/hr (50 gpm), Tin Mill -
155 mVhr (680 gpm) , Sheet Galvanizing - 81 m3/hr (355 gpm) ,
and the Hot Strip Mill sludge decant - 6.8 m3/hr (30 gpm) for a
total of 254 m3/hr (1115 gpm). Of the treated effluent
96 m3/hr (425 gpm) is recycled and the remaining 158 m3/hr
(690 gpm) together with the Mulberry ditch flow of 43 mj/hr
(190 gpm) flows to the Acid Neutralization Plant where it
combined with 136 m3/hr (600 gpm) pickle rinse water. This
total combined flow of 337 m3/hr (1480 gpm) then discharges
to the CBMWD.
The first step toward total recycle was to see if
this discharged water could be reused without additional
treatment in the mill.
If the total outfall flow were combined with
Industrial Water Reservoir or Domestic Water Reservoir, the
dilution would result in a combined water quality containing .
almost 900 mg/1 of total dissolved solids.
Since the Industrial Reservoir makes up water to
level 1 and 2 systems this water would be too high in dissolved
solids (4 times that presently utilized) and would adversely
affect the quality of water in the mills. Therefore, specific
points of application were investigated in the level 4 systems
and possibly level 3 systems.
Cooling Tower #1 was investigated because it is the
only cooling tower in level 3 which receives make-up from the
Industrial Water Reservoir System. The present make-up is
214 m3/hr (940 gpm) with a TDS of 473 mg/1. To dilute the
outfall wastewater to meet the present water quality in the
tower only 10 percent of outfall discharge (less than 23 m3/hr
(100 gpm)) could be used. Since the present make-up to the
tower is of higher quality an inordinately high blowdown would
be required. It was determined that the extra blowdown would
not be a worthwhile alternate. Therefore, possibilities of
reuse were restricted to the level 4 water systems.
The coke plant was the next area examined. Make-up
to cooling towers #4, 13 and 16 using plant effluent was
eliminated because the present makeup is from cooling tower
#1. Using the water by coke quenching was also eliminated
because the water presently used for quenching is
of very poor quality and nothing would be gained. The new
desulfurizer was also studied and it was determined that the
quality requirements for make-up to the desulfurizer are too
high to consider using outfall wastewater. Replacing blowdown
from this desulfurizing system, which is directed to the
quench towers, with outfall discharge was eliminated because
A-24
-------
of the poor outfall water quality. Therefore, the coke plant
has no areas for application of wastewater from the non-
reclaimable water line.
The level 4 system also consists of gas scrubbing
systems for the blast furnaces. Since the make-up to these
systems is cascaded from cooling tower #1, application of
outfall water here was also eliminated.
Recycling the outfall at the new EOF and continuous
caster was also a possibility. Since these facilities require
a large make-up (over 364 m3/hr (1600 gpm)) it is possible to
add wastewater in a diluted form. But if a lower quality
water is added to the EOF a larger quantity will have to be
blown down. This blowdown will increase the wastewater quantity
and defeat the original purpose.
It was therefore concluded that there is no
reasonable way to recycle the discharging wastewater without
additional treatment.
2.2 RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO AIR QUALITY CONTROL
TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM AIR DISCHARGE
The coke plant is the area at the Kaiser Steel Plant
where improvements to air quality control are required.
At the coke plant three scrubber cars are recommended,
one for each quench tower. The quench cars would require
water applied at a total rate of 157 m3/hr (690 gpm). This
value is based on an application requirement of approximately
0.88 m3 of water per kkg of coke produced (211 gal per ton).
Of this, approximately 54.5 m3/hr (240 gpm) would be blown down
and the balance recirculated.
To achieve minimum air pollution, the present use of
contaminated wastewater from the coke plant to quench
incandescent coke should be discontinued. Reference to the
EPA tests indicate that this conversion of water source for
coke quenching will reduce emissions to approximately 2.1
pounds per ton of coke. The application of a spray tower to
the steam and gases from quenching would effect an additional
50 percent reduction yielding an emission factor of 1.0
pound per ton of coke.
Two alternatives, considered to minimize air
discharges from coke quenching operations were spray towers
and dry quenching of coke. Neither of these appear to be
entirely satisfactory on the basis of being proven technology
or economically justified. Dry quenching would completely
eliminate emissions. However, its development in the United
States has been impeded by questions of economics. Spray
A-25
-------
towers, although still considered to be an emergent technology,
are sometimes used to minimize air discharges with lesser
economic impact.
2.3 WATER TREATMENT AND RECYCLE FACILITIES
To achieve BAT or total recycle and also minimize air
discharges three separate sources of wastes were considered:
1) rainfall runoff from material storage piles, 2) Coke plant
waste, and 3) flows discharged to the existing Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Since the Fontana Plant recycles most of this
water in integrated systems a BAT step and a step without
including non-contact cooling water have not been prepared.
The wastes that are" presently being treated and the
methods of disposal have been described in Section 1.3.3.
In order to maximize the quantity of water recycled and the
amount treated and minimize the amount fo ultimate disposal
and, at the same time, not create additional air pollution
problems, certain in-plant modifications are recommended.
It is recognized that some of these modifications, as well as
treatment methods have been previously considered by Kaiser
Steel in the past and rejected for various reasons. They are
recommended herein on the basis of applicability to minimizing
pollutants or totally eliminating discharges from the Kaiser
Steel Plant.
It must be pointed out that each of the treatment
systems recommended herein should be subject to treatability
testing on the actual waste streams where required.
2.3.1 Rainfall Runoff
Although the guidelines have not been specific with
respect to the intensity and durations of rainfall runoff from
material storage piles that require treatment, Hydrotechnic
has used as a basis for the treatment of runoff that quantity
that would result from a once in ten years, 24-hour storm.
Since the total annual rainfall occurs over a relatively short
period of time (approximately three months), it has been
assumed that, when the maximum rainfall would occur, the
storage piles would be saturated and the coefficient of runoff
would be 0.95 (i.e., 95 percent of all of the rainfall would
run off as a waste stream).
The runoff prior to disposal would be contained in a
storage pond located as shown on Figure A-4, where settling of
some suspended solids would take place. In view of the fact
that little is known about the dissolved solids from the ore
and limestone storage piles, two methods were considered for
the reuse of these storm waters for total recycle. Most
A-26
-------
I
K)
3in I tn • < f> • yr — .. _x.-l • _u . . -
• — -J » o . Bi ncT " EHDhlArre o ! '—'
" iL£.L^5I_! FU^NACES_^J — ,
Til- '[ • ' "1 - I, - •-- - FTT—
UlllMxl .III |>T,NPLATE~TOB«OE l" r-,,^ T-
ill.C t;J _1_JJ D|!g | tOTWSlLS:
n ff I """-•—=__ ^T~J~ !„ ' I r"1"5""1 x
NOT IN USE
• COOLING TOWERS
UNDERGROUND SE
OPEN OITCH
Q PROPOSED
-------
conservatively the disposal of the semi-clarified supernatant
was considered to be by one of three methods. Evaporate
by spraying over surrounding land during periods of zero
rainfall. This method was eliminated on two bases. One was
that the total season rainfall would require retention before
the dry season and would, therefore, require too large a
retention pond. If the pond were to be made smaller and the
runoff were to be sprayed over the land during the entire
year, pollutants that might be present in the runoff such as
heavy metals, would be transferred to overland runoff and enter
receiving streams. If it were to be sprayed only during dry
periods, they would redissolve and possibly enter the ground
water when the rainy season returned. The second method
considered was discharging the settled water to the main
reservoir. This method was eliminated because of the high
dissolved solids in the water and because toxic materials may
be introduced into the drinking water source.
Therefore, the third method of disposal, that of
metering the water to the wastewater treatment plant for
treatment and reuse, over a three-month period, was selected.
The three-month period was chosen so that, in one day's time,
sufficient volume would be available in the retention basin to
accommodate the runoff from an additional 17 mm (0.66 inches)
of rain.
However, if the contained storm water is of high
enough quality and if the conservative assumption that there
would be contamination of drinking water is found to be
groundless, then the water would be pumped directly to the main
reservoir to serve as an additional source of water.
2.3.2 Coke and By-Products Plant and Blast Furnaces
Wastes produced at the Coke and By-Products plant
have high concentrations of phenols, cyanides and ammonia.
These compounds are toxic and are oxidizable with varying
degrees of difficulty by biological or chemical means to
innocuous compounds and elements. The proposed scrubber car
wastes would also contain these contaminants. Wastes from
the blast furnace gas washer cleaning system contain the same
contaminants but in much lower concentrations.
The flows that would require treatment were arrived
at by estimating the blowdown flow from the proposed scrubber
car, would be 56 m3/hr (245 gpm). The coke plant flow of 38.6
m3/hr (170 gpm) and the blast furnace slag quench water flow
of 91 nr/hr (400 gpm) was obtained from KSC.
To protect the biological system from the possibly
toxic heavy metals from the blast furnaces, alkaline
A-28
-------
precipitation would be required before the coke plant and blast
furnace wastes are introduced into the biological system.
Treatment with activated carbon was considered and
eliminated because experience has shown that both capital and
operating costs are usually high for a raw waste stream.
Chemical treatment by use of ozone was considered and
eliminated because of the ineffectiveness of ozone in the
destruction of ammonia. Chemical treatment by use of chlorine
was eliminated because of the high volumes of chlorine that
would be required and problems that might be generated by the
creation of residual chlorinated phenols.
The only viable treatment was therefore by biological
means. Several options were considered: oxidation ponds,
trickling filters, rotating biological contactors, and the vari-
ous forms of the activated sludge process (i.e., conventional,
contact stabilization, tapered aeration and extended aeration).
Oxidation ponds, which would operate under most favor-
able climatic conditions in the Fontana area, were eliminated
from consideration because of the possibility of algae and/or
spores entering the extensive cooling tower systems at the plant
when the water was to be reused and oxidation ponds have not
been shown to be effective in the reduction of ammonia.
Trickling filters generally require high capital costs
for the installation of the "filters," recirculation facilities
and final settling facilities. For low flows they are generally
not economical. Their advantage is that they can generally
handle high shock load, but would require two stages for
reduction of the high ammonia concentrations.
Rotating biological contactors (RBC) are a viable
alternative. Here too, however, a second stage would be requi-
red for nitrification of the ammonia present and, due to the
high concentration, nutrient addition would be required between
the first and second stages.
Of the various activated sludge treatment processes
presently in use the extended aeration system has minimum opera-
tor attention and the second step, that of handling sludge
produced as a result of biological metabolism, is eliminated.
Virtually no sludge is produced because of the autolytic con-
sumption of the organisms.
A biological oxidation system consisting of RBC's has
been selected to treat the flow of 189 m3/hr (830 gpm). A flow
diagram showing wastewater requiring oxidation is presented on
Fig. A-5 and a general arrangement of the system is shown on
Fig. A-6 with a proposed location plan on Fig. A-4.
A-29
-------
In addition, the wastes from the coke oven pusher
scrubber cars would require a clarifier prior recycling and
blowdown to the biological treatment plant because of the high
suspended solids content.
2.3.3 Cold Reduction and Plating Wastes
The wastes from these facilities that require
treatment consist of discharges of rolling and cleaning
solutions in an amount of 80.7 m3/hr (355 gpm) which is
presently being discharged to the existing wastewater treatment
plant. Information from KSP personnel indicates that the flow
from the Cold Rolled Sheet Mill is 34 m3/hr (150 gpm). Based
on the tonnage rolled, Hydrotechnic has estimated that 26.1
m3/hr (115 gpm) of this flow is oily wastewater and the
balance of 7.9 m3/hr (35 gpm) is cleaning solution waste. KSP
Drawing HO-5426-1 (Rev. 4) shows 154.5 nP/hr (68° 9Pm) being
discharged from the Tin Mill. Information from KSP personnel
indicate that of this; 3.2 m3/hr (14 gpm) is chromic acid
waste and 5.9 m3/hr (26 gpm) is sodium dichromate wastes. Of
the remaining 145-4 m3/hr (640 gpm), Hydrotechnic has approxi-
mated that 109 m3/hr (480 gpm) is oily wastes and 36.4
(160 gpm) is cleaning solution.
The Hot Strip Finishing Mill has an intermittent
discharge of 40 m3/hr (175 gpm) and an average flow of 6.8
m3/hr (30 gpm) has been assumed from this facility which
consists primarily of oily wastes with no cleaning solutions.
The wastes requiring treatment are those containing
oils, suspended solids and dissolved metals. The primary
source of dissolved metals is from the chrome wastes presently
being stored in the ponds on top of slag pile No. 1. Consi-
deration was given to treatment of the wastes by reduction and
precipitation or recovery of the chrome solutions. Recovery
of chrome solutions by the use of the ion exchange process
is feasible by the selective removal of chromate ions and
chrome ions in anion and cation exchanges. However, although
resin manufacturers have indicated that the process is feasible,
some system manufacturers hesitate to guarantee recoveries from
a complete system. Therefore, reduction and precipitation is
recommended to be the method used for treatment of chrome
bearing wastes. The installation of the facilities can be
delayed, however, until such time that there is no longer
storage capacity in the collection ponds and some other means
of disposal or a guaranteed system is available. The
reduction and precipitation unit operation is included herein.
If a chrome recovery system is found to be feasible,
the regenerated wastes would still contain dissolved chrome
and chromate that would require removal prior to discharge.
A-30
-------
U)
PARTICULATES 700mg/l
FLOW I57m3/Hr
(690 gp.mj
_. BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION
METHANOL
ADDITION
STAGE 1
i- -
= =1
i
' 1,
STAGE 2
{KK}
TO COAL PILE
»TO COKE PLANT
TDS 2000»mg/l
PHENOLS 350 mg/l
OTHER OR6ANICS 2200 mg/l
AMMONIA 385 mg/l
CN 25 mg/l
FLOW I89m3/Hr
(830 gpm)
DISPOSAL
HTDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
ORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT - FLOW a QUALITY DIAGRAM
FIGURE A-5
-------
u>
N
SCRUBBER
CLARIRER
PUMP
STATION-
METHANOL
STORAGE
FIRST STAGE
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
SECOND STAGE
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
CONTROL BUILDING
& LABORATORY-
CONTROL 8 R.O.
BUILDING
1
1
-RECYCLE PUMP STATION
-EVAPORATOR
BUILDING
R.O. FEED 8 FILTER BACKWASH
PUMP STATION
BACKWASH BASINS
T GRAVITY FILTERS
CLARIFIER
0 10
25m.
0 25 50 75ft.
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FIGURE A-6
-------
For these regenerant wastes reduction and precipitation would
also be required; however, operating costs would be drastically
reduced.
It is recommended that all of the rinse water
discharges from the pickling lines be first reduced by
installing cascade counter-current rinse systems. The total
discharge could be reduced to approximately 6.8 m3/hr (30 gpm)
and the acid concentration would be approximately two percent.
The concentration is reportedly too dilute to be discharged to
the ferric chloride manufacturer. Dependent upon testing
results, two methods of disposal are possible; one would be
to use the waste in the breaking of oil emulsions, and the
second would be to evaporate it to a concentration similar to
the waste pickle liquor presently delivered to the ferric
chloride manufacturer. Discharge to the mixed oily wastes to
serve as a pH depressor and a source of iron salts is recom-
mended .
Location of the new segregated waste treatment plant
at the existing wastewater treatment plant site or in the vici-
nity of the sources of the waste was studied. KSP has indicated
that the costs of segregating the wastes to bring them together
at a separate location in the Tin Mill area would be the same
as bringing them together at the WWTP. It is, therefore, more
advisable to have all waste treatment performed at the WWTP.
The treatment process, as shown on Figure A-7, would
consist of:
preliminary skimming of non-emulsified oils from the
cold rolling, galvanizing and tin mills wastewater
in one scalping tank and oils from cleaning solutions
in a separate tank;
combination of the skimmed wastes in a mixing tank
and the addition of acid and ferric chloride to
demulsify the oils;
addition of calcium hydroxide and polyelectrolytes
(if needed) in a second mixing tank;
- continue to pump the chrome waste to the chrome
storage ponds, and then to a mixing tank where
sulfuric acid and sodium metabisulfite would be
added to reduce the hexavalent chrome to the triva-
lent state. Overflow by gravity to the second
mixing tank at the WWTP where the calcium hydroxide
would be added;
- additional wastes discharged into the second mixing
A-33
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
KEW YOB* N T.
»• TO COKE PLANT
PH
S3 30mg/l
086. IOmg/1
TOS I600mg/l
FLOW308mVHr
(1355 gpm)
6-9
mg/l
O&G *( mg/l
TO.S. 150 mg/l
FLOW 284m3/Hr
(1250 gpm)
RECYCLE TO
INDUSTRIAL
WATER SYSTEM
SS 150 mg/l
0 86 15 mg/l
TDS. 4355 mg/l
FLOW llmVHr
(5Ogpm)
INORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT - FLOW 8 QUALITY DIAGRAM FIGURE A-7
-------
tank would be the Hot Strip Mill decant, new BOP
waste and flow from the storm water collection
system, if necessary;
- the combined wastes would then flow to the existing
float-sink separators which would be modified to
function as flocculating basins by the addition of
flocculating paddles;
the flocculated wastes would then flow to the exis-
ting clarifier where oils would be skimmed off and
precipitated solids would settle;
the overflow from the clarifier would be to a new
gravity filtration system. The filtered effluent
would satisfy BAT requirements with respect to
suspended solids, oils and metals, and the filtrate
could be discharged;
for zero discharge, the treated wastes would require
additional treatment for the removal of the dissolved
solids prior to reuse. In this instance a reverse
osmosis system is proposed with the product water
returned to the industrial water system. The level
of treatment can be controlled so that the quality
can be adjusted to return the permeate to any level
desired. The reject stream would require disposal.
Alternatives considered for the elimination of this
final reject waste stream were: total evaporation to dryness
in either a solar pond or a thermal evaporator; using it to
quench the incandescent coke and quenching of molten slag.
If a solar evaporation pond were to be used, a lined pond of
approximately 23 ha (55 acres) would be required and there
would be an accumulation of approximately 4,750 m3 (6200 cubic
yards) per year of dried soluble solids. Storage for the
solids accumulated would also be required if the stream is
evaporated in a thermal or mechanical evaporator. This storage
area, however, would be smaller in size.
Disposal by using the waste to quench coke was
eliminated because of the increased particulate emissions that
could be created. Use of the stream to quench slag was also
eliminated because of leaching problems that might be encoun-
tered at the point of final slag use. Pumping of the concen-
trated stream to a solar evaporation pond was eliminated from
further consideration because of the scaling problems that might
be encountered in the line because of the high concentration of
dissolved solids.
A-35
-------
An evaporator is recommended to evaporate the
relatively small reject stream to dryness. The dried solids
from the reject stream would be deposited in a lined and covered
pond to prevent solution of the solids in rainwater and
percolation into the ground.
2.3.4 Modification to the Wastewater Treatment Plant
The existing wastewater treatment plant would require
the installation of two scalping tanks, activation of the
existing mixing tank, addition of another mixing tank, provision
of chemical storage (i.e., sulfuric acid, ferric chloride,
polymer and rebuilding of the lime facilities), modification of
the float-sink separator by installation of flocculators,
installation of gravity filters complete with backwash faci-
lities, new reverse osmosis facilities and evaporative dryers.
The wastewater treated at the modified wastewater
treatment plant would be composed of the following:
Discharge 223 m3/hr (980 gpm) of oily rolling solutions
to one section of the new scalping tank. The
44 m3/hr (195 gpm) of alkaline cleaning wastes would
discharge to the other section. Scalping tank
sludges would be pumped to the second mixing tank.
The combined flow of 267 m /hr (1,175 gpm) would then
be discharged to a mixing tank for addition of pickle
rinse wastes, additional acid and ferric chloride.
The 9 m^/hr (40 gpm) of chrome storage pond waste
would be treated with sodium metabisulfite and sul-
furic acid to reduce hexavalent chrome.
The treated oily wastes, and chrome wastes, together
with 11 m /hr (50 gpm) of new BOP blowdown,
7 m3/hr (3^0 gpm) from the Hot Strip Mill sludge pond
and 6.8 m /hr (30 gpm) from the storm water pond
(if necessary) would be discharged to a second mixing
tank where hydrated lime and coagulant aid would be
added.
- The 300 m3/hr (1,325 gpm) of treated combined wastes
would then flow to the float-sink separator where
newly installed flocculator paddles would flocculate
the wastes.
The flocculated wastes would overflow to the existing
clarifier where solids would settle and oil would be
skimmed.
A-36
-------
- The wastes would be directed to a three-cell gravity
filter. The filtrate would be collected in a clean
water basin for use as filter backwash water. The
overflow would be pumped to a reverse osmosis unit for
total recycle requirements or discharged to the
existing non-reclaimable wastewater line for BAT
requirements.
- For total recycle the reverse osmosis reject stream
would be dried and the product stream would be
recycled.
The modified terminal waste treatment facility is
shown schematically on flow diagram Fig. A-7 and in general
arrangement on Fig. A-8. The qualities of the wastewaters
treated and the final effluent qualities are shown on Fig. A-7.
The overall plant flow diagram showing the modified flows
including new sources treatment facilities and points of
reuse are shown on Figs. A-9 and A-10.
Solids Production
Solids to be disposed of at the WWTP would consist of
clarifier sludge, filter backwash, and the reverse osmosis
dried soluble solids. The clarifier underflow and the filter
backwash would be dewatered and disposed of at an acceptable
landfill facility. Approximately 9.2 m3/day (12 cubic yards
per day) would require disposal. The reverse osmosis solids
would be produced at an evaporator at a rate of approximately
13 m /day 17 cy/day) and, since they are all soluble, would
require disposal in a lined and covered area.
Assuming a 20-year life and at a depth of 3 meters
(10 ft), an area of 3 hectares (7.5 acres) would be required.
Biological treatment plant solids would be produced
at the final settling facility, the scrubber car clarifier and
the reverse osmosis drying facility. An estimated additional
13 m3/day (17 cy/day) of solids will be produced at the
reverse osmosis facility. An additional 3 ha (7.5 acres)
would be required for disposal of these solids. The solids
from the biological system would be mostly volatile and should
be disposed of on the coal pile. The solids from the scrubber
cars clarifier consist of coke fines and could also be disposed
of on the coal pile.
A-37
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N.Y.
M
\
u>
oo
BACKWASH
BASINS
GRAVITY FILTERS
SCALPING
TANKS
PLANT REUSE
PUMP STATION
CONTROL S R.O. ,
BUILDING I
R.O. FEED8 FILTER
BACKWASH PUMP
STATION
FLOCCULATOR
(EXISTING FLOAT-
SINK SEPARATOR)
•EXISTING
MIXING TANKS
EVAPORATOR
BUILDING
Q PROPOSED
10
25m.
0 25 50 75ft.
MODIFIED TERMINAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FIGURE A-8
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
-------
UJ
LEGEND^
! BLAST ruRNACE CLAFtlFIER UNDERFLOW TO
SUUOGE BED SUPERNATANT RETURNED TO
LEVEL « SYSTEM
2 HOT MILLS Cl ARiriERS UMDFflFLOW TO
CUUWFIERO)
ELEV6TEDTOWER
COOUNG TOWtR 1C
SUO OUENCH
WATEB COOLED -
HE/-- EXCHANGE1
HTDnOTlCHKIC CORPOflATIOK
OOKiuuiHC rxoiHrix}
HIV TOHK H T
INHGRATED STEEL PL«NT PQLIUTION STUDY
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF WATER
KAISER STEEL PLANT
PROPOSED WATER FLOW OlAGRflM
FIGURE A~9
-------
*»
o
DOMESTIC WATER
g
5
fl
.
Z27IICXX
OOOO
0 •*« °
n>
. o ?T
ji r
f i
t
r
•
—
i
il
N
1
B
^
1
r
•
IT"
§
0
u
r-
fcAj
, V
0
0
1
1
— • -*
1
ti
1
8
'"I
j ^
i, 102 {«
COKE F
/ i i i V
llii T"
NTECR4TEO STEEL PUNT POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TOT6L RECYCLE OF WATER
RAW MATERIAL ^
STORAGE PILE I ,,._,
I RUNOFF I TI3Gl ,
-------
APPENDIX B
INLAND STEEL COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
B-i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction B_^
1.1 Purpose and Scope B_2_
1.2 Description of the Steel Plant B-l
1.3.1 Processes and Facilities B-l
1.3.2 Water Systems and Distributions B-3
1.3.3. Waste Treatment Facilities B-ll
1.3-4. Air Pollution Control Facilities B-24
2.0 Proposed Program B-25
2.1 General B-25
2.2 Water Related Modifications to Air Quality B-25
Control
2.3 Requirements for the Plant to Meet BAT B-26
2.4 Requirements for the Plant to Meet Total B-36
Recycle
B-in
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
B-l) B-4
B-2) Existing Flow Diagram B~5
B-3) B~6
B-4 Outfalls 013 and 014 - Treatment to Meet B-33
BAT Requirements
B-5) B-37
B-6) Flow Diagram for Plant to Meet BAT Reqirements B-38
B-7) B-39
B-8 Outfalls 013 and 014 - Treatment to Meet Total B-45
Recyle
B-9 Outfall 017 - Traatment to Meet Total Recycle B-47
B-10) B-50
B-ll) Flow Diagram for Plant to Meet Total Recycle B-51
B-12) B-52
B-13 Plot Plan - Sheet 1 B_53
B-14 Plot Plan - Sheet 2 B_54
B-iv
-------
TABLES
Number Page
B-l Existing Discharge Qualities B-7
B-2 Allowable Discharges As Permitted Under B-27
BAT Limitations thru
B-30
B-v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This appendix addresses itself to Inland Steel Company' s,
Indiana Harbor Works at East Chicago, Indiana. Preliminary
engineering designs are included based on conclusions reached
from data supplied by the Inland Steel Company. It does not
include the identification of all environmental control technol-
ogies considered, the evaluation of other steel plants studied,
cost estimates, practicality or possible environmental impacts.
Therefore, it should be looked on only as a vehicle to present
a possible scheme to attain total recycle but not necessarily
one that is practical, feasible or one that will not generate,
with its implementation, an environmental impact in other seg-
tors which is intolerable.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STEEL PLANT
1.3.1 Processes and Facilities
The Inland Steel Company operates a completely inte-
grated steel plant located in East Chicago, Indiana. The plant
occupies a 650 hectare (1,600 acre) site located on a man made
peninsula stretching two miles into Lake Michigan. The corpo-
rate designation of the plant is Indiana Harbor Works. Produc-
tion facilities at the Indiana Harbor Works as of 1977 consisted
of:
Maximum Daily Production
KKG Tons
Two by product coke plants:
Plant No. 2 4,990 5,500
Plant No. 3 2,540 2,800
- One sinter plant 4,080 4,500
Two blast furnace facilities:
Plant No. 2 (6 furnaces) 11,340 12,500
Plant No. 3 (2 furnaces) 5,450 6,000
- One open hearth shop 6,800 7,500
One electric arc furnace shop 1,630 1,800
Two basic oxygen steelmaking shops:
No. 2 5,900 6,500
No. 4 12,700 14,000
- One slab caster 4,170 4,600
B-l
-------
Maximum Daily Production
KKG Tons
One billet caster
One slabbing mill
Two Blooming Mills:
No- 2
No. 3
Three hot strip mills:
80 inch
76 inch
44 inch
Four A.C. power stations
(No. 1 A.C. not generating)
A plate mill
Four bar mills:
10 inch
12 inch
14 inch
24 inch
A 28" secondary mill
A 32" secondary mill
A spike mill
Three cold strip mills:
40 inch (No. 1 C.S.)
56 inch & 80 inch (No. 3C.S,
A mold foundry
Five pickling lines:
No. 1 C.S.
No. 3 C.S.
44 inch sheet
12 inch bar
10 inch & 14 inch bar
Five galvanizing lines:
Plant No. 1 - Lines 1-4
Plant No. 2 - Line 5
One alkaline cleaning, line
Miscellaneous shops
1,240
9,700
3,900
5,720
1,370
10,700
4,300
6,300
12,700 14,000
4,080 4,500
3,630 4,000
not available
1,090
1,810
1,900
1,810
900
1,900
1,900
45
1,630
) 8,440
900
4,540
8,530
900
130
725
1,200
2,000
2,100
2,000
1,000
2,100
2,100
50
1,800
9,300
1,000
5,000
9,400
1,000
140
800
1,810 2,000
900 1,000
900 1,000
not available
In addition to these facilities, an expansion program
taking place in the north end of the plant in which the follow-
ing facilities are under construction:
A by-product coke plant
A blast furnace
A boiler house (steam)
KKG
2,720
6,800
132 kg/sec.
Tons
3,000
7,500
525
tons/hr.
B-2
-------
1.3.2 Water Systems and Distribution
The water supply for Indiana Harbor Works is drawn
from Lake Michigan through two intakes which supply pump
stations 1 through 6. All pump stations are interconnected
except for No. 4 A.C. Station Pumphouse which is essentially in-
dependent. There is a 20-inch interconnection line from the No.
5 Pumphouse, but in the event of a power failure at the No. 4
A.C. Station, there would be insufficient water to supply some
mills and they would have to be shut down.
The No. 4 Pumphouse supplies: the No. 4 A.C. Station,
the No. 4 EOF, the No. 3 open hearth and the mold foundry. Upon
completion of the Northward Expansion, No. 4 Pumphouse will also
supply: the No. 11 coke battery, the No. 7 blast furnace, and
the No. 5 boiler house.
Water supplied from the six pumping stations based on
the first six months of 1977 was as follows:
Pumphouse GPP Average * M /Hr. GPM
1 105,749,000 16,700 73,400
2 143,405,000 22,600 99,600
3 208,610,000 32,900 144,900
4 156,960,000 24,800 109,000
5 76,563,000 12,100 53,200
6 166,346,000 26,300 115,500
* Data received from Inland Steel
There are, at present, sixteen points of discharge
from the Indiana Harbor Works. Figures B-l, B-2, and B-3
illustrate the existing water distribution, use and discharge
systems. Table B-l tabulates the qualities of water discharged
from the plant by outfalls. The plant facilities that discharge
to these outfalls are discussed below.
Outfall 001
The discharge from Outfall 001 consists of blowdowns
from the recycle systems of the Electric Arc Furnace, the Billet
Caster, and the 12-inch Bar Mill. Approximately 23 m /hr (100
gpm) of non-contact cooling water discharges directly from the
Billet Caster. This combines with 23 m3/hr (100 gpm) which is
blown down from a cooling tower common to both the Elctric
Furnace and Billet Caster. In addition, 68 m3/hr (300 gpm) is
blown down from the 12-inch Bar Mill cooling tower. The total
discharge from Outfall 001 to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal is
approximately 114 m3/hr (500 gpm) .
B-3
-------
td
i
LEGEND'
Si I SCALE
ISCiLT)
IPIT I
FLOWS
000
- m3/Hr
I
"
i .
1
1
1 *
00' OUTFALL NO
RECYCLED WfiTER
COOLING WATER (NON-CONTACT)
PROCESS WATER
COOLING TOWER
KTDBOT1CHHIC CORPOHAT1ON
CONSULTtHO tHOIKdHS
NIW TOHt H T
INTEGRATED STEEL PUNT POLLUTION STUDY
fOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF WATER
INLfiNO STEEL CORPORATION
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE B-l
-------
w
i
Ul
INTEGRATED SIFU PIANT POLLUTION STUD?
FOR TOUL RECYCI.F OF warrn
INLAND STEEL CORPORATtON
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
LAKE MtCHtCAN
w
s
r
|
ilr
r
5
u.
^
!.
cf
1
0
i
* «vTp"T
^ft^^ „_ '_^
-KlJvj
TT
(I2300!~-V 5
fc
^
K
s
B
~~
J* (8I50O) j
•r
2
5
5
£
1*1
fi
i
j
IE
i
z
1
tt
§o
^
o
_j
f
e =
I ^
1
§
o
o
J
«1
1
B
T
U
K
EvftP
wrr
£
1
1 r_L»
1 ^i
IT
I^ZO".
(31000)
n^
j
I
5
<
12OOO (880OI
f~
„
'
i
c
2
» EV4P
NOTE-
FOR NOrES AND U6ENI
SEE FIGURE B-l
HYDBOTtCHNIC CORPOHAtlON
coNsi'tTiNG tfaiHriM
Ntw TOKI. II T
WTEGRflTED STEEL PLANT POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TCnfiL REPtLt OF WATER
5NLAND STEEL, CORPORATION
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 9-3
-------
TABLE B-l
EXISTING DISCHARGE QUALITIES CONCENTRATIONS*
w
I
-J
:;ouiic£
UKE
OUTFALLS
001
002
003
005
007
008
Oil
012
013
OIL
015
017
018
Du:ci!Atir,t:o
FLOW
"iVlir (K|>m)
-
m
(500)
20960
(92200)
1300
(5700)
1770
(7800)
6182
(27200)
951.5
(1.2000)
25900
(111. 000)
3068
(13500)
13600
(60000)
18200
(80000)
5680
(25000)
2(1820
(llBOOO)
181.55
(81200)
TO
pll T BS OIL TKi Al.K-M HAHDNKr..", 301, 01 Mil, HIKNOI. C!l t F.OV-I'.K:
°C(°K) («= CiiCO-j) (na CaCO-j)
8-1! 8 0 172 103 13l| 22 10 0.1 0.003 o.Ol 0.2
10 2.3 8I| 20 0.2
5.5 8.2 185 100
(10)
7.8 10 3.8 , 28 52 0.2 0.01 0 0.17
I
8.2 111 li.3 if, 11 o.l O.OOll 0 0.18
8.9 Lake Wut.-r
(16) Quality
1* It -"
(8)
6.7
(12)
19.1.
(35)
8.1 3.9 18 3.3 90 HO 31 ]6 0.6 0.017 0.0] 0.?
(7)
8.1 3.9 17 3.ll 90 ll.O 30 16 0.6 0.017 O.OJ 0.2
(7)
12.2 Lik,. Uati.r
(22) Quality
8.5 20 O.ll all 16 0
8.5 8.2 0.1 185 105 35
KACT CHICAGO
GAnfTAF-ir DISTRICT
FBOM COKK
No. 2
llo.3
liulti.Ty 11
PLANT;;
(200)
(160)
(i.i.r)
100-200 50-100 100-200 3-i. KutUMtfJ
Otinl it.y
100-200 50-100 100-200 S-l. -"-'
6-9 90 16 5050 ?595 60 0.2 1
-------
Outfall 002
The discharge from Outfall 002 is a combination of
process and cooling water. Plant No. 3 Blast Furnace discharges
2,886 m3/hr (12,700 gpm) of once-through non-contact cooling
water and approximately 236 m3/hr (1,040 gpm) which is blown
down from the gas cleaning systems. Power Station No. 3 con-
tributes 17,727 m3/hr (78,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water
with 15 ra3/hr (65 gpm) of boiler blowdown. These flows combine
with 1,910 m3/hr (8,400 gpm) of non-contact cooling water from
Coke Plant No. 3. The total discharge from Outfall 002 to the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal is approximately 22,800 m3/hr (100,200
gpm) .
Outfall 003
The discharge from Outfall 003 is a combination of
process and cooling waters from the Spike Mill, the Plate Mill
and Plant No. 1 Galvanizing Lines. All of the non-contact cool-
ing water is on a once-through basis and totals 454 m3/hr (2,000)
gpm) from Plant No. 1 Galvanizing Lines, 386 m3/hr (1,700 gpm)
from the Plate Mill, 11 m3/hr (100 gpm) from the Spike Mill
scale pit and 818 m3/hr (3,600 gpm) from the Plate Mill scale
pit combine with the cooling water in a settling basin and dis-
charge to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. This total discharge
from Outfall 003 is approximately 1,300 m3/hr (5,700) gpm).
Outfall 005
The 24-inch Bar Mill discharges 568 m3/hr (2,500 cfpm)
of process water from its scale pit and approximately 750 m-^/hr
(3,300 gpm) of non-contact cooling water. This combines with
approximately 455 m3/hr (2,000 gpm) from the miscellaneous
shops in a settling basin which discharges to the Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal. The total discharge from Outfall 005 is approximate-
ly 1,770 m3/hr (7,800 gpm).
Outfall 007
The 6,182 m3/hr (27,200 gpm) discharge from Outfall
007 is composed entirely of once-through, non-contact cooling
water from Plant No. 2 Blast Furnaces. This outfall discharges
into the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Outfall 008
The flow of water from this outfall to the Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal consists entirely of 9,545 m3/hr (42,000 gpm)
of non-contact cooling water from Power Station No. 2.
B8
-------
Outfall Oil
The discharge from Outfall Oil is comprised of non-
contact water from the Sinter Plant, Power Station No. 2, and
Plant No. 2 Blast Furnaces. Power Station No. 2 discharges
19,545 m3/hr (86,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water along
with_28 m3/hr (125 gpm) of boiler blowdown. Combined with these
flows are 93 m3/hr (410 gpm) of non-contact bearing cooling
water from the Sinter Plant and 6,318 m3/hr (27,800 gpm) of non-
contact cooling water from Plant No. 2 Blast Furnaces. The
total discharge to the Turning Basin is approximately 25,900
m3hr (114,000 gpm).
Outfall 012
The discharge from Outfall 012 is approximately 3,068
m3/hr (13,500 gpm) of non-contact cooling water; 227 m3/hr
(1,000 gpm) from BOF No. 2 and 2,840 m3/hr (12,500 gpm) from
Coke Plant No. 2 and 250 m3/hr (1,100 gpm) from No. 1 Sanitary
Treatment Plant. This outfall discharges into the Turning Basin.
Outfalls 013 and 014
The effluent from the Terminal Treatment Plant dis-
charges through Outfalls 013 and 014 to the Turning Basin. The
average total discharge is approximately 31,818 m3/hr (140,000
gpm); 13,600 m3/hr (60,000 gpm) through Outfall 013, and 18,200
m3/hr (80,000 gpm) through Outfall 014. Plant facilities con-
tributing to these flows are:
- Discharge from the gas cleaning recycle system of
the Plant No. 2 Blast Furnaces amounting,to 432
m3/hr (1,900 gpm).
Non-contact cooling water of approximately 2,730
m3/hr (12,000 gpm) from Coke Plant No. 2.
- Slowdowns amounting to 118 m3/hr (520 gpm) from
the gas cleaning and cooling recylce systems of
BOF No. 2.
- A total discharge, from Cold Strip Mills 1 and 2,
of approximately 1,380 m3/hr (6,060 gpm); 864
m3/hr (3,800 gpm) of non-contact cooling water,
190 m3/hr (835 gpm) of pickle rinse water, 164
m3/hr (720 gpm) of fume scrubber water, and 159
m3/hr (700 gpm) from the oil recovery system.
- The 14-inch Bar Mill discharges approximately 386
m3/hr (1,700 gpm) from the scale pit and 795 m-Vhr
(3,500 gpm) of non-contact cooling water.
B-9
-------
- The flows from the 10-inch Bar Mill include 445
m3/hr (2,000 gpm) from the scale pit and 364 mj/hr
(1,600 gpm) of non-contact cooling water.
- Approximately 9,090 m3/hr (40,000 gpm) of process
water is discharged from the 76-inch Hot Strip
Mill Scale Pit. An additional 1,360 m3/hr (6,000
gpm) is discharged but bypasses the scale pit and
is composed of both process and non-contact cooling
water.
- Blooming Mill No. 3 discharges approximately 2,070
m3/hr (9,100 gpm) from the Scale Pit and 2,182 m3/hr
(9,600 gpm) which bypasses the scale pit.
- The 44-inch Hot Strip Mill discharges 7,950 m3/hr
(35,000 gpm) from the scale pit.
The flows from the No. 2 Blooming Mill and No. 2A
Billet Mill include 4,770 m3/hr (21,000 gpm) from
the scale pit and 1,683 m3/hr (7,400 gpm) of non-
contact cooling water.
- Approximately 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) of non-contact
cooling water is discharged from Power Station No. 1
which is used for equipment cooling only.
The 28-inch and 32-inch Mills discharge about 1,270
m3/hr (5,600 gpm) from the scale pit.
Outfall 015
The discharge from Outfall 015 is composed of 5,680
m3/hr (25,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water from Open
Hearth No. 3 and 114 m /hr (500 gpm) from the No. 3 Sanitary
Treatment Plant. This outfall discharges into the Turning
Basin.
Outfall 017
The discharge of 26,820 m3/hr (118,000 gpm) from
Outfall 017 is a combination of process and cooling water from
the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill and Cold Strip Mill No. 3. This
flow is comprised of 12,300 m3/hr (54,100 gpm) of non-contact
cooling water, 5,450 m3/hr (24,000 gpm) of process water from
Scale Pit No. 2, 5,130 m3/hr (22,600 gpm) from the Industrial
Waste Treatment Plant, and 3,920 m3/hr (17,300 gpm) from skimm-
ing pits 4A and 4B. Outfall 017 discharges into the Turning
Basin.
B-10
-------
Outfall 018
Outfall 018 discharges approximately 18,455 m3/hr
(81,200 gpm) from EOF No. 4, Slab Caster No. 1 and Power Station
No. 4. EOF No. 4 and Slab Caster No. 1 have extensive recycle
systems from which they blow down 159 m3/hr (700 gpm) and 68
mVhr (30° gPm) i respectively. Approximately 18,180 m3/hr
(80,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water and 45 m3/hr (200 gpm)
boiler blowdown discharge from Power Station No. 4. The total
flow from Outfall 018 of about 18,455 m3/hr (81,200 gpm) dis-
charges to the Turning Basin.
Outfall 24N
Approximately 2,932. m3/hr (12,900 gpm) of both process
and non-contact cooling water empties to Outfall 24N which dis-
charges to the intake flume for the No. 4 A.C. Station. This
flow is composed of 114 m3/hr (500 gpm) of non-contact cooling
and 1,250 m /hr (5,500 gpm) of process water which is used at
Slabbing Mill No. 4 and jointly passes through a scale pit and
the Industrial Waste Lagoon. This stream combines_ with approx-
imately 1,480 m3/hr (6,500 gpm) of non-contact cooling water
from Cold Strip Mill No. 3 and 91 m3/hr (400 gpra) of sanitary
plant No. 2 effluent.
East Chicago Sewage Treatment Plant
Coke Plant No. 2 and Coke Plant No. 3 blowdown 45
m3/hr (200 gpm) and 36 m3/hr (160 gpm), respectively, of still
waste liquor to the City of East Chicago Sewage Treatment Plant
and 45 m3/hr (200 gpm) of sanitary wastes from plants 3 and 4.
Upon completion of the Northward Expansion, Coke Battery No. 11
will increase the flow of still waste liquor by 93 m3/hr (407
gpm) and Sanitary wastes by 55 m3/hr (240 gpm) to the East
Chicago Treatment Plant.
Deep Well
Waste pickle liquor from Cold Strip Mills Nos. 1, 2
and 3, as well as, concentrated pickle rinse water from Cold
Strip Mill No- 3 and waste pickle liquor from the 12-inch Bar
Mill, the 10-inch and 14-inch Bar Mill PC Docks and 44-inch
sheet mill pickler are injected into a deep well which dis-
charges into the Mt. Simon geological formation.
1.3.3 Waste Treatment Facilities
There are, at present, waste treatment facilities
located at various points in the plant, either at or near pro-
duction facilities to treat specific wastes or at outfalls to
treat combined wastes prior to discharge. These treatment
B-ll
-------
facilities are discussed below in relation to the outfalls to
which they discharge. The sanitary treatment plant wastes which
discharge through these outfalls are omitted from discussion
because they are not included in this study.
Outfall 001
Outfall 001 discharges a combination of process and
non-contact cooling water from the 12-inch Bar Mill treatment
facilities and the Electric Furnace and Billet Caster water sys-
tems. The Electric Furnace and Billet Caster have three water
systems: an open recirculating process loop, an open recircula-
ting non-contact cooling water system and a closed recirculating
non-contact cooling water loop.
The process water system handles all contaminated
water that is generated by the mills. These contaminants result
from contact with the hot steel and various oils and greases.
This water is directed into flumes located under the casting
machine which, in turn, flow into a twin cell scale pit. The
floating oils are skimmed off at the pit into an oil collection
system. The oil is then trucked away to be recovered at the
Terminal Treatment Plant. The heavy mill scale that has settled
in the scale pit is removed by an overhead crane and the water
from the scale pit is then filtered in three high rate sand
filters. The filtered water flows to the hot well of a two cell
cooling tower. Two hot well pumps lift the water to the top of
the cooling tower. The cooled water, in the cold well, is then
pumped back to the mill, by two pumps, for reuse.
The filter backwash water is discharged to a pair of
lagoons where the solids are settled out. The water then slowly
returns to the scale pit for reuse. Approximately 23 m3/hr (100
gpm) is blown down from the hot well to the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal via Outfall 001 to control the level of dissolved solids
in the system. Chemicals used in the system are dispersants,
inhibitors, and chlorine.
The open recirculating cooling system is used to cool
the main furnaces, air compressors, mold water heat exchangers
and other miscellaneous cooling applications. All uses involve
indirect contact and no water contamination. This water is then
cooled in the cooling tower described above. In addition to the
blowdown from the cooling tower, 23 m3/hr (100 gpm) is blown
down directly from the Billet Caster to the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal.
The third system operates as a closed loop which cools
the copper casting molds. Since clean heat transfer surfaces
are required, this water is zeolite softened. The mold water
pumps circulate this water through the molds and through the
mold water heat exchangers. The heat exchanger is cooled by the
B-12
-------
open recirculating system discussed above.
A 38 m /hr (10,000 gallon) storage tank acts as a
surge tank for the mold water pumps. Makeup water is provided
from a zeolite tank which feeds into the surge-storage tank.
The quantity of makeup is based on tank water level. Chemicals
added to this system consist of chlorine for biological control
and chromate for corrosion control. In the event of a power
failure a stand-by diesel generator provides power to run the
key pumps in the water system. An elevated water tank supplies
the water needs of the system for the short period of time re-
quired to start the emergency generator.
The 12-inch Bar Mill operates on a complete recircula-
tion system which produces two types of wastewaters: process
water at 35°C (95°F), with several hundred mg/1 suspended solids,
and non-contact cooling water with a temperature of about 43°C
(110°F)i. The clean, hot water, consisting of cooling waters
from air compressors, lubrication oil systems, motor rooms, the
annealing furnace and the billet reheat furnace flows to the
cooling tower pumping station hot well.
Contaminated hot waters from the pinch rolls, hydrau-
lic descaling units, roll cooling units, coiler coolers, roll
shop, mechanical work area and cobble baler are collected in
flumes and discharged to a scale pit. The scale pit consists of
one primary cell and two secondary cells each capable of hand-
ling 100 percent of the flow. In the primary cell, the coarsest
scale particles (greater than 1 mm) settle out, while smaller
particles from 1 mm. to 0.1 ram. are removed in the secondary
cells. Floating oils and greases are removed from the secondary
cells by rotating pipe skimmers and a continuous belt unit.
The effluent from the scale pit is pumped to a chemi-
cal wastewater treatment plant where suspended solids and oil
are removed. Spent pickling acid and lime are used for coagula-
tion and polyelectrolyte is used as a settling aid. The treat-
ment units consist of two clarifiers each capable of handling
100 percent of the flow. Sludge which collects at the bottom of
the clarifiers is pumped to vacuum filters for dewatering.
The clarified effluent then flows to the cooling tower
hot well and is mixed with the clean hot water. The mixed water
(43°C or 110°F) is pumped to a two-cell cooling tower and cooled
to about 30°C (85°F). A cold well receives the cooled water and
pumps return it to the mill for reuse. Fresh water is added to
the cold well to make-up for evaporation, drift losses and nec-
essary blowdown. A blowdown of approximately 68 m-Vhr (300 gpm)
is discharged to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal via Outfall 001.
B-13
-------
Outfall 002
Both process and non-contact cooling water from Plant
No. 3 Blast Furnaces, Power Station No. 3, and Coke Plant No. 3
discharge to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal through Outfall 002.
The Plant No. 3 Blast Furnaces recycle both the gas cooling and
gas cleaning water but discharge 2,886 n\3/hr (12,700 gpm) of
untreated non-contact cooling water, which has a temperature
increase of 2.8C° (5F°), to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Plant No. 3 Blast Furnace Recirculation System is,
in effect, two separate recirculation systems: one system for
the gas cooler water and one for the gas cleaning system, stove
seals and separator water. The gas cooler cools the cleaned
blast furnace gases and the heated water is sent to a settling
basin where suspended matter is removed by chemically aided
settling. The water is then pumped over a 3-cell cooling tower
and the cooled water is pumped back to the Blast Furances for
reuse. To prevent dissolved solids build-up the system, approx-
imately 284 m^/hr (1,250 gpm) is blown down to the gas cleaning
water system as makeup. Service water is added, at the cold
well, to make up for system losses.
The gas cleaning system water washes the solids from
the gas in two venturi scrubbers. Solids laden water is then
pumped to two 189 m3 (50,000 gallon) clarifiers where the solids
settle -aided by a feed of polyelectrolyte solution.
Sludge removed from the system is trucked away. The cleaned
water is then pumped over a fill-less, 3-cell cooling tower. To
prevent dissolved solids buildup in the system, approximately
236 m3/hr (1,040 gpm) is blown down to the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal.
The gas cleaning water is then pumped back to the
venturi scrubbers for reuse and for maintaining the water seals
on the blast furnaces.
Provisions for adding chemicals are provided in both
of the above water systems to condition the water as required
in a recirculating system. There chemicals include; sulfuric
acid for pH control, an anti-foulant chemical, and a scale con-
trolling chemical.
Power Station No. 3 has no treatment facilities and
discharges approximately 16,090 m^/hr (70,800 gpm) of once-
through non-contact cooling water with a temperature rise of
5.6C° (10F°). In addition, the Power Station discharges approx-
imately 15 m3/hr (65 gpm) of boiler blowdown.
B-14
-------
m
i
m
No. 3 Coke Plant discharges approximately 1,910 m3/hr
(8,400 gpm) of non-contact cooling water to the Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal. This water is primarily used for cooling in the
coal chemicals plant, the barometric condenser and, minimally,
in the sulfur recovery boiler. The temperature increase of this
water is approximately 8.9C° (16F°).
All process water in the Coke Plant is recycled except
for 68 m-Vhr (300 gpm) which is blown down. Approximately 32
m3/hr (140 gpm) of this blowdown water (shed scrubber blowdown)
is used for coke quenching and is evaporated. The remaining 36
m3/hr (160 gpm) of still waste liquor passes through a settling
basin and is then sent to the City of East Chicago Sanitary
Treatment Plant. The sludge from the settling basin in trucked
to a landfill.
Outfall 003
The total wastes, amounting to approximately 1,300
m3/hr (5,700 gpm) , from the Spike Mill, the Plate Mill and the
Plant No. 1 Galvanizing Lines are treated in a settling basin
prior to discharge to the Ship Canal. The floating oils and
greases are skimmed off into an oil collection system. This
oil is then transported to the Terminal Treatment Plant for
recovery. The sludge which collects in the bottom of the set-
tling basin is pumped out for dewatering, off site.
The 23 m3/hr (100 gpm) of process water from the Spike
Mill passes through a scale pit prior to the settling basin.
The scale from the pit is reclaimed. This water then combines
with about 11 m3/hr (50 gpm) of non-contact cooling water with
an unknown, but assumed minimal, temperature increase. The
Plate Mill also has both contact and non-contact water, totaling
818 m3/hr (3,600 gpm) and 386 m3/hr (1,700 gpm), respectively.
Process water passes through a scale pit in which the larger
particles settle out. The scale from the scale pit is re-
claimed as is the skimmed oil. This process water mixes with
the non-contact cooling water and increases in temperature
approximately 3. 3C° (6FO).
The remaining flow of non-contact cooling water dis-
charging to the settling basin is 57 m3/hr (250 gpm) from Plant
No. 1 Galvanizing Lines. Temperature elevation is not known.
The Galvanizing Lines also discharge Waste Pickle Liquor and
chemical treatment wastes which are trucked to a landfill.
Outfall 005
Approximately 1,770 m3/hr (7,800 gpm) of wastewater
discharges from the 24-inch Bar Mill and the Miscellaneous Shops
Passes through a settling basin and then discharges to the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal via Outfall 005. The floating oils
B-15
-------
are skimmed, collected and trucked to the Terminal Treatment
Plant for reclaiming. The sludge which collects in the basin
is dewatering. All process water from the 24-inch Bar Mill (568
m3/hr or 2,500 gpm) passes through a scale pit where the major
portion of suspended solids and oils are removed and reclaimed.
The water then combines with 750 m3/hr (3,300 gpm) of non-contact
cooling water which has a temperature rise of 14.4C° (26FO).
In addition to the Bar Mill wastewater, approximately
455 m3/hr (2,000 gpm) of process water from the Miscellaneous
Shops in the area enters the settling basin without previous
treatment.
Outfall 007
The total discharge from Outfall 007 is 6,190 m3/hr
(27,200 gpm) of non-contact cooling water from the Plant No. 2
Blast Furnaces. This water is not treated and the only change
it experiences is a temperature rise of 8.9C° (16F°).
Outfall 008
Approximately 9,540 m3/hr (42,000 gpm) of non-contact
cooling water from Power Station No. 2 discharges to the Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal through Outfall 008. This water is not cooled
prior to discharge and the temperature elevation is about 4.4C°
(8F°) .
Outfall Oil
Approximately 25,900 m3/hr (114,000 gpm) of non-
contact cooling water is discharged through Outfall Oil and
this water is not treated prior to discharge. Approximately
93 m3/hr (410 gpm) of Sinter Plant non-contact bearing cooling
water and 28 m3/hr (125 gpm) of boiler blowdown from Power
Station No. 2 is discharged.
The balance of the discharged water is 19,500 m3/hr
(86,000 gpm) and 6,310 m3/hr (27,850 gpm) of non-contact cooling
water from Power Station No. 2 and the Plant No. 2 Blast Fur-
naces, respectively. The cooling water from both of these fa-
cilities has a temperature increase of 6.7C° (12F°)
Outfall 012
The total discharge through Outfall 012 is composed of
approximately 3,068 m3/hr (13,500 gpm) of non-contact cooling
water and 250 m3/hr (1,100 gpm) of sanitary waste treatment
plant effluent. EOF No. 2 discharges 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) with
a temperature rise of 6. ico (11F°). This water combines with
2,840 m3/hr (12,500 gpm) of ammonia liquor cooling water from
B-16
-------
Coke Plant No. 2 which has a temperature rise of 22.8C° (41F°) .
These waste streams are not cooled, and the temperature rise of
the stream is 21.4C° (38.6F°).
Outfalls 013 and 014
All 31,818 m3/hr (140,000 gpm) discharges to Outfalls
013 and 014 are presently treated by passing the combined wastes
through the Terminal Treatment Plant. The treatment facility
consists of an interceptor system, four scalping tanks with oil
removal facilities, a low lift pumping station, two terminal
settling basins and a sludge lagoon. Floating oils are auto-
matically skimmed from the surface of the scalping tanks and
conveyed into a heated collection trough by reciprocating bridge
skimmers. A screw conveyor moves the skimmed oil from the
trough, into a heated sump. The two identical oil separation
systems consist of sumps, concentration tanks, storage tanks and
pumps. The scalping tanks are 7.3 m (24 ft.) wide by 35 m (115
ft.) long, each with a retention time of 8 minutes. The scalp-
ing tanks are cleaned when the sludge depth is 0.6 m (2 ft.).
The low lift pumping station is designed to have an
adequate capacity for both dry and wet weather flows. Pumping
units consist of four 3,410 m^/hr (15,000 gpm) pumps and four
13,600 m^/hr (60,000 gpm) pumps with the provision for the in-
stallation of two additional 13,600 m3/hr (60,000 gpm) pumps in
the future. The discharge from the low lift pumps enters the
inlet flumes of the two terminal settling basins. Each basin is
64.6 m (212 ft.) wide and 152 m (500 ft.) long with a depth of
4 m (13 ft.) . The retention time is 2% hours. A sludge lagoon
is used for storing and drying sludge dredged from the scalping
tanks and terminal basins.
EOF No. 2, Coke Plant No. 2 and the Plant No. 2
Blast Furnaces have extensive recycle systems and therefore
warrant a more detailed discussion. EOF No. 2 has four re-
circulation systems: two process water loops and two non-contact
cooling water loops.
The first process water loop is for cooling and scrubb-
ing the off-gas from the two steelmaking furnaces. The water is
first pumped to high energy P.A. Venturi scrubbers. Contaminat-
ed scrubber effluent water is then collected in a quencher feed
tank where it is repumped to the quenchers. These quenchers re-
move the solids from the most heavily laden gases. The solids
laden water then flows to the treatment plant by way of the
quencher seal tanks and enters a head tank at the treatment plant
where it is then diverted to two of three inertial type cyclones.
These cyclones separate the fines from the water and send them
to two spiral classifiers which then discharge for disposal in a
landfill. The partially cleaned water next enters two 30.5 m
B-17
-------
(100 ft.) diameter thickeners where most of the remaining solids
settle out with the aid of a polyelectrolyte. The flow then
enters a holding tank for recycling to the scrubber feed pumps.
The settled solids are then pumped as a sludge from the bottom
of the thickeners and trucked as a liquid slurry for use as
landfill.
Water is blown down constantly to control the dis-
solved solids in the system. The blowdown enters a small
clarifier, 6.1 m (20 ft.) in diameter, where most of the re-
maining suspended solids settle out. Sludge from the thickener
is also used as landfill. The total sludge flow amounts to
approximately 14 m3/hr (60 gpm). Clean blowdown, which totals
approximately 55 m3/hr (240 gpm), is then discharged to the
terminal water treatment plant.
The second process water loop is a scrubbing loop for
the secondary gas collection system. Building fumes are col-
lected by ducts and cleaned by this process water which is re-
circulated through a high energy Venturi scrubber. The solids
laden water is constantly being blown down to the thickeners of
the first system for solids removal. Water is made up from the
first system although service water can be used if needed.
The third system is an open non-contact cooling sys-
tem. A two-cell filled cooling tower cools 6,360 m3/hr (28,000
gpm) of cooling water. This water is then pumped to the mem-
brane-type furnace hoods, lance water heat exchangers, and
vessel trunnion cooling. The water then returns to the cooling
tower. Approximately 64 m3/hr (280 gpm) is blown down to the
TerminaliTreatment Plant by a conductivity control which regu-
lates the system dissolved solids. Makeup is with service
water and chemical treatment is used.
The second non-contact cooling water system is an
enclosed, indirect contact type. The furnace lances are cooled
by recirculating water which is cooled in a bank of shell and
tube heat exchangers. The heat exchanger bank is cooled by the
third water system described above. The makeup for this system
is service water that has been filtered and softened by standard
sodium zeolite softeners. This water is then chemically treated
for corrosion control, there is no blowdown except for inciden-
tal leakage. In addition to these four recycle systems, approx-
imately 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) of once-through non-contact cool-
ing water is discharged to Outfall 012.
Each of the six blast furnaces of Plant No. 2 has two
recirculated water systems: one for gas cooling and one for gas
cleaning. The gas cooler water is heated by the gas being cool-
ed and then sent to the gas cooler water settling basin. Sus-
pended solids in the water are removed by gravity with the aid
of a chemical polyelectrolyte, if needed. This water is then
B-18
-------
pumped over a 3-cell cooling tower and the cooled water flows
to the gas cooler cold well for pumping back to the gas coolers.
System blowdowns of approximately 398 m3/hr (1,750 gpm) are
discharged to the Gas Cleaning Water System. Service water is
added at the gas cooler cold well to make up for system losses.
Venturi pumps, pump the gas cleaning water to Venturi
scrubbers at each furnace and to the gas water seals of the fur-
nace system. This solids laden water is then sent to two clari-
fiers where solids are removed from the water with chemical
assistance. The resulting sludge is either removed by trucks or
pumped to vacuum filters. The process water then flows to the
hot well of the main recirculation pump station and is pumped to
thermal rotors. These devices cool the water by fine spraying
at the gas cleaning water basin. In this large basin, most sus-
pended solids that remain in the water settle out. Finally, the
water enters the main recirculation pump station cold well and
is pumped by the Venturi pumps to the scrubber. Dissolved
solids build up in this system is limited by blowing down ap-
proximately 432 m3/hr (1,900 gpm) to the Terminal Treatment
Plant.
Both water systems have chemical conditions added.
Chemicals used include: sulfuric acid for pH control, an anti-
foulant and a scale control chemical.
In addition to these recycle systems, the blast fur-
naces discharge approximately 12,500 m3/hr (55,000 gpm) of once-
through non-contact cooling water to Outfalls 007 and Oil.
Plant No. 2 Coke Plant discharges approximately 2,730 m3/hr
(12,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water to the Terminal Treat-
ment Plant. This water is used for cooling in: the steam con-
denser, wash oil cooler, water heater, light oil condenser and
ammonia liquor cooler. The water increases in temperature,
7.SCO (14F°). There is also approximately 2,840 m3/hr (12,500
gpm) of non-contact water which discharges to Outfall 012.
The Coke Plant recirculates its' process water but
blowdowns are necessary because of water pickup from the
distillation. The 45 m3/hr (200 gpm) of still wastes blowdown
is sent to the East Chicago Sanitary Treatment Plant after
passing through three settling basins for the removal of sus-
pended solids. Sludge which collects on the bottom of the basin
is transported to a landfill. The balance of the blowdowns
from the final cooler, the benzol plant and the scrubber car are
sent to coke quenching. Approximately 130 m3/hr (570 gpm)
evaporates from the quench tanks and additional raw service
water is needed for makeup to the coke quenching system.
B-19
-------
The discharges from all the mills to the Terminal
Treatment Plant amount to approximately 37,300 m^/hr (164,000
gpm). According to Inland Steel Company, this value is a high
estimate because of the normal downtime experienced at the mills.
The actual discharge is closer to 31,800 m3/hr (140,000 gpm).
This effluent from the Treatment Plant discharges to the Turning
Basin through Outfalls 013 and 014 and totals approximately
13,600 m3/hr (60,000 gpm) and 18,200 m3/hr (80,000 gpm), respec-
tively.
Outfall 015
The entire discharge from Outfall 015 is approximately
5,680 m3/hr (25,000 gpm) of once-through indirect cooling water
from the No. 3 Open Hearth Shop. The temperature elevation of
this water is 12.2C° (22F°).
Outfall 017
Outfall 017 discharges approximately 26,800 m3/hr
(118,000 gpm) of both contact and non-contact wastewater from
the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill and Cold Strip Mill No. 3.
All process water from the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill
passes through scale pits for removal of mill scale and other
suspended solids and oil is skimmed. The process water from
the first half of the roughing stands flows into scale pit No. 1
and is pumped back to the mill for flume flushing and then dis-
charges to scale pit No. 2. Therefore, the effluent from scale
pit No. 2 is composed of wastes from both the front and back of
the roughing stands and totals approximately 5,450 m^/hr (24,000
gpm) which discharges to Outfall 017. The process wastewaters
from the finishing stands and part of the run-out table are
captured in flumes and flow to scale pits 3A and 3B. The efflu-
ents from these scale pits totalling approximately 5,000 m3/hr
(22,000 gpm) combine with 134 m3/hr (590 gpm) from the Cold
Strip Mill No. 3 in a mixing distribution chamber. Waste Pickle
Liquor and lime are added in the distribution chamber to aid in
settling. This waste splits and enters two rapid mixing cham-
bers for aeration. Following rapid mixing, a polyelectrolyte
is added in a distribution chamber to further aid settling in four
flocculator-clarifiers. The effluent from the clarifiers totals
approximately 5,130 m3/hr (22,600 gpm) and discharges to Outfall
017. The sludge is pumped to two vacuum filters and the de-
watered solids are trucked away to a landfill.
The wastes from the coilers and part of the run-out
tables are sent to Skimming Pits 4A and 4B, where they combine
with 59 m3/hr (260 gpm) of oily waste from Cold Strip Mill No. 3.
The oil is reclaimed from the skimming pits and the 3,930 m3/hr
(17,300 gpm) of effluent is discharged to Outfall 017.
B-20
-------
In addition to the process water, about 12,300 m3/hr
(54,100 gpm) of non-contact cooling water discharges to Outfall
017. This is a combination of 795 m3/hr (35,000 gpm) from the
Hot Strip Mill and 4,350 m3/hr (19,100 gpm) from the Cold Strip
Mill. The temperature elevations of these indirect coolinu flows
are2.9CO (7FO) ana 1. ICO (2FO) , respectively. The total discharge
from Outfall 017 to the Turning Basin is approximately 26,800 m3/hr
(118,000 gpm). Cold Strip Mill No. 3 also discharges Waste
Pickle Liquor and Pickle Rinse to the Deep Well and 80 m3/hr
(6,500 gpm) of non-contact cooling water to Outfall 24N at Pump
Station no. 4 intake.
Outfall 018
The total discharge, from Outfall 018 is a combination
of both process and cooling water from Power Station No. 4, EOF
No. 4 and Slab Caster No. 1. This total discharge to the Turn-
ing Basin is approximately 18,455 m3/hr (81,200 gpm).
Power Station No. 4 discharges 18,200 m3/hr (80,000
gpm) of non-contact cooling water with a temperature elevation
of approximately 5.5C° (lOFO). This combines with approximately
45 nH/hr (200 gpm) of Boiler Blowdown. Power Station No. 4 also
discharges 273 m3/hr (1,200 gpm) of Fly Ash Slurry Water, ap-
proximately 27 m.3/hr (120 gpm) of lime pretreatment waste and a
small amount of boiler water pretreatment backwash to a Fly Ash
Lagoon. This 300 m3/hr (1,320 gpm) of wastewater is disposed
of by percolation into the ground and by evaporation.
Slab Caster No. 1 utilizes three water systems to
maximize recirculation of its wastewaters.
The first system is an open-recirculating system for
handling the process water that comes in direct contact with
oils, grease, mill scale, etc. This water is used to spray hot
steel slabs and picks up considerable solids. The slab spray
water enters a large 2-cell scale pit with a 2,840 m3 (750,000
gallons) capacity. Heavier scale is settled out in this scale
pit and is removed by bucket and crane. Floating oils are also
removed by an adjustable trough. The oil collected is then
pumped to portable oil dumpsters for final removal. The scale
pit effluent is then pumped over a 2-cell cooling tower by
scale pit hot well pumps. A portion of the cooled water is used
on the final run-out table sprays for slab cooling and the re-
mainder flows by gravity to high rate water filters. The filter
effluent flows to the caster surge tank. Mill pumps then dis-
tribute this water to the various water systems including, slab
cooling sprays, torch cutting machines, descaling sprays and
machine cooling water systems. Water losses in this system are
made up from the second water system described below. To con-
trol the buildup of dissolved solids in the system, approximate-
ly 68 m3/hr (300 gpm) is blown down to Outfall 017 after passing
B-21
-------
through the high rate filters.
The Second System is an open-recirculating, indirect
contact cooling water system which supplies cooling water to the
caster machine and mold water shell and tube heat exchangers.
Cooling water is pumped to the exchangers and after use the warm
water returns directly to the caster cooling tower, eliminating
the need for hot well pumps. The blowdown from this system
serves as makeup to the process system described above. Makeup
to this system is service water. Both system No. 1 and No. 2
are chemically treated with; acid to control pH, a scale inhibi-
tor, an anti-foulant chemical and chlorine for biological growth
control.
The third system is. an emergency system which is
capable of providing water to various areas for about 50 minutes
at 680 m3/hr (3,000 gpm) . Service water is filtered, softened
and pumped up to an elevated water tank with a 500 mVhr (150,000
gallons) capacity. Two booster pumps can fill this tower at a
rate of approximately 51 m3/hr (225 gpm) when needed. During
non-emergency periods water is drawn from this tank to makeup
losses that occur in the mill mold water system. Since the
mill mold water system is a closed indirect contact system,
very little makeup water is normally used. The emergency tower
system is chemically treated with chromate for corrosion pro-
tection.
BOF No. 4, as well as, Slab Caster No. 1 have tight
recirculation systems. BOF No. 4 has two process water systems
and two cooling water systems.
The first process water system is a gas cleaning sys-
tem in which water flows to thickeners to remove the solids and
is recycled back to the quench tower scrubbers and the moisture
separator. The sludge which accumulates in the thickeners is
trucked to a landfill and the blowdown is to the thickener of
the second system.
The second system is a once-through process system
for the spark box. This water passes through a grit box, where
the grit is removed, and then to a thickener where the majority
of suspended solids are removed. The process water from the
spark box is combined with the blowdown from the first system
in the thickener, and the effluent of approximately 159 m3/hr
(700 gpm) is discharged to Outfall 018. The sludge from the
thickener is trucked to a landfill.
The third system is an open-recirculating, non-contact
cooling system. It supplies cooling water to the spark box,
hood cooling panels, and to the heat exchangers. Approximately
114 m3/hr (500 gpm) is lost from the system into the group
which serves as a blowdown to control dissolved solids buildup.
B-22
-------
The fourth system is a closed-recirculating indirect
cooling system which provides cooling water for the oxygen lance
Since this system is completely closed, neither a blowdown nor a"
makeup is normally necessary.
Outfall 24N
Approximately 2,932 m3/hr (12,900 gpm) discharges to
Outfall 24N which discharges to the intake flume for No. 4 A.C.
Station. Approximately 1,480 m3/hr (6,500 gpm) of non-contact*
cooling water discharges to Outfall 24N from Cold Strip Mill
No. 3. The temperature elevation of this water is not known,
but it is assumed low.
Wastewater from Slabbing Mill No. 4 contributes the
majority of the discharge to Outfall 24N and amounts to approx-
imately 1,360 m3/hr (6,000 gpm). This water is composed of
approximately 1,250 m3/hr (5,500 gpm) of process water and 114
mVhr (500 gpm) of cooling water. The combined stream passes
- through a scale pit to remove the coarse solids and then flows
to the Industrial Waste Lagoon for further settling and oil
skimming. The effluent from the lagoon mixes with the cooling
water from the Cold Strip Mill and is recycled to No. 4 Pump
Station. The remaining discharge is 91 m3/hr (400 gpm) of
effluent from the No. 2 sanitary treatment plant.
Deep Well
Waste pickle liquor from Cold Strip Mill Nos. 1, 2 and
3, as well as, concentrated pickle rinse water from Cold Strip
Mill No. 3 and waste pickle liquor from the 12-inch Bar Mill,
the 10-inch and 14-inch Bar Mill PC Docks and the 44-inch Hot
Strip Mill Sheet Pickler is injected into a deep well.
The equipment at this disposal area consists of two
378 mVhr (100,000 gallon) storage tanks, truck unloading facil-
ities, filters, a precoat system, a buffer tank, injection pumps,
a filter sludge disposal system, booster pumps, and annulus
water pumps. Treatment of buffer water and annulus water is
provided to prevent bacterial growth in the disposal strata.
The system is automated to collect, filter and inject
waste pickle liquor into the deep well and is designed to filter
the waste pickle liquor at a rate of 34 m3/hr (150 gpm) _ and in-
ject it into the deep well with a temperature of approximately
io°c (50°F) with a maximum pressure of 1,725 kPa (250 psig) .
The waste acid and buffer water are filtered to remove particles
above 0.6 micrometers. A complete backup facility for each
major piece of equipment is installed to insure continuous op-
eration of the deep well. Filtered water is injected constantly
in the annulus around the injection tube to prevent waste pickle
liquor from coming into contact with the steel casing. Electri-
B-23
-------
cal conductivity probes are attached to the fiber-cast injection
tube to detect the presence of pickle liquor in the annulus,
which would indicate a crack in the injection tube. The waste
material being injected into the well has a specific gravity of
1.1 to 1.2.
The water in the Mt. Simon formation, where the deep
well is located, has a salt content of about 20,000 mg/1 at the
800 m (2,600 ft.) level (near the top of the formation).
1.3.4 Air Pollution Control Facilities
Air pollution control facilities are installed at the
various production facilities at the Inland Steel Company's
plant that utilize water for air or gas cleaning. These facili-
ties are installed at the coke plant, sinter plant, blast fur-
naces, hot scarfers, continuous pickling lines and the 80-inch
hot strip mill.
At "C" Coke Battery, pipeline charging has been in-
stalled to prevent charging emissions. Plans for other bat-
teries, are to purchase new larry cars for staged charging.
Pushing emissions at "C" Coke Battery are currently captured
in a shed and discharged through a scrubber system. Gases pro-
duced at "C" Coke Battery are desulfurized by a vacuum carbonate
system followed by a "Glaus" sulfur recovery unit. The new No.
11 Battery will have a similar system but plans for the remain-
ing batteries, at the present time, do not include E^S removal.
Gases at the blast furnaces are cleaned by venturi
scrubbers. Hot scarfers at the No. 4 slab mill, the No. 2
blooming mill and the No. 3 blooming mill use only sprays to
control dust.
Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 continuous strip pickling lines,
use hydrochloric acid and have fume scrubbers which discharge
scrubber water to the terminal treatment plant. Plans are to
return the scrubber waters to the pickling line for reuse.
Both of the EOF shops employ scrubbers for cleaning of gases.
B-24
-------
2.0 PROPOSED PROGRAM
2.1 General
The Inland Steel Plant treats virtually all contami-
nated wastewaters prior to discharge. Non-contact cooling
water, however, is not generally recirculated or treated. Of
the thirteen outfalls that discharge to either the turning basin
or the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal only one is composed entirely
of process water, three only discharge non-contact cooling water,
two contain non-contact cooling water with treated sanitary
wastes and the balance discharge process water with non-contact
cooling water.
Two factors are essential when considering total re-
cycle of water from any industrial facility. First, the segre-
gation of storm runoff from all process and cooling streams must
be considered including the minimizing of or elimating infiltra-
tion into buried gravity wastewater lines and below ground sumps.
The second consideration is removal of excess dissolved solids
that are concentrated due to circulation of water and the ulti-
mate disposal of these solids.
The Inland Steel Corporation Plant is essentially four
different plants located along a 5.8 km (3.6 mi) strip of land.
Although similar production and service facilities are at each
of the plants, the problem of combining and treating wastes from
similar facilities at common waste treatment facilities appears
to be insurmountable due to the piping runs that would be re-
quired, the power required to pump the water to and from the
treatment facility and the heating of these pipes during the
periods of extreme cold encountered in the plant area during the
winter months.
The facilities proposed and recommended, herein, were
developed in ':two stages; first to achieve discharges that will
be in compliance with the BAT limitations and then reaching
total recycle as an extension of the facilities proposed for
BAT.
2.2 Water Related Modifications for Air Quality Control
At the Coke Plants some controls which impact on water
use that will reduce present emissions are currently being im-
B-25
-------
plemented or plans have been formulated to reduce these emis-
sions. These are scrubber cars at all batteries for the control
of pushing emissions, except C Battery which has a shed scrubber
system. Additional controls or operational modifications de-
scribed below are at the coke plant, the hot scarfers and the
No. 1, 2 and 3 cold strip mills.
Particulate emissions from coke quenching operations
could be reduced by the use of spray towers following quenching.
In addition, at batteries 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the water used for
quenching should be changed from the present use of Wheeler
Cooler and Light Oil Plant discharges to service water or some
other water with a lower dissolved solids concentration. Prior
to using water from the scrubber shed for quenching at "C"
Battery, the water should be -further clarified to reduce the
suspended solids concentration in the water presently used, to
below the 1,052 mg/1.
Improvements to emissions control are recommended at
the hot scarfer at the No. 4 Slabbing Mill, the No. 2 and 3
Blooming Mills. Wet electrostatic precipitators are recommended.
At these mills, the respective recirculating water uses are ex-
pected to be 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm), 182 m^/hr (800 gpm) and
205 m3/hr (900 gpm). Blowdowns are anticipated to be 20 percent
of this use.
Oil vapors could be controlled at the No. 1, 2 and 3
cold strip mills by the use of impingement baffles.
2.3 Requirements for the Plant to Meet BAT
Effluent limitations have been prescribed by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency for each type of
production facility at iron and steel plants. These limitations
were established on the basis of mass loading per unit of pro-
duction for each facility. Inland Steel's allowable discharges
are shown on Table B-2. The treatment recommendations in this
section are generally presented by outfall number. However,
when a possibility exists for redirecting flows, to reach the
objective, from one outfall system to another this procedure
has been followed.
Outfall 001
The combined flows to Outfall '001, with all facilities
in operation, presently meet BAT limitations since adequate
treatment is_provided at the billet caster. Therefore, no addi-
tional facilities have to be added or operational changes be
made for facilities discharging to Outfall 001.
B-26
-------
TABLE B-2
Production
Facility
#2 Coke
#3 Coke
j)ll Coke
#2 Blast Furnace
Daily
Production
kkg/tons
4990/5500
2540/2800
2720/3000
11340/12500
#3 Blast Furnace 5450/6000
Cd
1
tv>
X—N
O
O
3
rt
H-
3
C
CD
O
1
NJ
CO
" — '
#7 Blast Furnace
Sinter Plant
-HZ EOF
#4 BOF
#3 Open Hearth
//I Elec.Arc
ItZ Blooming
//3 UlmjininH
6800/7500
4080/4500
5900/6500
12700/14000
6800/7500
1630/1800
3900/4300
5720/6300
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BAT LIMITATIONS
(kkg/day)
Daily Allowable Discharges (Ib/day)
Fe , Cr Cr Ni Cu
S. S. O&G CM NHj S- Phenol BOO; F - Zn Mn NO, SN Pb Mi.-ml f.r' ftoi-1 Mi'ga) Missl MissA
21.0 21.0 0.50 21.0 0.60 1.05 41.4
46.2 46.2 1.10 46.2 1.32 2.31 91.3
10.7 10.7 0.25 10.7 0.30 0.53 21.1
23.5 23.5 0.5623.5 0.67 1.18 46.5
11.4 11.4 0.2711.4 0.33 0.57 22.6
25.2 25.2 0.60 25.2 0.72 1.26 49.8
59.0 1.47 59.0 1.8 2.95 117.9
130.0 3.25130.0 4.0 6.50 260.0
28.3 0.71 28.3 0.87 1.42 56.7
62.4 1.56 62.4 1.92 3.12 124.8
>
35.4 0.88 35.4 1.09 1.77 70.7
78.0 1.96 78.0 2.4 3.90 156.0
21.6 8.6 0.24 <17. 1
47. 7 18.9 0.54 .37.8
30.7 24.8
67. 6 .54. 6
66.0 "53.3
145.6 117.6
35.4 28. 6 6.8 63.9
78.0 63.0 15.0 141.0
0 00
4. 3 4. 3
9.5 9.5
6.3 6.3
13.9 13.9
/|5 I'.oilcr
132/1050000
-------
TABLE B-2
Cd
I
NJ
CO
cT
O
rt
p-
£
O
Cb
O
3
w
1
to
Production
Facility
H4 Slabbing
#1 Slab Caster
#1 Billet Caster
44" HSM
76" HSM
80" HSM
Mold Foundry
100" Plate
10" liar )
14" Bar )
12" Bar
Spike *
24" Bar
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES 'AS PERMITTED UNDER BAT LIMITATIONS
{continued )
(kkg/day)
Dailv Daily Allowable Discharges (Ib/day)
Production Fe , Cr Cr Ni Cu
kkg/tons S. S. O&G CN NH j S~ Phenol BOl^F- Zn Mn J^Q3 SN Pb (diss) Cr (tot) (di.qa) (Higg) (rH^c)
9700/10700 10.7 10.7
23.5 23.5
4170/4600 21.7 21.7
47.8 47.8
1240/1370 6.4 6.4
14.2 14.2
3630/4000 0 0
4080/4500 0 0
12700/14000 0 0
900/1000
1090/1200 7.0 7.0
15.4 15.4
1810/2000 0 0
1900/2100 0 0
45/50 0 0
900/1000 0 0
Note: * Hot Forming Sect
-------
TABLE B-2
Cd
I
o
o
3
ft
H-
3
£
n>
&i
o
3
^— '
tt)
1
OJ
Production
Facility
28" Mill )
)
32" Mill )
#2 Billet
40" CR #1
80"CR #3
CR # 1 Pickling
CR 13 Pickling
44" Sheet
Pickler
12" Bar
Pickling
#5 Galv.
Alk. Cleaning
III Galv. Lines
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BAT LIMITATIONS
(continued)
(kkg/day)
Daily Daily Allowable Discharges (Ib/day)
Production . Fe , Cr Cr Ni
kkg/tons S. S. O&G CN NHj S" Phenol BDtt F - Zn Mn NQ SN Pb (dissj Cr (tot) (diaa). fdis_sl
, ( . . . 3 -
1900/2100 0 0
2720/3000 0 0
1630/1800 169.8 68.0 6.85
375.1 150.1 15.1
8440/9300 21.9 8.8 0.88
48.4 19.3 1.93
4540/5000
8530/9400
900/1000
130/140
900/1000 9.36 3.78 .75 . 0072 '. 076
20.6 8.3 1.65 .016 .168
900/1000 4.68 0.18 0.09
10.3 0.40 0.20
1810/2000 18.8 7,6 1.5 .0145 .152
41.4 16.8 3. 3 . 032 .335
Cu
4d^_
Direct
Applic.
Recirc.
Deep Well
Deep Well
Deep Well
Deep Well
O
10"-14" 235/261
I'icklcr
Deep W.-ll
-------
TABLE B-2
td
I
u>
o
Daily
Production Production
Facility kkg/tons
Power Sta. #2
28 m3/hr (125 gpm)
Boiler Blowdown
Power Sta. #3
15 m3/hr (65 gpm)
Boiler Blowdown
Power Sta. #4
45 m3/hr (200 gpm)
Boiler Blowdown
300 m3/hr (1320 gpm)
& Lime Pretreatment
Boiler #5
23 m3/j,r (ioo gpm)
Boiler Blowdown
ALLOWABLE
S.S. OkG CN NHi S-
20.4 10.2
45 22. 5
10.6 5.3
23.4 11.7
32.6 16.3
72 36
215.6 107.8
475.2 237.6
16.3 8.2
36 18
DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BAT LIMITATIONS
(continued)
(kkg/day)
Daily Allowable Discharges (Ib/day)
Fe . Cr Cr Ni
Phenol BDD5 F- Zn Mn NO SN Pb (diss) Cr (tot) (diaa)_ 4dias4 .
0.7
1.5
0.35
0.8
0.4
0.9
0.54
1.2
Cu
0.7
1.5
0. 35
0.8
0.4
0. 9
0.54
1.2
-------
Outfall 002
The major flows to Outfall 002 are non-contact cooling
waters from Plant No. 3 blast furnaces, Power Station No. 3 and
Coke Plant No. 3. The non-contact cooling water accounts for 98
percent of the total flow to the outfall. Of the remaining 2
percent 236 m3/hr (1,040 gpm) or approximately 1.1 percent is a
discharge from the blast furnace -gas cleaning system. This
blowdown contains ammonia, fluorides and suspended solids in
excess of BAT limitations. To meet the limitations, this gas
cleaning blowdown should be segregated from the other flows and
treated for discharge. The recommended treatment is lime pre-
cipitation and settling for removal of fluorides followed by
break point chlorination for nitrification of the ammonia,
filtration for suspended solids removal and activated carbon
adsorption for final polishing.
Outfall 003 and Outfall 005
Outfalls 003 and 005 are considered under one heading
due to the similarity of their wastes and their proximity to
each other. The 1,200 m3/hr (5,300 gpm) of non-contact cooling
water should be segregated from the total flows and discharged
separately, allowing only 1,860 m^/hr (8,200 gpm) to pass
through the two lagoons. The effluent from the lagoons should
then be recycled back to the mills and 307 m3/hr (1,350 gpm)
blown down to a filtration system. The filtrate should then be
pumped to Plant No. 3 blast furnace cooling system to replace
the present service water makeup. Recycling will minimize the
quantity of water requiring treatment and reduce the amount of
service water needed. The mills that have a zero discharge
limitation will then be in compliance with the BAT requirements.
Additionally, the plate mill, although permitted a blowdown,
will have the equivalent of zero discharge.
Outfalls 007, 008, Oil, 012 and 015
Outfalls 007, 008, Oil, 012 and 015, discharge only
non-contact cooling water and treated sanitary wastes and are
not in violation of BAT limitations. However, in the near
future, thermal regulations are anticipated and may be_imposed
on heated water discharges. Consideration should be given to
the possibility of installing cooling towers to cool the water
prior to reuse. The temperatures of the water discharged are
increased by 8.9C° (16F°) , 4.4CO (8FO) , 6.80° (12.2FO), 19.4CO
(35FO) and 12.20° (22FO) for Outfalls 007, 008, Oil, 012 and
015, respectively.
B-31
-------
Outfalls 013 and 014
Outfalls 013 and 014 discharge treated waste from the
terminal plant. The suspended solids allowable, under BAT, from
all the wastewater treated in the terminal treatment plant is
285 kg (627 Ibs) per day. At a flow of 31,818 m3/hr (140,000
gpm) and a reported increase of suspended solids over intake
quality of 10 mg/1, the actual discharge is 7,627 kg (16,800
Ibs) per day. To reduce the quantity of suspended solids dis-
charged, two steps are recommended: first - segregate all non-
contact cooling water from the influent to the terminal treat-
ment plant and discharge this flow directly to the turning basin
and, second - recirculate all of the water from the terminal
treatment plant back to the mills and coke plant for reuse.
Slowdown from the system would be via the non-contact cooling
water discharges. However, prior to recirculation, additional
treatment in addition to the existing wastewater treatment plant
will be required.
The waste blowdown from the blast furnace recircula-
tion system was studied to determine if any pre-treatment was
necessary prior to combination with other waste. It was found
that the discharges are in accordance with limitations for most
parameters, (i.e., fluoride, sulfide, phenol, cyanide and ammo-
nia) but suspended solids levels are higher than the BAT recom-
mendations. Pre-treatment was not deemed necessary/ however.
With the non-contact cooling water diverted from the
terminal treatment plant, the flow to the facility would be
reduced from 31,818 m3/hr (140,000 gpm) to approximately 25,159
m3/hr (111,000 gpm). This volume also includes an estimated
77.3 m3/hr (350 gpm) from Blooming Mill No. 3 and Billet Mill
No. 2A scarfer electrostatic precipitators discharge. After the
terminal plant, the wastewater should be filtered, using 40 -
4.6 m (15 ft.) diameter, pressurized, granular media filters
operating at a flux rate of 39 m/hr (16 gpm per sq.ft.), then
cooling in cooling towers and directed to the intake of Pumping
Station No. 6. Filters have been demonstrated to satisfactorily
treat and consistently discharge effluents with suspended solids
of 10 mg/1 or less. The backwash water for the filters would be
drawn from'the cooling tower cold well and the solids laden
backwash water would be discharged to the two existing terminal
lagoons from where the solids would settle and be dredged to the
sludge lagoon. A flow diagram showing the distribution and qual-
ity of the recirculation system water with respect to tempera-
ture and solids is shown on Figure B-4. The blowdown from this
recirculation system would be via the non-contact cooling water
discharged. The solids discharged would be approximately 256 kg
(568 Ibs) per day as opposed to the allowable limit of 285 kg
(627 Ibs) per day.
B-32
-------
FLOW
S.S.
T
6795m3/Hr.
29900 g.pm
8 mg/l
38.9°C
70°F
Cd
I
LO
FUOW 25022 nr^/Hr
HOIOOgpm.
S.S. I O.I mg/I
T 52.8°C
95°F
FLOW 9045m3/Hr.
39800 g.p.m.
LAKE MICHIGAN
HOT MILLS
PROCESS
FLOW I6ll3m3/Hr.
70900
g.pm
55.6
100
FLOW 25160 m3/Hr.
Il0700gp.m
S.S. 10 mg/l
T 55°C
IOO°F
EVAP ,
i!36mVHr
600gpm.
FLOW 89IOm3/Hr
39200g.p.m
T 47.2°C
I 85 °F
FLOW
S.S.
6659 m3/Hr.
29300 g.p.m.
9.6 mg/l
TO OUTFALLS
013 AND 014
FLOW 25l60m3/Hr.
110700 g.p.m.
18 mg/l
55.6°C
IOO°F
•BACKWASH
OUTFALLS 013 AND 014
TREATMENT TO MEET BATEA
FIGURE B-4
-------
Outfall 017 and 24N
The wastes discharging through Outfall 017 consist of
7,955 M3/hr (35,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water from the
80-inch Hot Strip Mill and 4,364 m3/hr (19,200 gpm) from Cold
Strip Mill No. 3. Of the remaining flow, 5,136 m3/hr (22,600
gpm) has been treated in the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant,'"
5,455 m3/hr (24,000 gpm) is discharged directly from the 80-inch
Hot Strip Mill Scale Pit No. 2 and 3,932 m3/hr (17,300 gpm) is
from the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill and Cold Strip Mill No. 3 which
is discharged from skimming pits Nos. 4A and 4B. The net sus-
pended solids discharged are approximately 9,534 kg (21,000 Ibs)
per day as compared with the allowable (under BAT) 35.9 kg
(79.3 Ibs) per day.
Outfall 24N is not, in the strictest sense, an outfall
since it discharges wastes to the intake of Pumping Station No.
4 and only a portion of Pumping Station No. 4 water discharges
to the receiving waters via Outfall 015. The allowable dis-
charge under BAT for No. 4 Slabbing Mill is 10.7 kg (23.5 Ibs)"
per day. The total present flow required by Pumping Station
No. 4 is 26,977 m3/hr (118,700 gpm) and, of this, 5,860 m3/hr
(25,000 gpm) is discharged untreated through Outfall 015. How-
ever, for the suspended solids to be limited to the allowable
10.7 kg (23.5 Ibs) per day, the gross suspended solids concen-
tration is Outfall 015 would have to be 8.13 mg/1 and the gross
concentration from the Slabbing Mill No. 4 lagoon would have to
be no greater than 10.57 mg/1. A lagoon system is not capable
of providing this degree of treatment. Therefore, Slabbing Mill
No. 4 scale pit effluent should be treated with the 80-inch Hot
Strip Mill wastes, as described below. The additional flow to
be treated would be 1,409 m3/hr (6,200 gpm) which includes the
existing flow plus the additional flow due to the electrostatic
precipitator at the scarfer.
The non-contact cooling water from Cold Strip Mill
No. 3 should discharge to Outfalls 017 and 24N,as is the present
practice. The non-contact cooling water flow of 7,955 m3/hr
(35,000 gpm) from the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill should be cooled
in an open cooling tower and recirculated via a new non-contact
cooling water supply main. Blowdown from the cooling tower
would be 605 m3/hr (2,660 gpm) and should be directed to the
contact water system as makeup. Makeup of 1,000 m3/hr (4,400
gpm) to the non-contact cooling water system would be from
Pumping Station No. 6.
To enable the reuse of this contact water together
with the water from Scale Pit No. 2 and the Skimmings Pits some
further treatment would be required to reduce the suspended
solids level in order to reduce nozzle wear and line plugging.
The effluent from the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant, Scale
B-34
-------
pit No. 2 and the Skimmings Pits should be collected and pumped
to pressure containing filters and cooling towers prior to re-
turn to the various facilities.
If this scheme is adopted, chemical addition at the
Industrial Waste Treatment Plant could be discontinued because
this facility would only be used for secondary settling and the
filters would reduce the suspended solids and oils to acceptable
levels. Twenty-six 4.6 m (15 ft.) diameter filters would be re-
quired, operating at a flux rate of 39 m/hr (16 gpm per sq.ft.).
The treated water would be returned to the various
facilities as follows: 1,364 m3/hr (6,000 gpm) to Slabbing Mill
No. 4 and 14,284 m3/hr (62,800 gpm) to the 80-inch Hot Strip
Mill. Makeup to the system would be from the non-contact system
as discussed above.
Utilizing the procedure outlined above, the following
benefits are realized:
(1) The plant will meet the BAT limitations
for suspended solids and oils;
(2) Lake water use will be decreased by 22,636
m3/hr (99,600 gpm);
(3) Chemical use and associated excess sludge
producing procedures will be eliminated;
(4) Addition of dissolved chemicals will be re-
duced.
Material Storage Runoff
The BAT limitations for runoff from material storage
areas is 25 mg/1 of suspended solids. Material storage areas
are defined in this report as areas where raw materials are
stored without cover. At the plant approximately 11 ha (27
acres) are dedicated to ore storage at two locations. Plant No.
2 has 7.2 ha (17.5 acres) of storage northwest of the blast fur-
naces and at Plant No. 3 there are 3.8 ha (9.5 acres) of storage
northwest of the blast furnaces. At Plant No. 2, between the
blast furnaces and the coke plant, 3.8 ha (9.3 acres) are used
for coal storage. Considering a once-in-10-year, 24-hour storm,
14,200 m3 (3.75 x 106 gallons) would require retention. Using
an effective depth of storage of 3 m (10 ft.), a total area of
0.47 ha (1.15 acres) would be required. However, due to the
location of the production facilities, at Plant No. 1, which
occupy the entire area between Plants 2 and 3, it is not prac-
tical to collect all of the storm water runoff at one location.
B-35
-------
Portions of the material storage areas at each of the
three locations, described above, should be set aside for the
construction of storm water retention and settling basins. At
Plant No. 3, 0.13 ha (0.32 acres) would be required for collec-
tion of runoff from the ore storage, and two areas would be
required at Plant No. 2: one, 0.24 ha (0.59 acres) for retention
of ore storage runoff and another, 0.13 ha (0.31 acres) for re-
tention of coal pile runoff. These areas represent a reduction
in storage of approximately three percent.
The basins should be of earth construction and not be
lined. The collected waters would be pumped at a rate of 22.7
m3/hr (100 gpm) to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Collection of storm water from the basins would be by
either drainage ditches around the areas or by a new storm sewer
collection system. Drainage ditches are recommended.
Discharges to East Chicago Sanitary District
Present or planned flows to the East Chicago Sanitary
District for the treatment of coke plant wastes are 45 m3/hr
(200 gpm) from Coke Plant No. 2, 36 m3/hr (160 gpm) from Coke
Plant No. 3, 93 m3/hr (407 gpm) from Coke Battery 11, 55 m^/hr
(240 gpm) sanitary wastes from the North Expansion area and
45.5 m-Vhr (200 gpm) sanitary wastes from Plants 3 and 4. Due
to the elimination process in disposing of 95 m^/hr (420 gpm)
in coke quenching operations for air quality purposes at Coke
Plant No- 2, this flow would have to be increased by 95 m^/hr
(420 gpm).
Summary
A plant flow diagram illustrating water distribution
and uses under BAT conditions is shown as Figures B-5, B-6 and
B-7.
2.4 Requirements for Plant to Meet Total Recycle
This section addresses itself to the manner in which
all discharges of water from the Inland Steel Company Plant can
be eliminated. The recommendations made in Section 2.3 are con-
sidered to be in place with new facilities added, whereby, all
water discharges, with the exception of sanitary sewage and area
runoff, are eliminated. In the preparation of this section, it
must be realized that the practicality of the concept of total
recycle has not been addressed. However, the best judgment of
the engineers was used in recommending the systems presented.
B-36
-------
L_Aff E _ M Hi.G_A JIL.
td
i
X ~1 PUMP STATtON
\1 I Mo 3
10
_ i — *— i *! i — * — i *KJI i — ^~~i i i — — i
1 FT M ~>™rf| HI
a
CLORlFIEft
COOLING TOWER
PROPOSED
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
FLOWS 000-«*w
[OOOi- flom.
007 OUTFALL No
RECYCLED WATER
COOLING WATER (NON-CONTACT)
PROCESS WATER
PROPOSED RECYCLE
NOTE-'
ALL fLOWS BALANCED IN ENGLISH UNITS
TO THREE 131 SIGNIFICANT DIT.ITS,
HTDROTSCHN1C CORPORATION
OOHiuiTma iHaiHitm
HIM TORE M T
INIEGRMF.D STEf.L PLANT POLLUTION SlUOY
TOR TOTAL RfCVCIF OF WATFR
INLAND STEEL CORPORATION
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
FLOW DIAGRAM FOH p( ANT TO
MEET B AT REQuiRt Mf NTS
-------
MICHIGAN
w
I
u>
Jjj'E ^0*» N«2
!«i_.? SANiTABY
l*i* TPtATMtlT
NOTE-
FOR NOTtS AND LEGEND
SEE FIGURE B-5
'IVDROTFCHNIC
11IL - •I *
TEGRATED StEEL Pi AN* POLLUTION STU
TOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF WATfR
INLAND STEEL CORPORATION
INDIANA HARBOR WORK^
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT TO
MEET_ B AT REQUIREMENTS
-'•"' 1 FIGURE B-6
-------
w
I
u>
NOTE'
H^DflOTECHNIC CORPORATION
INTCGRIUCG STE£L PL4NI POLLUTION SfUDV
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF WftTfR
INLAND STEF.L COPPO'Vf.TinN
INDIANA HA1BQR WORKS
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PLANT TO
MEET RAT REQUIREMENTS
FIGURE B-7
-------
The average flow rates used in this section, and in
the previous section, are based on data supplied by Inland Steel
Company. Prior to the design and consideration of any waste
treatment facility, an infiltration-inflow analysis should be
made of all gravity sewers and below grade sumps and, when seep-
age is found, it should be eliminated if possible. This pro-
cedure will materially reduce the flows to be treated and the
size of associated treatment facilities.
Outfall 001 and 002
Almost all of the water is cooled prior to discharge
through Outfall 001. The present 114 m3/hr (500 gpm) from
Outfall 001 should be pumped to the Plant No. 3 blast furnace
cooling system as makeup for cooling tower losses. Assuming a
dissolved solids concentration of 400 mg/1 in the discharge from
Outfall 001, the blast furnace gas cooling tower should operate
so that the blowdown would limit the dissolved solids in the re-
circulating water to 600 mg/1. At that concentration the blow-
down would be 102 m3/hr (450 gpm) and this water could be used
for slag quenching at a rate of 0.46 m^/kkg (110 gallons per
ton) .
Approximately 22,500 m3/hr (99,100 gpm) of the dis-
charge through Outfall 002 is non-contact cooling water from the
coke plant, Power Station No. 3 and the Plant No- 3 Blast Fur-
naces. The water should be collected and cooled in an open
cooling tower prior to recycle. If the water is cooled 5.5C°
(10FO) and the dissolved solids concentration in the blowdown is
slightly above 600 mg/1, the blowdown would be 86 m3/hr (380
gpm) . This blowdown could be used as makeup to the blast furnace
gas cleaning water system.
The cycles of concentration at the blast furnace gas
cleaning system can be increased so that the dissolved solids
level is 3,500 mg/1, resulting in a blowdown of 59 m3/hr (260
gpm). This blowdown could then be used as dilution water at the
coke plant biological treatment plant described below.
To attain the goal of total recycle, the 36 m3/hr (160
gpm) of coke plant wastes could no longer be discharged to the
East Chicago Sanitary District and a treatment system for this
wastewater would be required. Since the raw coke plant wastes
are too high in ammonia, either ammonia removal or dilu-
tion water is required. Assuming adequate ammonia removal
cannot be achieved we have used dilution water. This dilution
water would be the 59 m3/hr (260 gpm) blowdown from the blast
furnace gas washer system. The wastewater would be treated
biologically in an extended aeration system with a residence time
of approximately 18 hours. After removal of the biologically de-
gradable compounds, the waste would be filtered and combined with
the boiler blowdown from Power Station No. 3 for dissolved solids
B-40
-------
removal. Removal of dissolved solids is assumed to be by re-
verse osmosis to a level of 175 mg/1. The product stream of 83
m3/hr (367 gpm) would be used as makeup at the proposed cooling
tower and the brine reject stream of 27 m3/hr (121 gpm) would be
evaporated to dryness. Approximately 17.2 kkg (19 tons) of dry
solids per day would require disposal, and the volume would be
approximately 18.2 cubic meters (24 cubic yards) per day.
Outfalls 003 and 005
The non-contact cooling water flow of 1,205 m3/hr
(5,300 gpm) from the Spike Mill, the Plate Mill, Plant No. 1
Galvanizing Lines and the 24-inch Bar Mill must be elimi-
nated. This water should be collected and cooled and will have
a blowdown of 68 m3/hr (300 gpm) which would discharge to the
blast furnace gas cooling system. The cooling tower effluent
would be combined with the filtered and non-filtered process
waters from the mills (as described in Section 2.3) and recycled
back to Pump Station No. 3.
Outfall 007
The flows to Outfalls 007 are all non-contact cooling
water should be -collected and cooled in an open cooling
tower and returned to the Plant No. 2 blast furnace cooling
system for reuse. A blowdown of 76 m3/hr (335 gpm) would be
sent to the dissolved solids removal unit following the biologi-
cal treatment plant described under Outfall 012. This flow also
includes 6,318 m3/hr (27,800 gpm) presently being discharged to
Outfall Oil for a total cooling tower capacity of 12,500 m3/hr
(55,000 gpm).
Outfall 008
The only flow to Outfall 00.8 is non-contact cooling
water from Power Station No. 2. This flow of 29,091 m3/hr
(128,000 gpm) should be cooled in an open cooling tower and
recycled to Power Station No. 2. The blowdown of 98 m3/hr (430
gpm) would be sent to the dissolved solids removal unit follow-
ing the biological treatment described under Outfall 012.
Outfall Oil
The non-contact cooling water from Power Station No. 2
presently discharging to Outfall Oil, would be diverted and
cooled in the cooling tower described under Outfall 008 and the
non-contact cooling water from Plant No. 2 blast furnaces would
be cooled in the cooling tower described under Outfall 007.
B-41
-------
The sinter plant flow of 93 m3/hr (410 gpm) would be
pumped to the Coke Plant No. 2 cooling towers, described below.
Boiler blowdown from Power Station No. 2 would be
transferred to the final treatment stage of the Coke Plant No. 2
treatment system, described below.
Outfall 012 and Coke Plant No. 2
All discharge to Outfall 012, with the exception of
the treated sanitary wastes, would be eliminated when cooling
towers are installed for various non-contact cooling water
streams. The 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water
from EOF No- 2 should be collected and combined with the follow-
ing waters. The non-contact cooling water from the following
sources should be segregated from the contaminated wastewaters
which presently discharge to the Terminal Treatment Plant to
eliminate unnecessary treatment:
Cold Strip Mill Nos. 1 & 2 864 m3/hr (3,800 gpm)
14-inch Plate Mill 795 m3/hr (3,500 gpm)
10-inch Bar Mill 364 m3/hr (1,600 gpm)
No. 2 Blooming & No. 2A 1,682 M3/hr (7,400 gpm)
Billet Mill
Power Station No. 1 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm)
The total cooling tower capacity would be 4,160 m3/hr
(18,300 gpm) and the cooled water would be recirculated back to
EOF No. 2 and Pump Station No. 1. A blowdown of 19 m3/hr (85
gpm) would be used for quenching coke at Coke Plant No. 2.
Two additional cooling towers, to cool non-contact
cooling waters from Coke Plant No. 2, would also be required.
The first would cool 2,841 m3/hr (12,500 gpm) with a 22.7CO
(41F°) temperature increase and the second to cool 2,727 m3/hr
(12,000 gpm) with a 7.SCO (14F°) temperature increase. In addi-
tion, 93 m3/hr (410 gpm) from the sinter plant would be cooled
in these towers. Blowdown from the two towers, 48.9 m3/hr (215
gpm) and 15.9 m3/hr (70 gpm), respectively, would be used for
coke quenching.
The discontinuation of coke quenching using wastewater
from the final cooler and benzol plant, due to air pollution
control requirements, will result in 95.5 m3/hr (420 gpm) of
additional wastes requiring treatment. The blowdown of 56.8
m3/hr (250 gpm) from the pushing scrubber car system would also
be added. Therefore, the total coke plant waste requiring
treatment, on site, would be 198 m3/hr (870 gpm). Treatment
would be by biological means as at Plant No. 3, Coke Plant.
Due to the strength of the wastes from coke plant sources,
other than the pushing operation, dilution is required. The
B-42
-------
dilution water would be blowdown from the Plant No. 3 blast
furnace gas cleaning system which presently flows to the termi-
nal treatment plant. Additional recirculation of gas cleaning
water should be practiced so that the blowdown is reduced to 145
m3/hr (630 gpm) . This blowdown would then be treated with the
coke plant wastes.
The total flow through the Plant No. 2 biological sys-
tem would be 341 m3/hr (1,500 gpm) . The system would use the
extended aeration process with a residence time of approximately
18 hours. Two parallel basins should be provided and, after
removal of the biologically degradable compounds, the waste would
be filtered and combined with the 28 rr\3/hr (125 gpm) boiler blow-
down from Power Station No. 2, cooling tower blowdowns of 98
m3/m (430 gpm) from Power Station No. 2 and 76 m3/hr (335 gpm)
from Plant No. 2 blast furnaces. This waste would have the
dissolved solids removed by a reverse osmosis system. The prod-
uct stream, treated to a dissolved solids concentration of 600
mg/1 would be distributed as follows: 11.4 m3/hr (50 gpm) to
coke quenching, 93.2 m3/hr (410 gpm) to the sinter plant, 212
m3/hr (935 gpm) as makeup to the Plant No. 2 blast furnace gas
cleaning system and 90 m3/hr (395 gpm) to Pump Station No. 2.
The reject stream of 136 m3/hr (600 gpm) would be evaporated to
dryness. It is estimated that approximately 25.8 kkg (28.4 tons)
of dry solids per day would require disposal with a volume of
26.8 m3 (35.1 cubic yards) per day.
Outfalls 013 and 014
If the flow modifications recommended for Outfall 012
are implemented, the flow to Outfalls 013 and 014 via the
Terminal Treatment Plant would be reduced by the following
amounts:
Source Flow Reduction
rc-Vhrgpm
Plant No. 2 blast furnace cleaning 432 1,900
system
Coke Plant No. 2 non-contact cooling 2,727 12,000
water
Power Station No. 1 non-cooling 227 1,000
water
No. 2 Blooming and No. 2A Billet 1,682 7,<
Mill non-contact cooling water
10-inch Bar Mill con-contact cooling 364 1
water
14-inch Mill con-contact cooling 795 3
water
Cold Strip Mills 1 & 2 non-contact 864 3,800
cooling water
Total 7,090 31,200
B-43
-------
The total quantity of wastewater remaining, that would
require treatment would then be approximately 24,772 nP/hr
(109,000 gpm). Assuming a total water recycle system with a dis-
solved solids level of 600 mg/1 in the water recirculated back
to the mills, the system described below and shown on Figure B-8
should be installed. In developing the system, the following
assumptions were made: maximum temperature usable at the mills
contributing wastes to these outfalls is 50°C (90°F), the tem-
perature of the wastes from the hot mills is 55.5°C (100°F), the
dissolved solids increase in the water discharged from the hot
mills is 25 mg/1 and the dissolved solids increase in the water
from the cold strip mills is 2,600 mg/1.
As indicated in Section 2.3, treatment of the discharge
from the Terminal Treatment Plant is required. In this proposed
system, the wastes that would continue to be treated in the
Terminal Treatment Plant are all from hot mill contact cooling
usage. Cold mills wastes would be segregated for separate first
stage treatment. The total wastewater flow of 24,772 m3/hr
(109,000 gpnu would be reduced by the cold mill flow of 500 m3/hr
(2,200 gpm) for a total of 24,270 m3/hr (106,800 gpm). After
cooling, a portion of the wastes would be demineralized in a
reverse osmosis facility to a level of 175 mg/1 dissolved solids
and combined with the balance so that the resultant dissolved
solids level would be 600 mg/1.
Wastes from the cold mills would be collected separate-
ly, treated for oil removal, filtered and passed through a first
stage reverse osmosis unit to remove 75 percent of the dissolved
solids. The product stream would then be combined with the flow
from the hot mills system and passed through the hot mills re-
verse osmosis unit. Using a reject stream of 25 percent from
each unit, a total of 543 m3/hr (2,390 gpm) would have to be
evaporated to dryness. The dried solids produced would be ap-
proximately 49.4 kkg (54.4 tons) per day with a volume of approx-
imately 51.4 m3 (67.2 cubic yeards). Evaporation would be in a
spray dryer.
Outfall 017
Utilizing the same facilities described in Section 2.3
for treatment of wastes for discharge, modification and additions
would be required to meet the total recycle requirements. Assum-
ing that the dissolved solids level in the non-contact cooling
water would be maintained at 600 mg/1, a cooling tower would be
required to cool this water from both the 80-inch Hot Strip Mill
and Cold Strip Mill No. 3. The cooling tower would blow down
26.1 m3/hr (115 gpm) to the process water cooling tower which
follows filtration.
B-44
-------
BACKWASH
HOT
MILLS
FLOW 243l8m3/Hr.
lOTOOOg.p.m.
S.S. lOmg/l
TD.S. 625mg/l
T 55.6°C
IOO°F
FLOW 24015 m3/Hr.
lOGOOOg.p.m.
S.S. 10 mg/l
T.D.S. 600mg/l
T 50°C
90°F
W
I
£>
ui
FLOW 243l8m3/Hr.
I07000g.p.m.
S.S. 18 mg/l
T.D.S. 625mg/l
T 55.6° C
100° F
en
<
5
*
u
<
CD
I
en
o
<
CD
COLD
MILLS
FLOW 5llm3/Hr.
2250g.pm.
T.D.S. 3200 mg/l
BACKWASH ,
EVAP
A
FLOW 6500m3/Ht
28600g.p.m.
T.D.S 625 mg/l
FLOW I7820m3/Hr
78400g.p.m.
S.S. I0mg/l.
T.D.S. 625mg/l
FLOW 16272 m^Hr.
7l600g.p.m.
T.D.S. 634mg/l
FLOW
T.D.S.
I690g.p.m.
690 mg/l
FLOW I7550m3/Hf
77200g.p.m.
TD.S. 634mg/l
T 47,2°C
850°F
1st. STAGE
REVERSE OSMOSIS
FLOW I273m3/Hr
5600g.p.m.
S.S. I0mg/l
TD.S. 634rng/l
T 47.2° C
85° F
2 nd STAGE E
REVERSE OSMOSIS!
FLOW
128 m3/Hr.
565g.p.m.
OUTFALLS 013 AND 014
IDRYINGI
SOLIDS-
TREATMENT FOR
FLOW 2390g.p.m.
T.D.S. 3700 mg/l
FLOW
T.D.S.
!24Om3/Hr.
542Og.p.m.
175 mg/l
FLOW
415 m3/Hr
1825 gp.m
TOTAL RECYCLE
FIGURE B-8
-------
A dissolved solids increase in the mills and the indus-
trial waste treatment plant of 100 mg/1 should be experienced
and, in turn, the dissolved solids level in the circulating water
used in the mills would be 600 mg/1. A demineralizing facility
with brine evaporation would then be required and the deminer-
alizing facility would have to treat approximately 3,300 m3/hr
(14,500 gpm) and reject approximately 824 m3/hr (3,625 gpm) for
evaporation. The final waste to be disposed of would be 42.6
kkg (47 tons) per day and the solids accumulation would be 44.3
m3 (58 cubic yards) per day. The system is illustrated on
Figure B-9.
Outfall 015
The 114 m3/hr (50° 9Pm) of treated sanitary wastes
would continue to be discharged through Outfall 015, but the
non-contact cooling water flow of 5,680 m3/hr (25,000 gpm) would
require cooling and recirculation. To maintain a dissolved
solids level of 600 mg/1, a blowdown of 56.3 m3/hr (230 gpm)
would be pumped to the final treatment system described below
under Outfall 018.
Outfall 018
Of the flows that discharge to Outfall 018, 18,180
n\3/hr (80,000 gpm) is non-contact cooling water. This water
should be cooled and returned to the power station No. 4. A
61 m3/hr (270 gpm) blowdown from this recirculation system would
be combined with the boiler blowdown flow of 45 m3/hr (200 gpm)
and treated with the 227 m3/hr (1,000 gpm) blowdown from EOF
No. 4 and Slab Caster No. 1 system in a reverse osmosis unit
prior to return to the EOF and Slab Caster. Approximately 97
m3/hr (425 gpm) of reject would be evaporated to dryness. An
additional waste flow from Power Station No. 4 seeps into the
ground at the fly ash lagoon. This flow should be eliminated by
using a dry fly ash collection system and hauling the ash rather
than sluicing.
Northward Expansion
The northward expansion biological treatment plant
effluent is being sent to the East Chicago Sanitary District
with other plant sanitary wastes. Under the total recycle
criterion, this would no longer be permitted and the wastes
would require further on-site treatment prior to reuse.
The treatment would consist of filtration, demineral-
ization, return of product water to the plant and evaporation
of the reject stream.
B-46
-------
w
I
•
TDS
FLOW
175 mg/l
3228 m3/Hr
(I4200gpm.)
FLOW 5-
-------
Additional wastes from the coke plant and the blast
furnace gas washer system at the northward expansion are current-
ly used to quench slag. It is assumed that this practice would
be discontinued due to air pollution considerations and these
flows would have to be treated in the biological treatment plant.
The gas cleaning system blowdown would serve as dilution water
in the biological treatment plant and the total flow to the
biological plant would be approximately 286 m3/hr (1,260 gpm)
with a resulting retention time of approximately 12 hours. For
adequate treatment the biological treatment plant should be in-
creased in size by 50 percent and two additional clarifiers in-
stalled. Further treatment would consist of collection of the
wastes from the four clarifiers and pumping this wastewater to
two 3 m (10 ft.) diameter filters. The filtrate would be col-
lected and a portion would be used to backwash the filters and
the balance pumped to a two-stage reverse osmosis facility for
demineralization. The filter backwash would be collected in a
backwash collection basin and allowed to settle. The superna-
tant would be returned to the clarifiers and the sludge would be
pumped to the air flotation thickeners.
The brine reject stream from each stage of the reverse
osmosis facility would total approximately 71 m3/hr (315 gpm)
which would be evaporated to dryness and approximately 32.6 kkg
(36 tons) per day of dried solids would be produced with a
volume of approximately 33.9 m3 (44.4 cubic yards).
Precipitation Runoff
All runoff collected, as described in Section 2.3,
would be pumped to the closest pumping station intake for use
at the plant.
Solids Disposal
The treatment of wastes, as described above, at the
Northwest Expansion and at Outfalls 001, 002, 012, 013, 014, and
017, will result in the production of considerable quantities
of soluble dried solids. The total quantities would be 138 kkg
(152 tons) per day with a volume of 143.5 m3 (187.8 cubic years).
Assuming a twenty year storage of these solids in an
area which would be lined to prevent leaching into the ground
during periods of precipitation, and assuming a useable depth of
3 meters (10 ft.), a minimum area of 34.3 ha (85 acres) would be
required.
Summary
A flow diagram illustrating water distribution and
uses under zero discharge conditions is shown as Figure B-10,
B-48
-------
B_ll and B-12 and the location of in-plant facilities are shown
on Figures 3-13 and B14.
B-49
-------
UJ
I
LEGEND;
CLARIFIES
COOLiNG TOWEH OOT
FLOWS 000-m3/Hf
(OOO)- gpm
a
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
OUTFALL No
RECYCLED WATER
COOLING WATER (NON-CONTACT)
PROCESS WATER
PROPOSED RECYCLE
HtDROTSCHNIC CORPORATION
CON3ULT1NO (NOINItlUI
Ht* TOOK M T
INTEGRATED STfEl PLANT POLLUTION STUD*
FOR 10UL. RECiTU OF WVTER
INLAND STEEL CORPOftfiTrON
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE
FIGURE B-10
-------
Cd
I
Ln
fiAIEO STffL PUNT POLLUTfON STUDY
FOR TOTAt RECYCLE OF XATtR
NLAND STEEL CORPOPAFtON
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE
-------
LAKE MICHIGAN
w
Ul
NJ
a
EviP
JCT- •
_9?.4y4*P9?LJ
EVflP
sll
NOTE.
FOR LEGEND ft NOTES ICE fIGUftE B>IO
NSQN .55
ASTTljion
HYDROTECKN1C CORPORATION
CONSUITIHG tNGIHtIM
NI* ton N T
STEEl PLflNT POUUTjQN STUD'
FOR Totti RECYCLE OF WATE.R
INLAND STEEL COMRdNr
INDIANA HAR80R WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE
\ FIGURE B-12
-------
PLANT NO. 4
w
Ul
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. I
•"-
r f 1 -^TTfrmM"WATER"!
I L • IRETENTIQN POND|
rna JOOm
11 it - »i r
INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT POIUJT(OH STUDY
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE Of WATER
INLAND STEEL COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
PLOT PLAN 8 LOCATION OF
'POSED TREATMENT FAClLITl
TIES_
FIGURE 8 -13
-------
I
Cn
*=.
IKlCCRilCP 51EEI PL4ST POUUUON SlUOt
fOB TOIW DtOVH Of WtH H
INI AMU IiTCCX COMl'ftNI
-------
APPENDIX C
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
C-i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction C_l
1.1 Purpose and Scope C-l
1.2 Description of the Steel Plant C-l
1.2.1 Manufacturing Process and Facilities C-l
1.2.2 Water Systems and Distribution C-2
1.2.3 Existing Waste Treatment Facilities C-7
1.2.4 Water Related Aspects of Air Quality C-10
Control Systems
2.0 Proposed Program C-ll
2.1 General C-ll
2.2 Water Related Modifications to Air Quality C-ll
Control
2.3 Requirements for the Plant to Meet BAT C-12
2.4 Requirements for the Plant to Meet Zero C-30
Discharge
C-iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
C— T_
„ i Existing Flow Diagrams C-4
C-2 c_5
C-3 Blast Furnace Treatment Plant - C-16
Quality & Flow Diagram
C-4 Blast Furnace Treatment Plant - C-17
General Arrangement
C-5 Blooming Mill & Scarfer Treatment Plant - C-20
Quality and Flow Diagram
C-6 Blooming Mill & Scarfer Treatment Plant - C-21
General Arrangement
C-7 Tin Mill Wastes and "B" Outfall Chemical C-24
Treatment Plant - Quality & Flow Diagram
C-8 "B" Sewer Chemical Treatment Plant - C-25
General Arrangement
C-9 Hot Strip Mill Treatment Plant - C-26
Quality and Flow Diagram
C-10 Hot Strip Mill Treatment Plant - C-27
General Arrangement
C-ll "C" and "E" Chemical Treatment Plant - C-32
Quality and Flow Diagram
C-12 "C" and "E" Chemical Treatment Plant - C-33
General Arrangement
C—13
, . Flow Diagrams - BAT System C-34
L-i C-35
/~i_ -I j-
„ ,, Flow Diagrams - Zero Discharge System C-39
C-16 ^ -* c_40
C-17 Existing Plot Plan & Location Plan for C-41
Treatment Facilities
C.-i
IV
-------
TABLES
Number Page
C-l BAT Allowable Discharges C-14
C-v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This appendix addresses itself specifically to
National Steel Corporation's Weirton Steel Division in Weirton,
West Virginia. It includes the preliminary engineering designs
based on conclusions reached from data supplied by the
Weirton Steel Division. It does not include the identification
of all environmental control technologies considered, the
evaluation of other steel plants studied or cost estimates,
practicality or possible environmental impacts. Therefore,
it should be looked on only as a vehicle to present a possible
scheme to attain total recycle but not necessarily one that is
practical, feasible or one that will not generate, with its
implementation, an environmental impact in other sectors which
is intolerable.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT
1.2.1 Manufacturing Processes and Facilities
The Weirton Steel Division of the National Steel
Corporation is a completely integrated steel plant located
approximately 60 km (37 miles) west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
on the east bank of the Ohio River in the town of Weirton,
West Virginia. It is at the confluence of the Ohio River
and Harmon Creek and occupies a 142 hectare (350 acres) site
oriented north-south. The integrated facilities located on
the site to produce finished and semi-finished products
consist of:
Capacity .where applicable
in kkg/day/TPD
- Ore Coal and Flux Storage N.A.
Areas
- • Coal Washing Facilities N.A.
Two By-Products Coke
Plants 7516/8278
- One Sinter Plant 6690/7375
- Four Blast Furnaces 8948/9864
- One BOP Shop 11343/12500
Two Vacuum Degassers 5983/6595
C-l
-------
Capacity where applicable
in kkg/day/TPD
1.2.2
One Continuous Casting Shop
A Blooming Mill
A Hot Scarfer
A 54-inch Hot Strip Mill
Three Pickling Lines
(Hydrochloric acid)
Five Tandem Mills
(Cold Reduction)
Two Weirlite Mills
(Cold Reduction)
Eight Temper Mills
One Sheet Mill Cleaning Line)
Two Tin Mill Cleaning Lines )
One Tin Mill Chemical )
Treatment Line )
Three Tin Mill Continuous )
Annealing Lines )
A Strip Steel and Sheet Mill
Batch Annealer
A Tin Mill Batch Annealer
Four Hot Dip Galvanizing Lines
One Electrolytic Galvanizing
Line
Three Electrolytic Tin Plating
Lines
One Electrolytic Plating Line
(Chrome or Tin)
A Boiler House
A Power House
A Hydrochloric Acid Recovery
Plant
A Palm Oil Recovery Plant
An Acetylene Plant
Water Systems and Distribution
3969/4375
8682/9570
N.A.
8340/9193
8499/9369
'9918/10933
2056/2267
N.A.
6380/7018
N.A.
N.A.
1714/1889
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Water used at the plant is drawn from the Ohio River.
A pump station on the river provides approximately 38,700 m-^/hr
(170,300 gpm) of service water to the plant. Potable water for
sanitary purposes is supplied by the City of Weirton or from
the Weirton Steel Division potable water treatment plant. All
sanitary wastewaters discharge to the City of Weirton Sewage
Treatment Plant located south (downstream) of the steel plant.
The uses of water at the plant are shown on Figures
C-l and C-2. Generally, the only water that is recycled or
reused is non-contact cooling water. However, the plant will
place in operation in the near future an extensive recycle
C-2
-------
system at the blast furnaces gas washer system. For the
purposes of this report it has been assumed that the blast
furnace system is installed and operating. This recycle
system will reduce the gas washer discharges from 3260 m3/hr
(14,340 gpm) to 175 m3/hr (770 gpm).
The water uses at the plant are discussed below and
grouped in relation to the outfalls through which they
discharge.
"A" Outfall
The by-products coke plant discharges approximately
3070 mVhr (13,500 gpm) to the outfall. Other flows from the
coke plant are approximately 40 m3/hr (175 gpm) which
discharge to the Brown's Island biological treatment plant and
approximately 115 rrryhr (500 gpm) of clean blowdown is used
for coke quenching. The latter flow is lost through evapo-
ration.
There are two flows to "A" outfall from the Blast
Eurnaces, a non-contact cooling water flow of approximately
5440 m3/hr (24,000 gpm) and the new gas washer system blowdown
of 175 m3/hr (770 gpm). Solids removed from the treated water
are sent to the sinter plant. The power house discharges
approximately 3775 m3/hr (16,600 gpm) of condenser cooling
water to "A" outfall.
The boiler house produces steam for use at the
power house. It receives water from the plant water supply
system either as it is drawn from the river after softening
in a feed water softener. Approximately 545 m3/hr (2400 gpm)
are utilized in the "Krebs" scrubber and discharge after
treatment together with the water removed from the water
softening wastes totaling 648 m3/hr (2850 gpm).
Approximately 115 m3/hr (500 gpm) of boiler blowdown
is discharged from the Boiler House to "A" sewer. An addition-
al 75 m3/hr (330 gpm) is used for sluicing ash and the settled
water is also discharged to "A" sewer.
Water use at the Tin Mill Cleaning Line is
estimated to be approximately 114 m3/hr (500 gpm) . It is used
for cleaning solution makeup, spraying and rinsing operations.
The Temper Mill discharges 500 m3/hr (2200 gpm).
The Blooming Mill and Scarfer discharge both process
and non-contact cooling waters to both "A" outfall and
"C and E" outfall through a junction box. Approximately
1836 m3/hr (8080 gpm) is to "A" outfall and 950 m-Vhr
(4170 gpm) is to "C and E" outfall. Of these flows approxi-
mately 1535 m3/hr (6755 gpm) is non-contact cooling water
C-3
-------
n
i
-------
o
I
BftHD SUFI Plflfyr PQLIUTION STUD*
FOR TQtAL StCrCt r OF WAHR
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATfON
WE1RTON STEEL DIVISION
EXfSTING FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
and the balance of 889 m3/hr (3910 gpm) is process water that
has passed through scale pits.
The Sinter Plant utilizes approximately 80 m3/hr
(350 gpm) for air cleaning and an equal volume for non-contact
cooling.
The total flow to outfall "A" is approximately 15,927
m3/hr (70,100 gpm).
"B" Outfall
The flows to the Ohio River through "B" outfall are
approximately 2700 m3/hr (11,800 gpm). All flows pass through
a lime neutralization manhole and then through two lagoons
operating in parallel prior to discharge.
The demineralizer plant discharges an average of
23 m3/hr (100 gpm) which consists of regenerant wastes that are
collected and equalized prior to discharge.
The continuous annealing lines have cleaning sections
associated with them. Water is used for cleaning solution
makeup, strip quenching and a small amount for non-contact
cooling. The process wastes discharged to "B" sewer are
estimated to be approximately 227 m3/hr (1000 gpm) .
Of the two cold reduction Weirlite lines one is on
recycle and the other on direct application of rolling
solutions. Continuous discharges from the Weirlite lines in
the amount of approximately 45 m3/hr (200 gpm) are discharged to
a chemical treatment plant and then to "B" sewer.
The electrolytic (tin) plating lines discharge
approximately 2409 m3/hr (10,600 gpm) to "B" sewer. The wastes
consist of cleaning solution, occasional pickle liquor dumps,
rinse tank overflows, and plating bath rinse overflows.
"C and E" Outfalls
The flows from the facilities that discharge to "C"
Sewer and "E" Sewer are combined and, the combined flows dis-
charge through two parallel lagoons to Harmon Creek, a tribu-
tary of the Ohio River.
Sewer
Approximately 14,200 m3/hr (62,600 gpm) are discharged
to "C" Sewer. Approximately 891 m?/hr (3940 gpm) are from the
hot mills via the junction box described under "A" outfall
above.
C-6
-------
When all of the pickling lines have been converted to
counter current rinses and when plate scrubbers are installed
the design discharge will be 30 m3/hr (160 gpm) . An average of
11.4 m-Vhr (50 gpm) waste pickle liquor is sent to the acid
regeneration plant for the recovery of hydrochloric acid.
There are four separate flows to "C" sewer from the
54-inch Hot Strip Mill. Contact cooling water is discharged to
a hot well from which 1060 m-Vhr (4660 gpm) flows to "C" sewer
A flume flushing flow of 2270 m3/hr (10,000 gpm) is used which'
is directed to the roughing stands scale pit and 455 m3/hr
(2000 gpm) is recycled to the service water line. A total of
3500 m3/hr (15,400 gpm) discharges from the finishing stands
scale pit, 4320 m3/hr (19,000 gpm) from the roughing stands
scale pit and 3070 m3/hr (13,500 gpm), directly from the runout
table. All discharge to "C" sewer. Other flows are 1090 m3/hr
(4800 gpm) from the Tandem Mills and 252 m3/hr (1110 gpm) from
miscellaneous shops.
"E" Sewer
A flow of 102 m3/hr (450 gpm) is discharged from the
water treatment facilities and 17 m3/hr (450 gpm) from cooling
tower blowdown. A recycle flow of 3114 m3/hr (13,700 gpm) is
directed to these facilities from the cooling tower and waste
treatment system. Makeup to these facilities is 190 m3/hr
(835 gpm) from the plant service water system of which 88 m3/hr
(385 gpm) is directly to the cooling tower.
The continuous caster discharges its wastewater to
"E" Sewer. This facility has extensive recirculation facili-
ties and virtually all of the discharges are blowdowns from
treatment facilities. The closed system cooling tower blows
down 8 m3/hr (35 gpm) and the open system blows down 55 m3/hr
(240 gpm) to "E" Sewer. Leakage and evaporative losses from
the casting process and cooling towers amount to 232 m3/hr
(1020 gpm). An additional discharge from the open system
occurs as large, short duration flows from the backwashing of
the deep bed filters. The total daily flow is 606 m3 (160,000
gals) .
The coal washing facilities discharge a total of 246
m3/day (65,000 gpd) and the detinning plant discharges an
average 15 m3 (4000 gal) per 8 hour turn.
1.2.3 Existing Waste Treatment Facilities
The Weirton Steel Division treats all waste to some
degree prior to discharge. Each of the outfalls with the
exception of the Brown's Island biological treatment plant has
lagoons just before discharge where solids are settled and
C-7
-------
oil is skimmed. Upstream of the lagoons, at some of the
production and service facilities, some treatment is provided
before discharge to the main sewers.
The blast furnaces, as described in Section 1.2.2
have had a gas cleaning water recirculation system installed.
Gas cleaning water discharges into a splitter box where
polymer is added prior to flow to two clarifiers. Clarified ••
water is then pumped to a cooling tower and then recirculated
to the gas washer system. The underflow from the clarifiers
is dewatered and the solids sent to the sinter plant. A
cooling tower blowdown of approximately 175 nr/hr (770 gpm)
is used to control the dissolved solids level in the system.
Makeup to the system is from the service water line to the
cooling tower.
Power House waste from hot lime softening of boiler
feed water and from the "Krebs" scrubber are treated in a
"Lamella" separator system. The sludge underflow from the
"Lamella" separator is dewatered and the overflow is discharged
to "A" sewer.
The only treatment provided at the Blooming Mill and
Scarfer is a scale pit. No recirculation is practiced at
these facilities and the scale pit effluent together with
non-contact cooling water combines and is discharged to the
junction box of "C and E" sewer.
No waste treatment facilities are provided at the
Tin Mill cleaning line, Temper Mill or Sinter Plant; however,
sintering wastes are treated at the Blast Furnace.
The above flows are to the "A" outfall lagoons
where the oil is skimmed off and sent to the "PORI" outfall
lagoons where the oil is skimmed off and sent to the "PORI"
plant for processing. The sludge is bucketed out and hauled
away by contractors to disposal.
Wastes from the Weirlite lines consist of emulsified
oils, free oils, scale and dirt. The flows from both lines
pass thorugh a treatment plant where oils are skimmed after
chemical treatment and air flotation. The oil is then sent
to the "PORI" plant and the treated wastes combine with the
flows from the tin plating lines, the continuous annealing
lines and the regenerants from the demineralizer plant. The
combined flows pass through a manhole where lime is added
and then flow to the "B" outfall lagoon. Oils,gravity sepa-
rated in the lagoon, are skimmed and sent to the "PORI" plant.
Oil solutions from the Tandem Mills are pumped
directly to the "PORI" plant.
08
-------
Waste Pickle Liquor from the three pickling lines
(Nos. 3, 4 & 5) are pumped directly to the acid regeneration
plant.
The Hot Strip Mill discharges wastes from the roll
stands into one of four scale pits. The roughing stands
discharge into one pit and the finishing stands flows are
divided into three pits. The gross scale particles are
removed and the settled wastes are discharged. A portion
of the cooling water from a hot well is used for flume flushing
under the roughing stands and is discharged into the roughing
stands scale pit, a portion is returned to the service water
line and a portion is discharged to the sewer.
The Carbide Plant discharges its waste slurry
through two settling pits where the solids are kept in sus-
pension and discharged with the supernatant.
The acid regeneration plant and the "PORI" plant are
considered as waste treatment facilities although they, as a
result of operations, discharge wastes to "C and E" outfalls.
From the gas cleaning system at the BOP, the
water is discharged to two clarifiers, via a splitter box,
where most of the solids are removed. The clarifier overflow
is recirculated with a portion blown down to the sewer for
dissolved solids control. The clarifier underflow is
dewatered in one of two vacuum filters.
The continuous caster open system has a waste
treatment system that permits recycle of most of the water
used. The water first passes to a flat bed filter for solids
removal and then to a cooling tower. A portion of the return
water from the cooling tower is passed through four deep bed
filters for further solids removal. Each filter is back-
washed three times a day and the solids are discharged to the
sewer. The closed water system recycles all of its water
with the exception of cooling tower blowdown required for
dissolved solids control.
The coal washing facilities discharge solids laden
water to a clarifier where settling aids are added. The
clarified water is recycled back to the washing facilities
and the sludge is dewatered on a vacuum filter. However, at
the end of each day operation approximately 227-246 m
(60-65,000 gals) are pumped to the sewer. This water
contains suspended and dissolved solids.
All of the wastewaters that flow to "C and E" sewers
flow through two lagoons where additional solids are settled
and oil skimmed off. The skimmed oil is sent to PORI. The
C-9
-------
settled solids in the lagoon are periodically pumped by a
floating dredge to two decant tanks. The supernatant from the
decant tanks is returned to the lagoons and the settled sludge
is periodically hauled away to a land disposal site.
1.2.4 Water Related Aspects of Air Quality Control Systems
Water related air pollution control facilities are
presently installed at the two coke plants, the blast furnaces,
the boiler house, the BOP shop, the tandem mills, the pickle
lines and at the scarfer.
The Brown's Island Coke Plant pusher cars are
equipped with venturi scrubbers. An underground continuous
quenching system has been installed which is equipped with a
scrubber but the mainland coke batteries have no controls for
pushing. A Claus vacuum carbonate system for the production of
elemental sulfur from hydrogen sulfide was installed but was
destroyed by corrosion due to the inadequacy of the cyanide
removal system. Improvements are being made and it is expected
that it will be fully operative. Ammonia is removed in an
ammonia still and incinerated. By 1980 Weirton will desulfurize
coke oven gases at the mainland Coke Plant.
At each of the blast furnaces there are two trains
used for cleaning of gas, depending upon where the gas is to be
used. The gas that is to be used at the coke plant passes
through a dry dust catcher, a venturi, a wet electrostatic
precipitator, a disintegrator and a second wet electrostatic
precipitator. Gas to be used at the boiler house and the
soaking pits passes through a venturi scrubber and a wet
electrostatic precipitator.
BoilersNOS. 1 & 2 can fire coal and coke oven gas and
No. 3 is capable of firing blast furnace gas, coke oven gas,
No. 6 fuel oil and coal. Because of the coal firing the boilers
are tied into a common, low energy, "Krebs" scrubber which is
used to remove fly ash from the gas stream.
Weirton originally had two sinter machines, No. 1
rated at 2270 kkg/day (2500 TPD), and No. 2, rated at 4535
kkg/day (5000 TPD). No. 1 was shut down in 1975 and is not
expected to start up again. At the discharge end of machine
No. 1, the emissions are controlled by means of Rotoclones.
All of the steel is produced in two basic oxygen
furnaces, rated 354 kkg (390 tons) each. One vessel is blown
at a time and produces 32 heats per day. The exhaust hood is
arranged as a waste heat boiler which fires No. 6 oil when the
vessel is not being blown. The gases then go to a quencher and
venturi scrubbers which operate at a 7.5 kPa (30 inches of
water) pressure drop.
C-10
-------
2.0 PROPOSED PROGRAM
2.1 GENERAL
The Weirton Steel Division is presently practicing
some degree of recirculation at the continuous caster and at
the blast furnace and provides some degree of treatment for
all wastes prior to discharge. However, none of the flows
discharged to either the Ohio River or Harmon Creek are meeting
the requirements established under BAT although most do meet
the NPDES permit limitations.
Discharges containing quantities of regulated
substances are permitted from most facilities under the require-
ments of BAT. However, in the case of total recycle no water
could be discharged, and all water must be recycled or
evaporated. Before water can be indefinitely recycled some
constituents present must be removed to protect plant equipment
and product quality. Total recycle of water is interpreted,
in this report, to be no discharge of water to any body of
water be it surface, ground or off-site treatment where the
water is not returned to the plant. Exceptions to this are
sanitary sewage which may be discharged after treatment at the
plant or at a municipality and storm water runoff from areas
other than material storage (i.e., coal, coke, flux and ore).
In view of the above, additional treatment facilities
will be required to recycle treated water at the production
facilities or from one or more terminal waste treatment plants.
At areas where treatment is presently performed, the facilities
will have to be upgraded or additions provided to first meet
BAT and then additional facilities provided to permit complete
recirculation and ultimate disposal of wastes to meet the total
recycle criterion.
2.2 WATER RELATED MODIFICATIONS TO AIR QUALITY CONTROL
There are five areas at the Weirton Steel Division
where water may be required for air quality control. These are
at the Mainland Coke Plant (Batteries 4 through 9) , the Sinter
Plant, the blast furnace cast houses, the basic oxygen furnaces
and the blooming mill hot scarfer.
Oil
-------
At the mainland coke plant three scrubber cars are
proposed for the pushing of coke. The pushing control systems
would require a water application rate of 0.8 m3 of water per
kkg of coke produced (186 gals per ton). The average rate at
the mainland coke batteries would be 150 m-Yhr (660 gpm) and
the power requirement would be 6.43 x 10$ j/kkg (1.62 kWh/t).
A coke oven gas desulfurization system is scheduled for
installation at the mainland coke plant by 1980.
Fugitive emissions due to charging will be controlled
and minimized when the stage charging cars which have been
purchased are in operation. A second stage of scrubbing has
been provided at the BOP to reduce the present outlet loading
of from 68.6 mg/m3 (0.03 gr/SCF) to 45.8 mg/m3 (0.02 gr/SCF) .
Emissions from the hot scarfer at the blooming mill
are presently not in compliance with opacity regulations for
short periods of time and should be controlled by the
installation of a wet electrostatic precipitator.
2.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT TO MEET BAT
To develop a plan for the Weirton Steel Division to
meet BAT, certain assumptions were made. These are:
1. Guidelines for plating operations have been
established for the metal finishing segment of the
Electroplating Point Source Category (EPA-440/1-
75/040a). These guidelines call for zero discharge
of water and are applicable to steel plant plating
operations. Guidelines were also established for
pickling and cleaning operations in iron and steel
manufacturing. For electroplating operations zero
discharge of pollutants (suspended solids, oil and
grease, soluble iron, tin and chrome) were used.
2. In the absence of guidelines in the regulations
covering iron and steel making with respect to boiler
houses and power houses, the guidelines established
by the EPA for Steam Electric Power Generating Point
Source Category, as published in the Federal Register
October 8, 1974 (Vol. 39, No. 196, Part III)
were used. The limitations with respect to low
volume waste sources are suspended solids - 30 mg/1,
and oil and grease - 10 mg/1. Criteria as published
in 40 CFR 48830 (Coal Mining Point Source Category)
were used as limitations for the coal washing
facilities at Weirton.
3u All non-contact cooling waters would be permitted to
be discharged in that there is no product contact and,
C-12
-------
therefore, as long as there is no mixing with
product contact water, no limitations are to be set.
4. Modifications would be required at the mainland
coke plant to reduce pushing emissions.
5. The dissolved solids content of makeup water at all
intakes is assumed to be 350 mg/1.
6. It is assumed that both the blast furnace recircu-
lation system and the addition to the biological
treatment plant on Brown's Island to treat mainland
coke plant water are in operation.
7. In the absence of more recent analytical data,
waste concentrations of various individual waste
streams were obtained from the EPA publication
"Combined Steel Mill and Municipal Wastewaters
Treatment" dated February 1972.
A summary of discharges allowable under BAT require-
ments is shown on Table C-l.
The treatment requirements or modifications to
existing treatment facilities are discussed below with respect
to the outfalls that each production facility discharges to.
2.3.1 "A" Sewer & Brown's Island Outfall
Blast Furnace
The blast furnace recycle system planned to have
a blowdown of 175 m3/hr (770 gpm); however, the system should
be re-evaluated to see if a blowdown of from 41 to 73 m3/hr
(180 to 320 gpm) could be achieved through tighter control.
If this smaller blowdown is achievable, then the blowdown from
the blast furnace recycle system could be sent to the Brown's
Island Biological Treatment Plant. However, to meet the BAT
requirements with respect to fluorides, a lime precipitation
step should be added after the recirculation system and
before biological treatment.
If it is not feasible to treat the Blast Furnace
blowdown at the Brown's Island Biological Plant, then this
blowdown will require treatment by alkaline chlorination,
settling, PH adjustment, filtration and carbon adsorption prior
to discharge through "A" outfall.
All non-contact cooling water would be discharged.
A flow diagram illustrating the treatment proposed is shown
on Fig. C-3 and a general arrangement of facilities is shown
on Fig. C-4.
C-13
-------
TABLE NO. C - 1
Production
Facility
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
BOF (Wet AQCS)
O Sinter Plant
1
*»
Vacuum Degassing
Continuous Casting
Blooming Mill
Pickling Lines
HC1 w/recov.
Cold Rolling
(Direct Applic. )
Cold Rolling
(Recirculating)
Weirlite (CR)
(Direct Applic. )
Daily
Production
kkg/tons
7516/8278
8948/9864
11343/ 12500
6690/7375
5983/6595
3969/4375
8682/9570
8499/9369
3126/3446
6792/7487
1026/1131
SS
30. 9
68
47
102
56
123
35
78
16
34
21
46
9-6
21
1 14
251
326
718
18
39
107
235
BAT ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES
Allowable Discharge (kg/day) / (Ibs/day)
Fe ^ Cr Cr Ni
O&G CN NH3 S" Phen. BODj F Zn Mn N®3 Pb (Diss.) Cr (Tot. )(Diss. ) (Dis 5. ;
30.9 0.73 30.9 0.88 1.5 61
68 1.62 68 1.9 3.3 134
1.2 46 1.4 2.3 - 93
2.6 103 3.2 5.1 - 205
45
99
14 - - 0.40 - 28
31 0.88 - 62
3.1 3.1 28 0.3
6.8 6.8 62_ 0.68
21
46
9.6
21
4.7
10.3
130 13
287 29
7.1 0.71
16 1.6
43 4.3
94 9.5
-------
Coke Plant
The Brown's Island Biological Treatment Plant is two
single stage aeration plants with capacities of 212 m3/hr (1 5
mgd) each with final settling facilities. Although the plant
has reported that it is meeting the NPDES permit limitations,
these_are higher than allowable under BAT with respect to
ammonia and cyanide. To allow the wastes presently discharged
to meet BAT limitations, a second stage biological treatment
plant will be required with an additional settling facility.
Fresh water that is used to dilute the Coke Plant
wastes for treatment could be eliminated and substituted with
water from the Mainland Coke Plant pushing scrubber system and
the Blast Furnace recycle system blowdown. The substitute
dilution water contains the same compounds as the coke plant
water, only much more diluted; and can be treated although not
specifically required to be done, in the same facilities as the
Coke Plant water. Excess solids from the Biological Treatment
Plant are volatile and could be disposed of on the coal pile.
The solids will then burn when the coal is coked.
Sinter Plant
Non-contact cooling water from the Sinter Plant would
continue to be discharged. The 80 m3/hr (350 gpm) discharged
from the rotoclones would continue to be discharged to the
Blast Furnace recirculation system thickeners splitter box and
thickeners which will serve to remove suspended solids and also
provide a source of makeup water.
Power House and Boiler House
Only non-contact cooling water is discharged from the
Power House and its discharge is permitted under BAT.
Water being discharged from the Boiler House is
composed of fly ash scrubber water, bottom ash sluice water,
boiler blowdown and water softening sludges. The scrubber
water and the water softening wastes are discharged to a thick-
ener. However, the suspended solids concentration in the
thickener effluent are estimated to be in the order of 80 to
100 mg/1 which is above the BAT guidelines limitation of
30 mg/1. It is suggested that polyelectrolyte be added to the
thickener to improve settling or that the discharge be further
treated in a filter to reduce the solids concentration to
below the 30 mg/1 required. The bottom ash decant water is
estimated to be above the 30 mg/1 limitation and should also be
treated. The combined flow to new filters would be 836 m-Vhr
(3680 gpm). A backwash holding tank would be required and the
solids settled in that tank would be dewatered in an expanded
dewatering facility, together with the existing
C-15
-------
LIME-
i— POLY
ACID
S.S
TD.S.
PHENOLS
AMMONIA
CIM
FLUORIDE
FLOW
35-50 mg/l
1500 mg/l
z 1 mg/l
NA mg/l
i 5 mg/l
£.1 mg/l
4 1 m3/Ht
(180 g.p.m.)
35-50~mg'7n
1500 mg/l
1. .1 mg/l
NA mg/i ]
l 5 mg/l I
i.l mq/l
I55nn3/Ht I
680gp.m)|
ACTIVATED
CARBON
o
I
BAT
IT.O.S.
! PHENOLS
AMMONIA
ICN
I FLUORIDE
I FLOW
I
ZERO DISCH.
35-50 mg/l
1 350 mg/l
L . I mg/J
N.A. mg/l
£ . I mg/l
i.l mg/l
437 m'/Hr.
gp.m.|]
EVAPORATOR
SOLIDS
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
H!W TOOK H y.
_BLAST FURNACE AREA TREATMENT PLANT
QUALITY a FLOW DIAGRAM
FIG. C-3
-------
o
1
MIXING
-PUMPING STATION
BACKWASH
BASINS
FILTERS
CHEMICAL
STORAGE
a
CONTROL
BUILDING
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
-EVAPORATOR
0 10 20 30ft.
0 2.5 5 10 m.
ACTIVATED
CARBON FILTERS
140' APPROX.
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N.Y.
43m.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
BLAST FURNACE TREATMENT PLANT
FIG. C-4
-------
thickener solids. An additional 1540 kg (3400 pounds) per day
(dry basis) would be produced.
The boiler blowdown of 114 m /hr (500 gpm) is assumed
to be in compliance with the guidelines.
Blooming Mill and Scarfer
Each of these facilities utilizes water for both
contact and non-contact purposes. To meet the limitations
under BAT and minimize the sizes of treatment facilities, the
non-contact cooling water should be segregated from any combined
wastes and discharged separately. The contact waters at the
mills limited under BAT would then be limited to contact
discharges from the Blooming Mill and Scarfer only.
Three scale pits are provided at these facilities for
gross solids removal. After the scale pits the suspended solids
discharged are 1030 kg (2280 Ibs) per day from the Blooming Mill
and 200 kg (440 Ibs) per day from the scarfer, which are above
the BAT limitations of 9.5 kg (21 Ibs) and 4.5 kg (10 Ib) per
day, respectively. To achieve BAT limitations, flume flushing
water should be taken from the scale pit discharge to reduce
the total flow from the scale pits to 1032 m3/hr (4540 gpm).
The scale pit effluent water contains suspended solids in the
range of 75 to 100 mg/1. Assuming a waste treatment facility
which would be capable of discharging a suspended solids
concentration of 10 mg/1, and a maximum permissible suspended
solids discharge of 9.6 kg (21 Ibs) per day, only 39 m^/hr
(175 gpm) could be discharged. A recirculation system is
proposed for this mill complex which would consist of an
additional settling facility, possibly with the addition of
settling aids, a filtration system and a cooling tower. Oil
skimming would be provided at both the settling and backwash
facilities. The only discharge would be a cooling tower
blowdov.Ti.
Due to evaporation losses in the mill, makeup water
would be required and a buildup of dissolved solids will be
experienced in the system. A blowdown would, therefore, be
necessary and the quality of the blowdown would have to be equal
to river water quality with respect to suspended solids and oils.
Although this would not satisfy the criterion of total recycle,
it would satisfy a criterion of zero additional discharge of
suspended solids and oils. A flow diagram graphically
describing the treatment is shown on Figure C-5 and a general
arrangement of the facilities is shown on Figure C-6.
Temper Mill
The Temper Mill discharges non-contact cooling water
and process wastes containing lubricating oils. The process
C-18
-------
wastes discharge to a holding tank and are hauled away by an
outside contractor for [Drocessing. The non-contact cooling
water would be allowed to be discharged under BAT limitations.
Tin Mill Cleaning
The Tin Mill cleaning lines presently discharge
wastes that exceed the BAT limitations with respect to
suspended solids, dissolved nickel and dissolved chrome, and
have a high alkalinity. These wastes should be diverted from
"A" outfall to "B" outfall and treated in combination with the
wastes described there.
2.3.2 "B" Outfall
The production and service facilities that discharge
to "B" sewer are the Weirlite Lines, the Continuous Annealing
Lines, the Tin Plating Lines and the Demineralizer plant.
A chemical and physical treatment plant to remove
emulsified oils is installed at the Weirlite lines. However,
effluent oil concentrations are above the allowable limits,
necessitating additional treatment. After skimming, the waste
water should be filtered to remove additional emulsified oils,
and then flow to a treatment plant described below. The plant
is referred to as the B-terminal treatment plant.
The tin lines discharge wastes from various treatment
tanks. Cleaning and pickling section wastes should be
collected and treated separately at different sections of the
B-terminal treatment plant. The wastes from the plating and
brightening sections, in accordance with the electroplating
industry guidelines, should not be discharged. Therefore, the
chrome wastes should be passed through an ion exchange chrome
recovery system and reused. The excess regenerants would be
directed to the B-terminal treatment plant and the throughput
of the chrome recovery ion exchangers can be recycled back to
the plating lines to be used as makeup water.
The B-terminal treatment plant would consist of
facilities for acid and ferric chloride addition to break any
additional oil emulsions and to reduce any hexavalent chrome_
to the trivalent state. In a second tank the alkaline cleaning
wastes would be added and flocculated together with the acidi-
fied wastes. The flow would then be to a third mixing tank
where lime and available caustic would be added to raise the
PH of the totally mixed waste and precipitate heavy metals
present as hydroxides. The flow would then be to the
flocculator clarifier where sludge would settle and the freed
oils would be skimmed off.
C-19
-------
o
I
r 1
SS 3550.T..3/I
OUC, 5 nig/I
70S. 450mg/l
FLOW I535rn3/Hr
(6750 gprn)
BLOOMING MILL
a SCARFER
NON-CONTACT
COOLING WATER
I
EVAP
V-
1S.S. 35-50 ng/lj
lO.aG. 5 mg/ti
lTD.S. 5/5mg/ll
IFLOW !02mVHr'
BLOOMING MILL
8 SCARFER
CONTACT
COOLING WATER
SS I27mg/l
0 & G. 10 mg/l
TD.S. 6ZO mg/l
FLOW 460m3/Hr
(gllOgpm)
SS. 50mg/l
09G. 50mg/l
TDS. 620mg/l
FLOWISOmVhr
12110 gp,m'.
SLOWDOWN
SS
o.ae.
SLUDGE REMOVAL
5 mg/l
5 mg/l
Omg/l
3 m VHr
5 gpm)
L. IS mg/l i^
i 5mg/l 1
620 mg/l 1
83 mVHr1
(365gpml!
i
)
EV
TO "C" SEWER FOR
TREATMENT AT "C"a"E"
TREATMENT PLANT
BAT
OISCH.
HYDRQTECHNIC COHPORATIOM
BLOOMING a SCARFER TREATMENT PLANT
QUALITY 8 FLOW DIAGRAM
FIG. C-5
-------
o
I
to
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. V.
BACKWASH BASINS
SETTLING BASINS
CHEMICAL
CONTROL
BUILDING
(T
I25'APPROX.
38m.
-PUMP STATIONS
^>-COOLING TOWERS
0 10 20 30ft. 0
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
BLOOMING MILL a SCARFER TREATMENT PLANT FiG.c-6
10m.
-------
The sources of reagents would be:
Acid would be obtained from the demineralizer plant
cation exchangers regenerants, the first stage chrome recovery
system cation exchangers regenerants, the pickling section of
the plating lines. Any additional requirements would be from
storage.
Alkalinity required at the third mixing tank would
be obtained from the demineralizer plant anion exchangers
regenerants, the throughput from the chrome recovery system
cation exchangers, and the chrome recovery systems strong
anion exchangers regenerants. Additional alkalinity would be
caustic or lime from storage. The effluent from the treatment
plant should then meet BAT requirements.
Sludge from the underflow of the flocculator
clarifier would be dewatered and disposed of at an acceptable
landfill site. Skimmed oils would be hauled away for
processing. A flow diagram showing the treatment system is
appended as Figure C-7 and a general arrangement of the
facilities is shown on Figure C-8.
2.3.3 "C" Sewer
Tandem Mills
Tandem Mills 6, 7 and 9 operate with recirculating
rolling solution. When the solution becomes ineffective it
is dumped to the "PORI" plant. These mills utilize non-contact
cooling water for solution cooling which is the only discharge
and, under BAT limitations, is permitted. Mill 8 operates on
a once-through rolling solution. Contaminants consist of
oily wastes, dirt and scale. No non-contact water is used at
8 and 9 mills. The oily rolling solution wastes from all
mills are stored in a collection tank which is discharged to
the "PORT" plant for treatment.
Continuous Picklers
The continuous pickling lines discharge rinse and
spray waters along with fume scrubber water to "C" Sewer.
Waste acid is discharged to holding tanks for pumping at the
acid regeneration plant. The rinse spray and fume scrubber
waters which discharge to "C" sewer do not meet the limits set
under BAT guidelines. Presently the discharge of the Nos. 2
and 3 pickle lines fume scrubber water is 156 kg (344 Ibs) per
day of suspended solids which is above the guidelines set at
114 kg (251 Ibs) per day. To comply with BAT guidelines all
wastes from the picklers should discharge to the proposed
chemical treatment plant for treatment and also to provide a
C-22
-------
a source of acidity. Installation of more efficient equip-
ment to reduce all leaks at the picklers to increase
concentration of contaminated flows is also suggested.
Hot Strip Mill
Wastes from the hot strip mill consist of non-
contact and contact cooling water. The non-contact water is
used for cooling of the motor room and lube systems and
reheat furnaces. This non-contact water would be allowed
to discharge under BAT limitations.
The contact waters which are used at the roughing
and finishing sections, run out table and coilers are not in
compliance with the limitations set forth under BAT which
limits discharge of contact waters to zero discharge. Hot
strip mill discharges should follow similar guidelines.
To achieve reasonable BAT limits, all contact
wastewaters should be collected and discharged into a settling
basin for further removal of oils and suspended solids.
Prior to this, a portion of the flow would be used for flume
flushing at the roughing section. This would conserve appro-
ximately 2270 m-^/m (10,000 gpm) of the non-contact furnace
water which is presently being used for this purpose.
Following settling the wastes would be filtered to reduce
solids to 15 mg/1 and oil and greases to less than 10 mg/1.
The filtered water would then be cooled and returned to the
mill for reuse. This system would require a blowdown of
approximately 840 m3/hr (3700 gpm) for the control of
dissolved solids. The discharge of the blowdown water should
be permitted under the previously described zero discharge
limitations. A flow diagram describing the treatment and a
general arrangement of the facilities is shown as Figures
C-9 and C-10.
Carbide Shop
The carbide shop produces approximately 10,400 kg
(23,000 Ibs) of acetylene lime per day. Presently the lime
is discharged into a modified settling tank which is equipped
with air sparging equipment to prevent the lime from settling.
This could be used as a source of lime in the C and E chemical
treatment plant.
Diesel Shop
Maintenance services are performed at this shop and
only small volumes of water containing slight traces of oil
are discharged. Approximate discharge is 0-5 mVm (2 gpm).
C-23
-------
O
I
CAL
B " OUTFALL CH
TREATMEN
FROM
V/EIRLITE CLEANING
AMD TIN PLATIIIG LINES
-ACID FROM VIN I INI.',
DEMINERAU2CP.'S AND T. I
[«—FeCU
Al KAI INI Cl r-.ANING VJAGTErS FKOM TIN MILL
CLI'.ANINCJ ANI1 CONTINUOUS ANNEALING LINGS
-CAUSTIC FROM DFMINERALIZERS
AND LIME FROM STORAGE
OIL HAULED FOR
'REPROCESSING
fTO SEWER FOR \
\BATEA DISCHARGE/
/TO R.O. FOR \
\ZERO DISCHARGE/
© CATION EXCHANGER
© ANION (WEAK) EXCHANGER
© ANION (STRONG) EXCHANGER
ACID REGENERANT
MYWKITICHNK: CMPOMTION
HIW »OM. N *•
TIN MILL WASTES AND "B" OUTFALL CHEMICAL
TREATMENT PLANT QUALITY a FLOW DIAGRAM
FIG. C-7
-------
O
I
K>
U1
g
o:
D.
Q.
o
o
OJ
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
_n
EQUALIZATION
x
EQUALIZATION
FLOCCULATOR
CLARIFIERS
BACKWASH
BASINS
CHROME
RECOVERY
FILTERS
CONTROL
BUILDING 8
CHEMICAL
STORAGE
REVERSE OSMOSIS
8 EVAPORATOR
280' APPROX.
85m.
20
40 60ft.
10
20m.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
TIN MILL WASTES a"B"OUTFALL CHEMICAL TREATMENT PLANT
FIG. C-8
-------
HOT STRIP
CONTACT
COOLING
o
I
NJ
35-5Omg/l
«IOmg/l j
350 mg/l
550m3/Hr I
(2420gpm) I
SS. 50 mg/l
08G 20 mg/l
TDS. 525 mg/l
FLOW 8607m3/Hr
(37850 g.pm)
SS
0 8G
TDS.
FLOW
35-50 mg/l
10 mg/l
460 mg/|
237 nf/Hr
(1050 gpm.]
SS. «l5mg/l
OSG «IOmg/i
TDS. 525mg/l
FLOW 840m3/Hr
(3700 g.pm)
t
525mg/l I
I786m3/Hr 1
(786Ogpm.)
SLUDGE REMOVAL
' MILL
iCT
WATER
EVAP.
TO C" SEWER FOR
TREATMENT AT "C" 8 "E"
TREATMENT PLANT
BAT
TDftOTCCHNIC CORPORATION
Nfw TOHI. X T.
HOT STRIP. MILL TREATMENT PLANT
QUALITY a FLOW DIAGRAM
ZERO DISC.
-------
n
i
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
0 10 25
50ft. 0
10
15m.
HYOROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N.Y.
HOT STRIP MILL TREATMENT PLANT
flG.C-IO
-------
Under BAT guidelines no limitations have been set; however,
this small flow be collected and periodically pumped to the
waste treatment plant. All separable waste oils are collected
in drums and are not discharged.
Acid Regeneration
Wastewater from the acid regeneration plant is mainly
from the fume scrubber and is discharged into the "C" sewer
at a rate of 80 m3/m (350 gpm). Discharges are 695 kg (1530
Ibs) per day of suspended solids, 28 kg (62 Ibs) per day of
oil and grease and 11 kg (24 Ibs) per day of iron. These
contaminants when combined with pickling operations are above
the limits under BAT guidelines for pickling operations.
This waste stream should be treated in the "C and E" chemical
treatment plant, to be discussed later.
"PORI"
Palm Oil Recovery Incorporated is an outside
contractor who treats the oily wastes and recovery of oils
for reuse. Discharges from the "PORI" system are from over-
flows from the oil skimming tanks and they are discharged to
the "C" sewer. Contaminants are high in oils and suspended
solids and further treatment should be considered. The
discharge under BAT will be approximately 227 m3/hr (1000 gpm).
This oily waste should be treated at the "C and E" chemical
treatment plant.
Sheet Mill (Galvanizing Line and Cleaning Lines)
Prior to coating, the strip is cleaned, annealed,
coated, and cooled. Wastes from the galvanizing line originate
from the cleaning and rinsing processes, solution dumps and
cooling rinses. The cleaning stage discharges are high in
phosphorous and alkalinity which should serve as a suitable
reagent in the "C and E" chemical treatment plant. The
discharge from the final rinse stages contains traces of
hexavalent chrome which will require reduction prior to
precipitation in the treatment plant.
The cleaning lines operate similarly to the galva-
nizing line cleaning stage and,similarly, all discharges
should be sent to the "C and E" chemical treatment plant.
BOP and Vacuum Degassing
Water use at the BOP is for non-contact cooling and
gas scrubbing. Presently both systems recycle. The gas
scrubber water flow of 101 m3/hr (445 gpm) is treated in a
thickener prior to recycle. BAT guidelines limit the discharge
C-28
-------
of suspended solids to 56 kg (123 Ibs) per day and fluorides
of 45 kg (99 Ibs) per day. Since present discharges contain
61 kg (135 Ibs) per day of suspended solids and 62 kg (137 Ibs)
per day of fluorides further treatment is required The
contact cooling water system should have its blowdown reduced
to 40 m3/hr (175 gpm). Non-contact waters do not fall under
BAT guidelines and discharge is permitted.
Continuous Caster
Wastewaters from the continuous casters consist of
blowdown from the non-contact and contact system cooling
towers. Both streams are discharged to the "E" sewer at a
rate of 7.3 m3/hr (32 gpm) for non-contact and 55 m3/hr
(240 gpm) for contact waters. No limits are placed on non-
contact waters, thus discharge is allowed under BAT guidelines.
The contact water limitations are 21 kg (46 Ibs) per day of
suspended solids and 21 kg (46 Ibs) per day of oil and grease.
Assuming the flat bed filters are operating with an effluent
suspended solids concentration of 25 mg/1, these limitations
would be exceeded. To meet the BAT limits, blowdown from
the system should be from the pressure filter effluent, rather
than the influent. This would bring suspended solids and oil
levels to less than 14 kg (30 Ibs) per day each.
Detinning
Batch overflow wastes from the treatment settling
tanks are discharged from the detinning plant. Average flows
are estimated at 4.1 m3/hr (18 gpm) which discharge to "E"
sewer. Contaminants in the waste stream consist mainly of
suspended solids and metals such as tin, iron and chrome.
The batch dumps from the detinning line should be discharged
to the "C and E" treatment plant to precipitate the heavy
metals. The caustic tank rinses should also be discharged
to the caustic stage of the treatment plant.
Coal Washer
Coal washing water is discharged to a clarifier for
treatment. Overflow from the clarifier is recycled to the
system for reuse. Blowdown from the system is estimated at
246 rrr/d (65,000 gpd) as an average and is discharged to "E"
sewer. Contaminants discharged are at concentrations of
331 mg/1 of suspended solids and 52 mg/1 of total iron which
are both above the limitations for BAT guidelines listed under
coal preparation in the category of coal mining. It is
therefore suggested that, if this blowdown cannot be elimi-
nated, it should be treated in the "C and E" chemical treat-
ment plant for the removal of iron and suspended solids.
C-29
-------
2.3.4 "C and E" Treatment Plant
Most wastes from the "C and E" sewer sections
require chemical treatment to meet the limits set forth under
BAT guidelines. The proposed treatment system would be a
multi-stage chemical treatment plant. The first stage of this
plant will be an acidification stage,where wastes from the
pickling, galvanizing lines, acid regeneration, "PORI", and
coal washer wastes would be discharged. Here additional acid
will be fed if necessary to reduce any hexavalent chrome to
its trivalent stage and to crack any oils which may be in
emulsion. Following this stage the acidified wastes would
enter the second stage where caustic is applied to gradually
adjust the pH and to precipitate the dissolved metals* At
this stage the alkaline and phosphorous waste of the galva-
nizing and cleaning line would be added, along with the caustic
rinses from the detinning plant. The lime slurry from the
carbide shop would also discharge to this stage to serve as a
source of alkalinity along with an emergency lime system in
the event of shutdown of the carbide shop. The waste stream
would then be settled in a clarifier. The overflows would
then be filtered. The sludge would be removed, dried and
disposed of in a landfill. This plant would produce approxi-
mately 1140 kg (2500 Ibs per day) of sludge (dry basis).
Filtration would produce an effluent containing 15 mg/1 of
suspended solids, 10 mg/1 of oils and small traces of
metals. The effluent water is suitable for discharge under
BAT guidelines with the exception of the water used at the
detinning lines which falls under zero discharge. This volume
of water if discharged to a reverse osmosis (R.O.) or other
dissolved solids removal facility and evaporation system would
return an average of 5 m3/hr (18 gpm) of product water and
meet the BAT guidelines as mentioned. This system could later
be expanded to meet zero discharge requirements.
The "C and E" treatment plant flow diagram is
shown on Figure C-ll and a general arrangement of the
facilities is shown on Figure C-12.
A revised plant flow diagram showing the flows as
they would exist under BAT criteria is shown on Figure C-13
and C-14.
2.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLANT TO MEET TOTAL RECYCLE
The various treatment areas of the plant, as
described below with logical combinations to achieve a
practical operating system.
Two steps toward total recycle have been assumed,
namely: total recycle of non-contact waters and total recycle
C-30
-------
of both contact and non-contact waters. The drawings and text
discusses both steps but the cost estimates presented in the
main body of the text show cost differences.
Blast Furnace and Coke Plant
To achieve total recycle, all of the non-contact
cooling water from the Blast Furnace and Coke Plant areas must
be recirculated. At the mainland Coke Plant, cooling towers
would require a blowdown of approximately 270 m3/hr (1190 gpm)
which would be used as a part of the makeup to the Blast
Furnace gas washing recycle system. At the Blast Furnaces
cooling of non-contact cooling water would also be required
and the cooling tower blowdown would also be sent to the
Blast Furnace gas washing recycle system. The blowdown would
be approximately 334 m3/hr (1470 gpm). A third cooling tower
installation that would discharge blowdown to the Blast
Furnace recycle system is the Power House system which would
blow down approximately 140 m3/hr (620 gpm) .
The Blast Furnace gas washer recycle system would
receive makeup water from the above cooling towers, from the
Sinter Plant rotoclone (if it continues to operate) and
blowdown from the "Krebs" scrubber recirculation system
described in Section 2.3. Incorporating all of these
flows into the Blast Furnace gas washer system will increase
the makeup volume over that which is presently required and
also increase the blowdown from the gas washer system.
However, due to the increased volume, the blowdown would be
diluted and the quality improved. The purpose of having all
of the wastes discharged to the gas washer system is to
centralize all of the wastes and minimize operating problems
in the washer system. As the blowdown from the gas washer
system would have to be further treated to attain total
recycle, there would be only one source of waste. To be able
to reuse the water the dissolved solids concentration must
be reduced to service water quality of 350 mg/1. A portion
of the blowdown would be sent to the Coke Plant biological
treatment system to be used as dilution water and the balance
of 584 m3/hr (2570 gpm) treated at a system for removal of
dissolved solids.
The entire flow would not have to pass through the
system. Since a water of very high quality will be produced
the quantity passing through the system can be reduced and a
portion can by-pass the unit and be blended with the product
water to produce any quality desired for reuse in the plant.
The flow to the unit must be filtered and the pH adjusted.
The brine reject steam would have to be further treated for
total elimination. it is estimated that there will be 7.1 m3
(9.2 cubic yards) per day of dried soluble solids to be
C-31
-------
BLOOMING MILL 8
SCARFER SLOWDOWN
a HOT STRIP MILL
SLOWDOWN
DILUTED CHROME WASTES FROM
SHEET MILL. GALV. LINE ACIDIC
AND OILY WASTES FROM RO.R.I.
ACID REGENERATION AND
PICKLERS FUME SCRUBBERS
o
I
to
bo
ALKALINE WASTES FROM CLEANING
LINES, DETINNING PLANT, CARBIDE
SHOP AND COAL WASHER SLOWDOWN
SOLIDS *-
MYOHOTECHNIC CORPORATION
HtW TOR*. N y.
C 8 E CHEMICAL TREATMENT PLANT
QUALITY a FLOW DIAGRAM
FIG. C-l
-------
O
I
w
U)
EVAPORATOR
REVERSE OSMOSIS
CHEMICAL 8
CONTROL
BUILDING
HYDROTECHN1C CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
"C"a"E" TREATMENT PLANT
FIG. C-12
-------
o
I
OJ
1—i— r
I "ft" OOTfflLL I
LEGEND:
a.
n
J
1
i
i
4 114(5001
1
~r
1
l?l
st
f *" r
, p (IE400
HOLDINGS — *
{ TftSi" . J
t*r?»
r
OILS TO
PORI
E
8
1
1
1
NOTES
-- . - flECTCLED WATER
------- COOLING WATER I NON -CONTRACT]
- PROCESS WATER
------ PROPOSED RKrCLE
•^^v CLARIFIED
j^-| COOLING TOWES
r™ PROPOSED TREATMENT FACfLITfCS
i HTDBOTECHNICCOtpOBATIC-N
I COMlUl.(!N(i (NdlNIIHS
S^EEL P'ANT POllUTfON STUO
FOB TOTAL RECYCLF OF WATER
NATIONAL STEtL. CORPORflTfON
WEtRTDN STEEL. DIVISION
FLO* DIAGRAM-sat SYSTEM
FIGURE C-13
-------
o
I
CO
cn
INUGR4TEO STEEL PLflNI POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TOTAL tccrcLE OF WATER
NAT»NAL STECC CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
FLOW DIAGRAM- BAT SYr, IFM
-------
disposed of from this system. The solids would have to be
placed in a lined and covered area to prevent percolation into
the ground during periods of precipitation or spreading due to
wind.
The biologically treated wastes from the Coke Plant
would also have to be treated to remove dissolved solids prior
to reuse. A dissolved solids removal system is recommended
for installation which would produce approximately 14 m3
(18 yd3) of dried solids per day.
Blooming Mill, Scarfer
To achieve total recycle at these mills, the non-
contact cooling water should be cooled and recirculated. The
necessary blowdown from the non-contact cooling water system
could be used as makeup to the contact system cooling tower.
The blowdown from the contact water cooling system could not
be discharged and would not be of a quality usable for reuse.
Therefore, the system blowdown should be discharged to the
"C" sewer system for ultimate treatment, together with other
wastes discharging to the "C" sewer.
"B" Sewer
The discharges from the "B" sewer will require
recirculation under the total recycle criteria. The treated
water discharged from the "B" terminal treatment plant proposed
in the BAT section will have a high concentration of the
dissolved solids due to the process contaminants and the
treatment additions which would negate its possible reuse for
contact or non-contact cooling water at other portions of the
plant. Therefore, this water should also be demineralized.
It is estimated that approximately 38 cubic meters (50 cubic
yards per day) of dried solids would be produced from a
demineralizer and evaporator system and require disposal.
"C and E" Sewer
To achieve total recycle at the "C and E" sewer
system various modifications will be necessary and some
additional treatment will be required. Basically the
modifications are:
- Cooling towers will be required to permit recycle of
the non-contact cooling water at the Tandem Mills
and the Hot Strip Mill.
- All stormwater runoff should be diverted to "E"
sewer. "C" sewer would be retained strictly as a
wastewater and blowdown sewer.
C-36
-------
The facilities that are recommended to treat wastes
to BAT levels, as described in Section 2.3, will continue to
operate. However, additional treatment will be required to
achieve total recycle. The dissolved solids removal unit at
the discharge of the treatment system should be expanded to
treat'an additional portion of the discharge so that, when
blended with a by-passed portion, will produce a water
-of suitable quality for reuse in the plant.
As described above, the "C" sewer will be retained
to bring all blowdowns to the "C and E" Treatment Plant.
Hot Strip Mill and Tandem Mill non-contact cooling
water should be cooled in a cooling tower and the blowdown
discharged as makeup to the contact process water, at the
Hot Strip Mill. The total blowdown from the Hot Strip Mill
would increase to 1786 m3/hr (7860 gpm) and would be
discharged to the "C" sewer.
BOP and Vacuum Degassing
The non-contact cooling systems at the BOP presently
recycle water with a blowdown of 80 m3/hr (.350 gpm) from the
cooling tower to the "E" sewer. Since non-contact blowdown
water is a higher quality, then the water in the gas-scrubber
system can be utilized for makeup water to that system. Under
BAT recommendations, the proposed gas scrubber recycle system
would have a blowdown of 40 m^/hr (175 gpm) with service
water used as makeup. The addition of the non-contact
blowdown water of the BOP system, as well as the contact
blowdowns of the continuous caster system, would necessitate
a higher volume of blowdown to maintain a low enough dissolved
solids level. The blowdown would be approximately 132 m3/hr
(575 gpm). These blowdowns should be diverted to the "C"
sewer.
Continuous Caster
Non-contact water at the Continuous Caster is
presently recycled with a cooling tower blowdown of 8 m /hr
(35 gpm). Under total recycle this water cannot be discharged.
This blowdown should be utilized as makeup water to the contact
water system since its quality would be higher. Under BAT
it was recommended to discharge the blowdown from the contact
system from the filter plant effluent. Under total recycle
this would not be permitted and should be discharged to the
BOP gas scrubber system for makeup. Following these
recommendations, no wastes will be discharging directly from
the continuous casters thus complying with total recycle.
C-37
-------
The connection between "C and E" sewers near the
lagoons should be blocked off and the storm water collected
in "E" sewer discharged. At the terminus of "C" sewer a
pumping station should be installed to pump the collected
wastes directly to the expanded R.O. facility which would
follow the "C and E" sewer area chemical waste treatment plant.
Under the total recycle criteria as defined, preci-
pitation runoff from material storage areas would not be
permitted. The areas around the coal, flux and ore piles
should be drained and the runoff sent to the lagoon presently
in place for the collection of wastes at "A" outfall. The
water should then be pumped at a low rate to the plant water
intake. It is anticipated that infrequent dredging of the
lagoons would be necessary to remove suspended solids that
are collected. Since all of the water in the plant would
eventually end up at one of the treatment facilities, there
will be no discharge of material storage area runoff.
It is strongly recommended that, prior to the design
of the waste treatment facilities proposed, treatability
studies be performed to more accurately determine the sizes
required and to assure the quality of water that would be
discharged under the BAT guideline or recirculated under
total recycle.
A revised plant flow diagram showing the plant flows
as they would be under the zero discharge criteria is shown
on Figure C-15 and C-16.
The locations of all of the waste treatment faci-
lities recommended herein are shown on Figure C-17.
C-38
-------
n
i
U)
EU.D
SE o$Mosis ffjiooiTl
RECYCLED WATEf*
COOLING WATER (NON CONTACT !
PROCESS WATEH
PROPOSED RECYCLE
COOUNr, TOWER
PROPOSED TREATMENT FdClLITtES
SUtl. PLANT f»01LUTlON
FOR TOUl flECYCLE OF *»TtR
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STFEL DIVISION
DIAGRAM - TOTAL RECTCLt
rfYDBOTtCMNIC COHPOHATION
OlTiHfi *N';iitTtM
HI* TDK K T
-------
o
i
"I™
I
•i
I
1
CONTINUOUS PtCKLERS
a.
I! 1
1 1 «>
1 1 **
1 1
1 1
i
i
1
s '
i
L
:
fl
1
'!
EVAP
1
i
1
2
I
SJ5
0*S€L SHOP
i
i
^
<
~
z
UJ
5
)J
L« «/*"
i v
i i *
CD
f/M
]• -
s
•r
r
t)iSPOS*L
LEGEND"
SEE FIGURE C-15
NOTES:
SEC FIGURE C-15
HTDROTtCHHIC CORPORATION
6 . '
-:t
INTEGRATED STEEL PUNT POLLUTION STUOV
» FOR rOTflL RtC>TLE OF W«TER
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
*E1RTON STEEL DIVISION
FLOW DIAGRAM - TOTAL REOCLE
C-f6
-------
n
i
TIN MILL 6"B"5EWEF
TREATMENT PLANT
TfGBflTED SIfFI Pi ANT POLLUTION SHIP
TOTAL RECYCLE OF **HR
NATSONAL STECL COflPORflT ION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
PLCTT PXAN a LOCATION FDR T'MT FACILIEK
-------
APPENDIX "D"
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
FAIRFIELD WORKS
D—i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE D_l
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STEEL PLANT £,_!
1.2.1 PROCESSES AND FACILITIES D_l
1.2.2 WATER SYSTEMS AND DISTRIBUTION D_2
1.2.3 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES D-6
1.2.4 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES D_10
2.0 PROPOSED PROGRAM D-12
2.1 GENERAL D-12
2.2 WATER RELATED MODIFICATIONS TO AIR D-12
QUALITY CONTROL
2.3 PLANT MODIFICATIONS TO MEET BAT D-13
2.3.1 GENERAL D-13
2.3.2 FINISHING FACILITIES D-13
2.3.3 Q-BOP AREA D-16
2.3.4 BLAST FURNACES D-16
2.3.5 COKE PLANT D-17
2.3.6 BLAST FURNACE BOILER HOUSE AND TURBOBLOWERS D-18
2.3.7 .MATERIAL STORAGE PILE RUNOFF D-13
2.3.8 SINTER PLANT D~19
2.3.9. FINAL EFFLUENT CONTROL POND D-21
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
2.4 TOTAL RECYCLE D~21
2.4.1 GENERAL D~21
2.4.2 Q-BOP AREA D~22
2.4.3 BLAST FURNACES D~22
2.4.4 COKE PLANT .. - D~22
2.4.5 BLAST FURNACE BOILER HOUSE AND TURBOBLOWERS D-22
2.4.6 MATERIAL STORAGE PILE RUNOFF D-22
2.4.7 SINTER PLANT D-23
2.4.8 FINAL EFFLUENT CONTROL POND D-23
2.4.9 FEASIBILITY D-24
D-iv
-------
FIGURES
Figure No. Page
D-l - EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAMS D-4
D-2 D-7
D-3 PROPOSED COMBINED COKE PLANT AND D-20
BLAST FURNACE WASTE TREATMENT
D-4 PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM BAT: SYSTEMS D-25
D-5 D-26
D-6 PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM ZERO DISCHARGE D-27
D-7 SYSTEMS D-28
D-8 PILOT PLAN AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED
TREATMENT FACILITIES D-29
D-V
-------
TABLES
Table No. Page
D-l ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER D-14
BAT LIMITATIONS and
D-15
D -vi
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This appendix addresses itself to the United States
Steel Corporation's Plant at Fairfield, Alabama. It includes
the preliminary engineering concepts based on data supplied
by the United States Steel Corporation and other sources.
It does not include the identification of all environmental
control technologies considered, the evaluation of other
steel plants studied, cost estimated, practicality or possible
resultant environmental impact. Therefore, it should be looked
on only as a vehicle to present a possible scheme to attain
total recycle but not necessarily one that is practical or
feasible or that with its implementation will not have an in-
tolerably adverse environmental impact in other sectors.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STEEL PLANT
1.2.1 Processes and Facilities
United States Steel Corporation's Fairfield Works
is a completely integrated steel plant located approximately
5 km (3 miles) southwest of Birmingham, Alabama and occupies
790 hectares (1950 acres). The integrated facilities located
on the site, which produce finished and semi-finished pro-
ducts, consist of:
Daily Production
Facility Capacity kkg (ton)
- ore, coal and flux storage areas 24 ha (60 acres)
- a four battery by-products coke plant 5960 (6570)
- four blast furnaces 9767 (10766)
- one three-vessel Q-BOP shop 6050 (6669)
- a 46-inch slab mill 4666 (5143)
- a 45-inch blooming and slab mill 3418 (3768)
- a 140-inch and 110-inch plate mill 1666 (1836)
- a 21-inch billet mill 1241 (1368)
- an 11-inch merchant mill 612 (675)
- a 24-inch structural mill 1059 (1167)
- a 68-inch hot strip mill 5051 (5568)
- two strip pickling lines 4049 (4458)
D-l
-------
Facility - (Cont'd)
Daily Production
Capacity kkg (ton)
one rod batch pickling
two cleaning lines
one continuous annealing line
three cold rolling mills
three temper mills
one wire drawing mill with pickling
three strip tinning lines
three strip galvanizing lines
one wire galvanizing line
one paint line
509 (561)
1424 (1569)
822 (906)
4812 (5307)
NA
480 (529)
(1398)
(1680)
(294)
1268
1525
267
313
(345)
A sinter plant is approximately 9.6 km (6 miles) away
which, for the purpose of this report, will be considered
separately.
1.2.2 Water Systems and Distribution
Water required for the plant (approximately 3955 m /hr
(17,400 gpm) is referred to as Prime Industrial Water (PIW)
and is drawn from the city of Birmingham, Alabama, water supply.
For the purposes of description, the plant has been
divided into six major water systems and one minor system and
the water use is described below by system.
a. Steel Making Water System
Although three Q-BOP vessels are installed at the
Fairfield Works, under normal operating conditions only two
would be in use at any time. Each vessel is supplied contin-
uously with 90 m3/hr (395 gpm) of PIW; approximately 57 m3/hr
(250 gpm) is used for non-contact cooling and the balance
used for gas cleaning. The non-contact cooling water that is
not directly recirculated, is blown down to the Blast Furnace
spray pond for further use. An additional non-contact cooling
system recirculates approximately 2730 m3/hr (12,000 gpm)
through air cooled heat exchangers. Gas cleaning water is
treated in a recirculation system, described in Section 1.2.3
D-2
-------
below, and a 123 m$/hr (540 gpm) blowdown from this system is
Sf 3% ^?nnina\efpUent contro1 P°nd (FECP). An additional
68 mVhr (300 gpm) of PIW provides makeup to the gas washer
system, as well as to other miscellaneous uses.
b- Finishing Facilities Water System
Approximately 2020 m3/hr (8900 gpm) of PIW is
supplied to the finishing facilities as shown on Figure D-l.
The cold mills, discharge 1230 m3/hr (5400 gpm) to the upper
dolomite pond (UDP) for primary settling. Wastes, in the
amount of 750 m3/hr (3300 gpm), requiring a higher degree of
treatment, are discharged to the tin mill treatment plant which,
after treatment, are still not suitable for reuse and are dis-
charged to the FECP.
The minor water system (labeled wire mill) is shown
on Figure D-l and is a part of the cold mills and plating area.
Wastewaters from rod pickling are treated, then combined with
the nail galvanizing discharge and a portion of wire galvani-
zing water, and discharged directly to the Opossum Creek. The
total flow is 45 m3/hr (200 gpm).
c. Hot Mills System
Virtually all of the water used is recycled from the
secondary settling, or lower dolomite pond (LDP). Wastes from
the 46-inch slab mill, the 45-inch blooming mill, and 21-inch
billet mill, the 11-inch merchant mill, the 68-inch hot strip
mill, the 24-inch structural mill and the 140-inch plate mill
are treated in scale pits for gross solids removal and dis-
charged to the UDP together with wastes from the axle shop, the
tie plate and spike mill and other miscellaneous wastes. The
total flow from these facilities is approximately 45 m3/hr
(200 gpm) is reported. Mold cooling receives approximately
13.6 m-Vhr (60 gpm) from the LDP of which 9 m3/hr (40 gpm) is
lost through evaporation and the balance of 4.5 m3/hr (20 gpm)
is discharged to the FECP.
The recycle line from the LDP combines with approxi-
mately 375 m3/hr (1650 gpm) of cooled water from the blast
furnace non-contact cooling system spray pond and provides
386 m3/hr (1700 gpm) back to the blast furnace cooling system.
Approximately 202 m3/hr (890 gpm) is discharged, as makeup, to
the blast furnace gas cleaning system and 920 irP/hr (4050 gpm)
is blown down to the FECP.
d. Blast Furnace Cooling and Boiler House System
This water system is composed of non-contact cooling
waters from furnace cooling for blast furnaces 5,6,7 and 8,
blast furnaces 5,6 and 7 boiler house and blast furnace 8
D-3
-------
D
PRIME INDUSTRIAL. WATER
JER-»|
3
T
I.
"-«
y-i
ii
T-
I
1
1
_T
*
|
|s
1
s
1
•
;
<
0
1
i]
i
llSwttl i
5
?
J
C
J
1
BOLL i NO
O
8
1
s «i
5
1
j_
1
4
s
s
'
1
•
S- ** in
o
\
'•
I
J
1
9
:
i
3
L 5
f s
m_
Sg
TO
0'POSSUM
CREEK
TIN MILL DITCH
TIN _MILL TREATMENT PLANT
LEGEND
COOLING WATER
(NON-COHtACT)
PROCESS WATER
NOTE
ALL FLOWS BALANCED IN ENISL15M UNITS
TO MTM^EE! SIGNIFICANT DIGITS
HYDROTECHM1C CORPORATION
CONSULTING IMtimim
N» tOKK N T
'NTEGRftTED STEfL PLANT POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE OF WATER
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
FAIRFlELD WORKS
EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 0-1
-------
turboblower compressor. Approximately 5360 m hr (23 600 aom)
of non-contact cooling water from blast furnaces 5,1'and 7?Ts
m scnaroed to a snrav nrmri -F/->I-^,^^TJ ~ r- ., . ,_ ^ ..
,
on - P°nd f°r cooling. Of this, 4980 m3/hr
(21,900 9Pm> ^ecirculated directly back to the blast fur-
naces and 375 m-Vhr(1650 gpm) is combined with LDP discharge.
A combined LDP flow of 386 m3/hr (1700 gpm) is returned to
blast furnaces 5,6 and 7. Blast furnace 8 has its own cooling
tower which receives 325 m3/hr (1430 gpm) of PIW as makeup.
Evaporative losses are 123 m3/hr (540 gpm) from blast furnace
8 cooling tower and 182 m3/hr (800 gpm) from the spray pond.
A blowdown of 202 m-^/hr (890 gpm) from the blast furnace 8
cooling tower serves as makeup to the blast furnaces gas
cleaning system. Additional makeup at the spray pond is 170 m3
hr (750 gpm) blown down from the Q-BOP.
The boiler house and turboblower condenser loses
approximately 550 mj/hr (2460 gpm) through evaporation in the
cooling system and blows down 455 m3/hr (2000 gpm) to the
FECP. These facilities receive 1020 m3/hr (4460 gpm) of make-
up water from the PIW system.
e. Blast Furnaces Gas Cleaning System
Approximately 3850 m3/hr (16,930 gpm) is utilized
for cleaning the blast furnace gas prior to use. Most of the
water is reused and approximately 257 m3/hr (1130 gpm) is
blown down to the FECP and approximately 23 m3/hr (100 gpm) is
used for slag quenching at blast furnace 8. There is a system
evaporative loss of approximately 114 m3/hr (500 gpm). A make-
up of 393 m3/hr (1730 gpm) is provided from the LDP and from
blast furnace 8 cooling tower blowdown.
f. Coke Plant
The sixth water system at Fairfield Works is the
system at the coke plants where water is used for contact and
non-contact cooling. All water supplied to the coke plant
is PIW and the requirements are 630 m3/hr (2770 gpm). Approxi-
mately 125 m3/hr (550 gpm) is lost to coke quenching, 75 m3/hr
(330 gpm) is lost to cooling tower evaporation, 2.3 m-^/hr (10
gpm) goes out with the product and 427 m3/hr (1880 gpm) is
discharged to the FECP via the waste treatment plant.
g. Ultimate Disposal
Water is lost or discharged from the Fairfield Works
by evaporation through cooling and quenching processes, with
the product, by disposal in deep wells and by discharge to
receiving bodies of water. The total treated wastewater dis-
charged from the plant is reported to be 2936 m3/hr (12900 gpm)
discharged to Little Creek, and 45 m3/hr (200 gpm), to
Opossum Creek. See Figures D-l and D-2.
D-5
-------
1.2.3 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wasterwater treatment facilities are installed at
Fairfield Works for each of the systems described above for
the purpose of recirculating water or for treatment prior to
discharge. The treatment facilities are described below in
the same order as the water systems previously described.
a. Steel Making
Water is used at the steel making facilities for
equipment cooling and gas cleaning. Each of the Q-BOP vessels
has an identical system. Skirt seals, quencher jackets and
bell dampers use clean PIW on a once-through basis and dis-
charge to the blast furnace spray pond. For hood cooling,
the water is recirculated through an air cooled heat exchanger,
PIW is used for trunnion cooling and maintaining quencher
seals, and is discharged to the gas quencher-scrubber system.
Miscellaneous contact water users, such as pump seals, receive
PIW on a once-through basis and also discharge to the quencher
system. The quencher-scrubber treatment system is unified for
the three Q-BOP vessels. Approximately 1500 m3/hr (6600 gpm)
from the quencher and 68 m3/hr (330 gpm) of miscellaneous
wastes is discharged to a 7.6 m (25 ft) diameter desilter
and then to a 36.5 m (125 ft) diameter clarifier for removal
of suspended solids. The overflow from the clarifier flows
to a surge tank from which 100 m3/hr (4400 gpm) is recycled
back to the quenching system and 123 m3/hr (540 gpm) is blown
down to the FECP. Evaporative losses in the Q-BOP systems
are approximately 11.4 m3/hr (50 gpm). Sludge drawn from the
bottom of the clarifier is dewatered by one of the two
vacuum filters and the dewatered solids are disposed of at
landfills.
b. Finishing Facilities
Of the 16 facilities shown as part of the Finishing
Facilities area of the Fairfield Works, eleven of these fa-
cilities discharge approximately 1230 m3/hr (5400 gpm) direct-
ly to the UDP. The 32 m3/hr (140 gpm) of rod pickling wastes
are neutralized by lime in a reaction tank and then settled,
with the aid of polymers, in a clarifier. The clarifier under-
flow is concentrated in a sludge pit and the clarifier over-
flow is discharged to Opossum Creek. Approximately 14 3/hr
(60 gpm) of untreated water from the wire galvanizing and nail
galvanizing mills combine with the clarifier overflow and dis-
charge to Opossum Creek.
The balance of the wastes are discharged to the tin
D-6
-------
D
I
NOTE
i HYIIHOTF* UNI'' C'
UNITED STATES STtn. CORPORATION
FAIRFIEL.D WORKS
EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
mill treatment plant via one of two routes. Chrome wastes
from Galvanizing Lines 1,2 and 4 and from Electrolytic Tinning
Lines 1,3 and 4 are discharged to a 38 m3 (10,000 gal.)
storage tank from tanks at the line. Periodically, the storage
tank is dumped to a 38 mVhr (10,000 gal) batch reaction tank
where waste pickle liquor and lime are added to precipitate
the chrome hydroxide. The supernatant is then discharged to
the tin mill treatment plant mixing tanks.
The balance of the flows from the cold mills and
plating facilities are discharged to Tin Mill Ditch. Oil
skimmers are installed at the effluent end of the ditch to
remove free oils. At the head end of the ditch a small amount
of waste pickle liquor from the paint line is added. The
wastewater from the ditch then flows to two lagoons arranged
in series. An additional 0.5 to 0.9 m3/hr (2-4 gpm) of waste
pickle liquor is added between the ditch and the lagoons.
The flow from the lagoons is measured and discharged to a
series of three mixing tanks. Air and lime are added to the
first mixing tank. The treated flow from the third mixing
tank is pumped to a distribution box where coagulant aid is
added. The flow is then divided into one 30.5 m (100 ft)
diameter and two 21.3 m (70 ft) diameter clarifiers. The 750 m3
hr (3300 gpm) of combined clarifier overflow is then discharged
to the FECP. The clarifiers1 sludge underflow and the batch
raction tank solids are dewatered in a filter press. Dewatered
solids are disposed of at a landfill. Waste pickle liquor is
disposed of in the deep well and an emergency storage lagoon,
with a capacity of 3800 m3 (1 million gallons), is provided
in the event of well malfunction.
c. Blast Furnace Gas Cleaning
The water used for gas cleaning is recirculated
through a solids removal and cooling treatment system. The
gas cleaning waters first pass through spiral classifiers
where the gross solids are separated prior to treatment in
thickeners. Blast furnace 8 utilizes two thickeners and blast
furnaces 5,6 and 7 are on a combined system utilizing one
thickener. Approximately 23 m3/hr (100 gpm) of the overflow
from blast furnace 8 thickeners is used for slag quenching
and the balance of 1570 m3/hr (6930 gpm) is pumped to cooling
towers. Blast furnaces 5,6 and 7 discharge approximately
1170 m3/hr (5150 gpm) to their thickener and 1011 m3/hr (4450
gpm) to their thickener and 1011 m3/hr (4450 gpm) of the over-
flow is pumped to the cooling towers. The thickener blowdown
of 159 m 3/hr (700 gpm) is directed to the FECP.
Gas cooling water at blast furnaces 5,6 and 7 is
divided and 1170 m3/hr (16900 gpm) is circulated to the gas
D-8
-------
cleaning systems. Required makeup, of 393 m3/hr (1730 gpm)
is from the LDP and blowdown of the blast furnace 8 furnace
cooling tower. Underflow from the No.8 blast furnace thicken-
ers is vacuum filtered and the solids are sent to the sinter
plant with the dry dust collected in the dust catchers.
d. Blast Furnace Cooling -
Furnace cooling water at blast furnaces 5,6 and 7
is discharged to a spray pond for cooling and recirculation.
The water recirculation rate is 5360 m3/hr (23600 gpm) of
which approximately 182 m3/hr (800 gpm) is evaporated. Makeup
to the system is 170 m3/hr (750 gpm) from the Q-BOP directly
to the spray pond and 386 m3/hr (1700 gpm) from the LDP re-
circulation system. A spray pond blowdown of 318 m3/hr (1400
gpm) is directed to the LDP recirculation system.
Blast furnace 8 uses 4430 m3/hr (19500 gpm) which is
cooled in cooling towers and recirculated. An estimated 123
m3/hr (540 gpm) is lost through evaporation and 202 m3/hr (890
gpm) is blown down to the blast furnace gas cleaning system.
The 325 m3/hr (1430 gpm) makeup is from the PIW system.
c. Coke Plant
All coke plant wastewaters are treated prior to
discharge and all non-contact gas cooling water is cooled and
recycled. The blowdown is used as makeup for the coke
quenchers.
The coke plant waste treatment facilities treat
34 m3/hr (150 gpm) of excess ammonia liquor and 80 m3/hr (350
gpm) of miscellaneous wastewaters. The treatment facilities
consist of oil removal in gravity separators and removal of
ammonia and other gases at free and fixed ammonia stills.
The bottom stream from the stills is settled in a clarifier
for the removal of excess lime and other suspended solids.
Clarifier underflow is pumped to a thickener and the over-
flow is directed to a 3800 m3 (1 million gallon) equalization
tank. A flow of 114 m3/hr (500 gpm) is pumped from the equal-
ization tank and blended with 45 m3/hr (200 gpm) of PIW
dilution water. This diluted wastewater is then treated in
two 3800 m3 (1 million gallon) aeration basins operated in
series for biological degradation. The effluent from the
aeration basins flows to two clarifiers where the solids are
settled out. A portion of the sludge is recycled to the
aeration basins to maintain a mixed liquor suspended solids
level adequate for the biological treatment. The excess
sludge is discharged to the thickener which also receives the
D-9
-------
lime sludge clarifier underflow. The overflow from the bio-
logical system clarifiers is discharged to the FECP via a
final settling basin.
This final settling basin installed after the clari-
fier receives 161 m3/hr (700 gpm) from the biological treat-
ment system, 80 m3/hr (350 gpm) from coal handling dust control,
136 m3/hr (600 gpm) from miscellaneous cooling, 45 m-Vhr (200
gpm) of condensate and 6.8 m3/hr (30 gpm) of pusher scrubber
car discharge from the new coke oven battery. Oil is skimmed
off the surface and a total of 427 m3/hr (1880 gpm) is dis-
charged to the FECP.
Coal preheating facilities are utilized at the new
coke battery which require 29.5 m3/hr (130 gpm) for scrubbing
and sealing. The flow is discharged to a clarifier from which
13.6 m3/hr (60 gpm) is recirculated and the remaining 15.9 m3
(70 gpm) is discharged to the biological treatment plant. A
makeup of 15.9 m3/hr (70 gpm) is from the PIW system.
1.2.4 Air Pollution Control Facilities
Air pollution emanating from the processes at the
various production facilities at Fairfield Works is controlled
by facilities installed at the coke ovens, iron making, steel
making, tin mills, wire mill and at the galvanizing line.
At the coke plant area a new coke battery, designed
No. 2 coke battery, is equipped with coal preheating facilities,
hot larry cars, stage charging, a scrubber car to control push-
ing emissions, and a conventional quench tower with baffles.
Existing coke batteries, Nos. 5 and 6 have no problems at the
stacks, since they are presently in compliance with regulations
and it is anticipated that, after the rebuilding of battery
No. 9, it too, will be in compliance. Battery No. 2 will also
have pushing controls, but there are no provisions at the other
two batteries for the control of fugitive pushing emissions.
The blast furnaces' gases are cleaned prior to use
in the stoves and boiler houses. The gas cleaning facilities
consist of dry dust catchers and high energy scrubbers.
The steelmaking Q-BOP facilities gases are cleaned
using high energy scrubbers which are reported to be 99.8
percent efficient and the plant meets particulate stack emission
regulations. In order to control the significant fugitive
emissions during charging and tapping of the vessels, the plant
is developing improvements to the sealing arrangements for the
vessels, including the provision of a secondary collection
D-10
-------
system. Facilities to control emissions at the hot metal
mixers are also being installed. The pollution control flux
handling system at the Q-BOP consists of a bag house which
is reported to be more than 99 percent efficient.
At the tin mills there are gravity collectors for
removal of particulates which result from shot blasting oper-
ations and wet scrubbers over the cleaning section for alkaline
removal, over the pickling lines for acid mist removal and
over the cold reduction lines for oil mist removal. At the
wire mill there is a vapor recovery system installed at the
vapor degreasing operations. The No. 4 galvanizing line has
a scrubber installed at the strip cleaning section.
All of the above are reportedly operating satis-
factorily.
D-ll
-------
2.0 PROPOSED PROGRAM
2.1 GENERAL
Fairfield Works is presently discharging one of the
lowest quantities of water, based on m3/kkg (gal/ton) of steel
produced, of any of the integrated steel plants in the United
States. The ultimate objective of this study is to determine
the means by which the plant could possibly arrive at total
recycle of water with the exception of area runoff and sani-
tary sewage. It is recognized that to reach this objective
there must be methods of disposal or regeneration of water
that can no longer be recirculated. The total recycle ob-
jective is aproached in a stepwise manner, whereby, recom-
mendations are made to meet the quality requirements of BAT
and then, by addition, to meet the total recycle criteria.
The plant presently disposes of water by discharge
to Opossum Creek and by evaporation. A large portion of the
process and cooling water is presently recirculated and the
existing facilities needed for the recirculation systems,
whenever possible, are incorporated in the expanded systems
for BAT and total recycle. In some cases recommendations for
additional facilities are made, in others different modes of
water use are recommended, causing the quality of water used
for processes to be lowered.
2.2 WATER RELATED MODIFICATIONS TO AIR QUALITY CONTROL
Analysis of the Fairfield Works air emissions indi-
cates that the plant is, at virtually all sources, either meet-
ing emission regulations or has instituted programs to meet
or exceed regulations.
At the coke plant, scrubber cars will be used at coke
batteries No. 2 and No. 9 to control fugitive pushing emissions.
It is recommended that an additional scrubber car be installed
at Nos. 4 and 6 batteries to control their fugitive emissions.
The use of water is estimated to be 112 m3/hr (495 gpm) with a
blowdown of 37.5 mvhr (165 gpm). This blowdown would be com-
bined with the No. 2 battery blowdown of 6.8 m3/hr (30 gpm).
D-12
-------
2.3 PLANT MODIFICATIONS TO MEET BAT
2.3.1 General
The Fairfield Works presently provides treatment for
all wastewater prior to discharge. Plant data indicates that
when each production source is considered individually, some
do not meet the BAT discharge requirements. However, in the
combined discharge from the FECP, the data provided shows
that the plant meets the requirements for suspended solids and
oils and grease.
The approach taken in this section of this report is
based on point sources as described in the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines because of the mass limitations described for
specific plant areas such as the coke plant, blast furnaces
and electroplating. BAT limitations were used without regard
to existing permitted discharges.
The allowable BAT discharges from Fairfield Works,
based on production, are shown on Table D-l.
The effluent water from the coke plant wastwater
treatment plant apparently does not meet the discharge require-
ments for suspended solids, ammonia and cyanide. Data is not
available on blast furnaces discharges of ammonia, cyanide,
fluoride, phenols or sulfide. It is assumed that, for Blast
Furnaces 5,6 and 7, the required levels for these parameters
are not being met. Fairfield has stated that the treated
discharges for new Blast Furnace 8 will meet the BAT chemistry
for discharge. The treated discharge from the Q-BOP facilities
apparently exceeds the required level for suspended solids and
it is assumed fluorides may also be in excess, although data
is not available. The Tin Mill Treatment Plant does meet dis-
charge requirements for suspended solids, oils and grease but
the treatment facilities appear to be adequate for meeting
all BAT requirements if there is proper operation and main-
tenance.
2.3.2 Finishing Facilities
The finishing facilities consist of cold reduction,
cleaning, annealing, pickling and plating operations. Wastes
from galvanizing, electrolytic tinning, cleaning, continuous
annealing, pickling and cold reduction facilities are present-
ly treated at the Tin Mill Treatment Plant. However, there
are different allowable discharges for each of these process
D-13
-------
TABLE D-l
D
Production
Facility
By-Product Coke
Blast-Furnaces
Q-BOP
45 -inch Blooming
46-inch Slab
21 -inch Billet
Plate Mill
68-inch Hot Strip
Structural Mill
Merchant Mill
48-inch Pickling
56-inch Pickling
Rod Pickling
38-inch Cleaning
Daily
Production
kkcj/tons
5960/6570
9767/10766
6050/6669
3418/3768
4666/5143
1241/1368
1666/1836
5051/5568
1059/1167
612/675
1744/1923
2300/2535
509/561
629/693
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BATEA LIMITATIONS
(kkg/day)
Daily Allowable Discharges (Ib/day)
Fc , Cr Cr Ni Cu
S. S. O&G CN NH 3 S" Phenol BOD; F - Zn Mn NO SN Pb IdjjLsJ £Lr_ Hull tiluuU- ItiiiiU .Ulu^
62.1 24.9 0.5924.9 0.73 1.27
137. 55. 1.3 55. ( 1.6 2.8
127. - 1.2750.8 1.54 2.54 - 102.
280 - 2.8 112. 3.4 5.6 - 224.
31.3 25.4
69. 56-
3. 8 3.8
8.4 8.4
5.1 5.1
11.2 11.2
1.4 1.4
3.1 3.1
10.7 10.7
23.5 - 23. 5 -
No Discharges Permitted
No Discharges Permitted
No Discharges Permitted
9.1 3.7 0.37
20.0 8. 1 0.81
12.0 4.8 0.48
26.4 10.6 1. 1
4.2 1.7 0.17
9.3 3.8 0.38
3. 3 0. 13 0. 06 O. 03
7. 2 O. 28 0. 14 1. 07
-------
TABLE P-l
Production
Facility
43-inch Cleaning
38-inch Cont.
Annealing
54 -inch Tandem
52-inch Tandem
1 48 -inch Double
1— Cold Reduction
Ui
38-inch Tinning
No. 1
35-inch Tinning
No. 3
38-inch Tinning
No. 4
Galvanizing No. 1
Galvanizing No. 2
Galvanizing No. 4
Galvanizing Wire
Daily
Production
kkg/tons
795/876
822/906
2218/2445
1976/2181
618/681
457/504
357/393
454/501
278/306
411/453
836/921
267/294
S.
4.
9.
4.
9.
231.
510.
206.
455.
64.
142.
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BATEA LIMITATIONS
(continued)
(kkg/day)
Daily Allowable Discharges (Ib/day)
Fe , Cr Cr Ni Cu
S. O&G CN NHj S- Phenol BOD; F - Zn Mn NQ _SN_ _Eb__ IdjjLsJ Hn__ Xluil fcliaa). 4diis4 JAi-s-±)~>
1 0.16 0.08 0.04
1 0.35 0.18 0.09
3 0.16 0.08 0.04
4 0.36 0.18 0.09
92.5 9.3
204 20.5
82.4 8.3
182. 18.3
4 25.8 2.6
56.8 5.7
No Discharges Permitted
No Discharges Permitted
No Discharges Permitted
7.
15.
10.
23.
21.
47.
27.
61.
2 2.9 0.58 0.006 '0.6
.8 6.4 1.3 0.013 0. 13
7 4.3 0.85 0.009 0.09
6 9.5 1.9 0.02 0.2
7 8.8 1. 74 0.017 0. 1 7
8 19.4 3. 8 0. 037 0. 37
8 11.1 0.3 16.7 0.22 1.1 0.0020.02 0.56 0.3 0.3
3 24.5 0.6 36.8 0.49 2.5 0.0050.05 l.Z 0.6 0.6
-------
operations. The electroplating point source category, under
BAT requires zero discharge. The justification for this re-
quirement is questionable since the guideline data is based on
small plating operations rather than the massive plating lines
associated with steel plants. However, to meet this goal,
modifications to the existing Tin Mill Treatment Plant would
be required with respect to the wastes that are treated and-
additional unit processes that would be needed.
Flows to the plant should be segregated so that the
wastes from Galvanizing Line No. 4, Tinning Lines 1,3 and 4
and Wire Galvanizing, totaling 264 m3/hr (1160 gpm) flow
directly to the treatment plant lagoons. The flows from con-
tinuous annealing, strip pickling, cold rolling, cleaning and
rod pickling (486 m3/hr (2140 gpm) should be segregated-and con-
tinue to flow to the Tin Mill Ditch. After acid addition and
oil skimming in the ditch these flows should by-pass the chem-
ical treatment portion of the treatment plant and be pumped
to two of the clarifiers for settling before discharge to the
FECP.
The flows to the lagoons should be treated in the
treatment plant. However, after clarification the flow should
be filtered and demineralized and the product water returned
to the tinning lines for use as solution makeup water or for
other high quality water requirements. The brine reject
stream should be evaporated to dryness and the 9.6 m3 (12.5
cu. yd.) of dried solids produced per day disposed of in a
lined and covered storage area.
2.3.3 Q-BQP Area
3 The direct contract wastewater discharge of 123
m /hr (540 gpm) from the three Q-BOP units should be diverted
from the FECP and used as makeup at the blast furnace gas
cleaning systems. This modification is suggested because the
treated discharge from the Q-BOP area is of adequate quality
for blast furnace system makeup and, since the same restriction
with respect to fluoride applies to both blast furnace and
Q-BOP wastes, it would be advisable to treat both together.
2.3.4 Blast Furnaces
Blast Furnaces 5,6 and 7 gas cleaning systems, under
BAT point source discharges, have a blowdown limitation of
141 m3/hr (622 gpm). A flow of 136 m3/hr (600 gpm) has been
assumed in this discussion to be the limiting value. The
Q-BOP blowdown of 123 m3/hr (540 gpm) can be used for a portion
of the makeup requirements with the balance of 45.5 m3/hr
(200 gpm) drawn from the LDP recycle line. Under these con-
ditions the dissolved solids in the blowdown would be 1330
D-16
-------
mg/1. This flow should be treated with lime to precipitate
the fluorides present and then pumped to the coke plant bio-
logical treatment plant for phenol, cyanide and ammonia re-
moval .
The allowable discharge at blast furnace 8, under
BAT, is 71 m-Vhr (312 gpm) as opposed to the present flow of
120 m3/hr (530 gpm) which includes the water used to quench
slag. However, due to the dissolved solids concentration in
the water and anticipated air pollution restrictions,it is
suggested that the quenching of slag with blast furnace gas
cleaning water be discontinued and replaced with boiler house
cooling tower blowdown. At a discharge rate of 68 m3/hr (300
gpm) to the FECP the suspended solids are anticipated to be 14
mg/1 and the dissolved solids approximately 1300 mg/1. No
further treatment is suggested prior to discharge to the FECP.
Makeup requirements to blast furnace 8 gas cleaning system
will be reduced to 150 m-Vhr (660 gpm) and blast furnace 8
furnace cooling water blowdown should be reduced to that
amount.
2.3.5 Coke Plant
The present practice of using PIW for dilution at
the Coke Plant waste treatment plant should be altered to use
other sources. Suggested sources for this dilution water are
the 136 m3/hr (660 gpm) blowdown from blast furnaces 5,6 and
7 gas washer system and the 44 m3/hr (195 gpm) from the coke
pushing scrubber car blowdown. If these two flows enter the
treatment system after the CY-AM stills the discharge from
the treatment plant to the final settling basin would be
approximately 294 m3/hr (1300 gpm) with a dissolved solids
concentration of 2330 mg/1. The total flow from the settling
basin would then be 557 m3/hr (2450 gpm) with a dissolved
solids concentration of 1470 mg/1. Coal dust control could
use 80 m3/hr (350 gpm) to replace PIW and the balance dis-
charged to the FECP.
If the coke plant wastewater treatment plant is to
meet the BAT requirements at a flow rate of 477 irrVhr (2100 gpm)
the concentration of ammonia and cyanides would have to be
5.2 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively. To accomplish this, the exist-
ing facilities would have to be upgraded by either adding ad-
ditional treatment facilities and/or by modifying the present
operation.
The existing facilities should be modified and ex-
panded by providing an additional 1890 mj (500,000 gal) of
D-17
-------
aeration capacity and adding two additional clarifiers. The
system should then be operated in two stages for both carbon-
aceous and nitrogenous BOD removal. Aeration time in each
stage should be a minimum of 16 hours with settling and sludge
return to the influent of each stage.
Alternatively, the existing basins could be modi-
fied to accommodate two stages of rotating biological contactors
or a fluidized biological reactor could be provided to nitrify
the excess ammonia.
A detailed testing and treatability program would
have to be undertaken prior to the implementation of any treat-
ment modification for this system.
Since the suspended solids discharged are in excess
of those permitted under BAT the effluent from the final sett-
ling basin may have to be filtered prior to the discharge to
the FECP. Backwash facilities would then be required with the
filtration operation. See Figure D-3.
2.3.6 Blast Furnace Boiler House and Turboblowers
Although consideration had been given to replacing
the source of water used at the boiler house and turboblowers
from PIW to recycled LDP water to reduce the quantity of water
discharged, the plant has informed us that they had also con-
sidered this modification. It was rejected by them due to an-
ticipated scaling problems and also, their heat exchangers
would not be capable of operating because of the elevated
temperatures of the LDP water.
2.3.7 Material Storage Pile Runoff
Effluent guidelines have set, as a limit of material
storage pile runoff, 25 mg/1 suspended solids. To meet this
limit, while minimizing the amount of treatment to be provided
a collection pond should be installed that will contain the
runoff from a "once in ten years 24-hour storm." The storage
volume required, using a runoff coefficient of 0.95, would be
35000 m3 (1,235,000 ft3). With an effective storage depth of
3 m (10 ft), an area of 1.1 ha (2.8 acres) would be required.
Most of the solids carried off the storage piles should settle
in the pond. The retained water would then be pumped at a
nominal rate of 23 m3/hr (100 gpm) to the FECP, thus allowing
for each day's pumping, a sufficient volume to retain an
additional 2.4 mm (0.09 inches) of rainfall.
Settling Pond No. 4 near the sheet mills is apparent-
D-18
-------
j.y sufficient to contain the storm flows.
2.3.8 Sinter Plant
There are two alternative methods available for the
Fairfield Works to meet the requirements of BAT at the sinter
plant, one of which also accomplishes total recycle.
The first method is to return all of the water from
the water recycle basin. At the present time only 23 m3/hr
(100 gpm) is returned to sinter plants, 1,2 and 3. The re-
maining 70 m3/hr (310 gpm) would be recycled back for use in
ore and flue dust blending. In addition to the above it is
suggested that the storm water runoff from the material storage
piles be collected and piped to the settling ponds and all
other storm water from the plant area by bypassed around the
pond. However, the plant states that it would be impossible
for them to use the quantity of water proposed for recyle
back for use as bland water.
The second alternative provides for treatment of the
process wastes. The present degree of treatment provides for
removal of suspended solids and oils but there is no provision
for the removal of other regulated contaminants, i.e., sulfide
and fluoride.
To provide for treatment to lower concentrations
than those permitted under BAT, the following modifications
and additions should be provided at the existing ponds:
1. Pipe all of the process flows presently
being discharged from the sinter plant to
Pond No. 1.
2. Pipe all of the treated sanitary wastes to
Pond No. 2.
3. Collect storm water runoff from the material
storage areas and pipe it to Pond No. 2.
4. Divert all other area storm runoff around
the settling ponds and discharge it directly
to the ditch at Outfall 029.
5. Collect the effluent from Pond No. 1 and
pump it to a treatment facility.
6. Install a two stage treatment facility con-
sisting of an aeration basin and a lime
mixing basin. The effluent from the lime
D-19
-------
D
SET
SCRUBS
BLOV,
•
/
BLAST FURNACE
fLEO MISCELLANEOUS EXCESS GAS CLEANING
ER CAR CONTAMINATED AMMONIA Nos. 5,6 O 7 COAL DUST
DOWN ' WASTEWATERS LIQUOR SLOWDOWN CONTROL
1 I t
1
TOS. 3000 mg/l
SS. 90 mg/l
NHj JOOOmg/l
000 >200mcj/l
CN 20Omcj/l
OnG. I20m.j/l
PHENOLS 360mg/l
SULFIDE 100mg/l
FLOW 111 m'/Hr
(SOOgpm)
it i ii .
fLOW 44mVHr
(195 jpm)
i ' i
»
"— h
^
rf
1 •
~~ 1 , '
1
1 ...^ ....... ' . b rrti IAI
\ /
OIL Q TAR
SEPARATOR A
ZATION
CY-AM
STILLS
SUPERNATANT
^ +1 -—*
PAMAI I^ATIHM d i— 1
LIME SLUDGE N
CLARIFIERS
AERATION
BASINS
1st 2nd
STAGE STAGE
I SLUDGE
,, CLARIFIER TYP.
— t .. r^ 1
T /
4................ /
i ' ' ^
\
^ SLUDGE .
W 0
-s.
' fT^
' ''FIN
SET!
, .. jrv-»
/ '|V_Z_L
""""'.^m"^""0"
IDS.
SS
NH}
(100
37!JO mg/l 0 0 G. 10 nig /I
12 mg/l SULFIOE 03 r^Q/1
?0 mq/t FLOW ?94(nVllr
03 mq/l (I3OO gpm!
>
AL
"LIN
)h
VACUUM
FILTER
T D S 3510 f^q/l
S.S 50mg/l
NH3 125 rn^/l
CN 15 mg/l
PHENOLS flm-j/1
SUlFlOE 6 mn/l
FLOW I36m>/Hr
{660 g pm )
'
TOS 3750 rng/l
SS 10 i^-jf
NM] t? fr>^ /
BACKWASH | °°° 2°, "-^
ua::'llN 1 one 10 n-v
SULFIOE 03r")/l
FLOW 477mVHr
(2ICO gtm)
/
>• FILTERS 1 1 K
— |
S . TO FINAL EFFLUENT
CONTROL POND ,
w SOLIDS TO
^LANDFILL_
Q ADDED FACILITIES
PROPOSED COMBINED COKE PLANT AND BLAST FURNACE WASTE TREATMEMT .FIGURE D-3
-------
mixing basin would have the pH adjusted
with acid and discharged to Pond No. 2
for final settling. Final discharge would
be to Outfall 029.
At an anticipated once-in-ten-year 24 hours rainfall
from the material storage areas it is anticpated that the over-
flow rate and detention time in one pond would be sufficient
to provide a suspended solids effluent of 25 mg/1 as required.
2.3.9 Final Effluent Control Pond
With the additions of the in-plant modification
recommended no additional treatment will be required at the
FECP since each production area will meet the respective BAT
requirements.
2.4 TOTAL RECYCLE
2.4.1 General
To achieve total recycle of water in the most
efficient and cost effective manner, maximum reuse of water
must be accomplished prior to any ultimate treatment. Water
from one process must be cascaded to another. In view of the
minimum water quality requirements at the Fairfield Works, as
supplied by the U.S. Steel Corporation, large quantities of
water must be treated. It is recommended that first a detailed
survey of the plant processes and materials of construction be
made to establish more firmly what minimum quality of water is
acceptable at each process. The analyses and recommendations
presented in this section are based on the minimum quality
requirement as provided by U.S. Steel and upon the judgment of
Hydrotechnic, where qualities were not provided.
In the previous section various recommendations
were made to reuse water prior to discharge to achieve a dis-
charge quality suitable to meet BAT with the anticipation that
zero discharge would be a following step. In this section
further reduction in water use is recommended to effect min-
imal ultimate treatment in the achievement of total recycle
of water.
A major plant modification that will be required to
achieve total recycle of process water will be to segregate all
flows that are due to precipitation from the existing plant
sewer systems and collect only those waters discharged as a _ re-
sult of plant manufacturing processes and runoff from material
storage piles for ultimate treatment. With this accomplished
D-21
-------
the following recommendations are made:
2.4.2 Q-BOP Area
Presently approximately 170 m3/hr (750 gpm) is dis-
charged to blast furnace 5,6 and 7 spray ponds. This quantity
should be returned to the Q-BOP area and68 m3/hr (300 gpm) used
for miscellaneous purposes and 102 m3/hr (450 gpm) utilized for
purposes other than non-contact cooling. Water would continue
to be drawn from the PIW system for the additional makeup of
134 m3/hr (590 gpm). The blowdown from the surge tank should
be used for makeup to the blast furnaces gas cleaning systems
described below.
2.4.3 Blast Furnaces
The dissolved solids level in the gas cleaning
systems should be increased to 3500 mg/1. If the Q-BOP blow-,
down of 75 nr/hr (330 gpm) is used as makeup water at blast
furnaces 5,6 and 7 this level of dissolved solids can be main-
tained by blowing down 43 m3/hr (190 gpm).
At blast furnace 8, 48 m3/hr (210 gpm) of^blowdown
from the Q-BOP and a reduced blowdown of 59 m3/hr (260 gpm)
from No. 8 furnace cooling tower can be used for makeup water.
Dissolved solids levels of 3500 mg/1 can be maintained by
blowing down 25 m3/hr (110 gpm).
Blowdown flows from both blast furnace gas cleaning
systems should be combined and sent to the coke plant waste-
water treatment plant for use as dilution water.
2.4.4 Coke Plant
The systems described in Section 2.3.5 would be re-
quired prior to discharge to the FECP with the following dif-
ferences: the flow passing through the biological systems would
be reduced to 250 m3/hr (1100 gpm) and filtration would not be
required for the 432 m3/hr (1800 gpm) discharged from the
settling basin before discharge to the FECP.
2.4.5 Blast Furnace Boiler House and Turboblowers
No changes in the blast furnace boiler house and
turboblowers other than those described in Section 2.3.5 are
recommended under total recycle conditions.
2.4.6 Material Storage Pile Runoff
No additional facilities other than those described
D-22
-------
in Section 2.3.6 are suggested for material storage pile
runoff.
2.4.7
Sinter Plant
The consumptive use of water at the sinter plant
cannot be reduced by reuse of the process water presently being
discharged. The material storage pile runoff should, there-
fore, be exempted from the zero discharge provision. Under
the total recycle concept the following provisions should be
added to the treatment system prepared under Section 2.3.7.
A dissolved solids removal facility complete with
filter should be installed and approximately 18 mvhr (80 gpm)
of the total discharge treated. The balance of the flow (52
m3/hr (230 gpm) should be combined with the treated water and
recycled back to the sinter plant for reuse. This system would
replace the chemical treatment system described in Section
2.3.7. The reject stream, estimated to be 4.5 m3/hr (20 gpm),
would have to be evaporated to dryness.
2.4.8
Final Effluent Control Pond (FECP)
The total flows to the FECP, under total recycle
conditions, would be:
Flow
Source
Coke Plant and Material
Storage Pile Runoff Pond
Blast Furnace 5, 6 & 7
Boiler House
Finishing Facilities
LDP
Mold Cooling
Total
m-Vhr
477
420
502
1102
5
2536
Estimated TDS
gpm (mg/1)
2100
1850
2340
4850
20
11200
1500
65
1200
200
200
630 ave,
The dissolved solids concentration in the FECP
water would then be 630 mg/1. If the plant requires water _
with a maximum of 125 mg/1 dissolved solids a reverse osmosis
or similar unit would be required. A two-stage reverse osmosis
system with filtration, intermediate lime softening and drying
would be required. An estimated 33.6 tons per day of dried
soluble solids would be rejected by the system. To provide
D-23
-------
for disposal of these and 10 tons per day of solids from
the finishing mills, a lined and covered pond would be
necessary so that leaching into the ground would be prevented
during periods of precipitation. Assuming a bulk density of
961 kg per m3 (60 pounds per cubic foot) and assuming storage
capacity for 10 years of solids production a lined area of
4.92 hectares (12.2 acres) 3 meters (10 feet) deep would be
required.
Figures D-4 and D-5 show the flows under BAT
conditions and Figures D-6 and D-7 show the flows under total
recycle conditions.
Figure D-8 shows the locations of the proposed
facilities. The sinter plant is not shown due to its remote-
ness from the main body of the plant.
2.4.9 Feasibility
Proposals made in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of this report,
of necessity, require that there be considerable segregation
of flows, i.e., process waters, non-contact cooling water and
storm water. It is recognized that there are technical and
economic problems that will be associated with this
separation process, but without specific knowledge of the
in-plant and in-mill sewer systems quantification at this
stage is impossible. Difficulties may include:
1. Shutdown of a mill during the period that
waters are segregated and divided.
2. Space availability for pumping stations that
may be required to divert process and cooling
waters.
3. Diversion of process flows directly to treatment
facilities from the open ditches they now flow in.
4. Diversion of storm flows around treatment
facilities.
It must be stressed that, prior to considering the
possibility of implementing any of the plans indicated in
this report, a detailed analysis of each mill's water and
wastewater system must be performed. In addition a testing
program must be conducted to establish the design parameters
for the systems suggested.
D-24
-------
D
I
to
un
HYDROTCCHWC CORPORATION
CONSULTING tNQIHtM!
INIEGRATEO STEfl PLANT POLLUTION STUDT
FOR TOTAL RECYCLE or W
UNITED STATES STETL COR
FfllRFIFLCl WORK*;
RAT SYSTEM
FIGURE D-4
-------
o
I
r --- 1 — " — i — t
~~
X
""•-rear
U-»
rTszoi „
I o
[ WATER ) 2, I
PECYCLE]—ri^i—*
> tsasiX J fool
NOTE-
F0«» NOTES AND LEGEf40
Set fiGURE D-4
HYDROTCCHNIC CORPORATION
I (tl - tit
INTEGRATED STF.EL PLfiNT POLLUTiQt* STUD*
FOB TOTAL RECYCLE OF WATER
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
FAIRFIELO WORKS
PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
BAT SYSTEMS
MHMg" *. D«r| _
ir"«Kj5= - V—'-'— FIGURE D-5
-------
I
N;
COO - m3/Hr
(000) - g p m
RECYCLED WATER
,_ WATER
(NQN-COHTACTI
MOCESS *ATfR
""OPOSED RECTCLE
^-L, COOLING
UeODPOSEO
Faci^ncs
S.BT? REUSE AT TIN MILLS
13.'J. * ttND COMBINE WITH
8Z50I PRIME INDUSTRIAL WAT"
NOTE'
TO 3 (THREE! SIGNIFICANT DIGITS
HYDROTECHN1C CORPOMTION
iNTfG°ATf[i ^tf
FO1-'1 Ti'fti
fiNi POLLUTION STUf
-'.L^ "f W.'.'l H
UNITED STATE? STFFI CORPORATION
PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
• . n^i .,i - ,. , i
-------
o
I
ro
CO
CONIPOL "OW
r
J
5
5
s
T
s
z
5
or
$
T
5
§
S
r
T i
—.j
• FOR TOTAL fiECYCU QF WATER
UNITED PT«TES ^TEEL CORPV-RATIQN
pwnp'-i^ED FLOW r)U'j\-AM
i FIGURE 0-7
-------
o
to
Tgrau prcrrit o
UNITED STATS SUEL
f AlFtf I) LD
PtOT PLAN ft LOCATIO
-------
APPENDIX E
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
E-i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction E-l
1.1 Purpose and Scope E-l
1.2 Description of the Steel Plant E-l
1.2.1 Processes and Facilities E-l
1.2.2 Water Systems and Distribution E-2
1.2.3 Waste Treatment Facilities E-9
1.2.4 Water Discharges and Qualities E-12
1.2.5 Air Pollution Control Facilities E-13
2.0 Proposed Program E-16
2.1 General E-16
2.2 Water Related Modifications to Air Quality
Control E~17
2.3 Requirements for Plant to Meet BAT E-18
2.3.1 Outfall Oil E-21
2.3.2 Outfall 010 E-22
2.3.3 Seamless Pipemill E-22
2.3.4 Outfall 001 E~22
2.3.5 Blast Furnace Area E-26
2.3.6 Coke Plant E~26
2.4 Requirements for Plant to Meet Total
E-iii
Recycle E~26
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
E-l Existing Plant Flow Diagram E-5
E-2 Plot Plan E-7
E-3 Organic Treatment Plant - Flow and Quality
Diagram E-23
E-4 Organic Treatment Plant - General ;,;
Arrangement .. E-24
E-5 Proposed Plant Flow Diagram to Meet BAT E-27
E-6 Modified Central Treatment Plant -
Flow and Quality Diagram E-29
E-7 Modified Terminal Treatment Plant -
Flow and Quality Diagram E-31
E-8 Modified Terminal Treatment Plant -
General Arrangement E-32
E-9 Proposed Plant Flow Diagram to Meet Zero
Discharge E-34
E-iv
-------
TABLES
Number Page
E-l Treated Wastewater Discharges E-6
E-2 Solids and Sludge Production and Disposal E-14
E-3 Allowable Discharges as Permitted under
BAT Limitations E-19
& 20
E-v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This appendix addresses itself specifically to the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company's Indiana Harbor Works at
East Chicago, Indiana. It includes the preliminary engineering
designs based on conclusions reached from data supplied by the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company. It does not include the
identification of all environmental control technologies
considered, the evaluation of other steel plants studied, cost
estimates, practicality or possible environmental impacts.
Therefore, it should be looked on only as a vehicle to present
a possible scheme to attain zero discharge but not necessarily
one that is practical, feasible or one that will not generate,
with its implementation, an environmental impact in other
sectors which is intolerable.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE STEEL PLANT
1.2.1 Processes and Facilities
The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company operates a
completely integrated steel plant located in East Chicago,
Indiana. A small portion of the plant is located in Whiting,
Indiana and the total plant occupies a 525 hectare (1300 acre)
site located on the southern shore of Lake Michigan at
Indiana Harbor. The corporate designation of the plant is
the Indiana Harbor Works. Production facilities at the Indiana
Harbor Works as of 1977 consisted of:
Capacity
in kkg/day/TPD
- One by-products coke plant 3629/4000
- One sinter plant 36"A>
E-l
-------
Capacity
in kkg/day/TPD
- A billet mill N.A.
A seamless tube mill 635/700
- A continuous butt weld tube mill 757/834
Three continuous pickling lines 8400/9260
- Two cold reduction sheet mills 3295/3630
- Two tin mills 2295/2530
- A galvanizing shop 895/984
Of the above facilities the two merchant mills and
the billet mill have been closed and will not resume operation.
The galvanizing shop, although not presently operating is
assumed to be operational in the future.
Support facilities at the plant are a boiler house
and a power plant. The boiler house, in addition to supplying
steam for the power plant operation, supplies steam for other
in-plant uses.
1.2.2 Water Systems and Distribution
The water supply for the Indiana Harbor Works is
drawn from Lake Michigan through three intakes, supplying four
pumping stations. Intake No. 1 supplies Pump House No. 1;
Intake No. 2 supplies Pump House No. 2 and the Low Head
Pumping Station; and Intake No. 3 supplies Pump House No. 3.
Although Pump Houses 1, 2 and 3 are nominally inter-
connected, each station supplies specific facilities within
the plant and the low head pumping station supplies water to a
separate group of plant faciliteis and also supplies water to
the adjacent Sinclair Plant. The uses of water from each
pumping station are discussed below:
Intake No. 1 is located at the northeast corner of
the plant at the entrance to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Water flows to Pump House No. 1 which is located west of
the north ore yard and east of the No. 1 Warehouse. Pump
House No. 1 supplies 500 m3/hr (2200 gpm) to the No. 1 Blooming
Mill, 455 mj/hr (2000 gpm) to the No. 2 Continuous Butt Weld
Mill, 2320 m3/hr (10,200 gpm) to the No. 2 Cold Reduction Mill
and the No. 1 and No. 2 Tin Mills and 4890 m3/hr (21,500 gpm)
to Blast Furnaces 3 and 4.
3 Pump House No. 1 is equipped with 6 pumps: 2 at 5680
m /hr (25,000 gpm), 1 at 4320 m3/hr (19,000 gpm), 2 at 3410
m3/hr (15,000 gpm) and 1 at 2270 m3/hr (10,000 gpm).
Intake No. 2 draws its water from Lake Michigan
E-2
-------
through an intake flume located in the north central area of
the plant. Water is supplied through this flume to Pump House
No. 2 and additional water is transported through a water
intake tunnel to the Low Head Pump House. Pump House No. 2
equipped with 2 - 5680 m3/hr (25,000 gpm), 1 - 3410 m3/hr
(15,000 gpm) and 2 - 2380 m3/hr (10,400 gpm) pumps and is
located at the end of the intake flume, north of the slab
'yard. This pump station supplies 2318 mVhr (10,200) to the
EOF, 6020 m-yhr (26,500 gpm) to Slabbing Mill No. 2, 3230 m3/hr
(14,200 gpm) to Open Hearth No. 2 and 1950 m3/hr (8600 gpm) to
the Seamless Pipe Mill. The Low Head Pump House provides
225 m3/hr (1050 gpm) to the Coke Plant, 180 m3/hr (800 gpm)
to the Sinter Plant, 2730 m3/hr (12,000 gpm) to Blast
Furnaces 1 and 2 and 14,200 m3/hr (62,600 gpm) to the Power
House and Boiler House. In addition 1820 mVhr (8,000 gpm)
is pumped to the Sinclair Company for their in-plant use.
The Low Head Pump House has 1 - 15,900 m3/hr (70,000 gpm)
and 1 - 11,400 m3/hr (50,000 gpm) pumps.
Pump House No. 3 has 3 - 11,400 m /hr (50,000 gpm)
pumps and is located at the extreme north end of the plant,
north of the 84-inch Hot Strip Mill. It supplies 23,800 m3/hr
(104,800 gpm) to the 84-inch Hot Strip Mill and the 80-inch
Cold Reduced Sheet Mill No. 3.
The following is a list of the seven points of water
discharge from the Indiana Harbor Works:
Discharge
Point
Outfall 001
Outfall 002
Outfall 009
Outfall 010
Outfall Oil
East Chicago
Treatment
Plant
Sinclair
Shallow Well
Source of Waste
Tin Mills 1 & 2, Sheet Mill 2 and Sheet Mill 2
Galvanizing Line
Non-contact cooling water from Sheet Mill 2 and
Sheet Mill 2 Galvanizing Line
Non-contact cooling water from the Sinter Plant,
Boiler House and Power House
Process water from Continuous Butt Weld Mill
No. 2, non-contact cooling water from the Power
House and Blast Furnaces 1 & 2 and emergency
overflow from the Blast Furnace recycle system
Terminal Lagoon Blowdown
Coke Plant .
Seamless Pipe Mill via Low Head Pump Station
Waste pickle liquor from Flat Roll Mills, and
Cold Strip Mill No. 3
E-3
-------
Figure E-l illustrates the existing water
distribution, use and discharge systems. Table E-l tabulates
the qualities of water discharged from the outfalls for which
NPDES permits have been issued. The discharges are discussed
below with the uses of water from the plant facilities that
contribute to these outfalls. The locations of the outfalls
are shown on Fig. E-2.
Outfall 001
Discharge from Outfall 001 contains process water
from Tin Mill 1, Tin Mill 2, Sheet Mill 2 and Sheet Mill 2
Galvanizing Lines. Approximately 1750 m3/hr (7700 gpm) of
process water flows from these mills and are treated in the
Central Treatment Plant. An additional 340 m3/hr (1500 gpm)
combines with the treated water prior to discharge. The
total discharge from Outfall 001 to the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal is approximately 2090 m3/hr (9200 gpm).
Outfall 002
The flow of water from this outfall to the Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal consists of only 227 m3/hr (1000 gpm) of
non-contact cooling water from Sheet Mill No. 2. The outfall
is located north of the Dickey Place Bridge.
Outfall 009
Outfall 009 discharges non-contact cooling water
from the Sinter Plant (68 m3/hr (300 gpm)), the Boiler House
(273 m3/hr (1200 gpm)) and the Power House (7730 m3/hr
(34,000 gpm)) to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal just north of
the ore yard for a total of 8070 m3/hr (35,500 gpm).
Outfall 010
The discharge of 8640 m3/hr (38,000 gpm) to the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal through Outfall 010 is primarily
non-contact cooling water; 2730 m3/hr (12,000 gpm) from Blast
Furnaces 1 and 2 and 5450 m3/hr (24,000 gpm) from the Power
House. The remaining 455 m3/hr (2000 gpm) is process water
from Continuous Butt Weld Mill No. 2 which has passed through
a scale pit and filters. Outfall 010 is located south of the
ore yard just north of Outfall 009.
Outfall Oil
Approximately 16,600 m3/hr (73,100 gpm) is discharged
to Lake Michigan through Outfall Oil. Plant facilities
contributing to this flow are:
E-4
-------
LAKE MICHIGAN
raiao IB44001
w
I
4-
• 8205(36100)
~i—i
i§
|i i
& .„.„
(1001 W
r
FLAT ROLL
MILLS
5
_l
Z
2
J
5
t-
«
#
j xn
ss
111 >
UJ -J
53
1
»-
I ill
WATCR
T RE flTMENT
Li
' 1 I
Q
£C
d *
O O
CD Q.
l!
si[L
d 01
!1
j *
i
-------
TABLE NO. K-l
Parameter
PH
Temp
S. S.
Oil
TDS
NH3
CN
Cl
S°4
Fl
Tot Cr
Zn
Tin
Phenol
A Ik
TREATED WASTEWATER DISCHARGES*
001 002
7.6 7.7
65 65
15 10
6 4
641 272
2.2 1.8
0.07 0.05
41 39
140 38
0.5 0.4
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.006 0.005
Outfalls
009
8.0
70
6
4
243
1.5
0.05
30
35
0.3
-
-
-
0.006
To E. Chicago
Treatment
010 Oil Plant
8.2 8.1 9.0
64 60
10 15 55
4 5 43
253 344
1.9 2.5 195
0.25 0.55 10
35 50 1650
47 42
0.3 0.4
-
.
-
0.006 0.006 80
940
* With the exception of discharges to East Chicago Sewage Treatment
Plant all data are from computer printouts.
E-6
-------
fj
I
-------
Slowdown and water treatment plant wastes from the
Boiler and Power House amounting to approximately
318 m3/hr (1400 gpm).
Discharge of approximately 500 m3/hr (2200 gpm) from
the Blooming Mill scale pit.
Continuous Butt Weld filter backwash flow of 45 m3/hr
(200 gpm).
A non-contact cooling water discharge of approxima-
tely 4550 m3/hr (20,000 gpm) from Blast Furnaces 3
and 4.
Mold preparation and cooling facilities at the BOF
discharge approximately 455 m3/hr (2000 gpm).
BOF non-contact cooling water discharges amount to
approximately 1700 m3/hr (7500 gpm).
Slabbing Mill No. 2 discharges approximately 4910
m3/hr (21,600 gpm) from the scale pit and 1050 m3/hr
(4600 gpm) of non-contact cooling water from motor-
room cooling.
The flows from Open Hearth No. 2 including 2640 m3/hr
(11,600 gpm) of non-contact cooling water and
455 m3/hr (2000 gpm) of discharge from the gas
cleaning recycle systems.
Recycled Water
Hot Strip Mill No. 3 and Cold Strip Mill.No. 3
located at the north end of the plant discharge all their
process and non-contact cooling water through the North
Lagoon to the intake of No. 3 Pump House. Approximately
22,680 m3/hr (99,800 gpm) is recycled and 1140 m3/hr (5000 gpm)
is drawn from Lake Michigan to make up for process losses.
The Seamless Pipe Mill discharges its entire flow of
1950 m3/hr (8600 gpm) to Pump House No. 2 Intake.
Wastes from the Coke Plant (49 m3/hr (215 gpm)) are
sent to the City of East Chicago sewage treatment plant.
Waste pickle liquor from the three pickling lines is
transported to a "shallow well" located south of the Seamless
Tube Mill and east of the Blooming Mill. These wastes percolate
into the ground.
E-8
-------
1.2.3 Waste Treatment Facilities
There are, at present, waste treatment facilities
located at various points in the plant, either at or near a
production facility to treat a specific waste or at outfalls to
treat combined wastes prior to discharge. These treatment
facilities are discussed below in relation to the outfalls
that they discharge to.
Outfall 001
All process wastes discharging through Outfall 001
are treated at the Central Treatment Plant, which is located
at the extreme southern end of the plant. The 1750 m3/hr
(7700 gpm) of wastes treated are those arising from cold
rolling, pickling, tinning line, chrome line and galvanizing
operations. The wastes contain rolling solutions, contact
cooling water, pickle rinse water and galvanizing wastes.
These combined wastes flow through the treatment plant with a
series of unit operations consisting of: aeration and oil
scalping, lime and additional air addition, clarification
and oil skimming prior to discharge. Solids are collected
in the clarifier and dewatered by a centrifuge. The
dewatered solids are hauled to an off-site landfill. The
treated effluent is then combined with 340 m3/hr (1500 gpm)
of non-contact cooling water from the No- 2 Tin Mill and
discharged to the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Sulfuric acid waste pickle liquor from the three
pickling lines at Sheet Mill No. 2, Tin Mill No. 1 and No. 3
Cold Strip Mill amounting to a total flow of approximately
11.8 m3/hr (52 gpm) is trucked to a shallow well located in
a slag pile west of the Blooming Mill and the waste pickle
liquor percolates into the ground. The plant has reported
that there are no noticeable adverse effects on the ground
water due to this percolation.
Outfalls 002 and 009
The only waters that discharge through Outfall 002
and Outfall 009 are 227 m3/hr (1000 gpm) and 8070 nrVhr
(35,500 gpm) of non-contact cooling water, respectively.
There is no cooling of this water prior to discharge and the
temperature increases are approximately 5.5 to 8.3C°. (10 to
•15FO) and 10 to 10.5C° (18 to 19F°) for outfalls 002 and 009,
respectively.
Outfall 010
Outfall 010 discharges a combination of treatment
process water and non-contact cooling water. Cooling is not
E-9
-------
provided for the 2730 m3/hr (12,000 gpm) of non-contact
cooling water from Blast Furnaces 1 and 2 and the 5450 m3/h
(24,000 gpm) of non-contact cooling water from the Power
House. These non-contact cooling waters combine with
treated process water from the Continuous Butt Weld Mill and
emergency overflows from the gas washer recycle system for
the four Blast Furnaces.
The Blast Furnace gas washer recycle system consists
of three thickeners and a three cell cooling tower at
Furnaces 1, 2, 3 and 4 gas washers. The total cooled water
flow from the cooling towers, less blowdown which is used for
slag quenching, is recycled. After use the gas cooler water is
collected in a sump and a major portion is recycled to the
venturi gas washers on furnaces 1, 2 and 4. Blast Furnace
No. 3 utilizes cooling tower effluent directly for both the
venturi gas washer and gas cooling. The total gas washer
and cooler water is collected from the four furnaces and
directed to the three thickeners. Evaporation losses from
the recycle system are approximately 28 m /hr (125 gpm).
System blowdown to maintain water quality is approximately
341 m^/hr (1500 gpm) and is used to quench molten slag. Under-
flows from the thickeners are dewatered in vacuum filters
with the filter cake conveyed to the Sinter Plant and the
filtrate returned to the thickeners.
Make-up to the system is from the service water
line to the cooling tower cold well and blowdown from the
Sinter Plant scrubber systems to the thickener distribution
box.
Although there are provisions at each of the gas
washer sumps, the distribution box, the wash water sump
between the thickeners and the cooling tower, and at the
cooling towers for emergency overflows, the plant has
reported that these overflows rarely occur.
All of the process water from the Continuous Butt
Weld Mill (455 m3/hr (2000 gpm)) is first passed through a
scale pit where the gross solids are removed. It is then
pumped to three deep bed sand filters, each 16 feet in
diameter. The filtrate is discharged to Outfall 010. Filter
backwash volume has been reported to be approximately 10 per-
cent of the throughput (an average of 45 m-^/hr (200 gpm) )
which is discharged to the main scale pit at the Outfall Oil
treatment facilities. Backwash water is drawn from the
mill water supply.
Outfall Oil
All of the discharges to Outfall Oil are presently
E-10
-------
treated by passing the combined wastes through the main scale
pit and a terminal lagoon. It is assumed that the total flow
will also be passed thorugh a gravity filter installation
presently under construction near the main scale pit. Oil
removed at the main scale pit is hauled away by a scavenger.
Sludge removed from the terminal lagoon is hauled to an
in-plant landfill area.
Scale pits treat process wastes from the Blooming
Mill No. 1, Slabbing Mill No. 2, and the Open Hearth Shop.
At Blooming Mill No. 1, before they discharge to the main
scale pit, the total flow of 500 m3/hr (2200 gpm) passes
through the main scale pit. At Slabbing Mill No. 2,
4910 m^/hr (21,600 gpm) of mill process and scarfer water
is passed through one scale pit for solids removal. The
water discharged from the scale pit is combined with 1050
m3/hr (4600 gpm) of motor room non-contact cooling water which
flows to the main scale pit.
The open hearth shop treats the scrubber gas
cleaning water for recycle in two grizzlys (large solids
removal units), four classifiers, and four thickeners.
Thickener sludge is hauled to an evaporation and percolating
lagoon. Gas cooling water is cooled in evaporative cooling
towers. Blowdown from the cooling tower and leakage from
the gas cleaning system, in the amount of 455 m3/hr (2000 gpm) ,
is discharged to the main scale pit sewer. Non-contact
cooling water that is not used for make-up to the gas
cleaning cooling system (approximately 2640 m^/hr (11,600 gpm))
is also discharged to the main scale pit.
Discharge to East Chicago Sewage Treatment Plant
The Indiana Harbor Works Coke Plant has a recycle
and treatment system for non-contact water. Blowdown from
both of the non-contact cooling water cooling towers is used
to quench coke. The 50 m3/hr (215 gpm) of wastes from the
by-product plant that have been treated in dephenolizers
xand ammonia stills (free and fixed) are sent to the City
of East Chicago, Indiana, for treatment with their
municipal wastes.
Discharges to Intake No. 2
The Seamless Pipe Mill has a process flow of
approximately 1430 m3/hr (6300 gpm) which is passed through
a scale pit and then combines with a non-contact cooling
water flow of approximately 520 m3/hr (2300 gpm). The
combined flow is discharged to a small lagoon which is
equipped with an oil skimmer. The overflow is discharged
to the No. 2 Intake. Oil is removed by a scavanger.
E-ll
-------
Discharges to Intake No. 3
Virtually all water used at Hot Stri>p Mill No. 3 and
Cold Strip Mill No. 3 is recycled back to Intake No. 3 for
reuse at these facilities.
Process waste discharges from Cold Strip Mill No. 3
consists of direct application rolling solution, pickle rinse~
water and miscellaneous oily wastes. The total waste flow of
170 m3/hr (750 gpm) is discharged to a chemical treatment
plant. In addition,approximately 102 m3/hr (450 gpm) of oily '
wastes from Hot Strip Mill No. 3 also flows to the chemical
treatment plant.
At the chemical treatment plant the wastes first flow
to an 80-foot diameter clarifier where sulfuric acid is added
to crack the oil-water emulsion and the oil is skimmed off in
the clarifier. The flow then enters a 40-foot diameter air
flotation tank where caustic is added to adjust the pH and oil
is also skimmed. The effluent from the air flotation tank is
discharged to the Hot Strip Mill 5-cell dragout scale pit
which contains additional oil skimming facilities. The scale
pit also receives approximately 9000 m3/hr (39,600 gpm) from
the hot strip mill. The hot strip mill flow includes all
waters from the roughing and finishing stands plus flume
flushing water. The combined flow from the scale pit is
pumped to a filter plant consisting of 42 - 4.9m 16 feet)
high by 4.9m (16 feet) diameter pressure filters, Polymer is
added to aid in filtration. Two filters are backCashed at a
time and the backwash water is supplied from the effluent water
of the operating filters. The backwash water is sent back to
the scale pits and the balance of the effluent water is sent to
the north lagoon. The average flow from backwashing is
approximately 318 m3/hr (1400 gpm). The total flow to the
filters is approximately 9590 m3/hr (42,200 gpm) and the
filtrate discharged is 9210 m3/hr (40,550 gpm). Other flows
that combine with the filtered water are non-contact cooling
water flows of 1140 m3/hr (5000 gpm) from Cold Strip Mill No.
3 and 12,300 m3/hr (54,000 gpm) from Hot Strip No. 3. The
entire flow of 22,680 m3/hr (99,800 gpm) is then discharged to
the North Lagoon and, from the North Lagoon, to Intake No. 3.
At Hot Strip Mill No. 3 a tank beneath the runout
table collects the runout table spray water and directly
recirculates approximately 7950 m3/hr (35,000 gpm).
1.2.4 Water Discharges and Qualities
The Indiana Harbor Works has performed extensive
sampling at their outfalls for NPDES permit compliance. The
quality of these discharges are tabulated in Table E-l.
E-12
-------
Data for the treated wastes discharged to Intakes 2
and 3 is not available but some assumptions can be made.
Discharges to Intake No. 2 from the seamless pipe
mill should be high in suspended solids and oils. However, due
to the treatment provided at both the scale pit and the lagoon
and also the dilution of the process water with non-contact
cooling water it is assumed that the quality will not be too
significantly different from that of the lake water.
The discharges to Intake No. 3 should be of fair-
ly good quality with respect to suspended solids and oils.
However, because of the addition of pickle rinse water, chemi-
cal additions of acid and caustic at the chemical treatment
plant together with the apparent lack of blowdown from the
completely self contained system the total dissolved solids,
especially iron, the water should be too high for reuse.
No blowdown is reported from this recycle system but,
in the opinion of Hydrotechnic one must be present. This is
based on two factors: first if there is a continuous buildup
of dissolved solids in the system scaling would occur in the
pipes and second, the loss of 1136 m3/hr (5000 gpm) is too
high an evaporative loss to be encountered in this type of a
facility.
Solids and Sludge Production
A summary of the quantities of solids and sludges
produced at the various production and waste treatment facili-
ties is shown on Table E-2.
1-2.5 Air Pollution Control Facilities
The plant has committed itself to provide control of
pushing emission by the use of scrubber cars but the manufac-
turer or type has not been selected as yet. No emission
controls are presently installed on the coke plant stacks.
An electrostatic precipitator has been installed at
the sinter plant. The sinter plant has been shut down due to
fire but it will be rebuilt and a high energy scrubber provided
immediately following the existing precipitator. The discharge
end of the sinter machine has a scrubber and the water from the
discharge end scrubber and the new scrubber following the
precipitator will be sent to the blast furnace thickener system.
Each of the blast furnaces gas cleaning systems are
equipped with variable throat scrubbers. Furnaces 1,2 and 3
are equipped with single stage scrubbers and Furnace 4 is
equipped with a two stage scrubber.
E-13
-------
TABLE E-2
PRESENT SOLIDS & SLUDGE PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL
W
I
SOURCE
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Flue Dust
Slag
EOF - Slag
Scale Pits
Terminal Lagoon
Central Treatment Plant
6 Stand Rolling Oil Recovery
84-Inch Mill Treatment
QUANTITIES PRODUCED
4820 kkg/mo (5313 tons/mo)
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
Sinter Plant
548 kkg/mo (604 tons/mo) Sinter Plant
68000 kkg/mo (75000 tons/mo) Vulcan Slag Co.
1996 kkg/mo (2200 tons/mo) Heckett Slag
3900 kkg/mo (4300 tons/mo)
4.54 kkg/mo (5 tons/day)*
75.3 kkg/day (83 tons/day)
182 m3/mo (48000 gal/mo)**
Negligible
70% to Sinter Plant 30% to Slag Pile
Land Fill and Slag Pile
Hauled Off Site by Contractor
Land Fill
* Dry Basis
** Oily Sludge
-------
EOF gases are quenched with service water. The open
hearth shop when operating utilizes a scrubber for gas
cleaning. The slabbing mill is equipped with a venturi
scrubber which is reported to be operating satisfactorily.
Emissions are not controlled at the pickling lines,
the tinning line, the hot dip galvanizing line or at the cold
mills. In addition, there is no dust suppression practiced at
material storage stock piles or at material transfer points.
E-15
-------
SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED PROGRAM
2. 1 GENERAL
The Indiana Harbor Works of Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Company is presently practicing some degree of recirculation
and is also providing treatment of wastes prior to discharge.
Presently all water is disposed of or consumed by one of four
methods: evaporation from cooling towers and various process-
es, evaporation during quenching of coke and blast furnace
slag, discharge to the City of East Chicago sewage treatment
plant and discharge to Lake Michigan and the Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal.
If total recycle is shown to be impractical, the-
plant may still be required to provide treatment to meet the
requirements mandated for BAT. The plant is presently treat-
ing all contaminated flows prior to discharge and an additional
treatment facility is presently under construction at Outfall
Oil. At some outfall systems large quantities of non-contact
cooling water are mixed with contaminated waste flows either
prior to or subsequent to treatment. This procedure of mixing
non-contact wastes with contaminated wastes is an extremely
non- cost effective method of water handling.
The plant is installing new facilities with the goal
of attaining a complete recycle system per their agreement with
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. However,
complete recycle is impossible without some, degree of blowdown.
For BAT, some discharges are permitted which would be in the
form of flows containing no more than the permitted quantities
of regulated substances. In the case of total discharge, no
water could be discharged, thus eliminating blowdown. Before
the water can be indefinitely recycled, constituents present
in the blowdown must be removed regardless of whether they
appear on the BAT limitation. Total recycle is interpreted to
be no discharge to any body of water be it surface, ground or
to any treatment facility outside of the plant limits.
Exceptions to this are sanitary sewage which may be discharged
after treatment and storm water runoff from areas other than
material storage.
In view of the above interpretation, three present
plant discharges would have to be discontinued: Coke Plant
E-16
-------
wastes presently being sent to the City of East Chicago for
biological treatment, water supplied to Sinclair and waste
pickle liquor to the shallow wells. The water being pumped
to Sinclair is presently a mixture of wastes from the Seamless
Pipe Mill and lake water. Any commitment that the Indiana
Harbor Works has with Sinclair could be fulfilled by
diverting the wastes from the lagoon directly to the Pump
Station No. 2 intake and allowing only lake water to flow
through the tunnel to the low head pumping station.
Waste pickle liquor deposited in the shallow well
cannot be evaporating and may be entering the ground water at
some points even though plant personnel have stated that it
has not been detected in the areas around the shallow well.
To achieve BAT in the steel making, rolling and plat-
ing areas all existing facilities under construction can be
used and water recycled. However, in the Blast Furance area,
additional facilities may be required for treatment of the
recycle system wastes that are presently used to quench blast
furnace slag. This treatment may be required due to anticipa-
ted air pollution limitations with respect to the quenching of
slag with water containing high levels of dissolved solids.
2.2 WATER RELATED MODIFICATIONS TO AIR QUALITY CONTROL
There are various areas within the Indiana Harbor
Works that require additional air pollution control facilities
that will impact on water use and quality. Specifically these
are at the Coke Plant and the Continuous Picklers.
At the Coke Plant, fugitive emissions that arise as
the result of pushing of coke are assumed to be controlled by
the future use of scrubber cars. The water application rate
using scrubber cars, for Batteries 3, 4 and 9 would be approx-
imately 0.84 m3per kkg of coke produced (202 gallons per ton)
and on the basis of 3630 kkg of coke produced per day (4000
TPD) the average water flow would be 127 m3/hr (560 gpm). A
recirculation system would be used and the blowdown requiring
treatment would be approximately 42 m3/hr (185 gpm) .
At the present time acid mists are not controlled at
the three strip picklers although exhaust fans are installed.
Low energy scrubbers are assumed to be installed at each of the
exhaust outlets, based on air flow rates of 142, 142 and 307
m3/sec (30,000, 30,000 and 65,000 cfm) from No. 1 Tin Mill and
the No. 2 and No. 3 Sheet Mills, respectively. The water
requirements will be 55, 55 and 115 m3/hr (240, 240 and
500 gpm).
E-17
-------
The water uses described above have been assumed
present and are included in the discussions following on the
treatment of liquid wastes.
2.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT TO MEET BAT
To develop a plan for the Indiana Harbor Works to
meet BAT certain assumptions were made. These are:
1. Guidelines for plating operations, are in develop-
ment document guidelines established for the metal
finishing segment of the Electroplating Point Source
Category (EPA-440/l-75/040a) and are specified to be
applicable to steel plant plating operations. For
electroplating operations the requirement of zero
discharge of pollutants was used in the preparation
of the proposed water system.
2. In the absence of guidelines covering iron and steel
making with respect to boiler houses and power
houses, the guidelines established by the EPA for
Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category
as published in the Federal Register October 8, 1974
(Vol. 39, No. 196, Part III) were used. The limita-
tions of contaminants with respect to low volume
waste sources are: suspended solids - 30 mg/1 and
oil and grease - 10 mg/1.
3. All non-contact cooling waters could be discharged
since there is no product contact and, therefore, as
long as there is no mixing with product contact
water, no limitations are set.
4. Modifications would be required at the Coke Plant to
reduce pushing emissions using scrubber cars.
5. The use of blowdown from the Blast Furnace Recycle
Treatment Plant for slag quenching would be discon-
tinued and the quench water would be replaced by lake
water or some other water that has a dissolved solids
concentration of less than 100.0 mg/1.
6. The dissolved solids content of makeup water at all
intakes is assumed to be 175 mg/1. This assumption
is based on TDS analyses of Lake Michigan water
being utilized at Inland Steel and U.S. Steel's Gary
Works.
A summary of discharges allowable under BAT require-
ments is shown on Table E-3.
E-18
-------
TABLE E-3
M
I
I-1
VD
Average Daily
Production Production
Facility
Coke Plant
EOF
Open Hearth
Blast Furnaces
Sinter Plant
No. 2 Slabbing
Mill
No. 1 Blooming
Mill
No. 3 Hot Strip
Mill
No. 3 Seamless
Tube Mill
Continuous
kkg/T
3625/4000
9525/10500
6895/7600
9525/10500
3625/4000
8165/9000
3810/4200
10200/11250
635/700
757/834
Buttwclcl Tube Mill
No. 2 Sheet
Mill Pickling
No. 3 Cold Strip
Mill I'icklinn
2180/2400
3400/3750
Susp.
Solids
13.7
30.2
0
0
35.8
78.9
49.5
109.2
19.2
42.3
9.0
19.9
4.2
9.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.3
24.9
17.7
38.9
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BATEA LIMITATIONS
kg/day
DAILY ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES Ibs/day
Oil 8< Dissolved Dissolved
Grease Cyanide Ammonia Phenol BOD,. Fluoride Sulfide Nitrate Iron Chromium Nickel Zinc
13.7 0.33 13.7 0.69 27.1 0.39
30.2 0.73 30.2 1.52 59.8 0.86
0
0
29.0 64. 8 60 0
63.9 14.3 15.2
1.24 49.5 -2.48 99.1 1.52
2.73 109.2 5.46 218.4 3.36
7.6 15.2 0.22
:16.8 33.5 0.49
9.0
19.9
4.2
9.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-6 0.46
i°'i 1.0
7-2 0.71
15.8 , ^
-------
TABLE E-3
M
I
NJ
O
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES AS PERMITTED UNDER BATEA LIMITATIONS
Average Daily
Production Production
Facility kkR/T
No, 1 Tin Mill 2820/3110
Pickling
No. 2 Sheet Mill 1525/1680
Cold Red.
No. 3 Cold Strip 1770/1950
Mill
Cold Red.
No. 1 Tin Mill 770/850
Cold Red.
No. 2 Tin Mill 1525/1680
Cold Red.
No. 2 Sheet Mill 895/984
Galvanizing
Boiler House*
& Power House
Electrolytic**
Plating
Susp.
Solids
14. 7
32.3
4.0
8. 7
63.5
U:>. t
32. 1
70.9
25. 7
56.7
13.9
30.6
Oil 8.
Grease Cyanide
5.9
13.0
1.6
3. 5
29.5
65.1
12.9 '
28.4
10. 3
22. 7
5.6
12.4
(continued)
kg/day
DAILY ALLOWABLE DISCHARGES Ibs/day
Dissolved Dissolved
Ammonia Phenol BODr Fluoride Sulfide Nitrate Iron Chromium Nickel Zinc
_~~^_™^__ ~~~^~"^~^~ D ~ ~— — — — — ^—^—— — — ^^^— ^— — — — — — — ^— ^— — — — — ^ — '
0. 59
1. 30
0.16
0. 35
2.95
6.51
1.29
2.84
1. 03
2.27
1.12 0.1
2.47 0.24
30mg/l 10 mg/1
0
0 0
0 00
* Estimated by Hydrotechnic based on Guidelines for Steam Power Plants
** Estimated by Hyrlrotechnic based on Guidelines for Electrcplating Industry
-------
2.3.1 Outfall Oil
The largest flow presently is being discharged
through Outfall Oil which, based on computer records for a
seven-month period, supplied by Y S & T, averaged 11,100 m3/hr
(40,000 gpm), with a high of 17,800 m3/hr (78,200 gpm). For
the purposes of this report and in the interest of conservatism,
the flows used to establish BAT for all outfalls are those
shown on Figure E-l. Outfall Oil presently receives water from
Blast Furnaces 3 and 4 (all reported to be non-contact cooling
water), the Open Hearth Shops, the EOF Shop, Slabbing Mill No.
2, Blooming Mill No. 1, backwash from the Continuous Butt Weld
Mill No. 2 filters and the Boiler House and Water Treatment
Plant.
Based on the production of these facilities and the
limitations established in the guidelines, Indiana Harbor Works
would be permitted to discharge a total of 212 kg (467
pounds) of suspended solids per day through Outfall Oil. With
an average intake concentration of 8 mg/1 suspended solids and
an average discharge concentration of 15 mg/1 as presently
exists, the plant could discharge a flow of 1264 m3/hr (5560
gpm). The balance would have to be recirculated. Filters
presently under construction to treat the flow to Outfall Oil
are specified to discharge 10 mg/1 suspended solids. On the
basis of 9.5 rag/1 the plant could, discharge 6300 m3/hr (27,700
gpm). The closest point to recirculate the water would be the
No. 1 intake which is located approximately 150 m (500 feet)
east of the terminal lagoon.
Since a portion of the flow from the Pumping Station
No. 1 supplies non-contact cooling water to the Tin Mills,
that water would have to be segregated and recirculated to
eliminate discharges of suspended solids that would be trans-
ferred from Outfall Oil to Outfalls 001 and 002.
If the water is recirculated, there is no apparent
need for filters to produce a suspended solids level low
enough for discharge. However, Indiana Harbor Works has
indicated that high costs are entailed in the cleaning of the
Terminal Lagoon and analyses supplied by the plant indicate
substantial variations in the quality of water discharged from
the Terminal Lagoon. Therefore, on the basis of reduced
operating costs and consistency of effluent quality achievable
by filters, to achieve BAT the discharges through Outfall Oil
should be limited to 6300 m3/hr (27,700 gpm). The balance
would be discharged to Pump Station No. 1 Intake.
Pump Station No. 1 presently pumps an average of
8160 m3/hr (35,900 gpm) and the quantity returned to it from
Outfall Oil would be approximately 10,300 mj/hr (43,400 gpm).
E-21
-------
There is sufficient installed capacity at Pump Station No. 1
to pump the additional quantity. However, a hydraulic analysis
should be made of the existing piping system before this_modi-
fication is made. A flow and quality diagram of the modified
terminal treatment plant is shown on Figs. E-3 and E-4 and
shows facilities required to meet BAT and total recycle.
Additionally, due to the recommended recirculation of
the non-contact cooling water at the Tin Mills, the water
requirements at that facility will be reduced to 16 m3/hr
(70 gpm) instead of the present 568 m3/hr (2500 gpm) .
2.3.2 Outfall 010
Current discharges to Outfall 010 consist of filtrate
from Continuous Butt Weld Mill No. 2 filter plant and non-
contact cooling water from the Power House and Blast Furnaces
1 and 2. BAT mandates zero discharge from pipe mills;
therefore, the filtrate should be pumped back to the mill for
reuse. Once this is done, the non-contact cooling water from
other sources can be discharged.
2.3.3 Seamless Pipe Mill
The Seamless Pipe Mill is apparently on an almost
total recirculation system. One modification could be made to
eliminate all discharges. Presently the discharges from the
pipe mill pond are mixed with lake water and a portion of the
mixed water is used at the Coke Plant which ultimately dis-
charges to the City of East Chicago Sewage Treatment Plant and
a portion is pumped directly to Sinclair Oil. To achieve the
BAT requirements of zero discharge, the pond discharge should
be diverted to discharge directly into Pump Station No. 2 and
thus have the Low Head Pumping Station pump only lake water.
2.3.4 Outfall 001
-Current treated discharges from the Central Treatment
Plant which treats all discharges from the Tin Mills and
Galvanizing Lines are presently in compliance with the BAT
limitations established for Galvanizing Lines. However, for
Electrolytic Plating Lines, the guidelines stipulate zero
discharge. Since all wastes from this area are combined at the
Central Treatment Plant, the Central Treatment Plant wastes are
shown as passing through treatment facilities to enable total
recycle of waters at the area. It is possible that with in-
plant repiping and segregation of electrolytic plating wastes
that the facility to achieve total recycle could be materially
reduced in size and the Central Treatment Plant could continue
to be used for the Galvanizing Lines water only.
E-22
-------
M
I
to
GO
PARTICULATES 150 mg/l
ORGANICS 7800 mg/l
CN I mg/l
FLOW 45m3/Hr.
(200 g p.m.)
S~S~
PHENOLS
AMMONIA
CN
FLOW
100 mg/l
200mg/l
275 mg/l
5mg/l
94m3/Hr.
(415 g.p.m)
5Omg/l]
60 mg/l
200mg/l i
I0mg/l I
202 m3/Hr.!
(890g.pm.)i
S.S.
T.O.S.
PHENOLS
OTHER ORGANICS
AMMONIA
CN
FLOW
-V ^DISCHARGE
'20mg/l
35OOmg/l
05mg/l
I0mg/l
IOmg/1
0.25mq/l
49m3/Hr
(215 g.p.m.)
< 20 mg/l i
3500 mg/l
O.5mg/l
I0mg/l |
10mg/l I
0.25mq/l '
I57m3/Hr !
(690gp.m_)j
ID.S. 3500mg/l
PHENOLS 20 mg/l
AMMONIA !2Omg/l
CN 12 mg/l
FLOW I08m3/Hr.
(475 g.p.m.)
SS 55mg/l
PHENOLS 80mg/l
AMMONIA 200mg/1
CN I0mg/l
FLOW 49m3/Hr
(2l5g.p.m.)
LIME-i rCHLORINE
TO TERMINAL
TREATMENT PLANT
FTLTER5
S.S I5mg/l
T.D.S. 3500mg/l
PHENOLS 5mg/l
AMMONIA 20mg/l
CN 0.5mg/1
FLOW I08m3/Hr
(475 gpm.)
S.S. -2Omg/l
TO.S. 3500 mg/l
FLOW I57m3/Hr
(690g.p.m.)
•POLY
ACTIVATED
CARBON
f"
tt
I. FLOW FOR ZERO DISCHARGE
A. IF BATEA FACILITY WAS NOT INSTALLED.
B. IF BATEA FACILITY WAS INSTALLED.
2. QUALITY IF BIO PLANT IS ON SITE.
FILTER
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
S.S
-------
H
I
BLASTFURNACE EFFLUENT
TREATMENT PLANT (FOR BATEA)
GRAVITY FILTERS-
MIXING TANKS
ACTIVATED
CARBON
FILTERS
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NIW YORK. N. Y.
BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION
PLANT
PUMP STATION
50 100 150 200ft.
30
60m.
ORGANIC TREATMENT PLANT-GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
FIGURE E-4
-------
2.3.5 Blast Furnace Area
The EPA has indicated that the quenching of slag with
recycle blowdown may not be permissible in the future; there-
fore, the Blast Furnace Treatment Plant blowdown will require
treatment for control of regulated parameters prior to
discharge.
To meet BAT the non-contact cooling waters would be
discharged as at present. The wastes presently being used to
quench slag would require treatment in a system consisting of
successive additions of lime and chlorine to oxidize cyanide
and ammonia and also to precipitate fluorides and sulfides.
The alkaline chlorination would be followed by acid addition
for pH adjustment and then settling. The settled wastes would
be filtered and passed through an activated carbon bed for
additional cyanide and phenol removal. A carbon regeneration
system would be required. Due to the expected high dissolved
solids in the treated wastes after this treatment, they could
not be used for slag quenching and would have to be discharged.
2.3.6 Coke Plant
Wastes from the Coke Plant are presently discharged
to the City of East Chicago Sewage Treatment Plant to be
treated with municipal and other industrial wastes. This
biological treatment is assumed to be meeting BAT requirements.
However, an additional waste would be added due to the minimiz-
ing of the air discharges from the coke pushing operations.
The blowdown from the coke pushing scrubber system will require
treatment with the Coke Plant discharges and the flow is
estimated at 45 m3/hr (200 gpm).
To meet BAT requirements, negotiations with the City
of East Chicago should be undertaken to allow this additional
volume of wastes to be treated in their plant. If this cannot
be negotiated, a treatment plant would have to be installed
on the steel plant site. In that event, it would be advantage-
ous to install the treatment plant to treat not only this
additional volume but all wastes; i.e., the pusher scrubber
wastes, the present Coke Plant discharges, plus Blast Furnace
wastes. Under this plan there will be no need for the Blast
Furnace Waste Treatment System described above, with the
exception of fluoride precipitation, and the wastes would be
treated biologically.
Treatment with activated carbon was considered and
eliminated because experience has shown that both capital and
operating costs are very high for a raw waste stream.
Chemical treatment with ozone was also considered and
eliminated because of the ineffectiveness of ozone in the
E-25
-------
removal of ammonia. Chemical treatment with chlorine was
eliminated because of the high volumes of chlorine that would
be required and also the odor problems that might occur by the
creation of residual chlorinated phenols.
The only viable treatment was, therefore, by biologi-
cal means. Of the various activated sludge treatment processes
presently in use, the one most acceptable is the extended
aeration system since minimum operator attention is required
and the second step, that of handling sludge produced as a
result of biological metabolism, is eliminated. Virtually no
sludge is produced.
A biological oxidation system consisting of an
extended aeration plant to be located near the terminal lagoon
is shown on Figs. E-3 and E-4. These figures show requirements
for both BAT and total recycle.
A modified plant flow diagram which incorporates all
of the above modifications to meet BAT requirements is shown
as Fig. E-5.
2.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT TO MEET TOTAL RECYCLE
For the Indiana Harbor Works to meet total recycle
the plant would have to cease its discharges to the City of
East Chicago Sewage Treatment Plant and the discharges of waste
pickle liquor to the "shallow well" would have to be discontin-
ued. Provisions for treatment of material storage pile storm
water runoff would not be required since the plant has indica-
ted that all such piles are in lined, self-contained areas and
there is no runoff.
The following provisions would be required to achieve
total recycle.
1. Install cooling towers at four locations; one to cool
and recirculate 4980 m3/hr (21,900. gpm) of water from
Open Hearth No. 2, Slabbing Mill No. 2 and the BOF
Shop. The blowdown would be to Outfall Oil. One
cooling tower installation would cool and recirculate
13,500 m3/hr (59,200 gpm) from the Boiler House and
Power House. Blowdown would be to Blast Furnace slag
quenching. One cooling tower installation would cool
and recirculate 7340 m3/hr (32,300 gpm) of Blast
Furnace and Sinter Plant non-contact water. Blowdown
would be to Blast Furnace slag quenching. The fourth
installation would be at the Flat Rolling Mills to
cool and recirculate 568 m3/hr (2500 gpm) of non-
contact cooling water. Blowdown would be to the
E-26
-------
•—
LAKE MICHIGAN 2T»6« (I2I5OOJ
-. E-2___
I
NJ
-J
\
J03OOMS400) Jj' °
' JW, ( PUMP STATION
N^E/ J No i
1 t—*....
* I" SJ2T0420OJ I
* i 4
TO EAST 009
CHICAGO
TREATMENT
PLANT
:A™ rf"^n
EWirrTOi"! I I "cow.
f 1
nn
PROCESS WftTE*» Q FACILITIES
.-__. PROPOSED BECfCLE
NOTE:
ALL FLOWS BALANCED IN ENCUSH UNITS
TO 9ITMREE1 SIGNIFICANT oicin.
HYDIIOTECHNIC COBPORATION
COKSUlTtHG tNCInttM
NIW TOHI K T
INTEGRArEO STEEL PUNT POLLUTION STUDY
FOR TOT*L RECYCLE Of WATER
YOUNCSTOVW S«;Et ft TUBE COMPfiNY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
PROPOSED aO« DIACfiAM BAT LMIWIONS
FIGURE E-5
-------
Central Treatment Plant.
Makeup to the cooling towers would be lake water
quality. Makeup to the Blast Furnaces Cooling Tower
and a portion of the makeup to the Power House and
Boiler House Cooling Tower would be the filtered
effluent from the Continuous Butt Weld Mill. The
balance of the makeup water to the Power House and
Boiler House Cooling Tower and the total makeup to
the Open Hearth, BOF and Slabbing Mill Cooling Tower
would be lake water quality from Pumping Station
No. 1.
2. Install a biological treatment plant to treat the
wastes from the Coke Plant and the Blast Furnace
recycle system blowdown. This is an alternative if
the plant is to go from present operations to total
recycle directly. However, if total recycle is to be
considered as an additional step after achieving BAT,
then the biological treatment plant would be required
to treat only the wastes from the Coke Plant and the
Blast Furnace wastes would continue to use the treat-
ment system installed for BAT.
3. Recycle all treated wastes at the Flat Roll Mills
after treatment at the Central Treatment Plant.
Before recycling, it would be necessary to reduce the
dissolved solids level so that product quality is not
affected. Plant data supplied indicates that there
are dissolved solids increases in the water of
approximately 475 mg/1. A dissolved solids removal
facility capable of producing water with a quality of
175 mg/1 TDS, similar to lake water, would be
required to treat 920 m3/hr (4050 gpm) and 654 m3/hr
(2880 gpm) could be by-passed and blended to achieve
a water quality of 500 mg/1 TDS which would be usable
at the mills. In addition, it is estimated that each
mill requires 45.4 m3/hr (200 gpm) of makeup water
with a quality of 175 mg/1 TDS or better. A reject
stream of approximately 230 m3/hr (1010 gpm) from the
dissolved solids removal facility would have to be
evaporated, condensed and returned to the system or
used at points in the processes where very high
purity water may be required. On the basis of
reducing the TDS concentration of 920 mVhr (4050 gpm)
from 950 mg/1 to 175 mg/1, approximately 17 kkg
(18.8 tons) per day of dried solids would be produced.
Assuming a density of 962 kg per m3 (60 pounds per
cubic foot), 17.7 m3 (23.1 cubic yards) per day would
require disposal. See Figure E-6.
E-28
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N.Y.
td
i
to
SLOWDOWN FROM
TIN MILLS
COOLING TOWER
S.S.
o.ac.
T.D.S. 500mg/l
FLOW !398m^Hr.
(6l50g.p.m.)
S.S. 5mg/l
O.aG. 5mg/l
T.D.S. 950 mg/I
FLOW 1530 m3/Hr.
(6730 g p.m.)
INDUSTRIAL WATER
TO SHEET 8
TIN MILLS
SERVICE WATER
S.S.
-------
4. At Outfall Oil the volume of wastes requiring filtra-
tion from the mills would be reduced from the design
level of 15,900 m3/hr (70,000 gpm) to approximately
5360 mVhr (23,600 gpm). The wastes from the propos-
ed biological treatment plant would be pumped to the
Outfall Oil filters, together with the wastes from
the Blast Furnace BAT installation after settling.
The filters and activated carbon units installed for
BAT would be abandoned or salvaged. The loading at
the Outfall Oil filters would be approximately 5455
m3/hr (24,000 gpm). Assuming an increase in TDS of
mill wastes of approximately 170 mg/1 and the TDS of
both, the biological plant and the Blast Furnace BAT
installation of 3500 mg/1 and, also, assuming a
quality of 600 mg/1 being used at all mills other
than the Flat Roll Mills, the quality with respect to
TDS leaving the filters will be approximately 850
mg/1. Installing a dissolved solids removal facility
capable of reducing the concentration to 175 mg/1
approximately 1090 m3/hr (8350 gpm) would have to be
demineralized to a level of 175 mg/1 and the balance
3550 m3/hr (15,600 gpm) could bypass the facility and
be blended with the demineralized water and then^
discharged to Intake No. 1. Approximately 425:w/hr
(2090 gpm) of reject brine would have to be evapora-
ted and condensed and returned to the blended water,
or if desired, pumped to the boiler house to be used.
for steam. On the basis of reducing 1090 m3/hr
(8350 gpm) from 850 mg/1 TDS to 175 mg/1 i'DS approxi-
mately 33 kkg (33.8 tons) per day of dried solids
would be produced with a volume of 31.9 m3 (41.7
cubic yards). See Figures E-7 and E-8.
5. The method of rinsing at the Pickle Lines should be
modified to be a counter current, cascade rinse
system. This will reduce rinse water discharge flows
to 19.4 m3/hr (85 gpm). A pickle liquor regeneration
plant should be installed to recover the 33.4 m3/hr
(147 gpm) of waste pickle liquor presently disposed
of in the shallow well or hauled away from the acid
holding pit and also the cascade rinse water. The
alternative to regenerating the acid would be to
neutralize it which would produce large sludge
volumes and an increased volume of water containing
high dissolved solids which would require further
treatment.
Based on the above discussion, it can be seen that,
to achieve total recycle of water, it would be necessary to
have two separate water supply systems providing water to the
plant. One system, here called industrial water, would be used
at processes where dissolved solids content is not critical but
E-30
-------
M
I
EOF
f*OOl INfl TO\A/FR
SLOWDOWN
OPEN
HEARTH
SLABBING
MILL No. 2
B.OE
BLOOMING
MILL
Rnn PR
HOUSE
BIO
PLANT
HVDHOIECMNIC CORPORATION
"5 >.
(200)
455 .
i2ooor
3727
(I64OO)
«?.. ,
120OO)
_ 250
(1100) "
ato
?-H >
(1400)
co e,f)nta 1 .* CONTINUOUS bUlf Wt:l_0
0 86. 25m9/l f~~ WLL FILTER BACKWASH
TDS. 770 mg /I
FLOW 5250m3/Hr. „„, , ..
(9,inn,pm) „ 205(900)
i n — J — J r> ' o
/I 9:
/ MAIN ~
y ' SCALE ' *r
PIT
1 1 159(700) j T i
U \x^
Xi7r\ * ... SLUDGE TO
[ fg I * LANDFILL
KH^I S.S. *IOmg/l
08G clOmg/l
T.DS. 850mg/l
FLOW 5455m3/Hr.
(24OOO g pm)
____, ,. 3550(15600) *
nftr, 'n^'/l REVERSE „ fc RECYCLE TO
TO.S 3500mg/l OSMOSIS t / ^ PUMP STATION No 1
Fl OW I'STmS/Hr /
^ (690 g p.m.) S S -< 5 mg/l
1 ' 1 O&G. < 5 mg/l
EVAPORATOR^ — Cr*1 FLOW 5455 mVHr
,,._,_, ....J y [21000 gpm)
I \
SOLIDS TO S.S -I mo/l
LINED POND 08G. < mj/l
T.DS. "Ijng/l
FLOW475m3/Hf.
(2O9O g p m.)
MODIFIED TERMINAL TREATMENT PLANT- FLOW a QUALITY DIAGRAM FIGURE E-7
-------
w
I
U)
NJ
r_
MAIN SCALE PIT-
TERMINAL
LAGOON
FILTER
BUILDING
BACKWASH
THICKENERS
REVERSE OSMOSIS
a i
CONTROL BUILDING1
-DEWATERING
-EVAPORATOR
BUILDING
0 50 100 ISO 200ft.
0 30 60m,
PROPOSED
HYDROTECHN1C CORPORATION
NEW YOHK. N. Y.
MODIFIED TERMINAL TREATMENT PLANT-GENERAL ARRANGEMENT FIGURE E-8
-------
yet must be maintained at a reasonable level. The second
system called service water would be required at areas where
lake water quality is necessary, such as at the boiler house
or steam production and at the cooling towers for makeup in
non-contact cooling water circuits.
To permit circulation of these two qualities of
water, it is recommended that Pumping Station No. 1 be segrega-
ted to pump both water qualities. One section would be self-
contained and isolated to recirculate water with a quality of
600 mg/1 TDS. The second section would pump Lake Michigan
water for make up due to evaporation losses in cooling,
quenching and various other processes.
The Flat Roll Mills would require a lake water
quality makeup of approximately 11.4 rrH/hr (50 gpm) . However,
since this production area is so distant from Pumping Station
No. 1, and the flow is so small, this makeup water should be
purchased from nearby local sources.
A flow diagram incorporating all of the above
recommendations to achieve zero discharge is shown as Figure
E-9.
Quantities of solid wastes would be produced as a
result of the extensive waste treatment that would be
practiced. Solid wastes produced at the recommended Coke Plant
pushing facilities would be disposed of on coal piles. Sludges
produced at the Outfall Oil scale pit and filters would be
high in oil and metallics. Additional studies should be
carried out to determine ways to clean the solids of oils and
recover both the oil and metallic portions. There are present-
ly proprietory systems in use to do this and they should be
investigated. Solids produced at the Blast Furnace BAT treat-
ment would be inorganic in nature and should be disposed of at
acceptable landfill sites. If sites are not available, an
impervious site should be prepared on the steel plant property.
The solids produced at the dissolved solids removal facilities
should be contained in an on-site lined area to prevent
percolation into the ground during periods of precipitation.
Due to the nature of the facilities recommended,
i.e., recirculation, cooling, demineralization, physical-
chemical treatment and biological oxidation, it is suggested
that all assumptions be confirmed, a hydraulic analysis of the
plant water distribution system using the modified flows shown
for both BAT and total recycle be made and pilot plant
testing on actual plant wastes be performed to establish the
design parameters.
E-33
-------
f ^ iKOi'-OOOl
I 113(415) i
a TUBE COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM-TOTAL RECYCLE
-------
APPENDIX F
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARIES
F-i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
COST ESTIMATE-PRICING ASSUMPTIONS F-l
KAISER STEEL-FONTANA PLANT
Total;Recycle including non-contact cooling
water ""
- Summary of Total Capital and Annual Costs F-4
- Summary of Facilities Cost F-5
- Terminal Treatment Plant - Capital Costs F-6
- Terminal Treatment Plant - Annual Costs F-7
-.Organic Waste Treatment - Capital Costs F-8
- Organic Waste Treatment - Annual Cost F-9
- Material Storage Pile Runoff - Capital and
Annual Costs F-10
INLAND STEEL - INDIANA HARBOR
BAT
- Summary of Capital and Annual Costs F-ll
- Summary of Facilities Cost F-12
- Outfall 002 - Capital Costs F-13
- Outfall 002 - Annual Costs F-L4
- Outfall 003 & 005 - Capital Costs F-15
- Outfall 003 & 005 - Annual Cost F-16
- Outfall 013 & 014 - Capital Costs F-17
- Outfall 013 & 014 - Annual Cost F-18
F -iii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
- Outfall 017 & 24N - Capital Costs F-19
- Outfall 017 & 24N - Annual Cost F-20
- Material Storage Pile Runoff - Capital Costs F-21
- Material Storage Pile Runoff - Annual Cost F-22
Total Recycle Not Including Non-contact
Cooling Water
- Summary of Total Costs F-23
- Summary of Facilities Costs F-24
- Outfall 001 & 002 - Capital Costs F-25
- Outfall 001 & 002 - Annual Cost F-26
- Outfall Oil - Capital Costs F-27
- Outfall Oil - Annual Cost F-28
- Outfall 012 - Capital Costs F-29
- Outfall 012 - Annual Cost F-30
- Outfall 013 & 014 - Capital Costs F-31
- Outfall 013 & 014 - Annual Cost F-32
- Outfall 018 - Capital Costs F-33
- Outfall 018 - Annual Cost F-34
- Sludge Lagoon - Capital Costs F-35
- Sludge Lagoon - Annual Cost F-36
- Northward Expansion - Capital Costs F-37
- Northward Expansion - Annual Cost F-38
Total Recycle Including Non-contact
Cooling Water
- Summary of Total Costs F-39
- Summary of Facilities Costs F-40
F-iv
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Outfall 001 & 002 - Capital Costs
Outfall 001 & 002 - Annual Cost p-42
Outfall 003 & 005 - Capital Costs p-43
Outfall 003 & 005 - Annual Cost F-44
Outfall 007 - Capital Costs F-45
Outfall 007 - Annual Cost F-46
Outfall 008 - Capital Costs F-47
Outfall 008 - Annual Cost F-48
Outfall Oil - Capital Costs F-49
Outfall Oil - Annual Cost F-50
Outfall 012 - Capital Costs F-51
Outfall 012 - Annual Cost F-52
Outfall 013 & 014 - Capital Costs F-53
Outfall 013 & 014 - Annual Cost F-54
Outfall 015 - Capital Costs F-55
Outfall 015 - Annual Cost F-56
Outfall 017 - Capital Costs F-57
Outfall 017 - Annual Cost F-58
Outfall 018 - Capital Costs F-59
Outfall 018 - Annual Cost F~60
Sludge Lagoon - Capital Cost F-61
Sludge Lagoon - Annual Cost F~62
Northward Expansion - Capital Costs F-63
Northward Expansion - Annual Cost F-64
F-v
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
- Summary of Total Costs F-65
- Summary of Facility Costs F-66
- Blast Furnaces - Capital and Annual Costs F-67
- Coke Plant - Capital and Annual Costs F-68
- Sinter Plant - Capital and Annual Costs F-69
- Power House and Boiler House - Capital and
Annual Costs F-70
- Blooming Mill and Scarfer - Capital Costs F-71
- Blooming Mill and Scarfer - Annual Costs F-72
- "B" Sewer Treatment Plant - Capital Costs F-73
- "B" Sewer Treatment Plant - Annual Cost F-74
- "C" and "E" Sewers Treatment Plant -
Capital Costs F-75
- "C" and "E" Sewers Treatment Plant -
Annual Costs F-76
- Hot Strip Mill - Capital Costs F-77
- Hot Strip Mill - Annual Costs F-78
Total Recycle Not Including Non-contact
Cooling Water
- Summary of Total Costs F-79
- Summary of Facilities Cost F-80
- Coke Plant & Blast Furnaces - Capital Costs F-81
- Coke Plant & Blast Furnaces - Annual Cost F-82
- "B" Sewer Treatment Plant - Capital and
Annual Costs F-83
F-vi
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
- ""
C" and "E" Sewers Treatment Plant -
Capital and Annual Costs F-84
Total Recycle Including Non-contact
Cooling Water
- Summary of Total Costs F-85
- Summary of Facilities Cost F-86
- Coke Plant & Blast Furnaces - Capital Costs F-87
- Coke Plant & Blast Furnaces - Annual Cost F-88
- Bloomer Mill & Scarfer - Capital and Annual
Costs F-89
- "B" Sewer Treatment Plant - Capital and
Annual Costs • F-90
- "C" and "E" Sewers Treatment Plant -
Capital and Annual Costs F-91
- Tandem Mill - Capital and Annual Costs F-92
- Hot Strip Mill - Capital and Annual Costs F-93
- Brown Island Coke & By-Product Plant -
Capital and Annual Costs F-94
- Temper Mill - Capital and Annual Costs F-95
- Power House - Capital and Annual Costs F-96
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
- Summary of Total Costs F-97
- Summary of Facilities Costs F-98
- Finishing Facilities - Capital and Annual
Costs F~"
- Q - B.O.P. - Capital and Annual Costs F-100
- Blast Furnaces - Capital and Annual Costs F-101
- Coke Plant - Capital and Annual Costs F-102
F-vii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
- Material Storage Pile Runoff - Capital and
Annual Costs F-103
Total Recycle Including Non-Contact
Cooling Water
- Summary of Total Costs F-104
- Summary of Facilities Costs F-105
- Final Effluent Control Pond - Capital and
Annual Costs F-106
- Q - B.O.P. - Capital and Annual Costs F-107
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR
WORKS
BAT
- Summary of Total Costs F-108
- Facilities Estimates - Capital Costs F-109
- Facilities Estimates - Annual Costs F-110
Total Recycle Not Including Non-Contact
Cooling Water
- Summary of Total Costs F-lll
- Facilities Estimates - Capital Costs F-112
- Facilities Estimates - Annual Cost F-113
Total Recycle Including Non-Contact
Cooling Water
- Summary of Total Costs F-114
- Facilities Estimates - Capital Costs F-115
- Facilities Estimates - Annual Cost F-116
F-viii
-------
U.S.E.P.A.
INTEGRATED STEEL PLANT
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
COST ESTIMATE -, PRICING ASSUMPTIONS
AMORTIZATION - An interest rate of 10% and an expected useful
life of 15 years was used. The resultant factor is 0.13147.
'•Q & M' •=• OPERATING' PERSONNEL - An hourly rate of $12.50 was~"used
for operating personnel. This includes fringe benefits and
overhead. For supervisors an hourly rate of $20.00 was used.
0 & M - EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE - 8% of installed
equipment module exclusive of contingency and contractors fee.
0 & M - MATERIALS - The following are representative on-site
material costs, expressed in 1979 dollars.
Polymer $2.5/Pound
Lime $35.0/Ton
Sulfuric Acid $1.0/Gallon
Metabisulfite $5.0/Pound
0_& M - SOLIDS DISPOSAL - The cost for disposing of solid
wastes which may be generated by some treatment processes is
< included only to the point of ultimate disposal. A transport
cost of $2.00 per metric ton has been applied to represent this
1 cost.
0_& M - TAXES AND INSURANCE - Annual taxes and insurance costs
: are estimated to be 2% of the capital cost.
ENERGY; electricity cost is based on motor horsepower ratings
and a cost of $.025 per kilowatt hour. Same unit price has been
considered for lighting.
Fuel (gas) cost is based on $1.5 per 1,000 cubic feet.
F-l
-------
COST OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT - Unit prices for pumps and motors,
piping, sludge mechanism, dewatering units and R. 0. system have
been established based on quotations from manufacturers.
COST OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. AND INSTRUMENTATION - Based on our
experience the cost for electrical equipment and instrumentation
has been considered at 30% of the cost of the purchased mechani-
cal equipment.
DEVELOPMENT OF COAL USE COSTS - In the capital cost estimates
developed figures are shown for the additional costs that would
be incurred if coal were to be used as the source of evaporation
energy. These costs were developed by treating the facility as
a coal fired steam electric generating station. Evaporating 1
gallon per minute of water is approximately equivalent to the
steam required to generate 55 KWe. Using proprietory in-house
data the cost for installation of coal and ash handling facili-
ties for a 640 MWe steam electric generating station was $6.13
per KWe (1976 prices). Using escalation of 10 percent per year
the cost for 1978 would be $7.42 per KWe. This cost was factor-
ed for economy or penalty of size.
Assuming flue gas desulfurization would be necessary
to meet sulfur dioxide emission standards the cost of installing
a system shown in the "National Public Hearings on Power Plant
Compliance With Sulfur Dioxide Air Pollution Regulations" of
$60. per KWe was used, with no factoring for size.
In developing the annual costs the cost of handling
the coal bottom ash and fly ash to an off site location was con-
sidered to be $2. per kkg and a cost of $.0032 per KW-hr was
used for flue gas desulfurization. Power, labor, amortization,
and maintenance were estimated based on capital costs and man-
ning estimates and energy requirements.
The capital and operating costs for the evaporation of
100,.,500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 gpm were estimated and plotted as
shown on Figure P-l. From these plots the costs shown in this
section were estimated.
F-2
-------
Q.|06l
!0
8
4
3
2
1.5
I05!
cjANNUAL OPERAtlONS
MAINTENANCE
8 co
o:
LJ
CL
o
_J
<
100 1.5 2 34 68 1000 1,5 2 34
GPM EVAPORATED
(gpm x 0.227 = m3/hr.)
ADDITIONAL COST FOR USE
OF COAL FOR EVAPORATION
loF
FIG, F-
F-3
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
KAISER STEEL - FONTANA
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
I
•fc.
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
17,717,000
7,432,000
9,762,000
For Coal Add:
$ 2,400,000 Capital Cost
$ 3,620,000 Annual Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
KAISER STEEL - FONTANA
TOTAL RECYCLE - INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS
Terminal Treatment Plant
Organic Waste Treatment
Material Storage Pile Runoff
Capital
$ 6,727,000
10,405,000
585,000
$ 5,380,000
4,266,000
116,000
17,717,000
9,.762,000
-------
COST
ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
KAISER STEEL - FONTANA
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
TERMINAL TREATMENT PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Tin Mill - Alkaline/Acid Pump Sta.
Cold Reduction - Alk. Waste/Pump Sta.
HSM, Storage Pile & BOP/Pump Stas.
Scalping Tanks
Chrome Waste Pump Sta. & Reduct. System
Mixing Tanks & Flocculators
Clarifier Modifications
Filters & B.W. Basins
Control Bldg, R.O. & Evap. System & Pond
Return Pump Station
Contingency:
CIVIL
$ $
18,350
9,000
26,250
64,750
17,750
40,000
10,000
169,400
307,500 3,
24,000
Subtotal :
Total Capital
MECH.
38,000
19,000
56,500
143,000
53,500
88,000
10,000
154,000
585,000
57,000
Cost:
ELECT .
$
4,000
2,000
6,000
25,000
10,000
12,000
—
35,000
180,000
10,000
t
TOTAL
$
60,350
30,000
88,750
232,750
81,250
140,000
20,000
358,400
4,072,500
91,000
$5,175,000
$1,552,000
$6,727,000
For use of coal add $1,590,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
KAISER STEEL - FONTANA
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
TERMINAL TREATMENT PLANT
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 885,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 190,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 352,000
- Material (Chemicals) 144,000
- Taxes & Insurance 135,000
- Solids Disposal (Hauling) 164,000
Energy 3,510,000
Total Annual Cost $ 5,380,000
For use of coal add $2,320,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
KAISER STEEL - FONTANA
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
ORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT
I
CO
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Lift Station
Rotating Biological Contactors
Final Clarifier
Filters & B.W. Basins
Return Pump Sta.
Control Bldg w/R.O. & Evap. System
Scrubber Clarifiers & Pump Sta.
Contingency:
For use of coal add $810,000
CIVIL
MECH.
ELECT.
TOTAL
24,500
1,000,000
68,500
113,000
13,500
157,000
68,800
$
11,500
3,520,000
52,000
140,000
42,000
1,948,000
156,000
$ $
3,000
520,000
10,000
20,000
8,000
100,000
28,000 ,
39,000
5,040,000
130,500
273,000
63,500
2,205,000
252,800
Subtotal: $8,003,800
2,401,200
Total Capital Cost: $10,405,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
KAISER STEEL - FONTANA
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
ORGANIC WASTE TREATMENT
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 1,368,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 190,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 481,000
- Material (Chemicals) 47,000
- Taxes & Insurance 208,000
- Solids Disposal (Hauling) 140,000
Energy 1,832,000
Total Annual Cost $ 4,266,000
For use of coal add $1,300,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
KAISER STEEL - FONTANA
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
MATERIAL STORAGE PILE RUNOFF
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELECT. TOTAL
Facilities:
Storm Water Lagoon & Pump Sta. $396,500 $50,500 $3,000 $450,000
7 Contingency: 135,000
M
° Total Capital Investment $585,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 77,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 8,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance ' 17,000
- Taxes & Insurance 12,000
Energy 2,000
Total Annual Cost $116,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
36,300,000
14,049,000
18,823,000
-------
COS.T ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COST
Outfall 002
Outfall 003 & 005
Outfall 013 & 014
Outfall 017 & 24N
Material Storage Pile Runoff
CAPITAL
$ 2,690,000
2,080,000
15,125,000
14,210,000
2,195,000
$36,300,000
ANNUAL
$ 784,000
713,000
8,873,000
7,503,000
350,000
$18,823,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
I
I—
U)
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Lift Station
Mixing Tanks
Flocculator-Clarifier
Filters & B.W. Basins
Activated Carbon
Control Building
Contingency:
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
OUTFALL 002
CIVIL MECH. ELEC.
$ 17,000 $ 29,000 $ 4,000
22,000 23,000 2,000
82,000 73,000 15,000
142,000 153,000 30,000
100,000 800,000 100,000
167,000 270,000 40,000
Sub-Total
TOTAL
$ 50,000
47,000
170,000
325,000
1,000,000
477,000
2,069,000
621,000
Total Capital Cost
$2,690,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
OUTFALL 002
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization - $ 354,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 115,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 120,000
- Material (Chemicals) 82,000
- Taxes & Insurance 54,000
- Solids Disposal 40,000
Energy 19,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 784,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
OUTFALL 003 & 005
U1
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Lift Station
Filters & B.W. Basins
Return Pump Sta.
Chemical & Control Bldg,
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
MECH.
ELECT.
TOTAL
$24,500
72,000
16,000
116,000
$211,000
154,000
36,000
155,000
$30,000
30,000
6,000
30,000
$265,500
256,000
58,000
301,000
720,000
Subtotal:
Total Capital Cost:
$1,600,500
479,500
$2,080,000
-------
COSTESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
OUTFALL 003 & 005
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 273>000
O & M - Operating Personnel 115,000
- Equipment Repair 110,000
^ - Material (Chemicals) 15,000
i
fc-1 - Taxes & Insurance 42,000
CTi
- Solids Disposal 35,000
Energy 123,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 713,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Pump Station
Filtration Plant
Cooling Towers & Pump Sta.
Control Building
Piping (Non Contact-Sewers)
Piping (Contact)
Contingency:
BAT
OUTFALL 013 & 014
CIVIL MECH.
$ 142,000
$ 721,000
ELECT.
$ 100,000
TOTAL
$ 963,000
981,000
172,500
176,000
3,813,000
2,235,000
120,000
400,000
250,000
50,000
5,194,000
2,657,500
346,000
1,625,000
850,000
Subtotal:
Total Capital Cost
$ 11,635,500
3,489,500
$ 15,125,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
OUTFALL 013 & 014
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 1,990,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 824,000
*i - Material (Chemicals) 1,523,000
M
00 - Taxes & Insurance 303,000
- Solids Disposal 2,710,000
Energy 1,358,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 8,873,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
I
M
VD
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
CAPITAL COSTS
Scale Pit #2 Pump Sta.
Scale Pit #4A&4B - Pump Sta.
Lagoon Pump Station
Treatment Plant Pump Sta.
Filters
Cooling Towers & Pump Stas.
Non Contact Cooling Tower
Piping
Contingency:
OUTFALL 017 & 24N
CIVIL
MECH.
ELECT
TOTAL
$ 63,500
52,500
42,000
123,000
623,000
125,000
78,000
$ 190,000
145,000
100,000
620,000
2,521,000
1,570,000
1,017,000
$ 30,000
25,000
16,000
80,000
250,000
100,000
60,000
$ 283,500
222,500
158,000
823,000
3,394,000
1,795,000
1,155,000
3,100,000
Subtotal:
Total Capital Cost:
$10,931,000
3,279,000
$14,210,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
OUTFALL 017 & 24N
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 1,868,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 190,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 774,000
- Material (Chemicals) 1,427,000
- Taxes & Insurance 284,000
- Solids Disposal 1,700,000
Energy 1,260,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 7,503,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
"3
ro
H1
BAT
MATERIAL STORAGE PILE RUNOFF
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH.
Facilities :
Plant 12 - Ore Storage Area $ 719,000 $ 13,000
Plant #3 - Ore Storage Area 439,000 13,000
Plant #3 - Coal Storage Area 439,000 13,000
Piping
Subtotal :
Contingency :
ELECT . TOTAL
$ 4,000 $ 736,000
4,000 456,000
4,000 456,000
40,000
1,688,000
507,000
Total Capital Cost:
$ 2,195,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
MATERIAL STORAGE PILE RUNOFF
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 289,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 8,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 7,000
7 - Taxes & Insurance 44,000
to
M Energy 2,000
Total Annual Cost $ 350,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
I
10
GJ
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
96,924,000
93,309,000
106,051,000
For use of coal add:
26,190,000 Capital
Cost
48,275,000 Annual
Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS
I
NJ
Outfall 001 & 002
Outfall Oil
Outfall 012
Outfall 013 & 014
Outfall 018
Sludge Lagoon
Northward Expansion
CAPITAL
$ 3,532,000
1,084,000
6,670,000
28,796,000
5,160,000
7,020,000
5,610,000
$57,872,000
ANNUAL
$ 4,134,000
242,000
6,001,000
34,462,000
5,088,000
1,213,000
5,272,000
$56,412,00.0
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT
COMPANY -
INCLUDING
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 001 & 002
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Pump Station 001
Bio Plant Lift Station
IT) Aeration Basins
i
to
tn Clarifiers
Filters & B.W. Basins
Power House Pump Station
Control Building W/R.O. , Evap.
and Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
$ 15,500
15,500
177,500
55,500
76,800
6,000
52,000
MECH.
$ 19,000 $
19,000
147,000
44,000
143,000
6,000
ELEC.
3,000
3,000
25,000
10,000
25,000
2,000
1,472,000 100,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital
*
Cost
TOTAL
$ 37,500
37,500
349,500
109,500
244,800
14,000
1,624,000
300,000
2,716,800
815,200
3,532,000
For use of coal add: $620,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 001 & 002
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 464,000
O & M - Operating Personnal 165,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 110,000
i - Material (Chemicals) 38,000
K>
OT
- Taxes & Insurance 70,000
- Solids Disposal 185,000
Energy 3,102,000
Total Annual Cost: $4,134,000
For use of coal add: $1,225,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL Oil
I
to
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Sintering Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
$14,000
MECH.
$17,000
ELEC.
$3,000
Sub-Total
TOTAL
34,000
800,000
834,000
250,000
Total Capital Cost $1,084,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL Oil
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $143,000
<*}
^ 0 & M - Operating Personnel 8,000
CO
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 66,000
- Taxes & Insurance 22,000
Energy 3,000
Total Annual Cost $242,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY -
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING
OUTFALL
CIVIL
•
•
$ 46,000
.s 438,000
94,000
Basins 108,200
INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
NON-CONTACT COOLING
012
MECH.
$ 35,000
65,000
110,000
71,000
WATER
ELEC.
$ 5,000
18,000
20,000
25,000
TOTAL
$ 86,000
521,000
224,000
204,200
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Lift Station
Aeration Basins
Clarifiers
Control Building W/R.O., Evap.
and Return Pump Station 191,500
Piping
Contingency:
3,327,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
176,000 3,694,500
400,000
, 5,129,700
1,540,300
$6,670,000
For use of coal add: $1,850,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 012
I
U)
o
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Energy
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
898,000
165,000
236,000
136,000
137,000
300,000
4,594,000
6,001,000
For use of coal add: $2,650,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
INLAND STEEL
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cold Mill #1 & 2 LIFT STATION
Oil Flotation Tank
Filters & B.W. Basins
Control Building W/R.O.
and Evap.
Control Building W/R.O.
and Evap.
Piping
Contingency:
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 013 & 014
CIVIL MECH. ELEC.
$ 22,000 27,000 4,000
128,000 73,000 18,000
159,000 150,000 50,000
136,000 5,125,000 150,000
204,000 14,480,000 250,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
53,000
219,000
359,000
5,411,000
14,934,000
1,175,000
22,151,000
6,645,000
$28,796,000
For use of coal add: $9,900,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 013 & 014
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 3,785,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 330,000
^ - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 2,240,000
u>
M - Material (Chemicals) 765,000
- Taxes & Insurance 576,000
- Solids Disposal 550,000
Energy 26,216,000
Total Annual Cost $34^462,000
For use of coal add: $15,800,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 018
I
u>
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Control Building W/R.O., Evap.
and Return Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
MECH.
ELEC.
TOTAL
$167,000 $3,294,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
$108,000
$3,569,000
400,000
3,969,000
1,191,000
5,160,000
For use of coal add: $1,820,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 018
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
o & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Energy
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
$ 678,000
For use of coal add: $2,550,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SLUDGE LAGOON
to
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Excavation, Backfill
and Lining
Contingency:
CIVIL
$5,400,000
MECH.
ELEC.
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$5,400,000
1,620,000
$7,020,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SLUDGE LAGOON
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
^ Amortization $ 923,000
co
^ O & M - Operating Personnel 150,000
- Taxes & Insurance 140,000
Total Annual Cost $1,213,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
NORTHWARD EXPANSION
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL
Facilities:
Additional Aeration
Clarifiers
Filters & B.W. Basins
Control Building W/R.O., Evap.
and Return Pump Station 147,500
Piping
MECH.
ELEC.
TOTAL
Contingency:
$190,000
78,000
86,500
$ 45,000
95,000
63,000
3,288,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
$ 10,000 $ 245,000
20,000 193,000
20,000 169,500
108,000 3,543,500
165,000
4,316,000
1,294,000
•
$5,610,000
For use of coal add: $1,650,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
NORTHWARD EXPANSION
I
u>
CO
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Energy
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
$ 738,000
165,000
306,000
113,000
112,000
350,000
3,488,000
I
$5,272,000
For use of coal add: $2,300,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
1. Total Capital Cost $ 125,779,000
2. Total Operating Cost $/Yr 104,514,000
3. Total Annual Cost $/Yr 121,052,000
For use of coal add: $ 27, 350,000 Capital Cost
$ 49,575,000 Annual Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS
CAPITAL ANNUAL
Outfall 001 & 002 $ 8,200,000 $ 5,633,000
Outfall 003 & 004 686,000 341,000
Outfall 007 4,580,000 1,897,000
Outfall 008 6,146,000 3,615,000
Outfall Oil 1,084,000 242,000
Outfall 012 13,195,000 10,875,000
Outfall 013 & 014 28,796,000 34,462,000
Outfall 015 2,122,000 892,000
Outfall 017 , 38,652,000 48,468,000
i
Outfall 018 9,688,000 8,142,000
Sludge Lagoon 7,020,000 1,213,000
Northward Expansion 5,610,000 5,272,000
$ 125,779,000 $ 121,052,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
"3
I
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Pump Station 001
Pump Station 002
Cooling Tower & :
Bio Plant Lift Station
Aeration Basins
Clarifiers
Filters & B.W. Basins
and Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY
TOTAL RECYCLE
'ump Station
nation
Lsins
Station
W/R.O. , Evap.
m
INCLUDING
OUTFALL
CIVIL
$ 15,500
135,000
151,000
15,500
177,500
55,500
76,800
6,000
52,000
- INDIANA HARBOR
WORKS
NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
001 & 002
MECH.
$ 19,000
795,000
2,160,000
19,000
147,000
44,000
143,000
6,000
1,472,000
ELEC.
$ 3,000
100,000
200,000
3,000
25,000
10,000
25,000
2,000
100,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 37,500
1,030,000
2,511,000
37,500
349,500
109,500
244,800
14,000
1,624,000
350,000
• 6,307,800
1,892,200
$8,200,000
For use of coal add: $620,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 001 & 002
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
71 - Material (Chemicals)
*»
10 - Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Energy
Total Annual Cost: $ 5,633,000
For use of coal add: $ 1,225,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 003 & OO5
i
£»
U)
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Towers & Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
$50,500
MECH.
$317,000
ELEC.
$50,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$417,500
110,000
527,500
158,500
$686,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 003 & 005
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 90,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 25,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 29,000
- Material (Chemicals) 104,000
- Taxes & Insurance 14,000
Energy 79,000
Total Annual Cost $341,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL OO7 .
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
007 Pump Station
Cooling Tower & Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
MECH.
ELEC.
$ 61,000 $ 249,000 $ 40,000
172,000 1,862,000 250,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 350,000
2,284,000
890,000
3,524,000
1,056,000
$4,580,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL OO7
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 602,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 75,000
^
i - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 263,000
£»
, (Tt
- Material (Chemicals) 219,000
- Taxes & Insurance 92,000
Energy 646,000
Total Annual Cost $1,897,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 008
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Tower & Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
MECH.
$209,000 $3,224,000
ELEC.
$300,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$3,733,000
995,000
4,728,000
1,418,000
$6,146,000
-------
COST -ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 008
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 808,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 25,000
^3
i
•*• - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 362,000
00
- Material (Chemicals) 851,000
- Taxes & Insurance 123,000
Energy 1,446,000
Total Annual Cost $3,615,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL Oil
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Sintering Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
$14,000
MECH.
$17,000
ELEC.
$3,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 34,000
800,000
834,000
250,000
$1,084,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL Oil
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $143,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 8,000
*l
ui - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 66,000
o
- Taxes & Insurance 22,000
Energy 3,000
Total Annual Cost $242,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Tower
Cooling Tower
Cooling Tower
Lift Station
Aeration Basins
Clarifiers
Filters & B.W. Basins
Control Building W/R.
and Return Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR
TOTAL RECYCLE
isins
W/R.O. , Evap.
* 04--l4--!jr-vi-1
WORKS
INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 012
CIVIL MECH.
$101,000 $ 788,000
75,000 544,000
75,000 558,000
46,000 35,000
438,000 65,000
94,000 110,000
108,200 71,000
191,500 5,344,000
ELEC.
$130,000
90,000
90,000
5,000
18,000
20,000
25,000
178,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 1,019,000
709,000
723,000
86,000
521,000
224,000
204,200
5,713,500
950,000
10,149,700
i
3,045,300
$13,195,000
For use of coal add: $2,750,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 012
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 1,735,000
^ 0 & M Operating Personnel 165,000
i
w ~ Equipment Repair & Maintenance 546,000
- Material (Chemicals) 485,000
- Taxes & Insurance 264,000
- Solids Disposal 300,000
Energy 7,380,000
~~f~
Total Annual Cost $10,875,000
For use of coal add: $4,000,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY
TOTAL RECYCLE
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cold Mill #1 & 2 LIFT STATION
Oil Flotation Tank
Filters & B.W. Basins
7 Control Building W/R.O.
^ and Evap.
Control Building W/R.O.,
and Evap.
Piping
Contingency:
INCLUDING
OUTFALL
CIVIL
$ 22,000
128,000
159,000
136,000
204,000
- INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
013 & 014
MECH . ELEC .
$ 27,000 $ 4,000
73,000 18,000
150,000 50,000
5,125,000 150,000
14,480,000 250,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 53,000
219,000
359,000
5,411,000
14,934,000
1,175,000
22,151,000
6,645,000
$28,796,000
For use of coal add: $9,900,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 013 & 014
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 3,785,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 330,000
7 - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 2,240,000
en
*" - Material (Chemicals) 765,000
- Taxes & Insurance 576,000
- Solids Disposal 550,000
Energy 26,216,000
Total Annual Cost $34,462,'000
For use af coal add: $15,800,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 015
Ul
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Towers & Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
MECH.
$99,000 $1,118,000
ELEC.
$100,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$1,317,000
315,000
1,632,000
490,000
$2,122,000
-------
COST .ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 015
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $280,000
- 0 & M - Operating Personnel 25,000
^
en - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 97,000
,<*
- Material (Chemicals) 148,000
- Taxes & Insurance 42,000
Energy 300,000
Total Annual Cost $892,000
-------
COST.ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 017
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Control Building W/R.O.,Evap.
and Return Station
Cooling Towers & Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
139,500
MECH.
$277,000 $27,343,000
1,033,000
ELEC.
TOTAL
$490,000 $28,110,000
100,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
1,272,500
350,000
29,732,500
8,919,500
•$38,652,000
For use of coal add: $10,330,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 017
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 5,082,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 190,000
•^
^ - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 2,310,000
CD
- Material (Chemicals) 963,000
- Taxes & Insurance 773,000
- Solids Disposal 430,000
Energy 38,720,000
•
Total Annual Cost $48,468,000
•For use of coal add; $23,300,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 018
CAPITAL COSTS
CIVIL
MECH.
i
un
Facilities:
Cooling Towers & Pump Station $1,036,000 $1,270,000
Control Building W/R.O.,Evap.
and Return Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
ib/,uuu
ELEC.
$ 85,000
158,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$2,391,000
4,349,000
712,000
7,452,000
2,236,000
$9,688,000
For use of coal add: $2,100,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
OUTFALL 018
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $1,274,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
'n
i
<* - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 572,000
- Material (Chemicals) 319,000
- Taxes & Insurance 194,000
- Solids Disposal 29,000
Energy 5,589,000
*
Total Annual Cost $8,142,000
For use of coal add: $2,950,000
-------
COST -ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SLUDGE LAGOON
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Excavation, Backfill
and Lining
Contingency
CIVIL
$5,400,000
MECH.
ELEC.
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$5,400,000
1,620,000
$7,020,000
-------
COST -ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SLUDGE LAGOON
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 923,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 150,000
"d
CT. - Taxes & Insurance 140,000
tsj
Total Annual Cost $1,213,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
INLAND STEEL
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Additional Aeration
Clarif iers
Filters & B.W. Basins
i
S Control Building W/R.O. , Evap.
and Return Pump Station
Piping
Contingency :
NORTHWARD EXPANSION
CIVIL MECH. ELEC.
$190,000 $ 45,000 $ 10,000
78,000 95,000 20,000
86,500 63,000 20,000
147,500 3,288,000 108,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
. $ 245,000
193,000
169,500
3,543,500
165,000
4,316,000
1,294,000
' $5,610,000
For use of coal add: $1,650,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
INLAND STEEL COMPANY - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
NORTHWARD EXPANSION
ANNUAL COST
I
(Ti
Amortization
0 & M
Energy
- Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
$ 738,000
165,000
306,000
113,000
112,000
350,000
3,488,000
$5,272,000
For use of coal add: $2,300,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
1. Total Capital Cost $ 24,051,000
01
U1
2. Total Operating Cost $/Yr 7,136,000
3. Total Annual Cost $/Yr 10,298,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
SUMMARY OF FACILITY COSTS
Blast Furnaces
Coke Plant
Sinter Plant
Power House & Boiler House
Blooming Mill & Scarfer
"B" Sewer Treatment Plant
"C" & "E" Sewers Treatment Plant
Hot Strip Mill
CAPITAL
$ 598,000
1,300,000
64,000
1,257,000
1,626,000
3,420,000
2,786,000
13,000,000
ANNUAL
$ 150,000
389,000
29,000
501,000
709,000
1,175,000
836,000
6,509,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
BLAST FURNACES
CIVIL
"3
I
0%
$ 36,000
116,000
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Slowdown Treatment
Piping
Chemical & Control Building
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
MECH. ELEC.
,$93,OOU $15,000
55,000 25,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
Energy
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
$144,000
120,000
196,000
460,000
138,000
$598,000
$ 79,000
8,000
25,000
18,000
12,000
8,000
$150,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
COKE PLANT
I
CTl
oo
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Biological Treatment Plant
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
CIVIL
MECH.
$380,000 $570,000
Total Capital Cost
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
ELEC.
$50,000
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
$1,000,000
300,000
$1,300,000
$ 171,000
115,000
50,000
26,000
27,000
$ 389,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
SINTER PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELEC. TOTAL
Facilities:
Pump Station $13,000 $31,000 $5,000 $49,000
Contingency: 15,000
i Total Capital Cost $64,000
cr> i^^r^z^
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 8,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 8,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 5,000
- Taxes & Insurance 1,000
- Material (Chemicals) 5,000
Energy , 2,000
Total Annual Cost $29,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
POWER HOUSE AND BOILER HOUSE
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELEC. TOTAL
Facilities:
Filters & B.W. Basins $243,000 $191,000 $50,000 $ 484,000
Chemical & Control Building 193,000 220,000 50,000 463,000
7 Piping 20,000
o Sub-Total 967,000
Continency: 290,000
Total Capital Cost $1,257,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 165,000
O & M - Operating Personeel • 165,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 43,000
- Material (Chemicals) 41,000
- Taxes & Insurance 25,000
- Solids Disposal (Hauling) 45,000
Energy 17,000
Total Annual Cost $ 501,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Blooming Mill Pump Station
Scarfer Pump Station
Settling Basins, B.W. Basins
& Pump Station
Pressure Filters
Cooling Towers & Pump Station
Chemical & Control Building
Piping
Contingency:
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
BLOOMING MILL AND SCARFER
CIVIL MECH. ELEC.
$ 30,000 $ 46,000 $10,000
23,000 25,000 5,000
103,000 211,000 30,000
31,000 182,000 25,000
36,000 158,000 30,000
81,000 50,000 25,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 86,000
53,000
344,000
238,000
224,000
156,000
150,000
1,251,000
375,000
$1,626,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
BLOOMING MILL AND SCARFER
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $214,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
i - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 77,000
^i
- Material (Chemicals) 53,000
- Taxes & Insurance 33,000
- Solids Disposal (Hauling) 112,000
Energy 55,000
Total Annual Cost $709,000
-------
I
~0
u>
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTQN STEEL DIVISION
BAT
"B" SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Tin Mill Cleaning Lines -
Conveyance
Demineralizer - Conveyance
Tin Plating Conveyance
Continuous Annealing Conveyance
Lift Station
Equalization Basins - Alkaline
Equalization Basins - Acid
Mixing Tanks
Flocculator - Clarifiers
Chemical and Control Building
Chrome Recovery Unit
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
MECH.
ELEC.
TOTAL
$ 16,000
10,500
14,000
14,500
43,000
415,000
234,000
86,000
130,000
202,000
$
40,000
81,000
40,000
83,000
145,000
92,000
64,000
133,000
360,000
125,000
$
4,500
15,000
8,000
15,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
Sub-Total
$ 16,000
55,000
110,000
62,500
141,000
590,000
346,000
160,000
288,000
612,000
125,000
125,000
$2,630,500
789,500
Total Capital Cost
$3,420,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
"B" SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 450,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 115,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 109,000
- Material (Chemicals) 252,000
- Taxes and Insurance 68,000
- Solids Disposal (Hauling) 100,000
Energy 81,000
i
Total Annual Cost $1,175,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
i
^i
Ul
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Pximp Stations & Conveyances
Equalization Basins
Mixing Tanks
Flocculator - Clarifiers
Filters & B.W. Basins
R.O. & Chemical Building
Piping
Contingency:
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
"C" & "E" SEWERS TREATMENT PLANT
CIVIL MECH. ELEC.
$ 82,000 $135,000 $ 22,000
48,000 57,000 12,000
29,500 32,000 5,000
142,000 128,000 25,000
145,200 128,000 40,000
192,500 420,000 100,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 239,000
117,000
66,500
295,000
313,200
712,500
400,000
2,143,200
642,800
$2,786,000
Quantity to be evaporated too small to consider coal
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
"C" & "E" SEWERS TREATMENT PLANT
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $366,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 120,000
- Material (Chemicals) 45,500
- Taxes & Insurance 56,000
- Solids Disposal 55,000
Energy 28,500
Total Annual Cost $836,000
Quantity to be evaporated too small to consider coal
-------
COST ESTIMATE
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Modification to Existing
Facilities
Pump Stations
Settling Basins
Filters, B.W. Basins & Pump
Stations
Cooling Towers
Chemical & Control Building
Pipe Bridge
Piping
Contingency:
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
HOT STRIP MILL
CIVIL MECH. ELEC.
$60,000 $ 391,000 $ 50,000
655,000 1,635,000 185,000
461,000 648,000 70,000
1,021,000 571,000 265,000
130,000 1,728,000 200,000
348,000 435,000 87,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 501,000
2,475,000
1,179,000
1,857,000
2,058,000
870,000
•
340,000
720,000
10,000,000
3,000,000
$13,000,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
BAT
HOT STRIP MILL
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $1,709,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
^ - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 544,000
CO
- Material (Chemicals) 665,000
- Taxes Si Insurance 260,000
- Solids Disposal 932,000
Energy 2,234,000
Total Annual Cost $6,509,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
1. Total Capital Cost $ 96,582,000
2. Total Operating Cost $/Yr 102,600,000
3. Total Annual Cost $/Yr. 115,297,000
For use of coal add $ 29,550,000 Capital
$ 55,700,000 Annual
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COST
I
oo
o
Coke Plant & Blast Furnaces
"B" Sewer Treatment Plant
"C" & "E" Sewers Treatment Plant
CAPITAL
$ 16,507,000
32,015,000
48,060,000
$ 96,582,000
ANNUAL
$ 10,912,000
42,171,000
62,214,000
$115,297,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
COKE PLANT & BLAST FURNACES
I
c»
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Coke Plant (Contact)
Blast Furnace (Contact)
Contingency:
CIVIL MECH. ELEC.
85,000 3,215,000 150,000
872,250 8,025,000 350,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
3,450,000
9,247,250
12,697,250
3,809,750
16,507,000
For use of coal add: $3,550,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
COKE PLANT & BLAST FURNACES
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 2,170,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 977,000
- Material (Chemicals) 227,000
- Taxes & Insurance 330,000
- Solids Disposal 68,000
•
Energy 6,975,000
Total Annual Cost $10,912,000
i
For use of coal add: $ 5,200,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
"B" SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELEC. TOTAL
Facilities :
$157,000 $23,970,000 $500,000 $24,627,000
Contingency: 7,388,000
nj
i For Use of Coal Add: $11,500,000 _
U)
Total Capital Costs $32,015,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 4,209,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 125,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 1,959,000
- Material (Chemicals) ' 640,000
- Taxes & Insurance 640,000
- Solids Disposal 370,000
Energy 34,228,000
Total Annual Cost $42,171,000
For Use of Coal Add: $20,000,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
"C" & "E" SEWERS TREATMENT PLANT
I
CD
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
R.O., Evaporating &
Control Building
Piping
CIVIL
MECH.
ELEC.
TOTAL
$157,000 $36,130,000
$500,000 $36,787,000
Sub-Total
Contingency:
For Use of Coal Add: $ 14,500,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Total Capital Cost
Energy
For Use of Coal Add: $ 30,500,000
Total Annual Cost
180,000
36,967,000
11,093,000
$48,060,000
$ 6,318,000
I
125,000
2,946,000
894,000
961,000
500,000
50,470,000
$62,214,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTRACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
I
oo
en
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
105,763,000
105,727,000
119,635,000
For Coal Add: $ 29,550,000 Capital
$ 55,700,000 Annual Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COST
i
CO
Coke Plant & Blast Furnaces
Blooming Mill & Scarfer
"B" Sewer Treatment Plant
"C" & "E" Sewers Treatment Plant
Tandem Mill
Hot Strip Mill
Brown Island Coke & By-Product Plant
Temper Mill
Power House
CAPITAL
$ 19,882,000
1,124,000
32,015,000
48,060,000
836,000
1,841,000
210,000
360,000
1,435,000
$105,763,000
ANNUAL
$ 12, 593,000
486,000
42,171,000
62,214,000
372,000
747,000
107,000
i
153,000
792,000
$119,635,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities :
Coke Plant (Non Contact)
HJ Coke Plant (Contact)
i
CO
-J Blast Furnace (Non Contact)
Blast Furnace (Contact)
Contingency:
COKE PLANT & BLAST FURNACES
CIVIL MECH . ELEC .
$223,000 $ 772,000 $120,000
85,000 3,215,000 150,000
299,000 1,027,000 155,000
872,250 8,025,000 350,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$ 1,115,000
3,450,000
1,481,000
9,247,250
15,293,250
4,588,750
$19,882,000
For Use of Coal Add: $ 3,550,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
COKE PLANT & BLAST FURNACES
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 2,614,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
hrj
i - Equipment Repair & Maintenance 1,121,000
00
CO
- Material (Chemicals) 880,000
- Taxes & Insurance 398,000
- Solids Disposal 68,000
Energy 7,347,000
Total Annual Cost $12,593,000
For Use of Coal Add: $ 5,200,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL 'RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
BLOOMER MILL & SCARFER
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELEC. TOTAL
Facilities:
Cooling Towers & Pump Stations $52,500 $467,000 $65,000 $ 584,500
Piping 280,000
Sub-Total 867,500
Contingency: 259,500
Total Capital Cost $1,124,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 148,000
•
O & M - Operating Personnel 25,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 65,000
- Material (Chemicals) 145,000
- Taxes & Insurance 22,000
Energy 81,000
Total Annual Cost $ 486,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
"B" SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
CIVIL
MECH.
ELEC.
TOTAL
,000 523,970,000
Contingency:
For Use of Coal Add: $11,500,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Total Capital Costs
Energy
Total Annual Cost
5500,000 524,627,000
7,388,000
$32,015,000
$ 4,209,000
125,000
1,959,000
' 640,000
640,000
370,000
34,228,000
$42,171,000
For Use of Coal Add: $20,000,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
"C" & "E" SEWERS TREATMENT PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities: ^
R.O., Evaporating &
Control Building
Piping
CIVIL
MECH.
ELEC.
$157,000 $36,130,000
Sub-Total
Contingency:
For Use of Coal Add: $ 14,500,000 Total Capital Cost
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Energy
TOTAL
$500,000 $36,787,000
180,000
36,967,000
11,093,000
$48,060,000
$ 6,318,000
125,000
2,946,000
894,000
961,000
500,000
50,470,000
For Use of Coal Add: $ 30,500,000
Total Annual Cost
$62,214,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
TANDEM MILL
NJ
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Towers and
Pump Stations
Piping
Contingency;
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
CIVIL
$45,000
MECH.
$398,000
ELEC.
$50,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
0 & M
- Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
$493,000
150,000
643,000
193,000
$836,000
$113,000
25,000
36,000
111,000
17,000
70,000
$372,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
HOT STRIP MILL
I
\D
U)
CIVIL
$83,000
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Towers &
Pump Stations
Piping
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
MECH.
$753,000
ELEC.
$120,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
Energy
Total Annual Cost
TOTAL
$ 956,000
460,000
1,416,000
425,000
$1,841,000
$ 242,000
25,000
70,000
258,000
37,000
115,000
$ 747,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
BROWN ISLAND COKE & BY-PRODUCT PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Tower &
Pump Stations
Piping
Contingency:
CIVIL
$19,000
MECH.
$101,000
ELEC.
$12,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
TOTAL
$132,000
30,000
162,000
78,000
$210,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
8,000
8,000
38,600
4,000
20,400
Total Annual Cost
$107,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL•RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
TEMPER MILL
i
i£>
en
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Tower &
Pump Stations
Piping
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
CIVIL
$27,000
MECH.
$149,000
ELEC.
$20,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
TOTAL
$196,000
80,000
276,000
84,000
$360,000
$ 47,000
8,000^
11,000
55,000
7,000
25,000
Total Annual Cost
$153,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL'RECYCLE STUDY
NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION
WEIRTON STEEL DIVISION
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON CONTACT COOLING WATER
POWER HOUSE
I
vo
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Cooling Tower &
Pump Stations
Piping
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
CIVIL
$89,500
MECH.
$743,000
ELEC.
$120,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
0 & M
- Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
Totaj. Annual Cost
TOTAL
$ 952,500
150,000
1,102,500
332,500
$1,435,000
.$ 189,000
8,000
60,000
304,000
29,000
202,000
$ 792,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
7,760,000
4,539,000
5,559,000
For coal add:
$ 1,530,000 Capital Cost
•
$ 2,100,000 Annual Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
U.S.S.C. - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS
I
VD
03
Finishing Facilities
Q - BOP
Blast Furnaces
Coke Plant
Material Storage Pile Runoff
CAPITAL
$ 5,478,000
140,000
720,000
570,000
852,000
$ 7,760,000
ANNUAL
$ 4,977,000
35,000
242,000
148,000
157,000
$ 5,559,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
FINISHING FACILITIES
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELECT. TOTAL
Facilities:
Lift Station, Filters & B.W. Basins $150,600 $ 151,000 $ 33,000 $ 334,600
R.O. Evaporator, Control Bldg & 130,000 3,377,000 155,000 3,662,000
Return P. Sta.
_ Piping 217,000
i
^ Sub-total: $4,213,600
Contingency: 1,264,400
For coal add: $1,530,000 Total Capital Cost: $5,478,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization , $ 720,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 165,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 298,000
- Material (Chemicals) 115,000
- Taxes & Insurance 110,000
- Solids Disposal 120,000
Energy 3,449,000
For coal add: $2,100,000 Total Annual Cost: $4,977,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
O
o
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
Q - B.O.P.
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Pump Station
Piping
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
CIVIL MECH
$ 15,500 $ 19,000
Sub-total
Total Capital Cost:
ELECT.
$ 3,000
Amortization
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
Total Annual Cost:
TOTAL
$ 37,500
69,500
117,000
33,000
$ 140,000
$ 18,000
8,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
$ 35,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RE.CYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
BLAST FURNACES
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELECT. TOTAL
Facilities:
Fluoride Precipitation System $44,000 $104,500 $15,000 $ 163,500
Piping 391,000
Sub-total: 554,500
Contingency: 165,500
Total Capital Cost: $ 720,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 95,000
O & M - Operating personnel .115,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 10,000
- Material (Chemicals) 4,000
- Taxes & Insurance 14,000
Energy 4,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 242,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
COKE PLANT
CAPITAL COSTS CIVIL MECH. ELECT. TOTAL
Facilities:
Additional Aeration
Clarifiers
i
M
° Contingency:
Total Capital Cost: $ 570,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 75,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel , 25,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 15,000
- Taxes & Insurance 11,000
Energy 22,000
Total Annual Cost: $ 148,000
$172,500 $95,000
74,250 66,000
Sub-total:
$20,000 $ 287,500
10,000 150,250
$ 437,750
132,250
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
BAT
MATERIAL STORAGE PILE RUNOFF
O
OJ
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Storage Pond & Pump Sta.
Piping
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
CIVIL
MECH.
$114,000 $13,500
Sub-total:
Total Capital Cost:
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
Total Annual Cost:
ELECT.
$3,000
TOTAL
$130,500
525,000
655,500
196,500
$852,000
$112,000
25,000
. 1,000
17,000
2,000
$157,000
-------
COST .ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
i
M
O
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
51,432,000
57,024,000
63,785,000
For coal add: $ 10,100,000 Capital Cost
$ 18,500,000 Annual Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
USSC - FAIRFIELD WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OP FACILITIES COSTS
O
Cn
Final Effluent Control Pond
Q - BOP
CAPITAL
$51,045,000
387,000
$51,432,000
ANNUAL
$63,701,000
84,000
$63,785,000
-------
I
M
O
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
FINAL EFFLUENT CONTROL POND
$373,850
378,500
280,000
Sub-total:
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Pump Sta, Filters & B.W. Basins
R.O., Evap, Control Bldg,
Return Pump Sta.
Flocculator-Clarifiers
Piping
Contingency:
For coal add: $10,500,000
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
0 & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
$ 249,000
36,368,000
218,000
Total Capital Cost:
Energy
For use of coal add: $18,000,000
$ 80,000
515,000
40,000
Total Annual Cost:
$ 702,850
37,261,500
538,000
762,000
$39,264,350
• 11,780,650
$51,045,000
$ 6,710,000
165,000
3,000,000
1,187,000
1,020,000
250,000
51,369,000
$63,701,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION - FAIRFIELD WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
Q - B.O.P.
CAPITAL COSTS
CIVIL
MECH.
ELECT.
i
H1
O
Facilities:
Pump Sta. Modif. & Surge Tank
Piping
Contingency:
ANNUAL COST
$18,000 $12,000 $3,000
Sub-total:
Total Capital Cost:
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Taxes & Insurance
Energy
Total Annual Cost:
TOTAL
$ 33,000
265,000
298,000
89,000
$387,000
$ 51,000
13,000
11,000
8,000
1,000
$ 84,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
O
CO
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
19,580,000
21,074,000
23,648,000
For coal add: $ 7,000,000 Capital Cost
$ 11,250,000 Annual Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. -
BAT
STUDY
INDIANA HARBOR
WORKS
FACILITIES ESTIMATES
CIVIL
.fier & Pump Sta. $ 87,500
>atment Plant :
> Sta. 13,500
31,700
49,500
sins & Act. Carbon 278,000
J-
; Plant W/R.O., Evap. 15,000
\Teld-Pump Sta. 37,000
Subtotal:
b
»
MECH.
$ 82,500
15,000
30,500
64,500
604,000
13,111,000
72,000
ELECT .
$ 15,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
55,000
300,000
5,000
TOTAL
$ 185,000
33,500
67,200
124,000
937,000
13,426,000
114,000
175,000
15,061,700
4,518,300
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Sinter Plant Pump Sta.
Mixers
Clarifier
^ Filters, B.W. :
|L & Chemical Bldg.
O f" on -t-T- a 1 Tr-aa-t-inn
Piping
Contingency:
Total Capital Cost: $19,580,000
i
For use of coal add; $7,000,000
-------
o
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
BAT
FACILITIES ESTIMATES
ANNUAL COST TOTAL
Amortization $ 2,574,000
0 & M - Operating Personnel 290,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 1,164,000
- Material (Chemicals) 556,000
- Taxes & Insurance 392,000
- Solids Disposal 275,000
Energy 18,397,000
Total Annual Cost: $23,648,000
For use of coal add: $ 11,250,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
I
I-1
I-1
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$/Yr
$/Yr
46,300,000
29,437,000
35,524,000
For use of coal add:
$ 8,950,000 Capital
$ 14,700,000 Annual
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
FACILITIES ESTIMATES
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Biological Treat. Plant &
Return Pump Station
Terminal Treatment Plant W/R.O.,
Evap. & Return Pump Station
Acid Regeneration (L.S.)
Return Piping from Filter to
P. Sta #1
Contingency:
CIVIL
MECH.
ELEC.
TOTAL
$236,500 $ 742,000
152,000 17,580,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
$103,000 $ 1,081,500
300,000 18,032,000
16,380,000
110,000
35,603,500
10,696,500
$46,300,000
For use of coal add: $9,960,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE NOT INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
FACILITIES ESTIMATES
t-1
U)
ANNUAL COST
Amortization
O & M - Operating Personnel
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance
- Material (Chemicals)
- Taxes & Insurance
- Solids Disposal
Energy
Total Annual Cost:
$ 6,087,000
165,000
1,498,000
850,000
926,000
500,000
25,498,000
$35,524,000
For use of coal add: $11,775,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
SUMMARY OF TOTAL COSTS
1. Total Capital Cost
2. Total Operating Cost
3. Total Annual Cost
$
$Ar
$/Yr
54,770,000
33,723,000
40,923,000
For coal add:
$ 8,950,000 Capital Cost
$ 14,700,000 Annual Cost
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
FACILITIES ESTIMATES
CAPITAL COSTS
Facilities:
Open Hearth, EOF & SM
Boiler & Power House
Blast Furnace & Sinter Plant
Flat Rolling Mills
,Biological Treat. Plant &
Return Pump Station
Terminal Treatment W/R.O., Evap.
& Return Pump Station
Acid Regeneration (L.S.)
Contingency:
CIVIL MECH.
$102,000
173,000
112,000
39,000
$ 1,153,000
2,537,000
1,618,000
274,000
236,500 742,000
152,000 17,580,000
Sub-Total
Total Capital Cost
ELEC,
$170,000
250,000
180,000
30,000
103,000
300,000
TOTAL
$ 1,425,000
2,960,000
1,910,000
343,000
1,081,500
18,032,000
16,380,000
$42,131,500
12,638,500
$54,770,000
For use of coal add: $8,950,000
-------
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL RECYCLE STUDY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. - INDIANA HARBOR WORKS
TOTAL RECYCLE INCLUDING NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
FACILITIES ESTIMATES
ANNUAL COST
Amortization $ 7,200,000
O & M - Operating Personnel 330,000
- Equipment Repair & Maintenance 3,595,000
- Material (Chemicals) 1,391,000
- Taxes & Insurance 1,095,000
- Solids Disposal 500,000
Energy 24,866,000
Total Annual Cost: $38,977,000
For use of coal add: $14,700,000
-------
APPENDIX G
THE INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANT
G'-i
-------
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 THE INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANT G-l
1.1 Integrated Iron and Steel Plant Production
Processes G-l
1.1.1 Coke Making and By-Product Plant Operation G-l
1.1.1.1 Coke Plant G-l
1.1.1.2 By-Product Plant G-2
1.1.2 Sintering G-5
1.1.3 Iron Making G-5
1.1.4 Steelmaking G-8
1.1.4.1 Open-Hearth Furnace G-9
1.1.4.2 Basic Oxygen Furnace G-9
1.1.4-3 Electric Arc Furnaces G-10
1.1.4.4 Vacuum Degassing G-10
1.1.4.5 Ingot Casting G-13
1.1.5 Hot Forming G-13
1.1.5.1 Primary Rolling G-13
1.1.5.2 Continuous Casting G-15
1.1.5.3 Secondary Rolling G-15
1.1.5.3.1 Hot Strip Mills G-15
1.1.5.3.2 Shelp Mills G-17
1.1.5.3.3 Plate Mills G-17
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
1.1.5.3.4 Seamless Pipe Mills G-17
1.1.5.3.5 Other Secondary Hot Mills G-20
1.1.6 Cold Finishing G-20
1.1.6.1 Pickling G-20
1.1.6.1.1 Continuoug Pickling G-20
1.1.6.1.2 Batch Pickling G-22
1.1.6.2 Cold Reduction G-23
1.1.6.3 Heat Treating Steel G-23
1.1.6.4 Coating G-23
-------
FIGURES
Number . Page
G-l Steel Product Manufacturing Flow Diagram G-3
G-2 Coke By-Product Process Flow Diagram G-4
G-3 Sinter Plant Process Flow Diagram G-6
G-4 Ironmaking Process Flow Diagram G-7
G-5 Open Hearth-Process Flow Diagram G-ll
G-6 Basic Oxygen Process Flow Diagram G-12
G-7 Hot Forming Primary Process Flow Diagram G-14
G-8 Hot Forming Continuous Casting Process Flow
Diagram G-16
G-9 . Secondary Rolling - Strip Process Flow Diagram G-18
G-10 Secondary Rolling - Plate Process Flow Diagram G-19
G-ll Pickling Process Flow Diagram G-21
G-12 Cold Reduction Process Flow Diagram G-24
G -i
-------
1-0 THE INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANT
v • ,-u study, an integrated steel plant is defined as
having the following production processes:
1. Production of coke for use in blast furnaces and
production of by-product chemicals from the coke
oven gas .
2. Production of sinter from raw ore and process
wastes for use in the blast furnace.
3. Production of iron in blast furnaces.
4. Production of steel in basic oxygen furnaces and,
if applicable, open hearth furnaces and/or elec-
tric arc furnaces.
5. Hot forming of steel shapes from ingots and in-
termediate products. This category includes
continuous casting.
6. Cold finishing of hot rolled products. These
processes include continuous pickling and cold
rolling.
Figure G-l shows the process flow of materials and
products as defined above and the following sections describe
individual processes and manufacturing facilities.
1.1 INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANT PRODUCTION PROCESSES
1.1.1 Coke Making and By-Product Plant Operation
1.1.1.1 Coke Plant
Coal is distilled in the coke plant of an integrated
steel mill to supply elemental carbon or coke, for the produc-
tion of iron in blast furnaces. There are two accepted methods
for manufacturing coke: the beehive or non-recovery process and
the by-product or chemical recovery process. Today the by-
product process accounts for about 99 percent of all metallurgi-
cal coke produced in the U.S., and therefore the beehive process
will not be discussed further in this report.
G-l
-------
By-product coke is produced by heating bituminous coal
in closed ovens, in the absence of air to remove volatile compo-
nents. The necessary heat for this distillation is supplied
from the external combustion of coke oven or blast furnace gas
in flues located within walls between ovens. The residue re-
maining in the ovens is coke and the volatile components driven
off with the gas are processed in the by-product plant. Modern
ovens are approximately 12 meters (40 feet) long, 3 to 6 meters
(10 to 20 feet) high and 35 to 46 centimeters (14 to 18 inches)
wide with a capacity of 10 to 30 tons of coal each. The ovens
are constructed in groups of thirty or more, each group being
referred to as a battery.
Coal is charged into the top of each oven either from
hopper bottom rail cars called larrycars or via a pipeline
aspirated by steam. During the coking period, which is from 12
to 24 hours, the distilled gases and volatiles are collected in
ascension pipes at the oven tops and pass into a collection main
running the length of the battery. At the end of the coking
period, doors are removed from the ends of an oven and a pushing
machine forces the hot coke into a quenching car. The car moves
immediately to the quenching tower where the incandescent coke
is cooled by water sprays, and the quenched coke is delivered to
handling and holding equipment for subsequent use.
1.1.1.2 By-Product Plant
The gases and volatiles collected from the coke ovens
are processed in a by-products plant where coke oven gas, tars,
ammonia and organic chemicals are recovered.
A general representation of a complete by-product op-
eration is shown on Figures G-2. The raw coke oven gases are
first cooled by sprays of flushing liquor and then by indirect
contact in a primary cooler. Water and tar are condensed and
the flushing liquor is decanted from the tar. Most of the
flushing liquor is recycled for spray cooling and a blowdown of
excess waste liquor is directed to storage facilities. The
stored waste ammonia liquor passes through treatment facilities
to remove ammonia, phenol, cyanide, sulfide and suspended solids
prior to discharge. The ammonia is returned to the cooled gas
stream which has undergone complete tar removal. The combined
gases pass through an ammonia absorber (ammonia recovery), then
through a final cooler (naphthalene removal), a wash oil scrub-
ber and a desulfurizer before use as fuel. The wash oil from
the gas scrubber is stripped of absorbed light aromatic oils,
which are processed to recover crude naphtha, crude heavy sol-
vents, benzol, toluol and xylol. The crude coal tar is sold or
processed on site to recover a variety of organic chemicals.
By-product plants vary in specific processes and extent of chem-
ical recovery.
G-2
-------
en
I
U)
PRIMARY,
"I"8 PIT ROLLING MILLS
-------
o
INTEGHMfO SUFI Piail POUUInN St'Ji.1
TOR TOTAL RCOCLC W *MCR
FIGURE G'2
-------
1.1.2 SINTERING
The primary function of a sintering plant, as part of
?heSh?el.Pfant' iS t0 ^^-te^ron.^^^^
f
«™ *n ™ furnaces. The fines consist mostly of iron
ore and wastes such as dust from the steelmaking and blast fur-
nace processes: in some plants rolling mill scale is also used.
These waste fines are blended with fine coal or coke and lime-
stone in a sinter mix to make an agglomerate for charging into
the blast furnace.
The sintering is achieved, as shown on Figure G-3, by
blending and grinding the various iron-bearing components, lime-
stone and fuel in the form of coal or coke fines. The mixture
from the pug mill is then bedded (i.e., spread evenly) on a
moving downdraft grate and heated by a gas fired ignition fur-
nace over the sintering bed with combustion air induced through
the bed. ^ After ignition, the downdraft of air keeps the coal or
coke burning, to achieve a temperature in the bed sufficient to
fuse or sinter the mixture. As the bed burns, carbon dioxide is
driven from the limestone, and a large part of the sulfur,
chloride and fluoride contaminants are combusted or volatized
into the waste gasses. If mill scale is included in the sinter
mix, oils are also combusted or volatilized.
The hot sinter is crushed as it is discharged from the
sinter machine, and the crushed sinter is screened before it is
air cooled on a sinter cooler. After cooling, the sinter is
further screened into several size fractions. Fines from the
screening that are too small for use in the blast furnace are
recycled without being cooled to the head end of the sintering
process along with captured dust.
1.1.3 IRON MAKING
Iron is produced in a blast furnace, as shown on
Figure G-4, by the chemical reduction of iron oxides to elemen-
tal iron from a charge of iron ore and miscellaneous iron bear-
ing materials including sinter, enriched ore pellets, ferro-
manganese ores and iron or steel wastes in various combinations.
Other materials required in the iron making process are coke and
flux materials. These various raw materials, referred to as the
burden, are usually stored in stock piles and charged through
atmosphere isolation gates (called bells) into the top of the
furnace via either skip cars (batch charging) or continuous belt
feed.
The coke provides the main source of heat, carbon
monoxide and carbon, with the carbon and carbon monoxide acting
as the reductants for the iron oxide according to the general
reduction reaction: FeO + CO = Fe + C02- C + C02 = 2CO.
G-5
-------
R = RETURN FINES BIN
0 = ORE FINES BIN
L = LIMESTONE FINES BIN
= COKE FINES BIN
S = SCALE FINES BIN
Q
I
SINTER PLANT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
HOT SINTER
FEEDER a
SCREEN
G-3
-------
HYDROTECHN1C CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N.Y.
MISCELLANEOUS IRON
BEARING MATERIALS
(SINTER SCRAP)
\ ,
ONEV
i
n nn
STOVES I
fil U LFj
AIR I
DUST TO
SINTER PLANT
SOAKING PITS
AND FURNACES
WATER
IRON MAKING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
IRON
TO STEELMAKING
AND CASTING
FIGURE G- 4
-------
The alkaline flux materials, usually limestone or
dolomite, after giving off their C02 via in situ calcination
form a molten slag with the non-volatile impurities (e.g., the
ash in the coke or the gangue in the ore) produced during the
reduction in such a manner that the chemical composition and
fluidity of the iron can be controlled. The slag is largely
calcium and magnesium silicates, aluminates and sulfides.
The production of iron in the blast furnace is per-
formed at high temperature and pressure under reducing condi-
tions. Air, that has been compressed and preheated (hot blast),
is injected into the blast furnace through tuyeres just below
the bosh, a section low in the furnace where melting begins.
The air is required to support the combustion of the coke (and
other injected fuel, e.g., oil or coal fines). As the iron
oxides are reduced in the furnace, the molten iron collects on a
bottom hearth and the molten slag, due to its lower density,
floats on the surface of the iron. Periodically, the slag is
skimmed off into ladle cars and the molten iron is tapped into
hot metal cars for transport to steel making or casting facili-
ties. Surplus molten iron is cast into solid shapes or pigs in
a pig machine.
In addition to slag and iron, a mixture of blast fur-
nace gases Containing some carbon monoxide) is produced and
cleaned and cooled to remove entrained fine particles of iron
oxide and other impurities prior to further use in fueling the
hot blast stoves, boilers for steam and electrical generation
and in reheating furnaces.
1.1.4 STEELMAKING
The modern steelmaking processes refine iron in com-
bination with scrap metal, alloying material and flux, to
produce various grades of steel with specified compositions.
The old Bessemer process has been replaced by modern processes
using the open-hearth furnace, the basic oxygen furnace (EOF)
and the electric furnace.
The basic open-hearth and basic oxygen processes
produce carbon and alloy steel of the same general grades.
Basic oxidation processes are required to remove phosphorous
and sulfur impurities and are more common than acidic oxidative
processes. Electric furnaces are used to produce both common
grades of steel and also stainless and alloy steel grades which
are generally not produced by the other two processes. Most of
the steel currently produced in the United States is made by
the basic oxygen process, with the remainder divided between
open-hearth and electric furnaces. A relatively new process,
the Q-BOP, is a variation of the basic oxygen furnace which is
bottom blown similar to the Bessemer converters.
G-8
-------
1.1.4.1 Open-Hearth Furnace
The open-hearth process is composed of several stages,
i.e, charging, meltdown, hot metal addition, fettling (startup) ,
ore and lime boil, working (refining), tapping and delay. As
shown on Figure G-5, the raw materials charged to the open-
hearth furnace consist of flux material, with various combina-
tions of pig iron, iron ore, steel scrap, molten iron and steel.
During hot metal addition, molten pig iron is introduced and in
the final stages there are additions of fluorspar and alloying
substances to produce steel of a specified quality. Oxygen may
be lanced over the molten charge to speed the refining stage.
A slag, forming a continuous layer on the metal surface contains
the impurities removed.
The open-hearth furnace is essentially a shallow rec-
tangular basin or hearth enclosed by walls and a roof, all con-
structed of refractory brick and provided with access doors
along one wall adjacent to the operating floor. A tap hole at
the base of the opposite wall is provided to drain the finished
molten steel into ladles. Fuel is burned at one end, the flame
traveling the length of the furnace above the charge resting
upon the hearth. The hot gases are conducted downward in a flue
into a brick regenerator chamber or checkerwork, which provides
a large number of passage ways for absorbing the heat from the
gases. The combustion system burners, checkers and flues are
duplicated at each end of the furnace to allow frequent and
systematic reversal of heat flow.
Heat is stored in the checkers and is subsequently
given up to a reverse direction stream of air flowing to the
reverse burner.
Open-hearth furnace capacities range from 100 to 300
tons per cycle or heat. Each heat requires between 8 and 12
hours. Oxygen lancing may shorten heat time to a minimum of 5
hours.
1.1.4.2 Basic Oxygen Furnace
The basic oxygen process is a modified pneumatic
steelmaking process in which pure, high pressure oxygen is blown
through a water-cooled lance into the charge of molten pig iron,
scrap and flux material. There is no external fuel requirement
since oxidation of the impurities provides the heat necessary
for the process. During the various stages of a heat, especial-
ly oxygen-blowing , iron oxide and carbon particles are carried
out of the furnace along with flue gas and other dust in a dense
reddish-brown discharge.
G-9
-------
As shown in Figure G-6, the EOF is generally a verti-
cal cylinder surmounted by a truncated cone. The material
charge and oxygen is introduced through the open top; the vessel
pivots on a horizontal axis for charging, slag dumping and steel
tapping. A EOF has a tap to tap cycle of approximately 45 min-
utes and can produce 200 to 300 or more tons of steel per hour,
with very close control of quality. Another important advantage
of this process over the open-hearth is the ability to handle a
wider range of raw materials, though most of the charge is molten
metal.
The Q-BOP (Quick Basic Oxygen Process)also utilizes
pure oxygen, but oxygen is injected into the molten metal
through the bottom of the furnace. Burnt lime flux is also in-
jected through the bottom of the vessel.
1.1.4.3 Electric Arc Furnaces
Electric furnace steelmaking utilizes a charge of cold
steel scrap with fluxes and the process cycle consists of the
meltdown, molten metal period, boil, refining, and pouring. The
required heat is generated by an electric arc passing from car-
bon electrodes through the charge in the furnace. This non-
oxidizing heat source allows more flexibility in charge control.
The refining process is similar to that of the open-hearth fur-
nace. Electric arc furnaces range in size from 2.1 to 9.1 meters
(7 to 30 feet) in diameter and produce from 2 to 200 tons of
steel cycle within a time ranging from 1.5 to 4 hours.
Electric arc furnaces offer maximum flexibility due to
the variety of types of steel that can be produced, ability to
operate on an intermittent basis, and the short heat time. They
are used in large integrated plants especially to supplement
other steelmaking processes in meeting peak demands. Also, this
type of facility is uniquely adaptable to specialty steel pro-
ducers.
1.1.4.4 Vacuum Degassing
The molten steel is often treated under very low pres-
sures (40-140 Pa) to reduce hydrogen, oxygen and carbon content
to produce a cleaner steel with improved physical properties.
Alloying materials may also be added. Less than 10 percent of
current U.S. steel production is vacuum degassed, and mostly in
conjunction with continuous casting or large piece steel casting
operations. General process types are stream degassing and re-
circulation degassing. High temperature must be maintained in
the molten steel and the vacuum is usually created by a multi-
stage steam ejector and barometric condenser. The process time
is about 30 minutes. There are also vacuum melting processes
(e.g., vacuum arc remelting or VAR) which are used to refine
certain high strength and alloy steels.
•\
G-10
-------
O
I
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
(IF USED)
COPPER BRIQUETTES
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL OXIDE
50% SILICON
FUELS
NATURAL GAS
COKE OVEN GAS
TAR
PITCH BLEND
FLUXES
BURNT LIME
DOLOMITE
FLOURSPAR
IRON ORE
LIMESTONE
ooo a oCT
SCRAP CARS
FROM BLAST
FURNACE
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
SLAG TO
DISPOSAL
fc
( /
\ 1
\ 1
MOLTEN
IRON
O1 'O
HOT METAL
LADLE
AIR
OPEN HEARTH-PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE G-5
-------
O
H
to
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK, N.Y.
GAS TO
CLEANING EQUIPMENT
OO O O 73O
SCRAP CARS
FROM BLAST
MOLTEN
IRON
O' ' O
HOT METAL
LADLE
SLAG TO
DISPOSAL
1
GAS HOOD
COPPER BRIQUETTES
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL OXIDE
50% SILICON
"ALLOY BIN
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE G-6
-------
1.1.4.5 Ingot Casting
The molten metal from the steelmaking furnace is
tapped into a teeming ladle for transfer to vacuum degassing or
directly to ingot molds or continuous casting machines. I? in-
gots are made, the steel is transferred to a series of molds
which have been prepared by coating the cast iron mold with a
compound to facilitate ingot removal (stripping) and also to re-
duce splashing of molten steel during ladle pouring or teeming.
Alloying material may be added during teeming. The continuous
casting process is described in Section 1.1.5.2. coni:inuous
1.1.5 HOT FORMING
The production of specified shapes by rolling hot
solid steel in mills or by the casting of molten steel is de-
fined as hot forming. The forming is divided into three broad
categories, primary rolling, continuous casting and secondary
rolling.
1.1.5.1 Primary Rolling
Steel that has been cast into ingots is shaped at pri-
mary rolling units, as shown on Figure G-7, into basic forms
(slab, bloom or billet) that are then sold or shaped in other
hot mills for the production of products that require special
finishing or products for direct sale.
Ingots that have been stripped and sufficiently cooled
are placed in soaking pit furnaces to be uniformly reheated to
a temperature suitable for plastic working (deformation) with a
minimum of power consumption. The soaking pits also act as
storage to hold the ingots at the selected temperature until
they can be rolled on a mill.
Scale that has formed on the ingot surface is scoured
off by top and bottom high pressure water sprays (descaled) and
the ingot is shaped by successive passes through the rolls of
the mill stands. After each pass, the ingot is turned or the
position of the rolls is changed for shaping during the reverse
pass. The final elongated shapes are slabs, which have a rec-
tangular cross section, blooms which have essentially a square
cross section and billets which have either a round or square
cross section. In some plants billets are produced from blooms
as an intermediate rolling step. After the steel has assumed
its final shape it advances down the table to a shear where the
irregular endS are cropped off. If the product of a single in-
got is larger than desired, as might occur in a billet mill, it
is cut to length by a crop shear, a flying shear or hot saw.
The proluctll then cooled and stored in a slab yard until it is
needed for subsequent processing or sale.
G-13
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK, N.Y.
FROM
STEEL MAKING
FURNACE
I
M
I*"
INGOT
DESCALING /MILL STANDS-
•JET
o
o
J L
o
CJ
SCARFER-,
(IF USED)
U
ri
onc.«n-
AND/OR
»
HOT
SAW
"vj
3
CROP
ENDS
SCRAP
BIN
TO COOLING BEDS
OR
SECONDARY ROLLING
HOT FORMING PRIMARY PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE G-7
-------
In many mills , mechanical or acetylene scarf ers are
installed between the mill stand and the shear. Scarfing is the
process of removing surface irregularities mechanically or by
burning off a thin surface layer around the entire perimeter of
the product. Slag and scale is produced from all scarfing oper-
ations and, in addition, a large quantity of fumes are produced
from acetylene scarfing.
1.1.5.2 Continuous Casting
Slabs, blooms and billets can be formed directly from
the molten steel without the intermediate process of ingot cast-
ing (See Figure G-8) .
The molten steel is transported directly from the
steelmaking or vacuum degassing facility to continuous casting
machines which form the primary shapes directly, thereby, elimi-
nating the ingot casting, cooling, soaking pit reheating and
primary rolling steps. The molten steel is poured into a heated,
refractory tundish which regulates the metal flow to water cooled
molds of the desired shape. As the semi-solid steel exits from
the mold it enters a spray chamber where it is cooled until the
entire shape is solidified. Generally, each tundish serves from
2 to 6 parallel casting units or stands which are oriented ver-
tically. The cast product is then bent to the horizontal,
straightened and often scarfed before being cut by shears or
torch. The product is stored in a slab yard until it is needed
for subsequent processing.
1.1.5.3 Secondary Rolling
The slabs, blooms and billets formed in the primary
hot rolling or continuous casting operations are shaped in sec-
ondary rolling mills to produce specific shapes to be shipped as
a final product or to be further processed at plant finishing
facilities .
As shown on Figure G-l, slabs are hot rolled in dif-
ferent mills for producing strip, skelp and plates; blooms are
rolled to structural shapes and rails; and billets are shaped to
bars, rods and seamless pipe. In all processes the raw shapes
must be heated in reheat furnaces to a temperature where rolling
or piercing can be accomplished with a minimum use of power and
still maintain the required characteristics of the steel.
1.1.5.3.1 Hot Strip Mills
Tn a hot strip mill, a slab is reduced by successive
w?de? and up to 660 m (2,000 feet) long. A modern mill
G-15
-------
Q
h-1
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK, N.Y.
FROM
STEEL MAKING.
FURNACE '
TEEMING
LADLE
TUNDISH
MOLD
WATER COOLING
CHAMBER
PINCH ROLLS
TORCH
CUT-OFF
SPRAYS
(TYP.)
BENDING UNIT
STRAIGHTENER
TO COOLING BEDS
OR SECONDARY ROLLING
O O O O O O O O O
SCARFER AND/OR
MILL STAND
(IF USED)
HOT FORMING CONTINUOUS CASTING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE G-8
-------
reduce a steel slab to thin strip in three minutes, as shown on
Figure G-9. The heated slab is discharged from reheat furnace
and passes through a roughing scale breaker and high pressure
water spray to remove the loosened iron oxide. The slab then
passes through either a series of roughing stands or a single
reversing stand where the initial reductions in thickness and
final width of the product is achieved. The steel is cut and
squared prior to entering the finishing stand. The slab then
rolls through a finishing scale breaker and water jets before
passing through series of finishing stands where the final thick-
ness and length is achieved by a successive series of high speed
reductions. The finished strip then proceeds over a runout
table where it is cooled by water sprays. The strip is then
coiled and either shipped or stored for further finishing.
1.1.5.3.2 Skelp Mills
Skelp is hot rolled strip shaped to make butt weld
pipe. The skelp width corresponds to the circumference of the
pipe and is produced from slabs or blooms in the same manner as
strip with variations in the functions of the mill stands.
1.1.5.3.3 Plate Mills
Plates are classified, according to certain size limi-
tations to distinguish them from sheet, strip and flat bars;
i.e., more than 200 mm (8 inches) wide and 6 mm (0.23 inches)
thick, or over 1,200 mm (48 inches) wide and 4.6 mm (0.18 inches)
thick.
Plates are shaped from slabs and the sequence of oper-
ations, as shown on Figure G-10, is heating in reheat furnaces,
descaling, rolling, leveling, cooling and shearing. The slab
may be rolled in one of several types of mil.ls; single stand,
tandem, semi-continuous or continuous. In a single stand mill
the final size of the plate is obtained by passing the slab
through a single reversing stand. In a tandem mill, a second
stand is added as a finishing stand. Semi-continuous and con-
tinuous plate mills utilize one roughing stand and a series of
finishing stands. The plate is then leveled or flattened in a
leveling bed, cooled uniformly by a series of cooling sprays and
finally sheared to the final size for shipping.
1.1.5.3.4 Seamless Pipe Mills
Seamless pipe is produced by heating round billets in
a reheat furnace to a plastic state after which a hole is
Sie?ced throSgh the billet by a mandrel. The rough pipe is then
?ehSa?ed foTfurther processing to bring the diameter and wall
thictnSss to the required specifications. Larger diameters of
pipe require several piercing and reheating operations.
G-17
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
DESCALING JET.
MILL STANDS
COOLING SPRAYS.
FROM PRIMARY
ROLLING
SLABS
O
,'H
! 0°
oooooo
RUNOUT
TABLE COILER
TO
STORAGE
ROUGHING
FINISHING
SECONDARY ROLLING-STRIP PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE G-9
-------
Q
1
vo
HYOROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK, N.Y.
DESCALING JET. MILL STANDfe) COOLING SPRAYS/ SHEARn
\. \ / / '"
X. \ / /
FROM SLABS f RFHPAT 1 P> V ) ° °" % ( ) X^
PRIMARY ••- »i i fc. REHEAT ^ "> — ±*~s _ ± \ S ^ cTno»^r
ROLLING ^^ FURNACE ooSoOQO -/^\— OO(5oOO L— 7^— '— ^ L J ^7U "UHAbE
^ U LJ C )
i j | 1 - i 1 |
PLATE 15S5
LEVELER +
L SCRAP
N. BIN
1
SECONDARY ROLLING -PLATE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE G-IO
-------
1.1.5.3.5 Other Secondary Hot Mills
Other hot formed products such as structural shapes,
rails, rods and flat bars are produced from blooms and billets
in essentially the same manner as strip is formed; i.e., by
changing the shape of the hot feed stock by successive passes
through various stands, each of which makes small changes on the
shape until the final shape is reached. The butt-welded pipe
mill takes skelp for welding into a continuous strip which is
then heated, longitudinally shaped and welded into pipe. Other
welded pipe mills use similar processes.
1.1.6 Cold Finishing
1.1.6.1 Pickling
An essential step in the finishing of steel is the
cleaning of the surface of the metal between processing steps
via the pickling process. This process consists of immersing
formed steel shapes, sheets or strip in a heated bath of acid
to chemically remove scale (i.e., metallic oxides) from the
metal surface. Sulfuric or hydrochloric acids are generally
used for pickling carbon steels, whereas phosphoric, nitric and
hydrofluoric acids in combinations with sulfuric acid are used
for stainless steels. Depending on the product being pickled,
the process may be accomplished in continuous or batch opera-
tions. In this study emphasis will be placed on continuous
sulfuric and hydrochloric acid pickling which accounts for the
great majority of product tonnages.
1.1.6.1.1 Continuous Pickling
The most common surface preparation operation is the
continuous pickling of hot rolled carbon steel strip. A typical
continuous pickling line, as shown in Figure G-llf consists of
an uncoiler processor, a shear, a welder, a wet looping pit,
pickling tanks, rinse tanks, a dryer, a dry looping pit, a shear
and a recoiler. Their respective functions are:
a. Uncoiler Processor; The coil is unwound, alternately
flexed and straightened to break any surface scale
to allow acid attack at the sub-oxide layer.
b. Shear and Welder; The ends of the coil are sheared
square to permit smooth, even welding of successive
coils.
c. Wet Looping Pit; Extra lengths of strip are stored
to allow the continuous pickling to proceed while
the uncoiler is stopped to permit shearing and weld-
ing. The pit is kept full of water to prevent
scratching of the strip, to increase the wetting
G-20
-------
Q
I
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK, N. 1.
GAS
FUME
SCRUBBER
FUME
EXHAUST
SYSTEM
FROM
SHEAR
a
WELDER
SHEAR
COILER
REDUCTION'
OR
STORAGE
LOOPING PIT PICKLING TANKS
RINSE
SYSTEM
LOOPING PIT
PICKLING PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE G - 11
-------
action in the first pickling tank and to remove
dirt and other foreign matter.
d. Pickling Tanks; A series of heated tanks contain
the pickling acid and fresh acid is added to the
last tank and cascaded towards the head tank so
that the flow of acid is counter to the direction
of travel of the strip. The acid concentration
drops from about 12% H2 S04 or 10% HCl at the final
tank, down to about 8% H2 S04 or 1% HCl at the head
tank. In these tanks the iron oxide on the surface
of the strip is converted to a soluble iron salt
according to one of the following reactions:
HCl Pickling: FeO + 2 HCl = FeCl2 + H20
H2 S04 Pickling: FeO + H2 S04 = FeS04 + H2O
e. Rinse Tanks; After the steel is pickled the resi-
dual acid is removed by one of two methods, staged
rinsing or countercurrent, cascade rinsing. In
the staged rinse, the steel first passes through a
cold water spray rinse and then through a hot water
bath. The spray rinse tank and dip rinse tank act
independently. In the cascade rinse, fresh water is
added to the last of a series of tanks and then over-
flows or is pumped into the preceding tanks counter-
current to the direction of strip travel.
f. Dryer; After the strip emerges from the rinse sec-
tion it is dried in a bank of low pressure hot air
dryers.
g. Looping Pit, Shear and Recoiler: The strip is sheared
at the weld and is then recoiled to maintain inte-
grity of each coil. To provide for stopping of the
strip as it is sheared, a dry looping pit is provided
for storage. Before the strip is recoiled, a small
amount of oil is applied to both sides of the strip
to lubricate it and protect it from rusting during
storage.
1.1.6.1.2 Batch Pickling
Steel sheets, billets, bars, wire, and pipe are pickled
by immersion of product batches in tanks of acid. Two or more
tanks are used in the complete process depending on whether the
product is to be further treated. Steel plate is usually dipped
in a tank of concentrated acid, is agitated, then dipped into a
dilute acid tank or a cold rinse tank and finally into a hot
rinse tank. In a two tank system the cold rinse and dilute acid
tank dips are omitted. If the product is to be further treated,
such as cold drawing in a wire or pipe facility, a lubricant
G-22
-------
tank is provided to coat the product before further processing.
The final step is drying of the product either by air or in a
drying oven.
1.1.6.2 Cold Reduction
Cold reduction is a process, as shown on Figure G-12,
in which unheated metal is passed through one or a series of
mill stands containing reduction rolls for the purpose of reduc-
ing metal thickness and producing a smooth dense sheet with con-
trolled mechanical properties. Hot rolled and pickled coils are
most commonly used in the cold reduction process. There are
several types of cold rolling mills varying from mills with a
single reversing stand to continuous mills with up to six stands
in tandem. These mills have the same basic process: uncoiling,
oiling and gradual reduction to the desired thickness prior to
recoiling. Oil and water application practice vary from mill to
mill with either water or water-oil emulsions used at the vari-
ous stands. The rolling solutions can either be recycled after
filtration or discharged directly after one use. Combinations
of these methods are also employed.
Cold rolled steel is not ductile and must be cleaned
and annealed. A large percentage of cold rolled products are
finished by a metal coating process such as galvanizing, alumi-
num coating, terne coating or tin plating.
1.1.6.3 Heat Treating Steel
Steel is heat treated to change properties, relieve
stresses and make the steel suitable for further working. Low
amounts of water are used for this process.
1.1.6.4 Coating
After the steel is cold rolled various coating processes
are used on some of the cold rolled coils to produce specialty
products. The processes include galvanizing, tin plating,
organic coating etc. The cold rolled strip is cleaned, prepared
for coating and the coated prior to recoiling. Rinse, solution
baths, washes, etc. are used in those processes which can con-
tain various chemicals in widely varying amounts.
G-23
-------
HYDROTECHNIC CORPORATION
NEW YORK. N. Y.
Q
I
to
COILS FROM
SECONDARY ROLLING
OR PICKLING
OIL EMULSION
OR WATER
SPRAYS (TYP.)
ING r&
H B
O
o
15
o
o
[a
15
1 L
J
O
O
[J
li?
O
O
_f§
COLD REDUCING STANDS
COLD REDUCTION PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
TO
"STORAGE
FIGURE G-12
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-138
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Integrated Steel Plant Pollution Study for Total
Recycle of Water
5. REPORT DATE
July 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Harold Hofstein and Harold J. Kohlmann
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hydrotechnic Corporation
1250 Broadway
New York, New York 10001
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
IBB 610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2626
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
Final; 1/77 - 5/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
IB. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ffiRL-RTP project officer is Robert V. Hendriks , Mail Drop 62.
919/541-2733.
is.ABSTRACT The repOr{- gives results of an engineering study of five integrated U.S.
steel plants to determine how each might ultimately achieve total recycle of water.
The plants represent abroad cross section of plant-specific factors (e.g. , size,
age, location, and available space) that.are present in U.S. steel plants. Conceptual
engineering designs were prepared for each plant to advance from its present water
discharge situation to achievement of the Clean Water Act's 1984 Best Available
Technology limitations and finally to achieve total water recycle. Potential treat-
ment technologies for meeting these goals were evaluated: the most promising were
incorporated into the plant designs. Capital and operating costs and energy require-
ments were estimated, and problems associated with implementation of the designs
were addressed. Problems include: the lack of steel plant experience with the tech-
nologies required, the high cost and energy requirements, the additional solid waste
disposal problems, and the more difficult management requirements for sophisti-
cated water systems. The report is intended as a reference for planning and imple-
menting programs to meet the more stringent water quality requirements that steel
plants may face in the future.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Steel Plants
Water Reclamation
Capital Costs
Operating Costs
Energy
Waste Disposal
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Water Recycle
Energy Requirements
13B
131
05A
14A
14B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
1O. OF PAGES
584
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |