United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S Kerr Environmental Research EPA-600/2-80-065
Laboratory April 1980
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
SEPA
The Feasibility of a
Regional Industrial
Wastewater
Treatment Facility
-------
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-ppint 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.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-80-065
April 1980
THE FEASIBILITY OF A REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
by
Henry C. Bramer
Charles A. Caswell
Datagraphics, Incorporated
501 Castle Shannon Boulevard
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15234
Grant No. R804182
Project Officer
Thomas E. Short
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74&20
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate adminis-
tration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of our
environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for informa-
tion about environmental problems, management techniques and new technologies
through which optimum use of the Nation'a land and water resources can be
assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of the American people
can be minimized. EPA's Office of Research- and Development conducts this
search through a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: (a) investigate
the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants in ground water;
(b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with soil and
other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate pollution control technol-
ogies for irrigation return flows; (d) develop and demonstrate pollution con-
trol technologies for animal production wastes; (e) develop and demonstrate
technologies to prevent, control, or abate pollution from the petroleum refin-
ing and petrochemical industries; and (f) develop and demonstrate technologies
to manage pollution resulting from combinations of industrial wastewaters or
industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report is a study of the feasibility of establishing a regional
wastewater treatment facility to serve the industrial complex of the lower
Monongahela River. Such regional facilities are relatively rare in the United
States although they are quite common in European countries. These facilities
frequently offer technological and wastewater management advantages in addition
to economies-of-scale. The conclusions illustrate that technological feasi-
bility alone is insufficient impetus to effect construction of such facilities;
in the study area, institutional factors are a barrier to further consideration
of a regional facility at this time.
e.
W. C. Galegar
Director .
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The feasibility of establishing a regional industrial
wastewater treatment (RWT) facility to serve the 68 industrial
plants along the lower reaches of the Monongahela River has been
studied. It has been concluded that a facility consisting of an
interceptor sewer system following the river course with a
treatment plant near the point at Pittsburgh is technically
possible. The facility would best be designed to treat up to
568,000 cubic meters per day (cu m/day) (150 million gallons per
day (mgd)) of wastewater consisting of 10% of the presently dis-
charged process water and 10% of the presently discharged un-
segregated, non-contact cooling water. The construction and
operation would be best handled by the Allegheny County Sanitary
Authority (ALCOSAN) and funded by revenue bonds backed by long-
term contracts from industrial users.
Several obstacles to the implementation of such a concept
exist. The fact that effluent guidelines are not in effect pre-
clude precise determination of the RWT treatment requirements at
this time. Previously published best available treatment
economically achievable (BATEA) limitations would require a de-
gree of treatment not clearly demonstrated. Industry represent-
atives have not supported the concept and have given cost and
unwillingness to make the necessary long-term commitments as the
main reasons for this opposition/ The hope of industry for re-
laxed BATEA limitations may well be another reason.
It must therefore be concluded that an RWT facility in this
geographical area is technically possible, but would be neither
economically nor institutionally feasible.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of grant no.
R804182 by Datagraphics, Incorporated, under the sponsorship of
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency- This report covers
a period from December 8, 1975 to November 30, 1978 and work
was completed as of November 30, 1978.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 5
3. Recommendations 6
4. Inventory of Industrial Plants and
Existing Discharges 7
5. RWT Facility Influent Loads and Required
Effluent 13
6. Treatment Plant Design Alternatives ... 16
7. Interceptor Sewer System 37
8. Treatment Plant Design 41
9. Implementation Plan 50
References 54
Appendix 61
A. Industrial Users' Questionnaire 64
v
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 BPCTCA wastewater treatment system
for petroleum refining 23
2 BATEA proposed treatment for petroleum
refining 29
3 BPCTCA blast furnace treatment model. . . 30
4 BATEA by-product coke subcategory
alternate no. 2 31
Treatment chain alternatives - RWT plant. 44
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Present Industrial Plant Discharges .... 3
2 Industrial Plants by SIC Classification . . 4
3 COWAMP Plants and Discharges up the
Monogahela River 8
4 Estimated Total Discharges from the
57 Smallest Plants 9
5 Production Capacities of Large Plants ... 10
6 Average Discharges for Monongahela Plants . 11
7 Maximum Discharges for Monongahela Plants . 12
8 Steel Mill BPCTCA and BATEA Discharges. . . 14
9 Small Plants BPCTCA and BATEA Discharges. . 14
10 BPCTCA and BATEA for 68 Plants 15
11 pH Levels for Optimum Precipitation .... 32
12 Permissable Limits for Sewage Plant
Influents 34
13 Pollutant Concentrations which Inhibit
Biological Treatment 35
14 Pollutant Concentrations for Various Water
Uses 36
15 Interceptor Sewer Design Data 38
16 Interceptor Sewer Pipe and Installation
Costs 39
17 RWT Treatment Plant Alternatives 45
vii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
18
19
20
21
RWT Facility Component Costs ($1977) ....
RWT Treatment Plant Costs - Total Annual
Total BATEA Effluent Limitations and RWT
BATEA and Achievable RWT Limitations. . . .
46
47
48
49
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Regional industrial waste treatment facilities would be ex-
pected to minimize the costs of industrial pollution abatement
through economies-of-scale if nothing else. The concept is
analogous to the widespread applications to municipal/industrial
wastes such as are exemplified by the Allegheny County
(Pennsylvania) Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) and the Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. The concept is embodied,
in large measure, in the Genossenschaften (Cooperative Associa-
tions of the Ruhr Valley in Germany), but is not implemented now
in the United States. It was the purpose of this study to deter-
mine the technological and economic feasibility of establishing
a regional industrial waste treatment facility in a significantly
large area wherein the factors involved are of sufficient
complexity to warrant generalization from the data developed.
This study has intended to accomplish this objective by a
comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of such a facility (or
facilities) in the highly industrialized lower reaches of the
Monongahela River near Pittsburgh, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. A major emphasis in this study is the incorpora-
tion of technologically innovative concepts with the objective
of obtaining treatment levels equal to or better than best
available technology economically achievable (BATEA). Such con-
cepts should be feasible for a regional facility, whereas in-
dividual plants may not be able to implement such concepts lack-
ing the economies-of-scale, sufficient financial or other re-
sources or simply sufficient recoverable material to be worth-
while. The project was intended to provide the following end-
products :
1. A proposed plan of facilities to treat, recover,
and/or dispose of industrial wastes to or beyond
the degree required by current and anticipated
national and local regulations.
2. A method for financing these facilities at modest
or zero cost to government and at the least cost
to industry.
-------
3. The method for accomplishing the proposed plan so
that construction would be completed within five
years following the study.
4. An interim system, such as mobile plants, that
could provide significant improvements during
the design and construction period.
5. Comparisons of the efficiency and cost-effective-
ness of the regional system vis-a-vis the indi-
vidual plant treatment system.
There are some 68 industrial plants along the lower eighty
kilometers (fifty miles) of the Monongahela River which are po-
tential dischargers to the centralized industrial wastewater
treatment facility. The present discharges from these 68 plants
average 5,761,000 cu m/day (1,522 mgd) with maximum reported dis-
charges of 7,055,000 cu m/day (1,864 mgd). Eleven of these
plants discharge an average of 5,700,000 cu m/day (1,506 mgd)
while the remaining 57 plants discharge an average of 62,100 cu
m/day (16.4 mgd). All but 378,500 cu m/day (100 mgd) of the pre-
sent average discharges originate in the lower 36.2 kilometers
(22.5 miles) of the river. It was originally intended that the
RWT facility would serve only those plants in the lower 40.2
kilometers (25 miles) reach of the Monongahela River, i.e., with-
in Allegheny County.
There is, however, no good reason for this limitation, and
the study has therefore included the 68 plants within 80 kilo-
meters (50 miles) of the confluence of the Monongahela and
Allegheny Rivers as described above.
Table 1 shows the present industrial plant discharges from
the 68 plants under consideration in terms of average and maxi-
mum flows and loads of total suspended solids, oil, iron, ammo-
nia, and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The differences be
tween average and maximum discharges point out rather clearly
the major problem with the use of industrial process water on a
once-through basis with terminal treatment facilities, i.e. the
problem of slug discharges due to equipment malfunction,
accidental spills, etc. This is most clearly shown in the case
of oil discharges which average about 27,200 kilograms per day
(kg/day) (60,000 Ibs/day) but range up to 318,000 kg/day
(700,000 Ibs/day) at a maximum. In Table 2, the numbers and
types of plants according to the 2-digit Standard Industrial
Code (SIC) classifications are shown. Although there are many
different types of industrial plants in the region under con-
sideration, all of the 11 large plants are in SIC group 3312,
blast furnaces and steel plants. This, of course, reflects
the fact that Pittsburgh is a major steel producing center.
-------
TABLE 1. PRESENT INDUSTRIAL PLANT DISCHARGES (METRIC UNITS)
57 plant total
11 plant total
68 plant total
Parameter
Flow, cu m/day
T.S.S., kg/day
Oil, kg/day
Iron, kg/day
NH3N, kg/day
BOD, kg/day
average
62,074
14,197
351
182
16.1
194
maximum
101,060
21,229
648
216
27.
515
average
5,700,210
84,248
26,638
4,422
8 4,375
6,063
maximum
6,953,045
209,409
316,877
6,978
9,738
6,063
average
5,760,770
98,445
26,988
4,604
4,391
6,257
maximum
7,055,240
230,638
317,525
7,194
9,766
6,578
TABLE 1. PRESENT INDUSTRIAL PLANT DISCHARGES (ENGLISH UNITS)
57 plant total
11 plant total
68 plant total
Parameter
Flow, mgd
TSS, #/day
Oil, #/day
Iron, #/day
NH3N, #/day
BOD, #/day
average
16.4
31,270
773
401
35.4
428
maximum
26.7
46,759
1,428
476
61.2
1,135
average
1,506
185,569
58,673
9,739
9,636
13,355
maximum
1,837
461,254
697,967
15,730
21,450
13,355
average
1,522
216,839
59,446
10,140
9,671
13,783
maximum
1,864
508,013
699,395
15,846
21,511
14,490
-------
TABLE 2. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS BY SIC CLASSIFICATION
S.I.C. no. Industrial classification No. of plants
12
15
20
28
29
32
33
34
35
40
41
50
51
89
Bituminous Coal and Lignite Mining
Building Construction - General Contractors
Food and Kindred Products
Chemicals and Allied Products
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
Primary Metal Industries
Fabricated Metal Products Except Ordinance,
Machinery and Transportation Equipment
Machinery Except Electrical
Railroad Transportation
Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Passenger
Transportation
Wholesale Trade
Unknown (probably an error in designation)
Miscellaneous Services
5
1
2
6
2
4
30
4
3
5
1
2
1
2
4
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. A RWT facility is technically feasible in a region such as
the lower reaches of the Monongahela River, i.e., a down-
stream central treatment facility served by an interceptor
sewer following the river and receiving 568,000 cu m/day
(150 mgd) of wastewater from 68 industrial plants.
2. The principal deterrant to the implementation of such a sys-
tem at the present time lies in the regulations on effluent
limitation for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) permits. Most regulations for effluent limita-
tions have been remanded to EPA for study, and the design of
an RWT facility cannot now be finalized.
3. Industry hopes that the effluent limitations will be relaxed
from those previously promulgated, and apparently is loath
to support in any way a demonstration that would indicate
that those limitations are attainable.
4. In a region such as the lower Monongahela where a parallel
regional municipal treatment system is operated by a munic-
ipal authority, the most likely institutional arrangement
would be the construction and operation by that same author-
ity as a departmental operation, financed by revenue bonds
based upon long-term contracts with the industrial users.
5. Industry representatives have indicated that in-plant treat-
ment to BATEA limitations would be less costly, that a long-
term commitment is unacceptable, that it is not acceptable
to relinquish "control" to an "outside" organization, and
that other benefits are either not important or are over-
shadowed by cost considerations.
6. The study has demonstrated a methodology by which a RWT
facility may be planned and has shown the problems involved.
In other locations the concept might be implemented, par-
ticularly where industry may have different attitudes, lower
wastewater volumes, and different kinds of effluent
pollutants; where the terrain may be more hospitable; and
where plants are closer together.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has shown that the widely held belief that cen-
tral treatment plants are desirable because of economies-of-
scale advantages is not always correct. Industry representatives
have, in the past, favored the RWT facility concept in the study
area, but are now completely opposed to it.
This report outlines the many problems associated with the
implementation of the RWT facility concept. It may well be that
the concept could be implemented in other locations where in-
dustry may have different attitudes, where industries may have
lower wastewater volumes and more similar effluent pollutants,
where the terrain may be more hospitable, and where plants are
closer together.
A limited distribution of this report is recommended to
those who may contemplate the RWT facility concept in more
likely circumstances. The methodology used in this study is
sound, and the methodology could well be applied to other geo-
graphical areas and other mixes of industrial plants.
-------
SECTION 4
INVENTORY OF INDUSTRIAL PLANTS AND EXISTING DISCHARGES
An inventory of the industrial plants along the Monongahela
River which might be served by the RWT facility was prepared on
the basis of data in the '"Industrial Facility Inventory" for
Area 9 from the Pennsylvania Comprehensive Water Quality
Management Plan (COWAMP) study, indicated plants on the Corps
of Engineer Navigation Maps for the Monongahela River, NPDES
permit applications, NPDES permits, and reports prepared for use
in adjudicatory hearings held to hear appeals of Pennsylvania
certifications of NPDES permits.
From the COWAMP data, Table 3 was prepared which shows the
average discharges by kilometerpoint (milepoint) up the
Monongahela for 56 plants. Detailed examination of the data
available for each plant showed that of the 5,030,000 cu m/day
(1,329 mgd) total, 1,272,000 cu m/day is non-contact cooling
water discharged from separate outfalls, i.e., segregated from
and unmixed with process water. For those plants not in the
COWAMP inventory, discharge volumes were assumed to be the
average per plant in each SIC category as in the COWAMP data.
From the COWAMP data, loads of discharged pollutants were
tabulated for the 24 smaller plants for which data were avail-
able. Loads of pollutants from each of the other 33 smaller
plants were assumed to be the averages of the 24. The data of
Table 4 summarize the estimated discharges from the 57 smallest
plants. Only for boron and chemical oxygen demand (COD) were
the 24-plant averages not used due to the exceptionally high
one-plant values.
For the other 11 plants, all in SIC 3312 and the largest of
the 68 total, more detailed data were available. The production
capacities of these plants are shown in Table 5 by types of pro-
duction facilities. In Table 6, the discharges from these 11
plants are shown as reported from the various effluent data
sources. Other constituents were estimated on the basis of the
level "A" discharges in the EPA Effluent Guidelines Development
Documents according to production capacity. The reported level
"A" discharges were also used to check, and in some cases cor-
rect, the reported plant discharges. For the 68 plants likely
to be served by a RWT facility, present estimated average and
maximum discharges are as shown in Tables 6 and 7.
-------
TABLE 3. COWAMP PLANTS AND DISCHARGES UP TO THE MONONGAHELA RIVER
Monongahela Discharges Cumulative
River kilometers cu m/day discharge cu m/day
0.0-1.3
1.3-7.2
7.2-8.4
8.4-8.8
8.8-11.9
11.9-15.3
15.3-16.6
16.6-19.0
19.0-19.3
19.3-22.2
22.2-24.1
24.1-24.9
24.9-26.1
26.1-26.4
26.4-29.8
29.8-32.2
32.2-36.5
36.5-37.7
37. 7-47. 5\
47.5-48.9
48.9-49.4
49.4-57.6
57.6-69.2
69.2-70.3
70.3-75.6
1.5
1250322.8
408.8
3378.1
26.5
493488.3
83.3
681300.0
889096.5
1578.3
493564.0
374098.0
106.4
821.3
4428.4
1964.4
504233.9
1517.8
132.5
1059.8
56.8
185.5
197312.1
10106.0
121877.0
1.5
1250323.3
1250732.1
1254110.2
1254136.7
1747525.0
1747708.3
2429008.3
3318104.8
3319683.1
3813247.1
4187324.1
4187451.5
4188272.8
4192701.3
4194665.7
4698899.6
4700417.4
4700549.9
4701609.7
4701666.5
4701852.0
4899164.1
4909270.1
5031147.1
Number
plants
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
6
1
2
2
3
3
5
1
1
6
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Cumulative
no. of plants
1
3
6
9
10
12
13
19
20
22
24
27
30
35
36
37
43
47
48
49
50
51
53
54
56
-------
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED TOTAL DISCHARGES FROM THE 57 SMALLEST PLANTS
Parameter
Flow,cu m/day
T.S.S. kg/day
304, kg/day
TDS, kg/day
Phenol kg/day
B, kg/day
BOD, kg/day
MBAS , kg/day
F, kg/day
Mg, kg/day
0/G, kg/day
Al, kg/day
COD, kg/day
Cr, kg/day
NOg , kg/day
Fe, kg/day
P, kg/day
Cl, kg/day
Zn, kg/day
Zn, kg/day
NH3, kg/day
24 plant
total
average maximum
26,098
5,522
1,174
2,508
0.040
130
89.4
1.64
14.9
89.4
75.4
2.95
271
0.10
0.06
5.36
3.31
36.8
0.79
0.10
0.47
42,600
8,254
7,723
5,446
0.048
159
129
2.00
18.6
119
139
4.12
13463
0.14
0.10
6.36
3.95
44.2
0.95
0.12
0.82
no. of plants
24
21
9
10
1
3
11
4
4
5
9
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
Average
average
1087
263
130
251
0.040
43.4
4.42
0.41
3.74
17.9
8.35
1.48
136
0.10
0.06
5.36
0.83
36.8
0.79
0.10
0.47
per plant
maximum
1775
393
849
545
0.048
53.1
11.7
0.50
4.63
23.9
15.4
2.06
6731
0.14
0.10
6.36
0.99
44.2
0.95
0.12
0.82
57 plant
total
average maximum
61,959
14,197
5,474
10,793
1.34
130
194
15.1
138
680
351
51.8
271
3.24
2.01
182
30.6
1252
26.9
3.40
16.1
101,175
21,229
7,891
23,425
1.62
159
515
18.5
172
908
648
72.2
13463
4.77
2.55
216
36.6
1502
32.3
4.01
27.8
-------
TABLE 5. PRODUCTION CAPACITIES OF LARGE PLANTS
Production facility Capacity, kkg/day Capacity, tons/day
Coke Plants 27,648 30,483
Iron Blast Furnaces 31,271 34,477
FeMn Blast Furnaces 454 501
Sinter Plants 10,938 12,059
B.O.F. 18,837 20,769
Open Hearths 17,283 19,055
Primary Mills 35,978 39,667
Section 16,421 18,105
Strip Mills 12,112 13,354
Plate Mills 7,904 8,714
Pipe/Tube Mills 5,564 6,135
Cold Rolling 13,317 14,683
Continuous Pickling 12,762 14,071
Batch Pickling 6,014 6,631
Terne/Galvanizing 1,509 1,664
Plating 1,935 2,133
10
-------
TABLE 6. AVERAGE DISCHARGES FOR MONONGAHELA PLANTS
Parameter
Flow, cu m.day (mgd) 61
TSS, kg/day (Ibs/day) 14
S04, kg/day (Ibs/day) 5
TDS, kg/day (Ibs/day) 10
Phenol, kg/day (Ibs/d)
B, kg/day (Ibs/day)
BOD, kg/day (Ibs/day)
MBAS., kg/day (Ibs/day)
F, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Mg, kg/day (Ibs/day)
0/G, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Al, kg/day (Ibs/day)
COD, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr, kg/day (Ibs/day)
N03, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Fe, kg/day (Ibs/day)
P, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cu, kg/day (Ibs/day) 1
Cl, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Zn, kg/day (Ibs/day)
NH3, kg/day (Ibs/day)
CN, kg/day (Ibs/day)
CNA, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Sulfide, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Lead, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Manganese kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr+6, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Tin, kg/day (Ibs/day)
57 smallest plants
,998
,197
,474
,793
1.34
130
194
15.1
138
680
351
51.8
271
3.24
2.01
182
30.6
,252
26.9
3.40
16.1
(16.38)
(31270)
(12058)
(23774)
(2.96)
(287)
(428)
(33.3)
(304)
(1497)
(773)
(114)
(597)
(7.14)
(4.42)
(401)
(67.3)
(2747)
(59.2)
(7.48)
(35.4)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11 largest plants
5,700,000
84,248
16,837
-
234
-
6,063
-
2,625
-
26,638
-
-
1,180
2,192
4,432
-
-
26,707
10,515
4,375
878
630
3,795
30.4
127
697
1,091
(1506)
(185569)
(37087)
(516)
(13355)
(5783)
(58673)
(2600)
(4828)
(9739)
(58827)
(23162)
(9636)
(1935)
(1387)
(8358)
(67)
(279)
(1536)
(2403)
68 plant total
5,761,000
98,445
22,312
10,793
236
130
6,257
15.1
2,763
680
26,988
51.8
271.
1,184
2,194
4,604
30.6
1,252
26,734
10,519
4,391
878
630
3,795
30.4
127
697
1,091
(1522)
(216839)
(49145)
(23774)
(519)
(287)
(13783)
(33.3)
(6087)
(1497)
(59446)
(114)
(597)
(2607)
(4832)
(10140)
(67.3)
(2757)
(58886)
(23169)
(9671)
(1935)
(1387)
(8358)
(67)
(279)
(1536)
(2403)
-------
TABLE 7. MAXIMUM DISCHARGES FOR MQNONGAHELA PLANTS
Parameter
Flow, cu m/day (mgd)
TSS, kg/day (Ibs/day)
304, kg/day (Ibs/day)
TDS, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Phenol, kg/day (Ibs/day)
B, kg/day (Ibs/day)
BOD, kg/day (Ibs/day)
MBAS., kg/day (Ibs/day)
P, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Mg, kg/day (Ibs/day)
0/G, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Al, kg/day (Ibs/day)
COD, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr, kg/day (Ibs/day)
NO3, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Fe, kg/day (Ibs/day
P, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cu, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cl, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Zn, kg/day (Ibs/day)
NH3, kg/day (Ibs/day)
CM, kg/day (Ibs/day)
CNA, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Sulfide
Lead, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Manganese, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr+6, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Tin, kg/day (Ibs/day)
57 smallest plants
101,200
21,229
36,039
23,425
1.62
159
515
18.5
172
908
648
72.2
13,463
4.76
3.55
216
36.6
1,502
32.2
4.01
27.8
(26.73)
(46759)
(79381)
(51596)
(3.57)
(351)
(1135)
(40.7)
(378)
(1999)
(1428)
(159)
(29654)
(10.5)
(7.02)
(476)
(80.7)
(3300)
(71.1)
(8.84)
(61.2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11 largest plants
6,953,000
209,409
19,029
485
6,063
2,625
316,877
1,180
2,192
6,978
28,328
10,516
9,738
3,434
1,894
3,795
30.4
127
697
1,091
(1837)
(461254)
(41913)
-
(1069)
-
(13355)
-
(5783)
-
(697967)
-
-
(2600)
(4828)
(15370)
-
-
(62396)
(23162)
(21450)
(7564)
(4172)
(8358)
(67)
(279)
(1536)
(2403)
68 plant total
7,055,000
230,638
55,067
23,425
487
159
6,578
18.5
2,797
908
317,525
72.2
13,463
1,185
2,196
7,194
36.6
1,502
28,360
10,520
9,766
3,434
1,894
3,795
30.4
127
697
1,091
(1864)
(508013)
(121294)
(51596)
(1073)
(351)
(14490)
(40.7)
(6161)
(1999)
(700011)
(159)
(29654)
(2611)
(4836)
(15846)
(80.7)
(3300)
(62467)
(23171)
(21511)
(7564)
(4172)
(83580
(67)
(279)
(1536)
(2403)
-------
SECTION 5
RWT FACILITY INFLUENT LOADS AND REQUIRED EFFLUENT
It is not possible at this time to say exactly what the re-
quired treatment in an RWT facility would be. Most effluent
guidelines previously promulgated have been remanded for further
study. Under present law as interpreted by regulations, any RWT
facility could discharge only the total of the BATEA loads
allotted each of the 68 plants after 1983. Best practicable
control technology currently available (BPCTCA) limitations
apply until 1983.
Assuming that this will remain the requirement and that the
guidelines for the steel industry will remain as those previously
published, raw waste loads, BPCTCA limits, and BATEA limits for
steel industry operations were taken from the EPA Effluent
Guideline Development Documents. The limitations given therein
were modified for hot rolling operations to conform with the
regulations published in the Federal Register. Additionally,
the data for plating operations were taken from the draft con-
tractor 's report, because this category was not included in the
final development document, and the effluent data for the
Clairton Coke Plant were taken from data submitted in connection
with the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) Adjudica-
tory Hearings.
On the basis of the above data and the production data of
Table 5, the total loads and discharges per BPCTCA and BATEA for
the Monongahela Valley steel mills are summarized in Table 8.
13
-------
TABLE 8. STEEL MILL BPCTCA AND BATEA DISCHARGES
Constituent
RWT Influent RWT Effluent
"BPCTCA discharge" "BATEA discharge"
Flow, cu m/day (mgd)
TSS, kg/day (Ibs/day)
0/G, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Ammonia, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Phenol, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cyanide, kg/day (Ibs/day)
BOD5, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Sulfide, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Fluoride, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Manganese, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Nitrate, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Zinc, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Lead, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Diss. Fe. kg/day (Ibs/day)
Tin, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr+6, kg/day (Ibs/day)
850,900
11,832
8,435
4,662
108
878
3,032
360
1,325
11.4
607
95
5.2
40.2
68.6
41.3
0.4
(224.8)
(26061)
(18580)
(10268)
(238)
(1933)
(6679)
(794)
(2918)
(25)
(1337)
(210)
(11.5)
(88.5)
(151)
(91)
(0.8)
115,500 (30.52)
1,720
907
283
14.1
9.1
231
9.1
523
4.2
179
20.0
1.1
26.3
10.4
1.0
0.06
(3789)
(1997)
(623)
(31.)
(20)
(509)
(20)
(1152)
(9.2)
(395)
(44)
(2.5)
(57.9)
(23)
(2.1)
(0.14)
For the smaller plants, the BPCTCA and BATEA limitations
may be adequately estimated on the basis of once-through flow
for BPCTCA and 90% recycling for BATEA with minimum effluent
concentrations as used in the Steel Industry Guidelines. The
limitations on these bases would be as shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9. SMALL PLANTS BPCTCA AND BATEA DISCHARGES
RWT Influent
Constituent
BPCTCA: FLOW = 62,000
cu m/day (16.38 mgd)
Cone., Load
mg/1 kg/day Ibs/day
RWT Effluent
BATEA: FLOW = 6,200
cu m/day (1.64 mgd)
Cone., Load
mg/1 kg/day Ibs/day
TSS
O/G
Cr
Cr+6
Lead
Tin
CN
NH3
Phenol
10
10
3.
0.
0.
5.
0.
125
2.
0
02
20
0
5
0
620
620
186
1.23
12.3
310
30.9
7,750
124
1,366
1,366
410
2.7
27.
683
68
17,070
273
10
10
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
10
0.
1
005
1
0
25
5
62.
62.
0.
0.
0.
6.
1.
62.
3.
2
2
64
03
64
4
54
2
1
137
137
1.
0.
1.
14
3.
137
6.
4
07
4
4
8
14
(continued)
-------
Constituent
TABLE 9. (continued)
RWT Influent
BPCTCA: FLOW = 62,000
cu m/day (16.38 mgd)
Cone., Load
mg/1 kg/day Ibs/day
RWT Effluent
BATEA: FLOW = 6,200
cu m/day (1.64 mgd)
Cone., Load
mg/1 kg/day Ibs/day
BOD5
Sulfide
Fluoride
Manganese
Nitrate
Zinc
Diss. Fe
150
6
40
10
150
5
1
9,300
372
2,480
620
9,300
310
62.
20,484
819
5,462
1,366
20,484
683
2 137
20
0.
20
5
45
2
0
124
3 1.9
124
30.9
279
12.3
0
273
4.1
273
68
615
27
Combining the data of Tables 8 and 9, the total BPCTCA and
BATEA discharges for the 68 large and small plants are as shown
in Table 10.
TABLE 10. BPCTCA AND BATEA DISCHARGES FOR 68 PLANTS
RWT Influent
BBCTCA discharge
RWT Effluent
BATEA discharge
Flow, cu m/day (mgd)
TSS, kg/day (Ibs/day)
0/G, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Ammonia, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Phenol, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cyanide, kg/day (Ibs/day)
BOD5, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Sulfide, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Fluoride, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Manganese, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Nitrate, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Zinc, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Lead, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Diss. Fe, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Tin, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr, kg/day (Ibs/day)
Cr+6, kg/day (Ibs/day)
912,870
12,452
9,055
12,411
232
908
12,332
732
3,805
632
9,907
405
17.5
102.4
378.6
227
1.59
(241.18)
(27427)
(19946)
(27338)
(511)
(2001)
(27163)
(1614)
(8300)
(1391)
(21821)
(893)
(38.5)
(225.5)
(834)
(501)
(3.5)
121,725
1,782
969
345
76.3
10.6
355
10.9
647
35.0
459
32.2
1.78
26.3
16.8
1.59
0.10
(32.16)
(3926)
(2134)
(760)
(168)
(23.4)
(782)
(24.1)
(1425)
(77.2)
(1010)
(71)
(3.9)
(57.9)
(37.)
(3.5)
(0.21)
IS
-------
SECTION 6
TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
The consideration of treatment plant design was preceded by
a survey of those treatment facilities analogous in any way to
the proposed Monongahela facility. The facilities or proposed
treatment models which appeared to be likely of application here
are described in this section.
There are many types of joint municipal/industrial waste-
water treatment and water reuse projects in the United States.
Many municipal sewage treatment plants accept and treat large
industrial wastewater flows. The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago (Illinois) probably receives more industrial
discharges in terms of both numbers of industries and volume of
flow than any other United States sanitary system, and has en-
tire engineering and chemical staffs in a separate industrial
wastewater control department. The much smaller Metropolitan
Sanitary District of East Chicago (Indiana) accepts and treats
all of the coke plant wastes from two large steel mills (Inland
Steel and Youngstown Sheet and Tube). Many other municipal
plants likewise accept and treat relatively lesser volumes of
industrial wastewaters.
Several municipal sewage treatment plants and their treated
effluents to industrial users. The largest and most often cited
example is that of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation plant at
Sparrows Point, Maryland, which uses 643,500 cu m/day (170 mgd)
of the treated effluent of the City of Baltimore Sewage Treatment
Plant. There are 13 or more similar arrangements iri the
United States, most of which are in the southwest, with one in
Michigan. In foreign countries, there are industrial users of
treated municipal wastewaters in England, Israel, Japan, Mexico,
and South Africa. Other municipal sewage treatment plant
effluents are used for agricultural supplies, groundwater re-
charge, and recreational uses (59).
There are, however, very few RWT facilities in the United
States, excluding contract waste haulers who generally treat
and/or dispose of high-strength wastes such as spent
pickling solutions and plating solutions. The Core
Petrochemical Complex in Puerto Rico (a joint venture of
Phillips Puerto Rico Industrial Development Corporation)
utilizes a centralized facility to treat the wastewaters
from the basic petrochemical plant and satellite facilities
16
-------
engaged in the manufacture of textiles, plastics, rubber goods,
and agricultural chemicals. As in the similar central plant for
the petrochemical complex at Borger, Texas, the individual plants
pretreat their wastes to remove gross amounts of oil, suspended
solids, and toxic compounds. The central treatment plant essen-
tially provides secondary treatment, i.e., activated sludge bio-
oxidation, preceded by any required physical or chemical treat-
ment (56) .
In Houston, Texas the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
was created to process wastes from five petrochemical plants.
Various waste streams neutralize each other; one company,
for example, eliminated a $100,000 annual expense for ammonia
previously used for neutralization. Here again, however, the
participating plants have very similar wastewaters and treatment
is largely via bio-oxidation (55).
The Genossenschaften, cooperative associations, in Germany
are most often referred to as the outstanding examples of com-
prehensive regional systems of water resources management. There
are thousands of water Genossenschaften in Germany which were
organized for special purposes such as drainage control and flood
protection. The eight large Genossenschaften of the highly in-
dustralized Ruhr area are the best known and are what are gen-
erally referred to as the Genossenschaften by non-Germans. These
organizations have almost complete authority over water quantity
and quality in their areas. Membership is compulsory and con-
sists of the municipal and rural administrative districts, the
coal mines, and the industrial enterprises in each area. Voting
power is proportional to the expenses of operation attributable
to each member. Costs are assessed by rather elaborate systems
designed to reflect expenses incurred and benefits received.
Aside from the interestingly unique organization and administra-
tive procedures, the actual treatment facilities are, in effect,
joint industrial-municipal plants similar to those in the United
States (58) (59).
One must inevitably look to Europe for practical operating
experiences with truly regional industrial waste treatment fa-
cilities serving a variety of industries. Such facilities are
planned and/or operating in France, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany,
Italy, and Great Britain. Some of these are cooperatives; others
are operated by companies formed to perform such services at a
profit. Organizationally, these operations are similar, respec-
tively, to the United States petroleum/petrochemical cooperatives
and to the United States contract waste haulers. European fa-
cilities, however, mostly treat concentrated solutions and
sludges (55).
In France, SERATRADI, a subsidiary of Pechiney-Ugine
Kuhlmann, has built a treatment center to serve 100 companies in
the Lyon area. The users contributed $400,000 toward the
17
-------
$3 million center, with the government paying the remainder.
That center and two smaller centers will treat 54,422 metric
tons (60,000 tons) per year with an investment totaling $5.6
million. FEC Engineering built a $3 million plant at Hombourg
to treat 30,000 kkg (33,000 tons) per year and expects an eight-
year payoff from user fees. Ten similar joint industry-
government centers are planned in France.
In Great Britain, British Electric Traction Company set up
Re-Chem International, Ltd. to treat industrial wastes for a fee.
Three $1.8 million treatment plants have been built. At the
Pantypool plant in Wales, nickel, cadmium, and cobalt are being
recovered for sale.
In the Mittlefranken district of West Germany, a joint
treatment plant operated by the Mittlefranken Special Garbage
Disposal Installations Association at Schwabach handles about
100 truckloads of waste per day. Similar installations are
planned in three German states. The Schwabach plant recovers
and sells oily compounds for road paving and plans to recover
copper and chromium when economically attractive.
In Sweden, pharmaceutical manufacturers built a plant to
incinerate old medicines and packaging with a subsidy from the
National Conservation Board. The plant owners accept the waste
from other companies for a fee. In Italy, a joint treatment
facility near Milan failed for want of government financial help
and three similar projects are in the same sort of trouble with
failure likely.
The Daester-Fairtee AG treatment facilities at Zofingen and
Turgi in Switzerland provide examples of operating plants more
similar to the RWT facility contemplated for the Monongahela
River industries. "Semi-concentrated and concentrated" waste
solutions are accepted for treatment from 8 cantons (countries)
representing one-half of the area of Switzerland and from
neighboring countries. The Zofingen plant treats 9,070 kkg
.(10,000 tons) annually and the Turgi plant treats 27,000 kkg
(30,000 tons) annually- The centers are run as private busi-
nesses. Performance agreements, based on financial participa-
tion, obligate Fairtee AG to accept and treat wastes from within
the participating cantons. Charges are fixed by a board which
includes company representatives and representatives from the
cantons and the Confederate (National) Departments of Environ-
mental Protection and Health (54).
The Swiss plants receive vwaste solutions in containers or
in a semitrailer tank truck of 13.6 kkg (15 tons) capacity. The
wastes are segregated into 11 categories as follow: acid-
alkaline, metals, no metals, chrome, no chrome, copper, metal
hydroxide sludges, cyanide ion solutions, and special solutions.
Treatment consists of chrome reduction, neutralization, cyanide
18
-------
ion destruction, mechanical-biological treatment, and filtration.
Unique processing techniques and/or equipment are said to include
re-precipitation with proprietary chemicals to overcome the se-
questering effects of mixed wastes, the Cyan-Cat process for the
catalytic oxidation of cyanide ions, and a screen belt press fil-
ter which combines consecutively the actions of a rotary drum
filter and a filter press. A unique service provided is the re-
generation of ion exchangers on a fee basis for operators
of electroplating plants. Final sludge disposal is by landfill.
There are no presently operating regional treatment fa-
cilities which provide a model for the contemplated Monongahela
regional facility. The above-cited facilities do, however, pro-
vide guidance as to the various elements of a potential Mononga-
hela facility, i.e., organization, operation, collection means,
treatment alternatives, by-product recovery possibilities, and
site-specific potentials. The organizational/ownership/institu-
tional aspects are considered in other sections of this report;
here the emphasis will be on the treatment facilities per se.
It should also be realized that a centralized or |:terminal"
wastewater treatment system in a large steel mill or petroleum
refinery is very similar to the regional facility being con-
sidered here. Such a treatment plant collects wastewaters from
many different types of operations via quite large sewer systems;
wastewaters are often minimized by water recirculation and reuse
at the points of use, and strong solutions are often treated or
pretreated in separate facilities or hauled away by outside con-
tractors. The single-plant terminal facility and the regional
facility thus differ only in flow volumes, distances from source
to treatment plant, and diversity of wastewater types. Even so,
the differences are not as great as might be expected. A large
plant may produce 378,500 cu m/day (100 mgd) or more of waste-
water, cover hundreds of hectares containing kilometers of sewer
lines, and aggregate wastes of a dozen or more different types.
The Fairless Works of United States Steel Corporation pro-
vides the best example of a terminal treatment plant at an in-
tegrated steel mill. About 284,000 cu m/day (75 mgd) of waste-
water from 13 manufacturing processes are treated here.
Approximately 284,000 cu m/day (75 mgd) enters the waste-
treatment system as individual wastes through more than 40
separate outflows after collecting more than a dozen different
chemical compositions and physical types of wastes. These wastes
comprise solutions of acids, alkalies, and soluble oils; emul-
sions of insoluble oils; and suspensions of mill scale and flue
dust. Sedimentation, flocculation, clarification, skimming, and
neutralization processes are utilized as required to treat
specific wastes. For convenience in processing, separate treat-
ment plants handle the special wastes at the sheet and tin mill,
and at the blast furnaces.
19
-------
In the waste-treatment plant of the sheet and tin mills, insolu-
ble oil wastes consisting primarily of various oils in the efflu-
ent from the skimmer tanks of the five-stand mill, plus small
quantities of oily wastewater from the dirty-water sumps, flow
to a primary receiver and oil-removal tank. Soluble-oil wastes
discharged from the sumps or tanks of the roll shop, the electro-
static precipitators, the oil-skimmer tanks and rolling-solution
tanks of the four-stand mill and the rolling-solution tanks of
the Ferrolite reduction mill also flow to the primary receiver
and oil-removal tank. The floating oils are removed by skimming
and are pumped to a 160,000 liter (42,300 gal.) storage tank.
These oils are disposed of in an incinerator-type furnace or
trucked away for disposal. The sludge is removed by a drag-out
conveyor discharging into a container that is occasionally
emptied on a refuse dump for disposal. The oily waste effluent,
with the insoluble oils removed and the soluble oils remaining
in solution, flows to a flash mixer.
Synthetic palm oil, sperm oil, various lubricating oils, hy-
draulic oils, rolling-solution oil, paraffin, greases, and solu-
ble oils are present in the recovered oil. The bulk of the oil
is received in the insoluble states. The recovered oil amounts
to about 208,000 liters (55,000 gallons) per month.
Oils from the five-stand mill usually arrive at the primary
receiving tank in a heavy, viscous state having approximately the
specific gravity of water and tend to "hang'" in the water rather
than float. The flow of these oils is semicontinuous, with peri-
odic dumps of several hundred liters. Of all the oils received,
those from the five-stand mill are the most difficult to handle.
The lubricating oils, hydraulic oils, and rolling-solution oil
used on the four-stand mill remain in a fairly fluid state and
will float to the surface, and can be removed by skimming.
Acid rinse water from the 142 centimeter (56 inch) and 207
centimeter (80 inch) continuous pickling lines, from the two
electrolytic-tinning lines, and the Ferrolite cleaning line, is
pumped to two storage tanks where it is stored and then pumped
to the clarifiers or to the emergency acid-neutralization tanks.
Acid wastes (waste-pickle liquor and chromic-acid wastes) from
the tube-producing section also enter this system at the storage
tanks.
Sufficient acid rinse water is fed to the flash mixer to mix
with the effluent from the primary receiver to control the pH at
about 3 and crack the soluble-oil emulsions. The balance of the
acid rinse water is pumped to the acid-neutralization tanks,
where it is neutralized with lime and the resulting sludge is
pumped to a sludge lagoon.
The flash mixer discharges through controlling devices to
two clarifiers, where alkaline wastes and lime slurry are added.
20
-------
Flocculation in the clarifiers, followed by detention in the sed-
imentation chambers with controlled flows, allows each clarifier
to operate up to rated capacity for neutralization of large quan-
tities of acid rinse water. Oil is skimmed from the clarifier
surface and pumped to storage. Sludge is pumped to the sludge
lagoon. The clarifier effluents combine and flow to an oil sep-
arator for further removal of oil.
Waste pickle liquor from the two electrolytic-tinning lines,
totaling about 378,500 liters (100,000 gallons) per day, is
pumped to storage in two 757,000 liter (200,000 gallons) tanks
located at the oil-interception plant site. Waste pickle liquor
not required for the waste-treatment processes is trucked to an
independent concern that produces paint pigments. Normally, the
waste pickle liquor is removed continuously, leaving the tanks
partly empty to provide temporary storage in the event of an in-
terruption in trucking operations. Sufficient lime-handling and
slaking facilities are provided to neutralize the entire pickle-
liquor output in either one or both of two neutralization plants
if, for any reason, neutralization becomes necessary.
Alkaline wastes, consisting primarily of cleaning solutions
containing sodium orthosilicate, are effectively employed in the
treatment process to raise the pH of the acid and soluble-oil
wastes for sludging purposes. The contents of the cleaning-solu-
tion tanks of the tinning lines, the continuous-annealing lines
and the continuous-cleaning line are pumped to storage and fed by
controlled flow to the clarifiers. Slaked lime is added as slur-
ry in sufficient quantities to raise the pH in the clarifiers to
about 10 and precipitate the metals from solution. The floe
formed in this process is of value in clarifying the effluent and
removing some of the oils from the precipitated sludge.
Chromic-acid dump and rinse solutions from the tinning lines
are mixed with the sulphuric acid wastes from these lines and
pumped to two 284,000 liters (75,000 gallons) acid rinse-water
storage tanks at the oil-interception plant. Any pre-treatment
with acid, therefore, takes place in the acid rinse-water storage
tanks. The ferrous sulphate content of the acid rinse waters is
sufficient to reduce the sodium dichromate to trivalent chromium
sulphate. Detention time in the storage tanks is more than suf-
ficient to allow the reaction to go to completion. From the
storage tanks, the chromic-acid wastes are pumped with the acid
rinse waters to the flash mixer and pass into the clarifiers,
where the addition of lime precipitates the chromium as chromic
hydroxide. The sodium acid phosphate is converted to ferrous
phosphate and deposited in the clarifiers with the chromic
hydroxide. The sodium sulphate formed by the reactions is not
removed. The sludge is pumped to the sludge lagoon.
Wastes of the coke plant, with the exception of the ammonia-
still waste, are segregated in a separate•circulatory system,
21
-------
closed within itself. The ammonia-still waste, containing about
10 milligrams per liter (mg/1) of phenols, is pumped from the
lime-settling basin to the terminal waste-treatment plant where
it is disposed of by oxidation and dilution before entering the
river. The other wastes are used for coke quenching and never
enter the river.
Flue-dust-laden waters from the gas washers and electro-
static precipitators pass through a conventional primary thick-
ener and then to a secondary clarification plant in the blast-
furnace area where effluent from the primary thickener is mixed
with lime slurry in a flash mixer and flows to a flocculator
chamber.
Sludge from the secondary clarifier is pumped, along with
primary-thickener sludge, to a separate flue-dust storage lagoon.
Clarifier effluent flows directly to the river through a meas-
uring flume.
The effluent from the scale flumes of the bar mill, the 203-
centimeter (80 inch) hot-strip mill, the billet mill, the slab
mill, and the blooming mill flows through scale pits, where
solids settle out, from which the clarified water goes to the
terminal treatment plant. Scale pits of the skelp and weld mill
of the tube-producing section are tied into this system.
Most of the cooling water used in the power house is pumped
to the service water system. The remainder of this water joins
power-house boiler blowdown and cooling water from the blast fur-
naces, open-hearth furnaces, and coke plant, and is discharged
into the river. Backwash from the boiler-water treatment system,
boiler blowdown from the open-hearth shop, and washdown water
from the ladle shop go to the terminal treatment plant.
The BPCTCA model system given in the Development Document
for Effluent Limitations for the Petroleum Refining Industry is
probably the best example of a terminal treatment facility for
petroleum refinery wastewaters, i.e., a type of wastewater
amenable to bio-oxidation. This model system is shown in Figure
1 (67).
End-of-pipe control technology in the petroleum refining in-
dustry relies heavily upon the use of biological treatment meth-
ods. These are supplemented by appropriate pretreatment to insure
proper conditions in the feed to the biological system.
When used, initial treatment most often consists of neutraliza-
tion for control of pH or equalization basins to minimize shock
loads on the biological systems. The incorporation of solids re-
moval ahead of biological treatment is not as important as it is
in treating municipal wastewaters.
22
-------
RLFWIR.V
NJ
10
D1SSOLULD
MR.
FLOTMION
to
PROCESSING,
FINAL
DISPOSAL
Figure 1. BPCTCA wastewater treatment system for petroleum refining.
-------
Gravity separators remove most of the free oil found in re-
finery wastewaters. Because of the large amounts of reprocess-
able oils which can be recovered in the gravity separators, these
units must be considered an integral part of the refinery pro-
cessing operation and not a wastewater treatment process. The
functioning of gravity-type separators depends upon the differ-
ence in specific gravity of oil and water. The gravity-type
separator will not separate substances in solution, nor will it
break emulsions. The effectiveness of a separator depends upon
the temperature of the water, the density and size of the oil
globules, and the amounts and characteristics of the suspended
matter present in the wastewater. The "susceptibility to
separation" (STS) test is normally used as a guide to determine
what portion of the influent to a separator is amenable to gra-
vity separation.
The API separator is the most widely used gravity separator.
The basic design is a long rectangular basin, with enough deten-
tion time for most of the oil to float to the surface and be re-
moved. Most API separators are divided into more than one bay to
maintain laminar flow within the separator, making the separator
more effective. API separators are usually equipped with
scrapers to move the oil to the downstream end of the separator
where the oil is collected in a slotted pipe or on a drum. On
their return to the upstream end, the scrapers travel along the
bottom moving the solids to a collection trough. Any sludge
which settles can be dewatered and either incinerated or disposed
of on a landfill.
The purpose of equalization is to dampen surges in flows
and loadings. This is especially necessary for a biological
treatment plant, as high concentrations of certain materials
will upset or completely kill the bacteria in the treatment
plant. By evening the loading on a treatment plant, the
equalization step enables the treatment plant to operate more
effectively and with fewer maintenance problems. When equaliza-
tion is not present, an accident or spill within the refinery
can greatly affect the effluent quality or kill the biomass.
The equalization step usually consists of a large pond that
may contain mixers to provide better mixing of the wastes. In
some refineries the equalization is done in a tank. The
equalization step can be before or after the gravity separator,
but is more effective before as it increases the overall
efficiency of the separator. Care must be taken to prevent
anaerobic decomposition in the equalization facilities.
^Dissolved air flotation consists of saturating a portion of
the wastewater feed, or a portion of the feed or recycled
effluent from the flotation unit with air at a pressure of 3.722
to 5.083 atmosphere. (40 to 60 psi). The wastewater or effluent
recycle is held at this pressure for 1 to 5 minutes in a
24
-------
retention tank and then released at atmospheric pressure to
the flotation chamber. The sudden reduction in pressure results
in the release of microscopic air bubbles which attach themselves
to oil and suspended particles in the wastewater in the flotat-
tion chamber. This results in agglomerates which, due to the
entrained air, have greatly increased vertical rise rates of
about 0.152 to 0.305 meters/minute (0.5 to 1.0 feet/minute).
The floated materials rise to the surface to form a froth layer.
Specially designed flight scrapers or other skimming devices con-
tinuously remove the froth. The retention time in the flotation
chambers is usually about 10 to 30 minutes. The effectiveness of
dissolved air flotation depends upon the attachment of bubbles
to the suspended oil and other particles which are to be removed
from the waste stream. The attraction between the air bubble
and particle is a result of the particles surface and bubble-size
distribution.
Chemical flocculating agents, such as salts of iron and
aluminum, with or without organic polyelectrolytes, are often
helpful in improving the effectiveness of the air flotation pro-
cess and in obtaining a high degree of clarification.
Dissolved air flotation is used by a number of refineries
to treat the effluent from the oil separator. Dissolved air
flotation using flocculating agents is also used to treat emul-
sions. The froth skimmed from the flotation tank can be com-
bined with other sludges (such as those from a gravity separator)
for disposal. The clarified effluent from a flotation unit gen-
erally receives further treatment in a biological unit, prior to
discharge. In two refineries, dissolved air flotation is used
for clarification of biologically treated effluents.
Activated sludge is an aerobic biological treatment process
in which high concentrations (1500-3000 mg/1) of newly-grown and
recycled microorganisms are suspended uniformly throughout a
holding tank to which raw wastewaters are added. Oxygen is in-
troduced by mechanical aerators, diffused air systems, or other
means. The organic materials in the waste are removed from the
aqueous phase by the microbiological growths and stabilized by
biochemical synthesis and oxidation reactions. The basic acti-
vated sludge process consists of an aeration tank followed by a
sedimentation tank. The flocculant microbial growths removed in
the sedimentation tank are recycled to the aeration tank to main-
tain a high concentration of active microorganisms. Although
the microorganisms remove almost all of the organic matter from
the waste being treated, much of the converted organic matter re-
mains in the system in the form of microbial cells. These cells
have a relatively high rate of oxygen demand and must be removed
from the treated wastewater before discharge. Thus, final sedi-
mentation and recirculation of biological solids are- important
elements in an activated sludge system.
25
-------
Sludge is wasted on a continuous basis at a relatively low
rate to prevent build-up of excess activated sludge in the aera-
tion tank. Shock organic loads usually result in an overloaded
system and poor sludge settling characteristics. Effective per-
formance requires pretreatment to remove or substantially reduce
oil, sulfide ions and phenol. The pretreatment units most
frequently used are: gravity separators and air flotation units
to remove oil; and sour water strippers to remove sulfides, mer-
captans, and phenol. Equalization also appears necessary to
prevent shock loadings from upsetting the aeration basin. Be-
cause of the high rate and degree of organic stabilization
possible with activated sludge, application of this process to
the treatment of refinery wastewaters has been increasing rapidly
in recent years.
Many variations of the activated sludge process are
currently in use. Examples include: the tapered aeration pro-
cess, which has greater air addition at the influent where the
oxygen demand is the highest; step aeration, which introduces the
influent wastewater along the length of the aeration tank; and
contact stablization, in which the return sludge to the aeration
tank is aerated for 1 to 5 hours. The contact stabilization pro-
cess is useful where the oxygen demand is in the suspended or
colloidal form. The completely mixed activated sludge plant uses
large mechanical mixers to mix the influent with the contents of
the aeration basin, decreasing the possibility of upsets due to
shock loadings. The Pasveer ditch is a variation of the com-
pletely mixed activated sludge process that is widely used in
Europe. Here brushes are used to provide aeration and mixing in
a narrow oval ditch. The advantage of this process is that the
concentration of the biota is higher than the conventional
activated sludge process, and the.waste sludge is easy to
dewater. There is at least one refinery using the Pasveer ditch
type system.
The activated sludge process has several disadvantages.
Due to the amount of mechanical equipment involved, its operat-
ing and maintenance costs are higher than other biological
systems. The small volume of the aeration basin makes the pro-
cess more subject to upsets than either oxidation basins or
trickling filters.
The activated sludge process is capable of achieving very
low concentrations of BOD, COD, total suspended solids (TSS)
and oil, dependent upon the influent waste loading and the par-
ticular design basis. Reported efficiencies of BOD removal are
in the range of 80 to 99%.
There are several types of granular media filters: sand,
dual media, and multimedia. These filters operate in basically
the same way, the only difference being the filter media. The
26
-------
sand filter uses a relatively uniform grade of sand resting on a
coarser material. The dual media filter, has a coarse layer of
coal above a fine layer of sand. Both types of filters have the
problem of keeping the fine particles on the bottom. This prob-
lem is solved by using a third very heavy, very fine material,
(usually garnet) beneath the coal and sand.
As the water passes down through a filter, the suspended
matter is caught in the pores. When the pressure drop through
the filter becomes excessive, the flow through the filter is re-
versed for removal of the collected solids. The backwash cycle
occurs approximately once a day, depending on the loading, and
usually lasts for 5 to 8 minutes. Most uses of sand filters
have been for removing oil and solids prior to an activated
carbon unit. There is one refinery that uses a mixed media
filter on the effluent from a biological system. Granular media
filters are shown to be capable of consistent operation with
extremely low TSS and oil effluent discharges, on the order of
5 to 10 mg/1.
The terminal treatment facilities described for steel mill
and petroleum refinery wastewaters will produce effluent quali-
ties approximately as contemplated for BPCTCA. The proposed
Monongahela River regional facility would need to produce an
effluent quality equal to BATEA limitations for the aggregate of
the industrial plants served.
The BATEA model system for petroleum refining is shown in
Figure 2. The added treatment beyond BPCTCA is activated carbon
adsorption. The adsorption is a function of the molecular size
and polarity of the absorbed substance. Activated carbon
preferentially adsorbs large organic molecules that are non-
polar .
An activated carbon unit follows a solids removal process,
usually a sand filter which prevents plugging of the carbon
pores. From the filter the water flows to a bank of carbon
columns arranged in series or parallel. As the water flows
through the columns the pollutants are adsorbed by the carbon,
gradually filling the pores. At intervals, portions of the
carbon are removed to a furnace where the adsorbed substances
are burned off. The regenerated carbon is reused in the columns,
with some makeup added, because of handling and efficiency
losses.
Activated carbon processes currently have only limited
usage in the refining industry. However, there are new installa-
in the construction planning stages. The increasing use of
activated carbon has occurred because activated carbon can remove
organic materials on an economically competitive basis with
biological treatment. Activated carbon regeneration furnaces
have high energy requirements.
27
-------
The BATEA model systems for steel mill wastewaters as given
in the Development Documents (Phases I and II) for Effluent
Limitations in the Steel Industry generally incorporate pressure
sand filters as a final step and are thus similar to the BPCTCA
petroleum refining model. Coke plant and blast furnace effluents
contain ammonia, phenol, and cyanides which can be removed by
alkaline chlorination plus carbon adsorption as shown in
Figure 3, taken from the development document BATEA model for
blast furnaces; the treatment scheme for coke plants is similar.
An alternative BATEA treatment model for coke plants is shown in
Figure 4; the alternative treatment uses multi-stage biological
treatment (52).
The treatment models described above cover the means re-
quired to treat most expected classes of wastewater component
materials, with the exception of chemical reduction required,
e.g., to reduce soluble hexavalent chromium to precipitatable
trivalent chromium. It is most likely that all chromium will
be present as the trivalent form due to the large excesses of
ferrous iron as from spent pickling solutions.
Metal-containing acidic solutions, such as spent pickling
solutions, may be treated by neutralization, neutralization with
air oxidation, and by acid regeneration. Most steel mills dis-
pose of pickle liquor by contract hauling or deepwell disposal.
The latter, of course, is zero discharge if the possible adverse
effects are not considered, such as groundwater contamination,
etc. Contract hauling usually involves lime neutralization and
offsite disposal in abandoned strip mines or quarries. Neutrali-
zation with lime typically produces an effluent with 4 mg/1 or
less of total iron, calcium salts of the acids used, and sus-
pended solids dependent upon the clarification method used. A
bulky, never-drying sludge results. Neutralization with air
oxidation produces a somewhat better effluent quality, and also
a sludge which compacts and dries when dumped. Regeneration of
hydrochloric or sulfuric acid results in zero discharge of strong
liquors; the rinsewaters remain to be treated by neutralization.
In many mills, rinsewaters are combined with other wastewater and
are neutralized as part of a terminal treatment system, providing
at least part of the iron salts used as flocculants for improved
removal of suspended solids and oil (68).
The metals can be precipitated by lime neutralization and
separated by sedimentation-flocculation. The effluent concen-
trations of dissolved metals are generally less thaft 1.0 mg/1 for
each metal. Proper pH control and efficient sedimentation
are necessary to consistently achieve low effluent concentra-
tions, and polyelectrolytes are usually used to promote sedimen-
tation.
28
-------
REGENERATED
STORAGE TANK.
FILTER. U1ATER.
HOUDlNt T&NK.
C.AR.BON C.OUMNIS)
FEED PUMPS
PLANT
EFFLUENT
CARBON
C.OLIWNIS)
TURNS FER.
TANK.
DR-YlNfr T^N^
BLDUJER
DR.V STOR.A&E
TANK
a SC.R.EU)
FEEDE.TL
Figure 2. Proposed treatment for petroleum refining.
29
-------
MAKE.- UP
CO
o
C.HLORINKTOR.
ODOLIN6 l+mm
\ TOIDEH / I
-3
(LYKNIDt
FUlOWOt
PttLNOL
5 /l
1.0 4/1
ao
SUSP. SOUD5
PH
uoiu
—»+
WAWONIULW
CVKMIDL
FLULOWDE.
PWLKOL
SULLFlOt
sas?. souos
0.5 ~
0.3 AK
10.0
BPtTtH MODEL
B^TE^ MODEL
Figure 3. BPCTCA blast furnace treatment model.
-------
OJ
TO unnoNiim HYDRO-HIDE.
n. tMMONUin ju.LFfrt
PH.ODUC.TION
r
i
DIPHINOUIEK.
«F»U --- 1
UBBONH !•
ISTIU.
f~T
r
._, , ~"j ("Tiilo "|
' ! Lint ' MHDN1K !••«
11 J""- 1
" "
I I
L.^J
rt
IONIK
UO1UX.
I L -ITtlW
i 4
f-iJKt j-—i\n
• —-
. i-H f
L«*= J ! I J
— in l >-
r J.iJ i A
r-_—
"1 l?JiL*?SiJ
U..A.—r™% u
•p.:...
j i ^
•BILE! I • •
r
, WlkW. I
TUKTMtNT ,'
I wmu-ur
(_-_-_.J SUUUItt WHTLI.
touos rot.
DI9P091L
NITDTC. U.WDVKV.
(U411/TIK)
Oil. I
mull. | •
SUP jouos
-------
Optimum precipitation of the metal ions depends primarily
on pH and the valence states. The valence state is of particu-
lar importance for iron and chromium; the former precipitating
more readily when oxidized to ferric iron and the latter pre-
cipating most readily when reduced to trivalent chromium. The
optium pH levels for precipitation of the metals are shown in
Table 11, based upon the work of Smith (69).
TABLE 11. pH LEVELS FOR OPTIMUM PRECIPITATION
pH mg/1
Aluminum
Molybdenum
Lead
Vanadium
Titanium
Cobalt
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Tin
8.0
5.0
6.5 and above
5.0-8.0
6.5 and above
11 . 0 and above
8.0
9.5 and above
8.0 and above
9.5 and above
9.5 and above
9.5-11
8.0 and above
3.0-6.5
0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.15
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.05
0.9
Aluminum, molybdenum, vanadium, chromium, tin, and zinc are
significantly soluble above and below the optimum pH levels
shown. The concentrations shown in Table 11 are from laboratory
experiments and should not be interpreted as defining concentra-
tion levels attainable in commercial installations. The concen-
trations are comparatively valid as among the different ions.
Solutions of the metals in nitric acid are unique in that
the metals, particularly iron, will be largely or wholly in the
oxidized state, depending upon the free acid concentration. The
principal significance of this is that air oxidation is generally
not needed to produce a ferric hydroxide sludge afteS: neutraliza-
tion of stainless (HNOo-HF) pickle liquor. The oxidation-reduc-
tion reaction is as follows:
3FE++ + NO~ + 4H+ = 3Fe+++ + NO + 2H0
Cyanides are oxidized at high pH levels, usually by chlo-
rine, i.e., alkaline chlorination. The initial reaction is very
32
-------
fast, producing cyanates. Maintenance of a chlorine residual
at near neutral pH for an hour or more oxidizes the cyanate ion
to nitrogen and C02- Essentially zero cyanide ion levels can be
achieved. Cyanide can also be oxidized electrolytically, and
cyanogen compounds can be treated biologically.
Hexavalent chromium is reduced at a low pH by sulfur
dioxide, ferrous sulfate, sodium metabisulfite, or sodium hydro-
sulfite to trivalent chromium. The pH is then raised with an
alkaline reagent, precipitating the reduced chromium as the
hydroxide. Proper operation and efficient sedimentation can re-
duce hexavalent chromium to nearly zero.
Although a single model is not available upon which to base
the Monongahela River regional industrial facility, the above-
cited facilities and/or systems provide a good basis in the
aggregate from which to build an initial treatment facility
model for the purposes of this study.
The most likely treatment scheme appears to be a combination
of the petroleum industry and the steel industry document models,
plus the terminal treatment-type facility at Fairless Works,
United States Steel Corporation. All factors considered, it is
most likely that the unit operations in these individual treat-
ment models, combined into one, would provide the range of treat-
ment required. It is beyond the scope of the present study to
examine in detail the treatability of each wastewater con-
stituent, nor is such an effort really justified. The conclu-
sions of the EPA study entitled, "Combined Steel Mill and
Municipal Wastewaters Treatment," (7) indicated that a variety
of steel mill wastewaters can be treated in combination with
domestic sewage with 50% to 80% reductions in organic carbon as
measured by total organic carbon (TOO. A 15-day bench-scale
unit, for example, used the following influent wastewater blend
with better than 75% reduction in TOC.
Coke Plant Wastewaters 38.3%
Palm Oil Recovery Effluent 50.0%
Tin Mill and Galvanizing Wastewaters 11.2%
Pickling Line Scrubber Effluent 0.5%
The bench-scale plant influent contained
Phenol 32.5 mg/1
Cyanide 3.8 mg/1
Oil and Grease 2.1 mg/1
Ammonia 18.5 mg/1
TOC 103 mg/1
Complete metals analyses were not made. However, the hexa-
valent chromium in the tin miJ.1 wastewater (30.7 mg/1), the tin
33
-------
in the detinning plant effluent (138 mg/1), and the iron in the
scrubber effluent (760 mg/1) account for at least the following
concentrations:
Hexavalent Chromium 1.1 mg/1
Tin 4.8 mg/1
Iron 3.8 mg/1
The report concluded that the tin mill wastewaters did not
inhibit the biological process significantly, that wide varia-
tions in influent waste strengths could be tolerated (79-230
mg/1 TOC with +70% reductions), and that 90% reductions would be
achievable with retention times greater than used in these tests
(max. = 16.6 hours). The primary sources of the required or-
ganic food load was domestic sewage and the palm oil used in
cold rolling operations. The BOD/COD ratio in the coke plant
wastewaters averaged 0.505 and TOC averaged 65.6% of the BOD.
In Table 12 the permissable limits of various materials in
sewage plant influents are given from a 1960 survey of plants in
Germany:
TABLE 12. Permissable Limits For Sewage Plant Influents
/
Trickling
filter
Cyanide, mg/1
Lead , mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Chromium, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Phenol , mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Thiocyanate, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Xylene , mg/1
1-2
5
-
10
35
1
-
50
-
-
-
^
Activated
sludge
1-1.6
-
1-5
2-5
-
1
6
250
1-3
-
-
"
Sludge
digestion
25
-
-
200
-
100
200-500
-
-
180
70-200
870
The Genossenschaften methods of assessing service charges
on those who discharge other than domestic sewage to the treat-
ment plants are based upon !'non-settleable!' solids content, BOD
concentrations, a modified COD test, and a fish toxicity test.
The first three factors are evaluated as the ratio of "actual"
to "allowable" concentrations and the toxicity is expressed as
the dilution ratio necessary to reach non-toxic concentrations.
The final result is thus, essentially, a measure of treatability
34
-------
a waste based upon the degree of treatment needed to produce the
required effluent quality; the required quality is that which
will support fish in the receiving stream. The actual effect is
thus to limit toxic materials much below the "critical'' levels
imposed by the effects on the treatment plant processes.
The federal guidelines for '"Pretreatment of Pollutants
Introduced Into Publicly Owned Treatment Works' (71) gives the
concentrations of pollutants which inhibit biological treatment
processes as shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS WHICH INHIBIT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Constituent
Copper, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Hexavalent Chromium, mg/1
Total Chromium, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Silver, mg/1
Vanadium, mg/1
Sulfide, mg/1
Ammonia, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Oil, mg/1
Benzene, mg/1
Aerobic
Processes
1.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
0.1
-
0.03
10
-
-
-
50
~
Anaerobic
Processes
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
-
0.02 (1)
-
-
100 (1)
1500
1.0
50
50 (1)
Nitrification
0.5
0.5
2.0
-
0.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
2.0
50
50
(1) Digester influent.
Concentrations limits have been given as in Table 14 for
sewage plant effluents, stream quality for recreational uses, and
for drinking water.
35
-------
TABLE 14. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIOUS WATER USES
Los Angeles(1) Missouri(2) Drinking water(3)
Mercury, mg/1
Boron, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Hexavalent Chromium, mg/1
Copper, mg/1
Iron, plus Manganese , mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Total Chromium, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Nickel, mg/1
Barium, mg/1
.
2.0
0.1
1.5
0.05
10.05
3.0
0.3
15
-
-
-
-
-
"•
0
0.1
1.5 1
-
-
0.2
-
0.01
1.0
1.0
0.02 0.
0.2
0.8
0
0.002
-
0.05
.6-3.4
0.05
0.05
1.0
0.3
5.0
-
0.05
0.-0.02
0.01
-
1.0
(1) Whittier Narrows Reclamation Plant Effluent, used for land
recharge .
(2) State of Missouri, Zone
1, Blue River,
(3) United States Environmental Protection
(maximum permissable or
recommended) .
recreational stream.
Agency, 1975 or U.S.
spread
P.H.S., 1962
Comparison of the concentrations of the various pollutants
which reportedly interfere with biological treatment processes
with the concentrations in the proposed treatment plant influent
indicates that no toxic concentrations are expected, i.e., bio-
logical treatment is entirely feasible from that standpoint.
Comparisons of the concentrations given for various critical
water uses indicates that the treatment plant effluent would be
directly usable for most purposes, and certainly suitable for
discharge to surface waters.
36
-------
SECTION 7
INTERCEPTOR SEWER SYSTEM
The most obvious method of collecting and transporting the
industrial effluents to be treated is an interceptor sewer which
would generally follow the course of the Monongahela River. The
surface relief in the areas is 91.4 to 182.9 meters (300 to 600
feet) and the terrain is exceedingly rough, consisting mainly of
steep hillsides and narrow valleys. The straight-line distance
from Allenport to the "point at Pittsburgh is 43.4 kilometers
(27 miles); whereas the river is 75.6 kilometers (47 miles) long
with an elevation difference of 12.2 meters. The required 79.6
meters (261 feet) of head for a gravity system seems clearly
preferable to any contemplated system involving tunneling and
lift stations to follow a straight-line course. Additionally,
the right-of-way acquisition costs would be minimized using the
river route.
Several alternative interceptor designs were evaluated at
varying capacities and flow velocities. It readily became
apparent that flow velocities of 61 to 122 centimeters per
second (cm/sec). (2 to 4 feet/second (fps) would be the optimum
from a cost standpoint. The ALCOSAN system used 76.2 cm/sec.
(2.5 fps) as a design criterion, tending to confirm this con-
clusion. The cost analysis was based upon was based upon a
total capacity of 503,500 cu m/day (133 mgd) and upon data
developed by the Southwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning
Commission specifically applicable to western Pennsylvania
terrain and construction conditions. The costs there from are in
1969 dollars and for minimum and maximum costs, i.e., a range
rather than an average. The design data are shown in Table 15.
Four lift stations would be required. Cost estimates for pipe
and installation on this basis are shown in Table 16. The costs
of pumps, lift stations, valves controls, manholes, etc. add
50% to the above costs.
In 1977 dollars, the costs would be further increased by
the ration of the 1977/1969 Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Indexes, i.e., by the ratio of 2600/1285, or 2.02. The
interceptor total costs would be:
Minimum = $20,243, 428 x 1.50 x 2.02 * $ 61,339,000
Maximum - $36,862, 421 x 1.50 x 2.02 = $111,693,000
37
-------
TABLE 15. INTERCEPTOR SEWER DESIGN DATA
OJ
00
Kilometer Distance
point kilometers
75.6-70.3
70.3-69.2
69.2-57.6
57.6-49.4
49.4-48.9
48.9-47.5
47.5-37.7
37.7-36.5
36.5-32.2
32.2-29.8
29.8-26.4
26.4-26.1
26.1-24.9
24.9-24.1
24.1-22.2
22.2-19.3
19.3-19.0
19.0-16.6
16.6-15.3
15.3-11.9
11.9-8.8
8.8-8.4
8.4-7.2
7.2-1.3
1.3-0
5.3
1.1
11.6
8.2
0.5
1.5
9.8
1.2
4.3
2.4
3.4
0.3
1.2
0.8
1.9
2.9
0.3
2.4
1.3
3.4
3.0
0.4
1.2
5.9
*1.3
CUM total flow
cu in/day
12187
13210
32930
32930
32930
33043
33081
33194
83649
83838
84292
84368
84368
121763
171120
171271
260181
328311
328349
377667
377667
378010
378046
503102
503102
Unit sewer Slope Line
length, meters m/lOOOm Size, cm
5311
1127
11587
8208
483
1448
11036
1127
4345
2414
3380
322
1127
805
1931
2897
322
2414
1287
3380
3058
483
1127
5955
1287
2.49
2.49
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.89
0.89
0.79
1.21
1.21
1.31
1.31
0.40
1.31
0.69
0.69
45.72
45.72
81.28
81.28
81.28
81.28
81.28
81.28
121.92
121.92
121.92
121.92
121.92
142.24
152.40
152.40
187.96
187.96
187.96
198.12
198.12
198.12
198.12
243.84
243.84
Velocity
m/sec
0.85
0.85
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.88
1.07
1.07
1.01
1.28
1.28
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.22
1.22
Unit head
% Slope loss, meters
.25%
.25%
.09%
.09%
.09%
.09%
.09%
.09%
.09%
.07%
.07%
.07%
.07%
.07%
.09%
.09%
.08%
.12%
.12%
.13%
.13%
.13%
.13%
.07%
.07%
13.27
2.82
10.42
7.39
0.43
1.28
9.93
1.01
3.02
1.68
2.37
0.22
0.79
0.56
1.74
2.59
0.26
2.89
1.54
4.39
3.97
0.62
1.46
4.15
0.88
-------
TABLE 16. INTERCEPTOR SEWER PIPE AND INSTALLATION COSTS
U)
to
Estimate line cost per meter per centimeter of diameter
Total unit lengths, meters Line size, cm minimum total maximum total
6437
33889
11587
805
4828
4023
8047
7242
TOTAL 76858
45.72
81.28
121.92
142.24
152.40
187.96
198.12
243.84
$1.5500
1.6146
1.7438
1.9375
2.3250
2.8417
2 . 9062
3.2292
TOTAL
$ 456,164
4,447,412
2,463,443
221,850
1,710,720
2,148,788
4,633,272
5,702,410
$21,784,059
$2.3248
3.3583
3.4872
3.6811
3.8750
4.2625
4.3527
4.8435
TOTAL
$ 684,188
9,250,430
4,926,322
421,497
2,851,175
3,223,145
6,939,386
8,553,085
$36,849,228
Basis for estimates made:
1. TDK not to exceed 15.24 meters (soft) for any unit length using C = 100. (Pipe friction factor)
2. Velocity to be maintained at 61-122 cm/sec. (2-4 ft/sec)
3. Estimates in 1969 dollars. (Taken from "Alternate Sewer System Cost Evaluation", Southwest
Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, 1969). Costs therein are as follows:
Dia., cm
25.4
50.8
76.2
152.4
203.2
254.0
508.0
762.0
1016.0
Minimum
Cost/cm/meter
$ 1.2917
1.5500
1.6146
2.3250
2.9062
3.2292
3.8750
4.8437
7.1042
Cost per meter
$ 32.81
78.74
123.03
354.33
590.54
820.22
1968.50
3690.90
7217.87
Dia., cm
25.4
50.8
76.2
152.4
203.2
254.0
509.0
762.0
1016.0
Maximum
Cost/cm/meter
1.
2.
3.
3.
.9373
,3248
,3582
.8750
4.3526
4.8434
5.8123
7.7499
10.6560
Cost per meter
$ 49.21
118.10
255.89
590.55
884.45
1230.22
2952.65
5905.42
10826.50
-------
The ALCOSAN interceptors totaled 157.7 kilometers (98 miles)
and were designed for a maximum flow of 1,600,000 cu m/day (412
mgd) at a velocity of 76.2 cm/sec (2.5 fps). When completed in
1956, the cost was $90 million (ENR = 690) . The cost per
kilometer in 1977 dollars (ENR = 2600) would be:
$90 million t 157.7 kilometers x (2600/700) =
$2.12 million per kilometer
($3.4 million per mile)
At a flow of 503,405 cu m/day, the RWT interceptor on this
basis would cost:
$2.12 million per kilometer x (133/412)°-390
1.36 million per kilometer
$2.19 million per mile)
using the scale-up factor according to Klemetson and Grenney
(73). The comparison between the estimated cost above of $1.35
million per kilometer ($2.19 million/mile) with those based
upon the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission
(SPRPC) data of $0.81 to $1.49 million per kilometer ($1.3 to
$2.4 million/mile) indicate that the SPRPC-based estimates are
valid and that the actual cost would be close to the maximum,
i.e., $111 million in 1977 dollars.
40
-------
SECTION 8
TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN
Assuming, as has been previously explained, that the RWT
facility could discharge not more than the total of the BATEA
allowable effluent loads from each of the 68 plants in whatever
volume of water is chosen, there are two logical choices. The
volume could be the BPCTCA volumes upon which the effluent
guidelines were based, i.e., 908,000 cu in/day (240 mgd) as shown
in Table 10. The volume could alternatively be 10% of the pre-
sently discharged process water and unsegregated non-contact
cooling water, i.e., about 466,000 cu m/day (123 mgd).
Since BATEA limitations are formulated on the basis of at-
tainable effluent concentrations in minimum volumes of water, the
treatment plant would most likely meet these limitations if the
flow were as low as possible. Lower flows would obviously reduce
the cost of the facility. Additionally, and more importantly,
the flow volume must be such that it would be attractive to in-
dustry vis-a-vis in-plant treatment. All things considered, the
most likely design basis is the BATEA load limitations in 466,000
cu m/day (123 mgd) (10 % of presently discharged process and
unsegregated cooling water) and a design flow rate of 568,000
cu m/day (150 mgd). The extra 102,000 cu m/day (27 mgd) would
provide for 1,020,000 cu m/day (270 mgd) of process water use in
the Monongahela Valley, assuming that new facilities would
segregate non-contact cooling water and discharge only 10%
of the process water as blowdown.
The first treatment facility design considered (scheme A)
was based upon a flow of 908,000 cu m/day (240 mgd), i.e., the
aggregated BPCTCA discharges from the 68 plants; alkaline chlo-
rination and granular activated carbon adsorption were incorpo-
rated in addition to sedimentation, precipitation, oil removal,
and two-stage bio-oxidation. This design was based upon the
use of the BATEA treatment models in the EPA Development
Documents for Effluent Guidelines for the Petroleum Refinery and
Steel Industries.
A treatment plant cost estimate was made for scheme A based
upon unit volume costs taken from ALCOSAN estimates and operating
data; the economies-of-scale were not considered in size extra-
polations. The estimated cost ($373 million) was taken to be a
41
-------
maximum for preliminary evaluation purposes. This exercise
showed that the capital costs of the treatment plant must be
minimized if the RWT facility is to be economically feasible.
Two alternative treatment plant designs were considered.
The influent and effluent loads for design purposes were taken
to be as shown in Table 6, with a hydraulic flow of 568,000
cu m/day (150 mgd). No reduction in present loads were assumed
other than those of suspended solids and oils. The two alterna-
tive treatment schemes evaluated weret (1) the use of powdered
activated carbon with adapted mutant bacteria and sand filtra-
tion and (2) a modified version of scheme A utilizing alkaline
chlorination and granular activated carbon.
Cost estimates were made for the two treatment alternatives,
The capital cost of alternative 1 was estimated at $156 million
($1977); the capital cost of alternative 2 was estimated at
$208 million ($1977). The annual costs of alternative 1 would
be higher than for alternative 2 if the powdered activated car-
bon were used on a through-away basis. Regeneration of the pow-
dered activated carbon appeared to make'the costs of the two
alternatives essentially equal.
The scheme A design contemplated alkaline chlorination fol-
lowing primary precipitation and clarification. Since the in-
fluent cyanide concentration would be expected to be about 1.5
m'g/1 and the reported maximum is 4 times that/ the alkaline
chlorination step is probably not needed. The conventional
municipal activated sludge plant can tolerate up to 2 mg/1
cyanide. Adapted mutant bacteria, as would be used here, can
tolerate 25 mg/1 or more. Elimination of alkaline chlorination
would eliminate mixing basins and secondary sedimentation basins
included in scheme A.
The recent work reported by Amoco Oil Company and Standard
Oil Company Industrial Wastes, July/August, 1977 (pp. 30 - 35)
indicates that a single stage activated sludge plant using pow-
dered activated carbon and sand filtration can match or exceed
the performance to be expected from separate final carbon ad-
sorption. Operating conditions were reported as follows:
Aeration Zone Volume 36.7 liters
Settling Zone Volume 5.6 liters
Nominal Flow Rate 3.45 liters/hr.
Nominal Hydraulic Retention Time 15.0 hours
Nominal Settling Time 2.33 hours
Air Flow Rate 200 liters/hr.
42
-------
PH
Caustic Addition Rate
Phosphorous in Feed
Temperature
Activated Carbon Dosage
6 - 8.5
0.12 - 0.30 liters/hr.
3 mg/liter
Ambient
25 - 100 mg/liter
In view of the uncertainies as to the allowable and the at-
tainable concentrations of pollutants in the RWT effluent, a num-
ber of treatment chain alternatives were considered as shown in
Figure 5 and as tabulated in Table 17-
The capital and operating costs for each component of the
alternative treatment chains were calculated as shown in Table 18
in 1977 dollars; the corresponding Engineering News Record Con-
struction Cost Index was 2600 in 1977. Costs were based upon
ALCOSAN construction costs in 1946 and 1973 and ALCOSAN operating
costs in 1975 where possible. Other costs were taken from
Klemetson and Grenney (73) and the EPA Manual for Upgrading
Wastewater Treatment Plants (74).
In Table 19, the total annual costs for each treatment chain
alternative are shown. In Table 20, the totals of the BATEA al-
lowable loads are shown based upon the previously published EPA
guidelines, together with the attainable RWT effluent loads. In
Table 21, the allowable and achievable loads and concentrations
are compared. The RWT effluent at 567,750 cu m/day (124 mgd)
could probably meet the limitations for most of the pollutants.
For the other pollutants, the required effluent concentra-
tions to meet BATEA, the achievable concentrations, and the USPHS
Drinking Water Standards are compared as follows:
ACHIEVABLE, BATEA, AND DRINKING WATER STANDARDS CONCENTRATIONS
Concentrations, mg/1
Pollutant
Sulfide
Lead
Diss. Iron
Tin
Chromium
Hex. Chromium
BATEA required
0.02
0.004
0.06
0.04
0.003
0.0002
achievable
2.30
0.06
0.20
0.90
0.05
0.01
USPHS standard
No Standard
0.05
0.20 (1)
No Standard
0.05
0.05
(1) Allowable if Mn = 0.10. (Fe + Mn) must not exceed 0.30 mg/1.
43
-------
UUET UOELH
STATION
OIL HI
DEEP
SAND
d
c
.1
®
&INTERCE
"PTOR it
CHEMICAL _
f£\
ADDITION v3/
E.OOUERV
BED
FILTERS
D
^
V POWERED
ACTIVATED
CARBON
ADDITION
DEEP-
BED SAND
FILTERS
PRECIPITATION <
SEDIMENTATION
/-^ (5
^SS
^SYT
tef (?\ ' — /^>v
1
i ""
)
\
^^
MUTANT B
AOD1TIC
1- STAG.E
AC.TII/ATED
SLUD&E UJITH
CLARI.FIER
1^
! '
i i r
&RKNI
C
TRASH RACK.-
GtRIT CHAMBER
\\
MUJ OIL RECOVERV
\
^_ r
iinnuikNi
UHt.U.1^1"
FILTER
^^
^^^
^"r >
S,,x
•f""* Z-RMEMO.
Ir* OXY- SYSTEM
4 C.LAWFIER
SLUD&E @
^ DIGESTION ^
1LAR tARBON FILTERS
^\S~\/~\/*-\ 09 .^
J>UOO^_3
)OOO 3
^^
©
SLUD&E
DISPOSAL
Z.- STAGcE ALKALINE
tHLORlNATlON
i '
r ^T^} +
^A J^
1 '
B888h
>O<><>Y< — *J
HHmc
-------
TABLE 17. RWT TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVES
..
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Treatment train unit
Trash rack and Grit Chamber
Well and Pumping Station
2a. Oil Removal
Chemical Addition
Precipitation and Sedimentation
4a. Oil Removal
4b. Filtration and Sludge Disposal
Deep-bed Sand Filtration
Alkaline Chlorination, 1st sta
2nd stage Chlorination and Clarif .
Powdered Carbon Addition
Mutant Bacteria Addition
Activated Sludge, 6-hr, 2-stage
Activated Sludge, 13-hr, 1-stage
Clarif ier, 2.3 hours
Clarif ier, 4.0 hours
Sludge Digestion
Deep-bed Sand Filtration
Granular Carbon Filters
Furnace Carbon Regeneration
Wet Air-Oxidation
18a. Carbon Regeneration
18b. Waste Bio Sludge Disposal
Other Facilities
Interceptor System
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
45
-------
TABLE 18. RWT FACILITY COMPONENT COSTS ($1977)
1.
2.
3.
4.
4b.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Figure 1
Capital cost
(total)
Trash Racks and Grit Chamber $
Wet Well and Pump Station
Chemical Addition (in 4)
$
Precipitation and Sedimentation
Vacuum Filtration
Deep-Bed Sand Filters
Alkaline Chlorination (in
Alkaline Chlorination
Powdered Activated Carbon
Mutant Bacteria
Activated Sludge, 2-stage
Activated Sludge, 1-stage
Clarifier (in 11)
Clarifier (in 10)
Sludge Digestion
Deep-Bed Sand Filters
Granular C (with 17)
Furnace Regeneration
Wet Air-Oxidation
Other Facilities
Interceptor Sewer System
$
$
7)
$
(10%)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,355,000
6,045,000
-
25,721,000
6,149,000
16,129,000
-
26,872,000
-
-
63,471,000
58,155,000
-
-
6,194,000
16,129,000
21,622,000
10,781,000
7,109,000
21,132,000
111,000,000
Annual
0 & M cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
260,
361,
-
1,535,
367,
1,761,
-
1,603,
376,
986,
3,629,
3,629,
-
-
370,
1,761,
1,946,
1,761,
1,375,
1,261,
1,306,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
50-year
depreciation
and interest
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
169,
234,
-
997,
238,
625,
-
1,041,
-
-
2,460,
2,254,
-
-
240,
625,
838,
418,
276,
819,
4,301,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
50-year
average annual
cost
$
$
$2
$
$2
$2
$
$
$6
$5
$
$2
$2
$2
$1
$2
$5
429,000
595,000
-
,532,000
605,000
,386,000
-
,644,000
376,000
986,000
,089,000
,883,000
-
-
610,000
,386,000
,784,000
,179,000
,651,000
,080,000
,607,000
-------
TABLE 19. RWT TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVES - TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Treatment train unit
1. Trash Rack and Grit Chamber
2. Wet Well and Pumping Station
2a. Oil Removal
3. Chemical Addition
4. Precipitation and Sedimentation
4a. Oil Removal
4b. Filtration and Sludge Disposal
5. Deep-bed Sand Filtration
6. Alkaline Chlorination , 1st stage
7. 2nd stage Chlorination and Clarif.
8. Powdered- Carbon Addition
9. Mutant Bacteria Addition
10. Activated Sludge, 6-hr, 2-stage
11. Activated Sludge, 13-hr, 1- stage
12. Clarifier, 2.3 hours
13. Clarifier, 4.0 hours
14. Sludge Digestion
15. Deep-bed Sand Filtration
16. Granular Carbon Filters
17. Furnace Carbon Regeneration
18. Wet Air-Oxidation
18a. Carbon Regeneration
18b. Waste Bio Sludge Disposal
19. Other Facilities
20. Interceptor System
A
0.42
.60
X
2.53
' X
.61
X
2.64
6.09
X
.61
2.39
2.78
X
2.08
5.61
B
.60
X
X
2.53
.61
X
2.64
6.09
X
.61
2.39
2.78
X
2.08
5.61
C
0.43
.60
X
2.53
X
.61
2.39
3.76
.99
5.88
X
.61
2.39
2.08
5.61
D
.43
.60
X
2.53
X
.61
2.39
0.38
.99
5.88
X
.61
2.39
2.18
2.08
5.61
E
.43
.60
X
2.53
X
.61
2.39
.38
.99
5.88
X
2.39
1.65
X
X
2.08
5.61
F
.60
X
X
2.53
.61
2.39
3.76
.99
5.88
X
.61
2.39
2.08
5.61
G
.60
X
X
2.53
.61
2.39
.38
.99
5.88
X
2.39
1.65
X
X
2.08
5.61
H
X
X
X
2.53
.61
2.39
.38
.99
5.88
X
2.39
1.65
X
X
2.08
5.61
Total Annual Costs ($ million)
Total Costs ($ per million gals.)
26.39 25.94 27.83
482 473 508
26.63 25.49 27.40 25.06 23.52
486 466 500 458 430
-------
TABLE 20. TOTAL BATEA EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (9) AND RWT ACHIEVABLE EFFLUENT LOADS
*>.
oo
RWT effluent, #/day
Parameter Limitation on achievable RWT effluent concentration 124 mgd
Suspended Solids mg/1 from sand filters, use 4 mg/1 (1) 4
Oil and Grease 1-5 mg/1 from sand filters + carbon, use 3 mg/1 (1) 3
Ammonia 0.1 mg/1 residual after chlorination at pH 7.8 (2)
Phenol Analytically detectable limit, 0.01 ppm (3)
Cyanide A 0.01 mg/1 achievable by chlorination (4)
BOD 3 mg/1 achievable based upon oil concentration 3
Sulfide Solubility limit of FeS = 6.2 mg/1 = 2.3 mg/1 S— (5) 2
Fluoride 1.0 mg/1 achievable for likely Fl sources (6) 1
Manganese Solubility limit = 0.1 mg/1 (7)
Nitrate 0.5 mg/1 achievable by biological denitrification (8)
Zinc 0.05 mg/1 achievable (4)
Lead Present average discharge (67#/day)
Diss. Iron Solubility limit =0.2 mg/1 (7)
Tin Solubility limit =0.9 mg/1 (7) 2
Chromium 0.05 mg/1 achievable (4)
Hex. Cr. 0.01 mg/1 achievable (4) = detectable limit (3)
,139
,104
103
10.3
10.3
,104
,390
,035
103
517
51.7
67.0
302
,932
51.7
10.3
150 mgd
5,007
3,755
125
12.5
12.5
3,755
2,879
1,252
125
626
62.6
67.0
251
1,127
62.6
12.5
BATEA
3,926
2,134
760
168
23.4
782
24.1
1,425
77.2
1,010
71.0
3.9
57.9
37.0
3.5
0.21
(1) Attached references on oil and solids removal.
(2) White, "Handbook of Chlorination," Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. (New York)
(3) "Standard Methods," 13th Edition (1971), p. 508, p. 157.
, 1972,
(4) EPA, Development Document for Electroplating Industry, (EPA-440/l-74-003a) , p.
(5) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
(6) EPA, Treatment and Recovery of Fluoride Industrial Wastes, March, 1974
(7) Smith, A.E., Analyst , 1973, pp. 65 and 209.
(8) EPA, Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Removal, October, 1975 (Section
(9) Based upon published Guidelines remanded to by EPA by the Courts .
p. 472.
74.
(EPA-660/2-73-024)
5).
, P. 1.
-------
TABLE 21. BATEA AND ACHIEVABLE RWT LIMITATIONS
Parameter
Suspended solids
Oil and grease
Ammonia
Phenol
Cyanide A
BOD
Sulfide
Fluoride
Manganese
Nitrate
Zinc
Lead
Diss. iron
Tin
Chromium
Hex. Cr.
RWT effluent
BATEA
3.926
2 , 134
760
168
23.4
782
24.1
1,425
77.2
1,010
71.0
3.9
57.9
37.0
3.5
0.21
loads , #/day
achievable
4,139
3,104
103
10.3
10.3
3,104
2,390
1,035
103
517
51.7
67.0
202
932
51.7
10.3
RWT effluent
BATEA
3.79
2.06
0.73
0.16
0.02
0.76
0.02
1.38
0.07
0.98
0.69
0.004
0.06
0.04
0.003
0.0002
con . , mg/1 +/-
achievable BATEA
4.00 +
3.00 +
0.10
0.01
0.01
3.00 +
2.30 +
1.00
0.10 +
0.50
0.05
0.06 +
0.20 +
0.90 +
0.05 +
0.01 +
-------
SECTION 9
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
MONONGAHELA VALLEY REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
This plan will outline the steps which must be undertaken
in order to establish a RWT facility which would serve the
industrial plants along the Monongahela River from the "point"
at Pittsburgh to Allenport.
Treatment Plant and Interceptor Sewer System
The treatment plant design is based upon a design flow of
567,750 cu m/day (150 mgd) and the acceptance of not more than
10% of the present discharge of unsegregated process and cool-
ing water. Presently segregated non-contact cooling water
would be discharged to the river as is now done. The presently
expected average flow to the facility would be 457,826 cu m/day
(123.6 mgd). New facilities would be required to segregate
non-contact cooling water and discharge to the RWT system not
more than 10% of the process water used.
The treatment to be provided is difficult to determine at
this time. Under the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as administered through the NPDES permit
system, by 1983 the RWT effluent could contain not more than
the total of the effluent loads allowed each plant under BATEA
limitations. The BATEA Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards are not in effect, having been re-
manded to EPA by the courts. Additionally, Section 301 (C) of
the Act provides that the EPA administrator may modify BATEA
limitations on the bases of the application of maximum
technology, economic factors, and demonstrated progress toward
the goal of pollutant discharge elimination. That section is
reproduced below:
11 (C) The Administrator may modify the requirements
of subsection (b) (2) (A) of this section with
respect to any point source for which a permit
application is filed after July 1 1977, upon
a showing by the owner or operator of such
point source satisfactory to the Administrator
that such modified, requirements (1) will repre-
sent the maximum use of technology within the
50
-------
economic capability of the owner or operator;
and (2) will result in reasonable further
process toward the elimination of the dis-
charge pollutants.
Assuming that BATEA limitations are established in one way
or another for an RWT facility serving the 68 plants on the
Monongahela River, and that one or another of the treatment
chain alternatives could achieve such limitations, the other
steps toward implementation are mutually dependent.
Application for NPDES Permit
The procedure involved here is complex because of the
uncertainties outlined in the preceding section, and because
all other steps are dependent upon the issuance of a satisfac-
tory NPDES permit. An NPDES application presupposes, at a
minimum, that there is an organization which would build and
operate the facility, that the discharge point to the surface
waters is known, that the volume of wastewater is known, and
that there is a treatment system design for specified effluent
loads.
Commitment of Potential Users
In order to determine whether or not the potential indus-
trial users would in fact use the RWT facility, the letter and
questionnaire shown in Appendix A was sent to 9 present dis-
chargers who account for 85% of 467,826 cu m/day (123.6 mgd)
expected flow. Only one questionnaire was returned. Follow-up
calls indicated that there was little or no interest in the
concept, principally because the costs were considered to be
too high, and also because a long-term commitment would be re-
quired. The objection to a long-term commitment was based
upon the possibility that production units or even entire
plants might be abandoned before the facility cost would be
amortized.
Obviously without the prior commitment of most of the
potential industrial users, such a facility would not be
feasible. New technology, changes in regulations, etc. might
alter the circumstances. As of now, however, nothing further
can be done. The remaining steps toward implementation are
given below, assuming that the industry attitude might change.
51
-------
Application for Other Required Permits
Applications for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources permits would include a Water Quality Management Per-
Mit, a Water Obstruction Permit, and a Pollution Incident Pre-
vention Plan. Also required would be a Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers Permit for Activities in Waterways. These
permit applications would have to be coordinated with the NPDES
permit application.
Institutional Arrangements
Considering the operational history of ALCOSAN in the
study area, the existence of an interceptor sewer system to
about mile 11.0 on the Monongahela River, and the interest that
ALCOSAN may have in reducing or eliminating industrial dis-
charges to itssanitary system, ALCOSAN is the logical agency
to build and operate the RWT facility. It would seem that
economies could be effected in utilizing the present administra-
tive, engineering, and maintenance personnel; in consolidating
purchases; and in utilizing existing rights-of-way. This
assumes, of course, that there are no legal, political, or
other barriers to this arrangement.
Land Acquisition
With the cooperation of Mr. Richard M. Cosentino of the
Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC),
alternative treatment plant sites were located. Sites con-
sidered were:
1. Under and/or adjacent to the Glenwood Bridge.
2. The blast furnace department of J & L Steel
Corporation on 2nd Avenue.
3. East Carson Street near Becks Run.
4. The Chartiers Creek Basin.
5. In the vicinity of Brunot Island, possible the
back channel of the river.
The possibility of a plant site providing a recreational
area should at least be considered. Underground construction
could be a significant factor. The nature of the wastewater
to be treated, the treatment processes to be used, and the
quality of the effluent to be produced should make the
possibility of a swimming or a fishing lake at least worthy of
consideration.
52
-------
Financing the Project
There seems to be little doubt that a municipal bond issue
payable from revenues received from the users would be the pre-
ferred financing method. If ALCOSAN were to be the operating
entity, the mechanism of the bond issue would be considerably
simplified, since such an issue would be similar to past issues
of ALCOSAN.
53
-------
REFERENCES
1. Delaware River Basin Commission. Interstate Planning for
Regional Water Supply and Pollution Control. Project No.
16110 FPP, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. November, 1971. 337 pp.
2. Feng, Tsuan H., Francis A. DiGiano and Allen Morgenroth.
Joint Treatment of Textile Dyeing, Paper Coating and
Municipal Wastewaters. In Proceedings of the Fifth Mid-
Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November, 1971. pp. 76-119
3. Shindala, Adnan. Combined Treatment of Domestic and Textile
Dyehouse Washer in Aerated Lagoons. In! Proceedings of the
Fifth Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, Drexel
University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November, 1971.
pp. 120-140
4. Ross, Richard D. The Role of the Central Disposal Facility
in Industrial Waste Control. In] Proceedings of the Fifth
Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November, 1971. pp. 153-159
5. Marshall, Harold E. and Rosalie T. Ruegg. Analysis of Cost
Sharing Programs for Pollution Abatement of Municipal Waste-
water. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
November, 1974. 137 pp.
6. Hein, C. J., Joyce M. Keys and G. M. Robbins. Regional
Governmental Arrangements in Metropolitan Areas: Nine Case
Studies. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
January, 1974. 240 pp.
7. Combined Steel Mill and Municipal Wastewaters Treatment.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Febraury,
1972. 157 pp.
8. Adams, Barry J. and Roberts Gemmell. Water Quality Eval-
uation of Regionalized Wastewater Systems. Office of
Water Resources, United States Department of the Interior,
July, 1973. 193 pp.
54
-------
9. Reid, George W. and Robert T. Alguire. Systems Approach
to Metropolitan and Regional Area Water and Sewer Planning.
Office of Water Resources Research/ United States Depart-
ment of Interior, May, 1973, 401 pp. pp. 76-119.
10. Lee, John W. Dr. Tertiary Treatment of Combined Domestic
and Industrial Wastes. United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, May, 1973. 203 pp.
11. Adrian, Donald D. et al. A Methodology For Planning Opti-
mal Regional Wastewater Management Systems. Office -of
Water Resources Research, United States Department of the
Interior, 1972. 243 pp.
12. Moreau, David H. et al. Regional Water Resources
Planning For Urban Needs. Office of Water Resources
Research, United States Department of the Interior,
March, 1973. 159 pp.
13. Behn, Vaugh C. Discharge of Industrial Waste to Munic-
ipal Sewer System. Office of Water Resources Research,
United States Department of the Interior, February, 1973.
18 pp.
14. Reiter, W. M. Evaluation Factors for Joint Waste Treat-
ment. Pollution Engineering, December, 1974. pp. 38-40.
15. Banding Together to Halt Pollution. Business Week,
1975. pp. 66B-66D.
16. Traquair, William C. Rx for Industry: Regionalism.
Water and Waste Engineering, May, 1973. pp. C--14 to C-16.
17. Remmel, H. R. and W. A. Chapman. Cooperation is Key to
Control. Water and Waste Engineering. January, 1973.
pp. A16 to A18.
18. Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate
Waters of the Monongahela River and Its Tributaries.
Public Health Service, United States Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Volumes I, II, and III, December
17, 1963. 1,036 pp. combined.
19. Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate
Water of the Monongahela River and Its Tributaries -
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, August, 1971. 756 pp.
20. Enforcement Conference - Monongahela River and Its Tribu-
taries - Mine Drainage Report to Conferences. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 31 pp.
55
-------
21. Trace Metal Study - Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio
Rivers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Area. Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, February, 1968. 63 pp.
22. Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the Allenport
Works of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Allenport,
Washington County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, November, 1975. 54 pp.
23. Waste Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the Clairton Works
United States Steel Corporation, Clairton, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, November, 1975. 37 pp.
24. Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the Monessen
Works of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation. Monessen,
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. December, 1975. 47 pp.
25. Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the Homestead
Works, United States Steel Corporation, Rankin, Homestead,
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, January, 1976. 33 pp.
26. Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the Edgar
Thomson - Irvin Works, United States Steel Corporation,
North Braddock and West Mifflin, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. October, 1975. 42 pp.
27. Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the Jones
and Laughlin Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh Works Division,
Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. January, 1976.
37 pp.
28. Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the National-
Duquesne Works, United States Steel Corporation, Duquesne,
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. January, 1976. 33 pp.
29. Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Disposal at the Christy
Parks Works, United States Steel Corporation, McKeesport,
°emmsu;vamoa. August, 1975. 22 pp.
30. Characterization and Evaluation of Wastewater Sources,
United States Steel Corporation, Duquesne Plant, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania. National Enforcement Investigation
Center, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
May, 1976. 65 pp.
31. Characterization and Evaluation of Wastewater Sources,
United States Steel Corporation, National Plant, McKeesport,
Pennsylvania. National Enforcement Investigations Center,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, May, 1976.
69 pp.
56
-------
32. Final Engineering Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment,
United States Steel Corporation, Irvin Plant. Region III,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 15,
1976. 44 pp.
33. Final Engineering Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment,
United States Steel Corporation, Duguesne Plant. Region
III, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
May 6, 1976. 37 pp.
34. Final Engineering Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment,
United States Steel Corporation, National Plant. Region
III, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
May 4, 1976. 45 pp.
35. Final Engineering Evaluation of Waterwater Treatment,
United States Steel Corporation, Edgar Thomson Plant.
Region III, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
April 15, 1976. 36 pp.
36. Final Engineering Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment,
United States Steel Corporation, Homestead Works.
Region III, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
April 13, 1976. 68 pp.
37. Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment, United States
Steel Corporation, Clairton Works. Region III, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, April 29, 1976.
36 pp.
38. Characterization and Evaluation of Wastewater Sources,
United States Steel Corporation, Irvin Plant, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. National Enforcement Investigation Center,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, December,
1975.
39. Characterization and Evaluation of Wastewater Sources,
United States Steel Corporation, Edgar Thomson Plant,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. National Enforcement Inves-
tigation Center, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, December, 1975. 62 pp.
40. Laboon, J. F. Building Vast Sewage System To Serve
Pittsburgh District. Clean Streams, Issue Number 37,
July, 1956. 6 pp.
41. Allegheny County Sanitary Authority - History Of A Sewage
Project That Serves 75 Municipalities. Publication of the
Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, 1971. 20 pp.
57
-------
42. Special Monongahela River Survey, March 2-4, 1976 - Data
Tabulation and Footnotes. Wheeling Field Office, Region III,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, April, 1976.
43. Comments by United States Steel Corporation on Proposed
Environmental Quality Board Amendments to Chapter 97
Industrial Wastes. United States Steel Corporation, March
29, 1976. 77 pp.
44. Dimensions of Year 2000-A Statistical Report. Southwestern
Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, April, 1973.
104 pp.
45. Forecasting Framework: Jobs, People, and Land. South-
western Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, August,
1974. 119 pp.
46. Regional Development Plant For Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Southwestern Pennsylvnaia Regional Planning Commission,
1974. 34 pp.
47. A Computer Model For Alternative Sewer System Cost Evalua-
tion-SCAPE. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning
Commission, December, 1972. 57 pp.
48. Programs and Planning For the Management of the Water
Resources of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, November, 1971. 275 pp.
49. Busch, W. F- and L. C. Shaw. Pennsylvania Streamflow
Characteristics, Low-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration.
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters, Bulletin
No. 1, April, 1966. 289 pp.
50. Dams, Reservoirs and Natural Lakes-Water Resources Planning
Inventory No. 1. Pennsylvania Department of Forests and
Waters, Bulletin No. 5, 1970. 101 pp.
51. Pennsylvania Gazetter of Streams. Pennsylvania Department
of Forests and Waters, Water Resources Bulletin No. 6,
December, 1970. 279 pp.
52. 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. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
June, 1974. 461 pp.
53. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category. United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, April, 1974. 195 pp.
58
-------
54. Environmental Science and Technology- PAT REPORT,
Detoxifying Industrial Wastewaters.. 10(2): 127-129,
February, 1976.
55. Pollution Control. Banding Together To Halt Pollution.
April, 1976. pp. 2-6
56. Water and Sewage Works Supplement, Industrial Wastes.
Pollution Control Built Into Guayama Petrochemical Complex.
March, 1969. pp. 2-6
57. Treatment Of Mixed Domestic Sewage And Industrial Waste
Waters In Germany. Organization For Economic Co-operation
and Development, Paris, 1966. 113 pp.
58. Kneese, Allen V. The Economics of Regional Water Quality
Management, 1964. 215 pp.
59. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Environmental
Protection Agency - Technology Transfer. Complete Water
Reuse. Based on Papers Presented at the National Confer-
ence on Complete Water Reuse, April 23-27, 1973. 632 pp.
60. Water and Wastes Engineering. Cooperation Is Key To
Control. January, 1973. PP. A-16 to A-18
61. Reiter, E. M. Evaluation Factors For Joint Waste Treat-
ment. Pollution Engineering, December, 1974. PP» 38-40
62. Environmental Protection Agency. The Integrated Multi-
Media Pollution Model. EPA 600/5-74-020, February, 1974.
259 pp.
63. Drexel University and University of Delaware. Proceedings
Of The Fifth Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference.
November 17-18-19, 1971. PP. 1-541
64. Environmental Protection Agency. Analysis Of Cost Sharing
Programs For Pollution Abatement Of Municipal Wastewater.
EPA-600/5-74-031, November, 1974. 137 pp.
65. Environmental Protection Agency. Regional Governmental
Arrangements in Metropolitan Areas* Nine Case Studies.
EPA 600/5-74-024, January, 1974. 240 pp.
66. United States Steel Corporation. The Making, Shaping And
Treating Of Steel. 1971. 1,420 pp.
67. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document For
Effluent Limitations Guidelines And New Source Performance
Standards For The Petroleum Refining Point Source Category.
EPA 44011-74-014a, April, 1974. 195 pp.
59
-------
68. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document For
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Perform-
ance For the Alloy and Stainless Steel Industry. Draft
Contractor's Document. January, 1974. 125 pp.
69. Smith, A. E. A Study of the Variation with pH of the
Solubility and Stability of Some Metal Ions at Low Concen-
trations in Aqueous Solution (Parts I and II). Analyst,
January and March, 1973. pp. 65-209
70. Water Quality Criteria. Second Edition. The Resources
Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board,
Sacramento, California, 1963. 548 pp.
71. Federal Guidelines. Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced
Into Publicly Owned Treatment Works. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington, D. C. 20460. October, 173. 165 pp.
72. Environment Regporter. Environmental Protection Agency
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40
CFR 141; 40 FR 59565, December 24, 1974,; Amended by 41 FR
28402, July 9, 1976) Sec. 141.3(c). pp. 99-105
73. Klemetson, S. L. and W. J. Grenney. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 48(12)0, 1976.
74. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual
for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants.
October 1971, Contract No. 14-12-933. 58 pp.
60
-------
October 6, 1977 APPENDIX
INDUSTRIAL USERS' QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear :
Some time ago we contacted you by letter and/or by telephone
concerning the study Datagraphics is conducting, i.e., "A
Study of the Feasibility of a Joint Regional Industrial Waste
Treatment Facility." We solicited suggestions and comments
from all of the potential users of such a facility along the
Monongahela River from the Point to Allenport.
In general, those contacted said that they could offer no
opinions as to whether or not they would be interested in
participating until they knew the cost to their particular
plants. Accordingly, we have developed cost estimates for a
150 mgd treatment plant served by a 50-mile interceptor sewer
system. The capacity is based upon the concept that each
plant would recirculate and re-use presently non-segregated
process and cooling water and discharge a 10% blowdown to the
regional system. Presently segregated non-contact cooling
water would be discharged to the river.
The treatment plant, designed to discharge pollutant loads
equal to the total BATEA loads from all plants, would cost
$157 - $198 million and the sewer system about $111 million.
The total system would thus cost $268 - $309 million. To put
this in perspective, we estimate that it would cost $407
million to build the 180 mgd ALCOSAN system at 1977 prices.
At a total cost of $300 million, the RWT facility operated
by an Industrial Development Authority and financed by revenue
bonds would cost about $30 million per year to operate on the
average over .40 years. The cost of treatment would thus be
about $548 per million gallons. The estimated user charges
are shown in Table II taken from a progress report for this
study. These estimates are based upon the data of Table 6
from the same report. The capital charges are based upon a
bond issue patterned after a recent Beaver County issue.
Other operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $14.399
per year.
61
-------
We are of the present opinion that such a regional facility is
technically and economically feasible. The economic feasibility
depends, of course, upon the decisions of the potential users,
i.e., you and your industrial counterparts. No one else can do
more than speculate as to whether or not industry would find
the concept attractive.
Although costs are of primary importance, we have been surprised
to find that most of those contacted have not expressed interest
in the other benefits which we believe should be of at least
equal interest. Other benefits to be considered, in our view
at least, are:
1. Freedom from NPDES sampling monitoring, inspection and
reporting (except for non-contact cooling water outfalls).
2. Virtual freedom from the chances of NPDES Permit violations.
3. No additional capital outlays for BATEA limitations
(except for sewer connections).
4. No added labor, supervision or management time, and no
additional space or utility requirements for BATEA
limitations.
5. BATEA costs would be all chargeable as operating expenses.
6. Availability of a receptor for wastewaters from new
facilities.
7. A good public relations image, and a real contribution to
the future of water-using industries in the Monongahela
Valley.
We believe that the following paragraph summarizes many of the
tangible and intangible benefits.
"Wastewater treatment plant operation is regarded by industry
as a necessary, but distracting interference with the primary
production operations. Operators must be hired and trained,
management time must be allotted, and the treatment system must
be operated to meet strict effluent limitations day in and day
out in the face of severe penalties for non-compliance. BPCTCA
limitations can be met with a minimum of such problems, but
BATEA limitations require much more effort and dramatically
increase the potential for violation of effluent limitations
due to equipment malfunctions and operator error. The central-
ized plant incorporating treatment beyond anything feasible
in-plant, utilizing more highly skilled personnel whose only
concern is wastewater treatment, and providing means to
assimilate and even out occasionally high contaminant loads can
only result in uniformly better treatment in total.:T
62
-------
We have no wish to burden you with involved questionnaires, but
we do need some sort of definable and reportable industry re-
action to this proposal if any good is to come of the study.
We are therefore asking you to take a few minutes and answer the
enclosed short list of questions. We would, of course, be de-
lighted if you want to expand your comments and we would like
to meet with you for detailed discussions if you would be
willing.
We shall look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Henry C. Bramer, President
(Project Grant Director)
HCB/rlf
cc: Interested Project Staff
and Management.
-------
JOINT REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
Potential Users Questionnaire Form
1. Do you want your answers kept anonymous? Yes No
2. Name Co. or Plant
Address Telephone
3 Are there corrections to Table 6? Indicated on Xerox copy
None
4. Do you find the concept of an RWT facility attractvie? Yes No
5. Are the estimated costs: Too high? Acceptable Unacceptable?
Higher than for in-plant treatment? Other?
6. Would your company be likely to participate? Yes No Doubtful_
7. If no or doubtful in 6, why?
8. How do you value the following benefits of an RWT facility?
a. No NPDES sampling, etc.
b. No NPDES violations
c. Minimize BATEA capital outlay
d. No added in-plant BATEA treatment
e. Labor Supervision Training Management_
Space Utilities Other
c. BATEA costs would all be expense items
64
-------
d. Provision for new facility discharges
e. Public Relations
f. Better treatment Reliability
g. Costs more important than: a b c d e f h
h. Do you see any other benefits, advantages, or disadvantages to
the RWT concept? No What are they?
9. Is the Public Authority Operation acceptable? Yes No Don't Care_
If no: What other?
User-owned? Private Utility?
10. Is the low-interest rate on revenue bonds attractive? Yes No
Don't Care
11. Please comment here or attach other comments, suggestions, data, etc,
65
-------
12. Should we contact anyone else in your company or plant? No_
Name Telephone
Address
13. Would you like to arrange a meeting? Yes No-
where When
Will Call Call Us
14. Do you want any additional information? Yes No
What information do you want?
66
-------
TABLE II. ANNUAL CHARGES FOR MAJOR DISCHARGERS USING RWT FACILITY
Plant name and location
% of total
discharge (1)
user charge/year
J & L Steel Corp., Pittsburgh
Mesta Machine Co., W. Homestead
U.S. Steel Corp., Homestead
U.S.S., Corrie Furnace, Rankin
U.S.S., Edgar Thompson, N. Braddock
U. S. Steel Corp., Duquesne
U.S.S., National, McKeesport
U.S.S., Christy Park, McKeesport
U.S.S., Irvin, W. Mifflin
Copperweld Steel Co., Glassport
Textron (Pittroa) , Glassport
U. S. Steel Corp., Clairton
American Chain And Cable, Monessen
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Monessen
Corning Glass, Charleroi
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Allenport
Other
17.42
0.04
9.23
7.10
19.00
10.55
0.32
0.02
4.85
0.09
0.03
9.18
0.01
4.72
0.16
1.99
15.29
$5,226,000
12,000
2,269,000
2,130,000
5,700,000
3,065,000
96,000
6,000
1,455,000
27,000
9,000
2,754,000
3,000
1,416,000
48,000
597,000
4,587,000
Totals 100.00
(1) Process water and non-segregated cooling water only.
$30,000,000
Company
J & L Steel Corp.
U.S. Steel Corp,
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Co.
Mesta Machine Co.
Copperweld Steel Co.
Textron (Pittron)
American Chain and Cable Co.
Corning Glass Co.
Other
total annual charge
$ 5,226,000
18,075,000
2,013,000
12,000
27,000
9,000
3,000
48,000
4,587,000
% of total
17.42
60.25
6.71
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.16
15.28
67
-------
TABLE 6. PRESENT MAJOR DISCHARGES - PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL FLOW
Average Average Average
total flow cooling water net
Plant name and location mgd mgd mgd
J & L Steel Corp., Pittsburgh
Mesta Machine Co., W. Homestead
U.S. Steel Corp., Homestead
U.S., Corrie Furnace, Rankin
U.S.S., Edgar Thompson, N.Braddock
U.S. Steel Corp., Duquesne
U . S . S . , National , McKeesport
U . S . S . , Christy Park, McKeesport
U.S.S., Irvin, W. Mifflin
Copperweld Steel Co., Glassport
Textron (Pittroa) , Glassport
U.'S. Steel Corp., Clairton
American Chain And Cable, Monessen
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Monessen
Corning Glass, Charleroi
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Allenport
Other
330.3
2.32
128.0
180.0
234.9
130.4
38.61
0.227
60.0
1.17
0.519
133.1
0.100
58.31
2.67
32.2
189.11
114.9
1 87
13.82
92.16
0
0
34.61
0
0
0.10
0.173
19.57
0
0
0.73
7.63
0
215.4
0.51
114.18
87.84
234.9
130.4
4.0
0.23
60.0
1.07
0.35
113.53
0.100
58.31
1.94
24.57
189.11
% of
total
net
17.42
0.04
9.23
7.10
19.00
10.55
0.32
0.02
4.85
0.09
0.03
9.18
0.01
4.72
0.16
1.99
15.29
Totals
1522.0
285.56 1236.44 100.0
68
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-065
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI»NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
The Feasibility of a Regional Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Facility
5. REPORT DATE
April 1980 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Henry C. Bramer
Charles A. Caswell
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Datagraphics, Incorporated
501 Castle Shannon Boulevard
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant No. R804182
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Off-ice of Research and Bevelopment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada. OK 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
final 12/K/7S - 11
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/015
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The feasibility of establishing a regional industrial wastewater treatment
(RWT) facility to serve the 68 industrial plants along the lower reaches of
the Mbnogahela River has been studied. It has been concluded that a facility
consisting of an interceptor sewer system following the river course with a
treatment plant near the point at Pittsburgh is technically possible. The
facility would best be designed to treat up to 568,000 cubic meters per day
(cu m/day) (150 million gallons per day (mgd)) of wastewater.
Several obstacles to the implementation of such a concept exist. The
fact that effluent guidelines are not in effect preclude precise determination
of the RWT treatment requirements at this time. Previously published best
available treatment economically achievable (BATEA) limitations would require
a degree of treatment not clearly demonstrated.
It must therefore be concluded that an RWT facility in this geographical
area is technically possible, but would be neither economically nor institu-
tionally feasible.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Activated Sludge Process
Activated Carbon Treatment
Interceptions (Sewers)
Filtration
Regional Treatment Facili
Industrial Wastewater
Mutant Bacteria
Wet Air Oxidation
ty
68D
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
TTnol gc
21. NO. OF PAGES
77
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
69
» U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1580-657-146/5651
------- |