DRAFT
    DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
  AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
      FERROALLOYS INDUSTRY
 PREPARED BY DATAGRAPHICS, INC.
        FOR UNITED STATES
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-1527
       DATED:  JUNE, 1973

-------
                          DRAFT

                           NOTICE
The attached document is a DRAFT CONTRACTOR'S REPORT.   It
includes technical information and recommendations submitted
by the Contractor to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency for review and comment only.  The report is not an
official EPA publication and it has not been reviewed by the
Agency.

The report, including the recommendations, will be undergoing
extensive review by EPA, Federal and State agencies, public
interest organizations and other interested groups and persons
during the coming weeks.  The report and in particular the
contractor's recommended effluent limitations guidelines and
standards of performance is subject to change in any and all
respects.

The regulations to be published by EPA under Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, will be based to a large extent on the report and
the comments received on it.  However, pursuant to Sections
3,04 (b) and 306 of the Act, EPA will also consider additional
pertinent technical and economic information which is developed
in the course of review of this report by the public and
within EPA.  EPA is currently performing an economic impact
analysis regarding the subject industry, which will be taken
into account as part of the review of the report.  Upon com-
pletion of the review process, and prior to final promulgation
of regulations, an EPA report will be issued setting forth
EPA's conclusions concerning the subject industry, effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance applicable
to such industry.  Judgements necessary to promulgation of
regulations under Sections 304 (b) and 306 of the Act, of
course, remain the responsibility of EPA.  Subject to these
limitations, EPA is making this draft contractor's report
available in order to encourage the widest possible participation
of interested persons in the decision making process at the
earliest possible time.

The report shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court
proceeding only to the extent that is represents the views of
the Contractor who studied the subject industry and prepared
the information and recommendations.  It cannot be cited,
referenced, or represented in any respect in any such proceedings
as a statement of EPA's views regarding the subject industry.

                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Office of Air and Water Programs
                 Effluent Guidelines Division
                 Washington, D. C. 20460

-------
                          DRAFT
                      EPA Review Notice

This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication.  Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency/ nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                          DRAFT


                          ABSTRACT


For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations guidelines
and standards of performance for the ferroalloys industry, the
industry has been categorized on the basis of the types of
furnaces, air pollution control equipment installed, and water
uses.  The categories are as follows:

       I  Open Electric Furnaces with Wet Air Pollution Control
          Devices
      II  Covered or closed Electric Furnaces and Other Smelting
          Operations with Wet Air Pollution Control Devices
     III  Slag Concentration
      IV  Electrolytic Processes
       V  Non-Contact Cooling Water

The effluent limitations July 1, 1977 are based upon the pollution
reduction attainable using those treatment technologies as
presently practiced by the average of the best plants in these
categories.  The technologies are based upon the use of
'end of pipe1 treatment and once-through water usage.

The effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1983 are
based upon the pollution reduction attainable using those
control and treatment technologies as presently practiced  by
the best plant in the category.

The new source performance standards are based upon the
available demonstrated control technology, process, operating
methods, or other alternatives which are applicable to new
sources.  Pretreatment standards are also given for new sources.

Costs are given for the various levels of treatment identified
for each category and for the attainment of the suggested
effluent guidelines and new source performance standards, based
upon analysis of reported treatment costs at plants surveyed
in the course of the study.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.

-------
                         DRAFT


                         CONTENTS

Section                                                 Page

I      Conclusions                                        1

II     Recommendations                                    2

III    Introduction                                       5

IV     Industry Categorization                           46

V      Waste Characterization                            50

VI     Selection of Pollutant Parameters                 62

VII    Control and Treatment Technology                  64

VIII   Cost, Energy and Non-Water Quality Aspect        124

IX     Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
       Available, Guidelines and Limitations            138

X      Best Available Technology Economically
       Achievable, Guidelines and Limitations           143

XI     New Source Performance Standards and
       Pretreatment Standards                           148

XII    Acknowledgements                                 155

XIII   References                                       156

IX     Glossary                                         159

-------
                       DRAFT


                          FIGURES

No.                                                  Page

1    Ferroalloy Production Flow Diagram               17

2    Submerged-Arc Furnace Diagram                    21

3    Cross Section of Open Furnace                    22

4    Flow Sheet LC Ferrochromium                      30

5    Electrolytic Manganese Flowsheet                 33

6    Flowsheet for Electrolytic Chromium              34

7    Vacuum Furnace for Ferroalloy Production         36

8    Induction Furnace Diagram                        37

9    Plant A Water and Wastewater Systems             66

10   Plant B Water and Wastewater Systems             71

11   Plant C Water and Wastewater Systems             76

12   Steam/Hot Water Scrubbing System                 82

13   Plant D Water and Wastewater Systems             83

14   Plant E Water and Wastewater Systems             89

15   Plant F Water and Wastewater Systems            102

16   Plant G Water and Wastewater Systems            105

17   Diagram of "Wet Baghouse" System                110

18   Plant H Water and Wastewater Systems            116

19   Cost of Treatment Vs. Effluent Reduction
     Category I                                      129

20   Cost of Treatment Vs. Effluent Reduction
     Category II                                     130

21   Cost of Treatment Vs. Effluent Reduction
     Category III                                    131

22   Cost of Treatment Vs. Effluent Reduction
     Category IV                                     132

23   Cost of Treatment Vs. Effluent Reduction
     Category V                                      133

-------
                         DRAFT
                          TABLES

No.                                                  Page

1    Ferroalloy Facilities and Plant Locations        12

2    Ferroalloy Shipments in 1970                     11

3    No. of Plants versus Values of Shipment - 1967   11

4    Water Intake, Use, and Discharge: 1968           13

5    Water Intake by Water Use Region: 1968           13

6    Water Intake, Use, and Discharge: 1968           14

7    Intake, Use, and Discharge by Water Use
     Region: 1968                                     14

8    Intake Water Treatment Prior to Use: 1968        15

9    Water Treated Prior to Discharge: 1968           15

10   Material Balance for 50% Ferrosilicon            24

11   Ferromanganese Charge Materials-Flux Method      25

12   Ferromanganese Charge Materials - Self-Fluxing
     Method                                           26

13   MC Ferromanganese Charge Materials               26

14   Silicomanganese Charge Materials                 27

15   Charge Materials for HC Ferrochromium            28

16   Raw Material Components to Smelting Products
     for HC FeCr                                      28

17   Charge Materials for Ferrochromesilicon          29

18   Typical Furnace Fume Characteristics             39

19   Production and Emission Data for Ferroalloy
     Furnaces                                         43

20   Types of Air Pollution Systems Used on
     Ferroally Furnaces                               44

21   Off-Gas Volumes from Open and Closed Furnaces    45

-------
                         DRAFT


Tables (con't)

No.                                                  Page
22   Raw Waste Loads for Covered Furnaces with
     Low-Energy Scrubbers                             53

23   Raw Waste Loads for Submerged-Arc Furnaces
     with no Wet Air Pollution Controls               54

24   Raw Waste Loads-Sealed Silicomanganese Furnace
     with Low Energy Scrubbers                        54

25   Raw Waste Loads-Open Chromium Alloy and Silico-
     manganese Furnaces with Steam/Hot Water
     Scrubbers                                        55

26   Raw Waste Loads-Scrubbers on Submerged-Arc
     Furnaces                                         56

27   Raw Waste Loads-Slag Shotting Process            57

28   Raw Waste Loads-Electrolytic Process Fluid
     Wastes                                           57

29   Raw Waste Loads-Electrolytic Cell Acid Wastes    58

30   Raw Waste Loads-Electrolytic Chromium Acid
     Waste                                            59

31   Raw Waste Loads-Slag Concentration Process       59

32   Raw Waste Loads-for Submerged-Arc Furnaces
     with No Wet Air Pollution Controls               60

33   Raw Waste Loads-Open Chromium Alloy Furnaces
     with Electrostatic Precipitators                 60

34   Raw Waste Loads-Aluminothermic Smelting with
     Combination Wet Scrubbers and Baghouse           61

35   Pollutant Parameters for Industry Categories     62

36   Characteristics of Surveyed Plants               64

37   Analytical Data -SPl- Plant A Lagoon Influent    67

38   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant A Lagoon Effluent    67

39   Analytical Data -SP4- Plant A Cooling Tower #2   68

40   Analytical Data -SP5- Plant A Cooling Tower #1   68

41   Analytical Data -SP7- Plant A Well Water         69

42   Analytical Data -SPl- Plant B Intake Water       69

-------
                          DRAFT

Tables  (con't)

No.                                                  Page

43   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant B Wet Scrubbers      72

44   Analytical Data -SP3- Plant B Thickener Inlet    72

45   Analytical Data -SP4- Plant B Thickener Overflow 73

46   Analytical Data -SP5- Plant B Cooling Water      73

47   Analytical Data -SP7- Plant B Sewage Plant       74
     Effluent

48   Analytical Data -SP8- Plant B Total Plant
     Discharge                                        74

49   Analytical Data -SP1- Plant C Well Water         77

50   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant C Cooling Tower
     Slowdown                                         77

51   Analytical Data -SP3- Plant C Spray Tower Sump   78

52   Analytical Data -SP4- Plant C Thickener Under-
     flow                                             78

53   Analytical Data -SP6- Plant C Sewage Plant
     Effluent                                         79

54   Analytical Data -SP8- Plant C Sludge Lagoon
     Effluent                                         79

55   Analytical Data -SP9- Plant C Thickener Overflow 80

56   Analytical Data -SP1- Plant D Well Water         80

57   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant D Cooling Tower      85
     Slowdown

58   Analytical Data -SP4- Plant D Slurry Blend Tank  85

59   Analytical Data -SP6- Plant D Continuous Blow-
     down                                             86

60   Analytical Data -SP5- Plant D Filter Supply
     Tank                                             86

61   Analytical Data -SP8- Plant D Plant Discharge    87

62   Analytical Data -RP1- Plant E Electrolytic
     Manganese                                        87

63   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant E Electrolytic
     Manganese Dioxide                               91

-------
                          DRAFT

Tables (con't)

No.                                                  Page

64   Analytical Data -SP3- Plant E Electrolytic
     Chromium                                         9 ^

65   Analytical Data -SP4- Plant E Furnace #18
     Scrubber Discharge                               92

66   Analytical Data -SP5- Plant E Furnace #17
     Scrubber Discharge                               92

67   Analytical Data -SP6- Plant E MOR Scrubber
     Discharge                                 '       93

68   Analytical Data -SP7- Plant E Slag Shotting
     Wastewater                                       93

69   Analytical Data -SP9- Plant E Furnace #10
     Scrubber Discharge                               94

70   Analytical Data -SP10- Plant E Furnace #5
     Scrubber Discharge                               94

71   Analytical Data -SP11- Plant E Furnace #1
     Scrubber Discharge                               95

72   Analytical Data -SP12- Plant E Furnace #1
     Scrubber Settling Basin Discharge                95

73   Analytical Data -SP13- Plant E Slag
     Concentrator Wastewater                          96

74   Analytical Data -SP14- Plant E Slag
     Tailings Pond Discharge                          96

75   Analytical Data -SP15- Plant E Lagoon #3
     Influent                                         97

76   Analytical Data -SP16- Plant E Lagoon #3
     Effluent                         "                97

77   Analytical Data -SP17- Plant E Intake River
     Water                                            98

78   Analytical Data -SP18- Plant E Cooling Water
     Discharge                                        98

79   Analytical Data -SP19- Plant E Combined Slag
     Shotting & Cooling Water Discharge               99

80   Analytical Data -SP20A- Plant E Fly Ash
     Influent to Lagoon                               99

81   Analytical Data -SP20B- Plant E Fly Ash
     Influent to Lagoon                              100

-------
                           DRAFT

Tables (con't)

No.                                                  Page

82   Analytical Data -SP1- Plant F Intake Water      100

83   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant F Cooling Tower
     Blowdown                                        103

84   Analytical Data -SP3- Plant F Plant Discharge   103

85   Analytical Data -SP1- Plant G Intake City Water 106

86   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant G Cooling Tower
     Blowdown                                        106

87   Analytical Data -SP3- Plant G Spray Tower
     Discharge                                       107

88   Analytical Data -SP4- Plant G Settling Basin
     Influent                                        107

89   Analytical Data -SP5- Plant G Plant Discharge   108

90   Analytical Data -SP6- Plant G Slag Processing
     Discharge                                       108

91   Analytical Data -SP1- Plant H Intake City Water 111

92   Analytical Data -SP2- Plant H Baghouse
     Wastewater Discharge                            111

93   Analytical Data -SP3- Plant H Treated Baghouse
     Wastewater                                      112

94   Analytical Data -SP4- Plant H Settling Lagoon
     Discharges                                      112

95   Analytical Data -SP5- Plant H Polishing Lagoon
     Discharge                                       113

96   Analytical Data -SP6- Plant H Plant Discharge   113

97   Analytical Data -SP7- Plant H Plant Well Water  114

98   Analytical Data -SP8- Plant H Cooling Water     114

99   Control  and  Treatment Technologies by Category  115

100  Industry Category  I, Open Furnace with Wet Air
     Pollution Controls                             119

101  Industry Category  II, Covered Furnace with Wet
     Air Pollution Control                           120

-------
                           DRAFT
Tables (con't)
No.                                                  Page
102  Industry Category III, Slag Concentration
     Processes                                       121
103  Industry Category IV, Electrolytic Processes    122
104  Industry Category V, Non-Contact Cooling Water
     Uses         "                                  123
105  Treatment Level Costs on Unit of Production
     Basis                                           126
106  Treatment Level Costs on Wastewater Flow Basis  127
107  BPCTCA Effluent Guidelines Treatment Basis      139
108  Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
     Available Guidelines and Limitations            142
109  BATEA Effluent Guidelines Treatment Basis       144
110  Best Available Technology Economically
     Achievable Guidelines and Limitations           147
111  New Source Performance Standard Basis           149
112  New Source Performance Standards                152
113  Concentration of Pollutants which Inhibit
     Biological Treatment Processes                  153
114  Sources of Pollutants at Concentrations Likely
     to Inhibit Biological Processes by Industry
     Category                                        151

-------
                          DRAFT


                          SECTION I

                         CONCLUSIONS


For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations guidelines
and standards of performance for the ferroalloys industry, the
industry has been categorized on the basis of the types of
furnaces, air pollution control equipment installed, and water
uses.  The categories are as follows:

       I  Open Electric Furnaces with Wet Air Pollution Control
          Devices
      II  Covered or Closed Electric Furnaces and Other Smelting
          Operations with Wet Air Pollution Control Devices
     III  Slag Concentration
      IV  Electrolytic Processes
       V  Non-Contact Cooling Water

Other factors, such as age, size of plant, geographic location,
product, and waste control technologies do not justify segmenta-
tion of the industry into any further subcategories for the
purpose of establishing effluent limitations and standards of
performance.  Similarities in waste loads and available treat-
ment and control technologies within the categories further
substantiate this.  The guidelines for application of the
effluent limitations and standards of performance to specific
plants take into account the mix of furnace types and water
uses possible in a single plant which directly influence the
quantitative pollutional load.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.

-------
                           DRAFT


                         SECTION II

                       RECOMMENDATIONS


It is recommended that the effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards be adopted as suggested
herein for the ferroalloy industry.  These suggested guidelines
and performance standards have been developed on the basis of
an intensive study of the industry, including plant surveys,
and are believed to be reasonable and attainable from the
standpoints of both engineering and economic feasibility.

The application of these guidelines and performance standards
to specific plants is intended to be on the basis of a "building
block" approach to define the effluent limits from the plant
as a whole.  Consider, for example, a large ferroalloy plant
having one or more of the processes and/or water uses in
each category.  The total effluent limitation for the plant
would be based upon the totals of each pollutant in each
category, determined by multiplying the allowable unit load
by the total production rate in that category.  It is recom-
mended that this method of application of the guidelines and
performance standards be used.

It is recommended that the industry be encouraged to develop
or adopt such Pollution reduction methods as the recovery and
reuse of collected airborne particulates for recycle to
smelting operations or use in electrolytic processes, the
reduction of volumes from electrolytic processes, and the use
or sale of by-products.  The development or adoption of better
wastewater treatment controls and operating methods should
also be encouraged.

The best practical control technology currently available for
existing point sources is as follows, by category:

        I  Physical/chemical treatment to remove suspended
           solids and toxic pollutants.

       II  Physical/chemical treatment to remove suspended
           solids and toxic pollutants, and destruction of
           cyanides.

      Ill  Physical treatment to remove suspended solids.

       IV  Physical/chemical treatment to remove suspended
           solids and toxic pollutants.

        V  Cooling ponds to reduce  the heat  load in the  effluent.


NOTICE: THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT  TO  CHANGE BASED  UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER  INTERNAL  REVIEW BY  EPA.

-------
                               DRAFT

     The effluent limitations are based on achieving by July 1,  1977
     at least the pollution reduction attainable using these
     treatment technologies as presently practiced by the average
     of the best plants in these categories.  The above technologies
     are based upon the use of 'end of pipe1 treatment and once-
     through water usage.

     The best available technology economically achievable for
     existing point source is as follows, by category:

            I  Recycle of water, with blowdown treated for removal
               of suspended solids and toxic pollutants by physical/
               chemical treatment.

           II  Recycle of water, with blowdown treated for removal
               of suspended solids, toxic pollutants  and cyanide by
               physical/chemical treatment.

          Ill  No discharge, attainable by completely recycling all
               waters.

           IV  Minimization of wastewater flow with treatment for
               removal of toxic pollutants by physical/chemical
               treatment.

            V  Recycle of cooling water, attainable through use of
               cooling towers.  Blowdown to be used as makeup for
               any of the categories above.  If the blowdown cannot
               be so utilized, then physical/chemical treatment is
               necessary to remove the toxic pollutants.

     The effluent limitations are based on achieving by July 1,  1983,
     at least the pollution reduction using these control and
     treatment technologies as presently practiced by the best
     plant in each category, and using transfer of technology
     where the best plant in the category is felt to be insufficient.

     The new source of performance standards are based upon the
     best available demonstrated control technology, process,
     operating methods, or other alternatives which are applicable
     to new sources.  With the exception of Category I, the best
     available demonstrated control technology for new sources is
     the same as the best available technology economically
     achievable, which will be utilized to meet the 1983 limitations.
     The standard of performance for Category I is zero discharge
     of pollutants.  This can be met by, in effect, eliminating
     Category I  (open furnaces with wet air pollution control devices)
     which would entail the use of non-water using gas cleaning
     devices, i.e., baghouses.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT ,AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.

-------
                             DRAFT

    Pretreatment standards are based upon an analysis of those
    pollutants in the industry's wastewaters which might inter-
    fere with the operation or otherwise be incompatible with a
    municipal sewage treatment plant.  Pretreatment is specified
    for cyanides, chromium, oil, zinc, and lead.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.

-------
                          DRAFT

                         SECTION III

                        INTRODUCTION

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(the "Act") requires the United States Environmental
Protection Agency  to establish effluent limitations which
must be achieved by point sources of discharge into the
navigable waters of the United States.  Section 301 of the
Act requires the achievement by July 1, 1977, of effluent
limitations which require the application of the "best prac-
ticable control technology currently available," and the
achievement by July 1, 1983, of effluent limitations which
require the application of the "best available technology
economically achievable."

Within one year of enactment, the Administrator is required by
Section 304(b) to promulgate regulations providing guidelines
for the effluent limitations required to be achieved under
Section 301 of the Act.  These regulations are to identify in
terms of amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants,  the degree of
effluent reduction attainable through the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available and
best available technology economically achievable.  The
regulations must also specify factors to be taken into account
in identifying the two statutory technology levels and in
determining the control measures and practices which are to be
applicable to point sources within given industrial categories
or classes to which the effluent limitations apply.

In addition to his responsibilities under Sections 301 and 304
of the Act, the Administrator is required by Section 306 to
promulgate standards of performance for new sources.  These
standards are to reflect the greatest degree of effluent
reduction which the Administrator determines to be achievable
through the application of the "best available demonstrated
control technology, processes, operating methods, or other
alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants."

The Office of Air and Water Programs of the Environmental
Protection Agency has been given the responsibility by the
Administrator for the development of effluent limitation
guidelines and new source standards as required by the Act.
The Act requires the guidelines and standards to be developed
within very strict deadlines and for a broad range of
industries.  Effluent limitations guidelines under Section
301 and 304 of the Act and standards of performance for new
sources under Section 306 of the Act will be developed for

-------
                          DRAFT

27 industrial categories.  Moreover, each of these industrial
categories probably will require further subcategorization in
order to provide standards that are meaningful.

In order to promulgate the required guidelines and standards,
it is first necessary to (a)  categorize each industry; (b)
characterize the waste resulting from discharges within
industrial categories and subcategories; and (c) identify
the range of control and treatment technology within each
industrial category and subcategory.  Such technology will
then be evaluated in order to determine what constitutes the
"best practicable control technology currently available,"
what is the "best available technology economically achievable"
and, for new sources, what is the "best available demonstrated
control technology."

In identifying the technologies to be applied under Section
301, Section 304(b) of the Act requires that the cost of
application of such technologies be considered,  as well as the
non-water quality environmental impact  (including energy
requirements) resulting from the application of such tech-
nologies.  It is imperative that the effluent limitations and
standards to be promulgated by the Administrator be supported
by adequate, verifiable data and that there be a sound
rationale for the judgments made.  Such data must be readily
identifiable and available and such rationale must be clearly
set forth in the documentation supporting the regulations.

FERROALLOY MANUFACTURE

Ferroalloys are used for deoxidation, alloying,and graphit-
ization of steel and cast iron.  In the nonferrous metal
industry, silicon is used primarily as  an alloying agent  for
copper, aluminum, magnesium, and nickel.  Seventy five percent
ferrosilicon is used as a reducing agent in the production
of magnesium by the Pidgeon process.  Manganese is the most
widely used element in ferroalloys, followed by silicon,
chromium, and phosphorus.  Others include molybdenum, tung-
sten, titanium,  zirconium, vanadium, boron, and columbium.

There are four major methods used to produce ferroalloy and
high purity metallic additives for  steelmaking.  These are
 (1) blast furnace,  (2) electric smelting furnace,  (3) alumino-  or
silicothermic process and  (4) electrolytic deposition.  The
choice of process is dependent upon the alloy produced and
the availability of furnaces.  Ferromanganese is the  principal
metallurgical form of manganese.  This  product  contains 75%  or
more of manganese, the balance being mainly iron.  It is
produced in  the  blast furnace or electric-arc furnace and is
available in several grades.  A few steel companies produce

-------
                          DRAFT

ferromanganganese  for their own use since they have their own
ore sources and suitable blast furnaces available.  The
production of ferromanganese in blast furnaces is a part of
S.I.C. 3312; such  production is not considered herein, but
will be covered under the guidelines for the iron and carbon
steel industry.  Electric smelting furnaces produce most of
the ferroalloy tonnage.

The majority of electric ferroalloy furnaces are termed
submerged arc, although the mode of energy release in many
cases is resistive heating.  Raw ore, coke, and limestone or
dolomite mixed in  proper proportions constitute the charge
for the electric-arc furnace process.  A large supply of
electric power is  necessary for economical operation.
Important operating considerations include power and electrode
requirements, size and type of furnace, amount and size of
coke, and slag losses.  The major ferroalloys thus produced are

     1.  Silicon Alloys - Ferrosilicon  (50-90% Si) and Calcium
                          Silicide
     2.  Chromium  Alloys - High carbon Ferrochromium in various
                           grades and Ferrochromesilicon.

     3.  Manganese Alloys - Standard Ferromanganese and
                           Silicomanganese
There are a smaller number of furnaces which do not operate
with deep submergence of the electrodes and produce a batch
melt which is usually removed by tilting the furnace.  Mix
additions and power input would usually be cyclic.  Examples
of products produced in this type of furnace are:

     1.  Manganese Ore - Lime melt for subsequent ladle
         reactions with Silicomanganese to produce medium
         carbon and low carbon ferromanganese.

     2.  Chrome Ore - Lime melt for subsequent ladle reaction
         with ferrochromesilicon to produce low carbon ferro-
         chromium.

     3.  Special Alloys, such as Aluminum - Vanadium, Ferro-
         columbium, Ferroboron, Ferrovanadium and Ferromolyb-
         denum.

The largest source of waterborne pollutants in the industry
is the use of wet  methods for air pollution control; consider-
ation of air pollution sources is thus of importance here.
The production of  ferroalloys has many dust or fume producing
steps.  Particulates are emitted from raw material handling,
mix delivery, crushing, grinding, and sizing, and furnace
operations.  The dust resulting from the solids-handling
steps does not present a difficult control problem.  Emissions
from furnaces vary widely in type and quality, depending upon
the particular ferroalloy being produced, type of furnace used,
and the amount of  carbon in the alloy.

-------
                         DRAFT


The conventional submerged-arc furnace utilizes carbon reduc-
tion of metallic oxides and continuously produces large
quantities of carbon monoxide.  Other sources of gas are
moisture in the charge materials, reducing agent volatile
matter, thermal decomposition products of the raw ore, and
intermediate products of reaction.  The carbon monoxide
normally accounts for about 70 vol. % of the gases.  The
gases rising out the top of the furnace carry fume or fume
precursors and also entrain the finer size constituents of
the mix or charge.  Submerged-arc furnaces operate in steady-
state and gas generation is continuous.  In an open furnace,
all the CO burns with induced air at the top of the charge,
resulting in a large volume of gas.  In a closed furnace
most or all of the CO is withdrawn from the furnace without
combustion with air.  The controls used are thus greatly
affected by the type of furnace due to the gas volume and
the combustibility of the gas.

Fume emission also occurs at furnace tap holes.  Because
most furnaces are tapped intermittently, tap hole fumes
occur only about 10 to 20% of the furnace operating time.
Melting operations may be conducted in an open arc furnace
in some plants.  While no major quantities of gas are
generated in this operation, thermally inducted air flow
may result in fume emission.

WATER POLLUTION SOURCES

Air pollution control devices include baghouses, wet
scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators.  Wet scrubbers,
of course, produce slurries containing most of the parti-
culates in the off-gases.  Spray towers used to cool the
gases before precipitators produce slurries containing some
percentage of the particulates in the gases.  Baghouses
generally produce no wastewater effluents.  In at least one
plant, however, the gases from exothermic processes are cooled
by water sprays, scrubbed in wet dynamic scrubbers, and
finally cleaned in a baghouse in which the bags are period-
ically washed with water.

The only currently feasible type of wet collector for cleaning
the large gas volume  from open furnaces is the Venturi type
scrubber.  With required pressure drops on the order of 152.4 cm
(60 in.) W.G., the power consumption approaches 10% of the
furnace rating (for a low hood design).  Most venturi designs
allow recirculation of scrubbing liquor so that water consumption
is reduced to that evaporated into the gas plus that existing
with the concentrated solids stream.  The Venturi has the
advantage of being able to absorb gas temperature peaks by
evaporating more water.  For a ferrosilicon or ferrochrome-
silicon operation substantially all of the sulfur in the
reducing agent appears in the gas phase, and a corrosion
problem occurs in any liquid recycle system unless neutral-
izing agents or special materials of construction are used.

-------
                          DRAFT

Electrostatic precipitators have been installed on open
furnaces producing silicon, ferrosilicon, ferrochromesilicon,
high-carbon ferrochromium, and silicomanganese, both in this
country and abroad.  Most ferroalloy fumes at temperatures below
259.7°C (500°F) have too high an electrical resistivity, i.e.,
greater than 1 X IQlO ohm-cm for the use of electrostatic precip-
itators.  The resistivity is in an accepted range only if
the gas temperature is maintained above 259.7-315.2°C (500-600°F),
Water conditioning would lower the resistivity, but a large spray
tower is required for proper humidification.  Stainless
steel construction would be a necessity for ferrosilicon or
ferrochrome silicon operations.  The alternate use of steam
is feasible if low-cost steam is available.

The resistivity problem could be overcome by using a wet
precipitator, but water usage appears to be greater than
that for a wet scrubber without recycle.  Wet electrostatic
precipitators have been used at one installation in Europe.
However, all parts of the precipitator exposed to the dirty
water and to the wet gas were constructed of stainless steel.
Electrostatic precipitators have found limited usage in
American ferroalloy plants.

Submerged arc furnaces may be characterized as open, closed,
and sealed.  The open furnace has no cover and air is freely
available to burn the CO coming off from the charge.  The
closed furnace has a cover through which the electrodes extend
down into the charge; the space around the electrodes is
kept filled with the charge materials to prevent escape of
the gases generated.  The sealed furnace has a similar cover
but with mechanical seals around both the electrodes and mix
spouts.

The sealed furnace has thus far been applied only to calcium
carbide, pig iron, standard ferromanganese and silicomanganese.
Sealed covers are difficult to adapt to an existing furnace
because of the extensive revisions that are usually required.

A modified cover, incorporating electrode seals, but covering
only the "reaction zones" around the electrodes and leaving
the outer rim of the furnace open, has been developed.  This
approach, called gas collection sleeves or smoke rings, has
the advantage of collecting the gas in the observed region of
maximum generation, of allowing partial stoking of the mix,
and of being cheaper than a complete cover.  Initial install-
ations were made on ferromanganese furnaces and subsequently
on calcium carbide and silicomanganese furnaces.

For covered furnaces the disintegrator type of scrubber does
a good cleaning  job when properly maintained and has the
additional advantage of producing a slight pressure head

-------
                         DRAFT

(about 5cm [2 in.] W.G.).  However, the capacity limitations and
high water and power consumption make it uneconomical for
most new furnace installations.

The Venturi type scrubber has been installed on CO gas
cleaning installations, but the required pressure drops
are high.  A possible explosion hazard would likely exist
in the use of baghouses or electrostatic precipitators to
clean CO-rich gases from closed furnaces.  The electrostatic
precipitator is a possible CO gas cleaning device, but has
found limited ferroalloy application.  It would be possible to
use a bag collector to clean CO gas, but no application
on ferroalloy furnaces is known in this country and only one
is known in the remainder of the world.

Electrolytic processes produce wastewaters resulting primarily
from the disposal of spent electrolytes and washings.

Other sources of wastewater in the industry are from cooling
uses, boiler feed, air conditioning, and sanitary uses.
Wastewaters also result from slag processing operations
in which slag is crushed and sized for sale or reuse and/or
from which metal values are recovered.

PLANT LOCATIONS AND INDUSTRY STATISTICS

There are some 40 plants in the United States which produce
ferroalloys, chromium, manganese, and other additive metals as
tabulated in Table 1.

The 1967 Census of Manufactures reports 34 establishments in
S.I.C. 3313, i.e., primarily engaged in the production of
electrometallurgical products.  Of these establishments,
only 20  were included in the 1968 Water Use in Manufacturing
data as having used 75.7 million liters  (20 million gals.) or
more of water annually.  The total value of shipments in S.I.C.
3313  (34 plants) in 1967 was $467.9 million.  The value of ship-
ments from the 20 large water-using plants was $411.4 million.

According to the Minerals Yearbook, 1970, shipments rather
than production are the measure of activity in the industry,
as production in the high-volume ferroalloys may be irregular
and intermittent.  Shipments in 1970 were as shown in Table 2.
                            10

-------
                           DRAFT
           Table 2.  FERROALLOY SHIPMENTS IN 1970
                         Gross Weight
	Product	   Metric tons Short tons Value,  $ thousand

Ferromanganese          732,283     807,368     134,456
Silicomanganese         156,900     172,988      32,024
Ferrosilicon            597,909     659,216     136,238
Silvery Iron            188,351     207,664      16,853
Chromium alloys:
  Ferrochromium         262,481     289,395     100,667
  Other                  73,968      81,552      25,606
Ferrotitanium             2,985       3,291       3,503
Ferrocolumbium            1,289       1,421       9,385
TOTAL                 2,258,112   2,489,649     548,078


In 1970, 345,567 metric tons  (381,000 short tons)  of ferroalloys
were produced in blast furnaces according to the Annual Statistical
Report, A.I.S.I.-1970.  Plants using other than blast furnaces
thus produced about 1,912,863 metric tons (2,109,000 short tons)
in that year.

On the basis of the census data and the number of plants
enumerated in Table 1, the distribution of numbers of plants
versus capacity in the industry appears to be as in Table 3.


   Table 3. NUMBER OF PLANTS VS. VALUES OF SHIPMENTS-1967
                            Value of Shipments ($ million)
  No. of plants              FerroalloysTotal

       20                        -              411.4
       34                     398.2             467.9
       40                     420.4
The large water-using plants thus account for some 88 per-
cent of the value of shipments in S.I.C. 3313, while
numbering 20 out of 40 and apparently account for over 80
percent of the  total value of the shipment of ferroalloys.
                             11

-------
                                                   DRAFT


             Table 1.   TYPES,  SIZES,  AND LOCATIONS OF FERROALLOY PRODUCING PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
                                                    August 1971

Plant
Producers Size Locations
1

2
3
4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

31
32
33

34
35

36

37
38
39
40
Air Reduction Co., Inc.
Airco Alloys Div.



American Potash Co.
Chromium Mining & Smelting
Co.
Climax Molybdenum Co.
Foote Mineral Co.





Hanna Nickel Smelting Co.
Interlake Steel Corp.
Kawecki Beryloc Industries
Kawecki Chemical Co.
Luckenby
Manganese Chemicals Co.,
Diamond Shamrock
Molybdenum Corp. of America

National Lead Co.
New Jersey Zinc Co.
Ohio Ferro Alloy Corp.
Ohio Ferro Alloy Corp.


Reynolds Metals Co.
P.eadimg Alloys
Sandgate Corp.
Shieldalloy Corp.

Teniessee Alloys Corp.
Tennessee Metallurgical Co.
Union Carbide Corp.

Ferroalloys Div.


Mining & Metals Div

Ferroalloys Div.

Woodward Co.
Die. Mead Cor.

L
M
M
S
S
M

S
S
L
L
S
M
M
S
L
S
S
S
S

S

S
S
M
L
M
S
S
S
s
S

s
s
L

L
L

S

S
M
M
S

Calvert City, Ky.
Charleston, S.C.
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
Theodore , Ala .
Aberdeen, Miss.
Woodstock, Tenn

Langetoh, Pa.
Cambridge, Ohio
Graham, w. Va.
Keokuk , Iowa
Knoxville, Tenn.
Stubenville, Ohio
Wena tehee. Wash.
Riddle, Oreg.
Beverly, Ohio
Springfield, Oreg.
Easton, Pa.
Selam, Ala.
Kingwood, W. Va.

Washington, Pa.

Niagara Falls, N.Y.
Palmerton, Pa.
Brilliant, Ohio
Philo, Ohio
Powhaton, Ohio
Tacoma, Wash.
Lister Hill, Ala.
Robesonia, Pa.
Houston, Texas
Newfield, N.J.

Bridgeport, Ala.
Kimball, Tenn.
Alloy, w. Va.

Ashtabula, Ohio
Marietta, Ohio

Niagara Falls, N.Y.

Portland, Oreg.
Sheffield, Ala.
Rockwood , Tenn .
Woodard, Ala.
Products
CaC2
FeCr, FeMn, FeSi, FeCrSi



Mn
FeMn,SiMn,FeSi,FeCr,
FeCrSi
FeMo
FeB , FeCb , FeTi , FeV .other
No.
Type of furnace Furnaces

Electric
Electric
Electric
Electric
Electrolytic
Electric

Aluminothermic
Electric
FeCr , FeCrSi , FeMn , FeSi , SiMn Electric
FeSi, Silvery Iron
Mn
FeCr, FeCrSi
FeSi
FeSi
FeCr, FeSi, SiMn
Si
FeCb
FeSi
FeMn

FeMo

FeCbTi , FeTi , other
Spiegeleisen
FeCr,FeSi,Si,FeCrSi
FeB, FeMn , FeSi , SiMn , Si
FeSi, Si
FeCr, FeSi
Si
FeB, FeCb, FeV, NiCb, FeMo
FeMn, SiMn
FeV , FeTi , FeB , FeMo ,
FeCb, FeCbTa
FeSi
FeSi
FeB , FeCr , FeCrS i , FeCb ,
FeSi , FeMn
FeTi , Few , FeV , S iMn , other






FeMn, SiMn
FeSi
Electric
Electrolytic
Electric
Electric
Electric
Electric
Electric
Aluminothermic
Electric
Fused Salt Electro-
lytic
Electric & Alumino-
thermic
Electric


Flectric
Electric
Electric
Electric
Aluminothermic
Electric
Aluminothermic

Electric
Electric
Electric

Electric
Electric,
electrolytic, vacuum
Electric,
aluminothermic
Electric
Electric
Electric
Electric

11
2
1
1

5


3
9
8

6
4
4
7
2

1




3


10
4
2
1

3


3
2
16

8

11

2
2
5
7
1
 Plant size classification
S-Up to 25,000 KW
M- 25,000 to 75.000KW
L-Over 75,000 KW
                                                    12

-------
                          DRAFT

The 1968 Water Use in Manufacturing data for those estab-
lishments using more than 75.7 million liters  (20 million gal)
of water annually are summarized in Tables 4 thru 9.

      Table 4.  WATER INTAKE, USE, AND DISCHARGE: 1968
No. of Establishments                              20.
No. of Employees                                8,700.
Value Added by Manufacture                       S168.9 X 10b
No. of Establishments Recirculating Water          17

                                         Liters      Gallons
Total Intake                          1128.7 X 10^ 298.2 X IQ9
Intake Treated Prior  to Use           3406.5 X 10° 900.  X 106
Total Water Discharged                1120.7 X 10* 296.1 X 109
Intake for Process                        4.9 X 109   1.3 X 109
Intake for Air Conditioning            757.  X 109 200.  X 109
Intake for Steam Electric  Power        701.4 X 109 185.3 X 109
Intake for Other Cooling or Condensing 381.5 X lO9 100.8 X 10^
Intake for Boiler Feed, Sanitary, etc.   40.1 X 109  10.6 X 109
      Table  5.   WATER INTAKE  BY WATER  USE  REGION:  1968
                            Intake
	Region	 109  liters  109  gals.  No.  Establishments

Delaware  and  Hudson     (D)         (D)           (D)
Eastern Great Lakes   381.5       100.8           5
Ohio  River             684.3       180.8           7
Tennessee               (D)         (D)           (D)
Southeast               (D)         (D)           (D)
Upper Mississippi       (D)         (D)           (D)
Pacific Northwest       (D)         (D)           (D)


T6~5Withheld to avoid disclosing  data  on individual  plants,
                            13

-------
                          DRAFT

      Table 6.  WATER INTAKE, USE, AND DISCHARGE: 1968
Value of Shipments
Intake from Public Systems
Co. Surface Intake
Co. Ground Intake
Gross Water Used
Public Sewer Discharge
Surface Water Discharge
Ground Water Discharge
Transferred to other Users
Treated before Discharge
            $411.4 X 106

   Liters         Gallons
3028
1119
6
1212
1514
1102
1892
15
•
.2
.4
.3
•
.2
.5
.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
106
100
"2
106
109
106
109
10?
               800,
               295,
               320,
               400,
               291,
               500,
                 4,
      x 10;
   7  X 10;
                 1.7
      X 10"
      X 106
      X 109
      X 10°
      X 10*
199.4 X 10"
52.7  X 10-
Table 7.  INTAKE, USE, AND DISCHARGE BY WATER USE REGION:  1968
Value of Shipments
          S 97.2
     10'
                                     Eastern Great Lakes
                                 Liters          Gallons
Intake from Public Systems
Co. Surface Intake
Co. Ground Intake
Gross Water Used
Public Sewer Discharge
Surface Water Discharge
Ground Water Discharge
Transferred to other Users
Treated before Discharge
Value of Shipments


Intake from Public Systems
Co. Surface Intake
Co. Ground Intake
Gross Water Used
Public Sewer Discharge
Surface Water Discharge
Ground Water Discharge
Transferred to other Users
Treated before Discharge
1892.5 X 10|
379.6 X 10
 Q
379.6 X 10*
1514. X 10°
364.5 X 109
378.5 X 10^
15.5 X 109
(Z)
$179.
Ohio
Liters
378.5 X 106
677.9 X 109
6.1 X 109
718.8 X 10
(Z)
679.4 X 10*
757. X 106
~ Q
157.1 X 10*
500. X 10p
100.3 X 10*
 Q
100.3 X 10*
400. X 10?
96.3 X 10*
100. X 10°
4.1 X 10y
(Z)
8 X 106
River
Gallons
100. X 10^
179.1 X 109
1.6 X 109
189.9 X 10
(Z) 9
179.5 X 109
200. X 106
—
41.5 X 109
(Z)   Less than 1.89 million I/year (500,000 gal/year)
                            14

-------
                            DRAFT

    Table 8.  INTAKE WATER TREATMENT PRIOR TO USE:  1968
    Treatment          Establishments     109 liters 109  gal,
Aeration
Coagulation
Filteration
Softening
Corrosion Control
PH
Other
None
1
4
4
4
4
3
2
13
_
1.9
1.5
.4
1.5
—
—
mm
—
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.5
—
—
~
     Table 9.  WATER TREATED PRIOR TO DISCHARGE:  1968
    Treatment         Establishments     109 liters  109  gal.

Primary Settling              3               -
Secondary Settling            3               -
Trickling Filters             1               -
Activated Sludge              2               -          -
Digestion                     5               .4       0.1
Ponds or Lagoons              6            157.5       41.6
pH                            3
Chlorination                  3               -
Flotation                     3               -
Other                         9               -
                             15

-------
                          DRAFT
PRODUCTION PROCESSES

The ferroalloy manufacturing processes are listed below with
the product groups manufactured by each process.
     Submerged-arc furnace process -
     Exothermic process -
     Electrolytic process -


     Vacuum furnace process -

     Induction furnace process
Silvery iron
50% Ferrosilicon
65-75% Ferrosilicon
Silicon metal
Silicon-manganese-zirconium
High-carbon (HC) ferro-
manganese
Silicomanganese
Ferromanganese silicon
Charge chrome
HC ferrochromium
Ferrochrome silicon
Calcium carbide

Low-carbon  (LC) ferro-
chromium
LC ferromanganese
Medium-carbon  (MC) ferro-
manganese
Chromium metal

Chromium metal
Manganese metal

LC ferrochromium

Magnesium ferrosilicon
Ferrotitanium
Ferroalloy production in submerged-arc furnaces consists
of raw materials preparation and handling, smelting, and
product sizing and handling as shown in Figure 1.

RAW MATERIALS PREPARATION AND HANDLING

The mineralogy of individual ores used by the ferroalloys
industry is highly technical and specialized.  The ores
must be analyzed and carefully evaluated to identify any
undesirable elements.  Careful evaluation of the ore is
essential not only with regard to costs, including govern-
ment tariffs, but also with regard to freight charges to
                            16

-------
             DRAFT
           Figure  1.
FERROALLOY PRODUCTION FLOW  DIAGRAM
                                                                       FUMES
                     CRUSHING      WEIGH FEEDING
             CRUSHING
                       bCREFNING
                                      V-'ORAGF
                                                                           SHIPMENT

-------
                          DRAFT

ferroalloy plants.  Other considerations in the purchase of
ores are their physical characteristics, ease of reduction,
and analytical specifications necessary to meet customer
requirements.

The United States is dependent almost entirely upon commercial
sources of manganese and chromium ores from outside the
country.  These ores are imported mainly from South America,
Africa, Turkey, India, and Russia.  Since the time interval
between mining the ores and their receipt at the ferroalloy
plants is usually many months, or even as long as a year, a
substantial stock of manganese and chromium ores of the
particular types and grades necessary to produce the desired
alloys must be maintained.

It is the general practice to procure ores from familiar
sources since their peculiarities will be known.  Such ores
will have already demonstrated their suitability for the
intended smelting process.  There are not many known chromium
ore deposits and their fundamental chemical composition and
physical properties have been reasonably well defined.  The
same is true of commercially mined manganese ores.

Most ores come to the market for sale in the dressed state
and are sold on the basis of their content of the metal oxide,
i.e., the content of manganese oxide, chromium oxide, etc.
In general, ores containing high percentages of metal oxides
are easier to process and result in lower production costs
than ores with lower percentages of metal oxides.

In addition to chromium and manganese ores, columbium-bearing
ores or slags, titanium ores, and zirconium ores are also
imported.  Commercial sources of vanadium and tungsten
bearing ores exist in the United States.  High-purity quartzes
or quartzites with low alumina and low iron oxide are found
in selected areas of this country.  High quality limestone
deposits are also available domestically at a few locations.

The chromium ores imported and used for ferroalloy production
in the United States have a Cr^C^ content of about 45 to 53
percent.  The manganese content of the manganese ores ranges
from 43 to 54 percent.  Since the ores used for ferroalloy
production contain considerable gangue, ore receipts and
storage at the ferroalloy plants involve large tonnages.

The sizing of ores is important.  Fine ores, such as flot-
ation concentrates, are not desirable as a direct charge into
                            18

-------
                            DRAFT


reduction  furnaces  because  such ores  lack porosity and do not
allow  the  release of reaction gases.  Dust losses are therefore
high.  Fine  ores can be  used effectively with minimum mechanical
losses in  melt  furnaces  and can later be reduced with silicon
alloys.  While  work has  been done on  briquetting fine ores,
equipment  investment and briquetting  costs have been difficult
to justify through  increased production and improved recovery.
On the other hand,  ores  received at the plants are frequently
oversized  and must  be crushed to a suitable size.

It is  desirable to  have  in  storage an adequate quantity of ore
with the desired chemical analysis and physical properities.
The desirable quantities stored will  depend on the furnace
capacity,  marketing situation, and storage capacity of the
plant.  The  interest on  the funds invested in the ores held
in storage may  become a  significant cost factor.  Often it is
possible to  assemble ore from several sources which will com-
plement each other  in their composition.

The ore shipment, plus the  required quartzes or quartzites,
lime,  scrap  steel turnings, and reducing agents, etc., are
generally  transported to plants by railway or river barges.
Ores are unloaded by traveling cranes or railroad-car dumpers
and moved  with  belt conveyors to storage areas.  The free
moisture in  the raw materials is significant, ranging from
10 to  20 percent.   In some  plants, the moisture is decreased
by passing the  material  through driers before use in furnaces.

Care is required in the  preparation of furnace charges in
order  to produce a  specified ferroalloy.  Normally, raw
materials  are conveyed to a mix house where they are weighed
and blended.  After the  batch has been assempled, it is
moved  by conveyors,  buckets, skip hoist, or cars to the
hoppers above the furnace,  where it may flow by gravity
through chutes  to the furnaces.

SUBMERGED-ARC FURNACES

The general  design  of submerged-arc furnaces for the production
of alloys  is basically the  same throughout the industry; but
they differ  in  electrical connections, arrangements of
electrodes,  and shape and size of the hearth.  With carbon
reduction  furnaces  the electrodes are submerged .9-1.5 m
(3-5 ft.)   into  the  charge within the  furnace crucible, so the
reduction  center lies in the middle of the charge and the
reaction gases  pass  upward  through the charge.  A portion of the
heat is transferred  to the  charge and partly prereduces the ore
as it  passes downward into  the center of the furnace.  Because
of the passage  of the reaction gas through the charge, the
fume losses  from evaporation of the super-heated metal near the
electrode  tips  are  reduced.
                            19

-------
                          DRAFT


Submerged-arc furnaces are generally built with an open top,
and large quantities of reaction gases evolved from the
surface during the reduction process will flow without
hindrance into a hood built above the furnace.  The gases
burn on the surface of the charge supported by the oxygen of
in-rushing air, and are then discharged through the stack(s)
to the atmosphere.  Due to the open configuration, the parts
above the furnace, i.e., the electrode holders, the hangers,
the current conductors, the charging equipment, etc., are
exposed to the radiant heat of the furnace and the hot
furnace gases.  These components must receive effective heat
protection through the use of cooling water flowing through
interior passages in the metal parts.  In some reduction
furnaces that produce ferroalloys water-cooled covers having
gas removal equipment are built over the top of the furnace
crucible.  In such furnaces raw materials are used that do
not tend to bridge and block the flow of gas so that it is
not imperative to work the charge with stoking rods.

The crucible of the submerged-arc furnace consists of a
sealed metal shell adequately supported on foundations with
provisions for cooling the bottom of the steel shell.  The
bottom interior of the steel shell is lined with two or
more layers of carbon blocks and tightly sealed with a carbon
compound packed between the joints.  The interior walls of
the furnace shell are lined with refractory or carbon brick.
One or more tap-holes are provided through the shell at the
top level of the bottom carbon block.  In some cases,
provisions are made for the furnace to rotate or oscillate
slowly.

Figure 2 shows a diagram of a ferroalloy furnace while
Figure 3 shows an overall cross section of the same furnace
with its accessory equipment.

The iron content in the ferroalloy charge material and
product greatly facilitates both the ferroalloy smelting
operation and the use of ferroalloys in the manufacture of
steel.  When metals that melt at high temperatures are
alloyed with iron, the resulting alloy has a  lower melting
temperature than the metal with the high melting point.
The lower melting temperature greatly facilitates the furnace
production of ferroalloys and also facilitates its solution
in molten steel or iron.

In the submerged-arc furnace the conversion of electrical
energy to heat takes place through the heating of the alloy
feed mixture, which creates a good electrical current path
between the electrodes and the arc at the tips of the carbon
electrodes.  The carbon reduction of the oxidic ores boccurs below
the reaction zone of the furnace, in an area  enclosing the
electrode group and extending a few  inches outward from the
electrode periphery.
                             20

-------
                       DRAFT
                      Figure 2 .
           SUBMERGED-ARC  FURNACE  DIAGRAM
             -ELECTRODES
REACTION
GASES
CHARGE
MATERIAL
                  FERROALLOY
            CARBON HEARTH
    I  i\i I  I I  i i  i  i i  i i i  i
          CRUCIBLE

     CARBON
                                            REFRACTORY
                                            LINING

-------
                                                                              DRAFT
                                                                              Figure 3.
                                                                   CROSS  SECTION OF OPEN  FURNACE
                                                                                    ©
                                                                                                                                       SUPERSTRUCTURE
TAPPING FLOOR -
                                                             CRANE FOR PASTE 4
                                                             CASING HANDLING
                                            PI II II I II I I I I II I Illl IILLLUI II III II I I I I II I
                                        ALUJ

-------
                          DRAFT


Submerged-arc furnaces generally operate continuously except
for periods of power interruption or mechanical breakdown of
components.  Operating time averages 90 to 98 percent.  The
electrodes are submerged from  .9 - 1.5 m (3-5 ft.) below the
mix level, and their tips are  located about .9 - 1.8 m (3-6
ft.) above the hearth.  The electrodes' position thus facili-
tates both heat exchange and mass transfer between reaction
gases and the mix.

High temperatures, up to 2000°C  (3632°F), are required to effect
reduction reactions. Carbon monoxide is a necessary by-
product of the smelting reaction.  In the case of silicon
metal, about 2 kg  (4.4 Ib) of  carbon monoxide are produced
for each kg  (2.2 Ib) of metal; significant amounts of silicon
monoxide are also produced as  an intermediate.

Although furnaces may be changed from production of one
product group to another, such as from ferromanganese to
ferrochromium, this may entail rearrangement of electrode
spacing and different power loads and voltage requirements.
It is, for example, relatively easy to switch from one
grade of ferromanganese to another or from one grade of
ferrosilicon to another.  An open furnace permits greater
flexibility in changing from one product to another than
does one of closed construction.

The molten alloy from the carbon reduction of the ore accumu-
lates at the base of the electrodes in the furnace.  The
molten alloy is periodically removed through a tap-hole
placed to drain the metal from the hearth of the furnace.

FERROSILICON PRODUCTION

Quartz and quartzite are the minerals mostly used for smelt-
ing ferrosilicon.  The ores should contain not less than 98
percent Si02 and the lowest possible content of alumina,
magnesium oxide, calcium oxide, and phosphorous.  The reduc-
ing agent usually used is coke; other reducing agents are
coal, petroleum coke, and charcoal.  The reducing agent
should have minimum ash and phosphorous content.  Sulfur in
the charge  (as from coke) is volatilized from the furnace as
sulfur-silicon compounds.  The iron-containing substance
should be clean, carbon steel  scrap; the chromium and
phosphorous contents should be low.  These requirements
preclude the use of stainless  scrap and cast iron scrap.

A material balance for the production of 50% ferrosilicon
is typically as shown in Table 10.
                           23

-------
                          DRAFT

      Table 10.   MATERIAL BALANCE FOR 50% FERROSILICON
                  (% of material charged)
          Input
Quartzite
Coke
Steel Shavings
Electrode Mass
47.2
27.4
24.5
0.9
                  100.0
Output
                               Alloy
                               Volatilized
         41.8
         58.2
        100.0
The charge materials for the production of silicon metal
should contain no iron.  Petroleum coke or charcoal is used
as the reducing agent and pre-baked carbon electrodes are
generally used.  Power consumption increases with increasing
silicon content of the product from 50% FeSi to silicon metal,

Ferrosilicon is usually smelted in 3-phase electric furnaces
rated at up to 30 MW.  Modern ferrosilicon furnaces are
equipped with continuous self-baking electrodes and automated
charging machinery.  The electrodes are iron tubes which
are filled with the electrode mass, made of a mixture of
anthracite, coke and other carbonaceous substances, and a
mixture of coal tar and pitch used as a binder.  The
electrode is consumed during the process and is lowered
into the furnace.

The charge materials are prepared in charge yards, trans-
ported by conveyors to the proportioning floor, and distrib-
uted among the furnace hoppers.  From the hoppers the charge
is fed into the furnace charge holes.  During the production
of ferrosilicon, the furnace operates continuously and the
metal is tapped as it accumulates.  Six to eight tappings
per shift are made.  After tapping is finished as indicated
by the appearance of flame at the tap hole, plugs consisting
of electrode mass or a mixture of fire clay and coke dust
are rammed in.

FERROMANGANESE PRODUCTION

Electric furnaces similar to those used for the production
of ferrosilicon are used to produce ferromanganese.  When
ferromanganese is produced from its ores, iron, manganese,
silicon, phosphorous, and sulfur are reduced and complex
iron and manganese carbides are formed.  Smelting is
continuous with slag and metal being tapped every 2-2 1/2
hours.
                           24

-------
                           DRAFT

Ferromanganese  is  produced in  the  electric furnace by either
the flux process or  the  self-fluxing process.  In the flux
process, lime is introduced in the charge; MnO which forms
silicates with  the silicon in  the  ore and coke dust ash is
displaced by calcium oxide, reducing losses of manganese
to the slag.  Phosphorous in the ore is mostly reduced and
passes into the alloy.   Up to  90%  of the phosphorous in the
ore can be reduced;  the  reduced phosphorous partially
evaporates and  escapes from the furnace while 60% of the
total phosphorous  in the charge passes into the alloy.  Of
the total sulfur introduced in the charge 1% passes into
the alloy, 40-45%  passes into  the  slag, and 55% escapes
with the gases.  The normal charge to produce high-carbon
ferromanganese  by  the flux method  is as in Table 11.  The
charge-to-alloy ratio is about 4.0.


 Table 11.  HC  FERROMANGANESE  CHARGE MATERIALS-FLUX METHOD
                       (% by weight)
Manganese ore                64.7
Coke                         18.0
Limestone                    16.8
Electrode mass                0.5
                            100.0
In the self-fluxing method of producing ferromanganese, little
or no lime is introduced in the charge; the slag is subsequently
used to smelt silicomanganese.  By this method, 60% of the
manganese in the ore passes into the alloy, 8-10% escapes,
and 30-32% passes into the slag; 70% of the manganese in
the slag is extracted when silicomanganese is subsequently
produced from the slag.

The normal charge to produce HC ferromanganese by the self-
fluxing method is shown in Table 12.  Of the charged materials,
30.9% pass into the alloy, 29.5% pass into the slag, and
39.7% escapes as gas and dust.  Of the gas and dust, 82.7%
is gas containing 65-70% CO.
                            25

-------
                         DRAFT
Table 12.  HC FERROMANGANESE CHARGE MATERIALS - SELF-FLUXING
                           METHOD
                        (% by weight)
Manganese ore (48% Mn)                74.8
Lime                                   4.6
Coke                                  20.0
Electrode mass                         0.6
                                     100.0
Medium-carbon and low-carbon ferromanganese differ from high-
carbon ferromanganese by their reduced carbon contents and
are produced by a special process.  Production in an electric
furnace is usually by the silicothermic reduction method.
The charge for MC ferromanganese is composed of silico-
manganese, manganese ore, and lime, as shown in Table 13.
The charge-to-alloy ratio is about 3.5.
        Table 13.  MC FERROMANGANESE CHARGE
                         (% by weight)
            Manganese ore                           43.6
            Lime                                    24.3
            Silicomanganese  (20% Si, 65% Mn)        31.2
            Electrode Mass                           0.9
                                                   100.0
A similar charge would be used to produce LC ferromanganese,
but using silicomanganese with a higher silicon, lower
carbon content.
                            26

-------
                          DRAFT

SILICOMANGANESE  PRODUCTION

Silicomanganese  is  also produced in electric submerged-arc
furnaces.  The charge  is continuously loaded and slag and
metal are tapped 3  to  4 times during an 8-hour shift.
Silicomanganese  may be smelted from manganese ore, from
self-fluxing slag from ferromanganese production, or from a
combination of both.

A typical charge to produce Silicomanganese is shown in
Table 14.

         Table 14.  SILICOMANGANESE CHARGE MATERIALS
                        (% by weight)
Manganese Slag               27.9
Manganese Ore                27.9
Coal or Coke                 17.3
Lime                         15.6
Recycle Scrap                11.3
                            100.0
Low-phosphorous Silicomanganese is produced in a manner
similar to that above except that no manganese ore is used in
the charge, only manganese slag.

FERROCHROMIUM PRODUCTION

Ferrochromium is produced in several grades differing mainly
in carbon content.  Careful selection of chrome ores is
important in producing each of the several grades of alloy.

HC Ferrochromium Smelting

In the production of HC ferrochromium, the chromium and iron
oxides contained in the ore are reduced by a carbonaceous
reducing agent.  HC ferrochromium is smelted continuously;
the charge materials are fed in small portions, keeping the
furnace full while metal and slag are tapped about every
1 1/2 - 2 hours.  Smelting of HC FeCr requires higher voltages
and higher power loadings than are used for most other ferro-
alloys.

A typical charge for the production of HC ferrochromium,
                            27

-------
                          DRAFT

normally 60-68% chromium, is shown in Table 15.  The charge-
to-alloy ratio is about 4.0.
      Table 15.  CHARGE MATERIALS FOR HC FERROCHROMIUM
                        (% by weight)
Chromium ore                    72.4
Coke                            14.7
Quartzite                        6.6
Bauxite flux                     5.5
Electrode mass                   0.7
                               100.0
The charge elements pass into the smelting products as shown
in Table 16.
Table 16.  RAW MATERIAL COMPONENTS TO SMELTING PRODUCTS FOR
                          HC FeCr
                                 % in total charge
   Element	        to alloy  to slag   loss

Chromium                      90       6        4
Iron                          98       2        -
Silicon                       15      80        5
Phosphorous                   60      20        2
Sulfur                        10      30       60
Ferrochromesilicon Smelting

Ferrochromesilicon is produced by the direct method also by the
2-stage method.  In the direct method, chromium ore and
quartzite are reduced by coke.  The process is carried out in
arc furnaces similar to those used in the production of
ferrosilicon.  In the 2-stage method, the first stage consists
of smelting high-carbon ferrochromium.  The charge for the
second stage consists of quartzite, coke, and high-carbon
ferrochromium as shown in Table 17.
                            28

-------
                           DRAFT

     Table 17.  CHARGE MATERIALS FOR FERROCHROMESILICON
                         (% by weight)
Quartzite                             49.8
Coke                                  25.8
HC ferrochromium                      24.4
                                     100.0
EXOTHERMIC PROCESSES

The exothermic process using silicon or aluminum, or a combin-
ation of the two, is used to a lesser extent than the sub-
merged-arc process.  In the exothermic process the silicon or
aluminum combines with oxygen of the charge, generating consid-
erable heat and creating temperatures of several thousand
degrees in the reaction vessel.  The exothermic process is
generally used to produce higher grade alloys with low carbon
content.  Low-carbon and medium-carbon ferrochromium and low-
carbon or medium-carbon ferromanganese are produced by silicon
reduction.  A flow diagram of a typical silicon reduction
process for manufacturing LC ferrochromium is shown in Figure 4.
First, chromium ore and lime are fused together in a furnace
to form a chromium ore/lime melt.  Second, a known amount
of the melt is poured into the No. 1 reaction ladle followed
by a known quantity of an intermediate molten ferrochrome-
silicon previously produced in a No. 2 ladle.  The reaction in
the No. 1 ladle is a rapid reduction of the chrome from its
oxide and the formation of LC ferrochromium and a calcium
silicate slag.

Since the slag from ladle No. 1 still contains recoverable
chromium oxide, a second silicon reduction is made in the No. 2
ladle with molten ferrochromesilicon directly from the sub-
merged-arc furnace.  The reaction in the No. 2 ladle produces
the intermediate ferrochrome-silicon used in the No. 1 ladle
reaction.  LC and MC ferromanganese are produced by a similar
practice using a silicon bearing manganese alloy for reduction.

The reaction in these ladles from the silicon reduction
results in a strong agitation of the molten bath and a rise in
temperature.  The elevated temperature and agitation produces
emissions for about five minutes per heat that are similar
to the emissions from submerged-arc furnaces.
                             29

-------
            DRAFT

           Figure A.
FLOW  SHEET  LC FERROCHROMIUM
   ELECTRODES
Cr ORE

QUART-
2ITE
COKE

WOOD
CHIPS
    FcCrSi
SUBMERGED-ARC
    FURNACE

ELECTRODES)

C: ORE
!
" Cr

LIME
I
ORE/LIME MELT
OPEN-ARC
FURNACE
                          ±267oCr203
                   54*Cr  25?.Si
           SLAGB^CrgOj
      REACTION LADLE
                                  DLE
THROW-AWAY   SECONDARY
   SLAG      THROW AWAY
              SLAG
                               PRODUCT
                               LC FeCr
                30

-------
                           DRAFT

ALUMINUM REDUCTION

Aluminum reduction is used to produce chromium metal
ferrotitanium, ferrovanadium and ferrocolumbium.  Although
aluminum is a more expensive reductant than carbon or silicon,
the products are purer.  Mixed aluminothermal-silicothermal
processing is used for the production of ferromolybdenum
and ferrotungsten.  Usually such alloys are produced by
exothermic reactions initiated by an external heat source
and carried out in open vessels.  The high-temperature
reaction of aluminum reduction produces emissions for a
limited time similar to those by silicon reduction.

ELECTROLYTIC PROCESSES

Manganese metal and chromium metal are produced electro-
lytically by a relatively new method introduced a few years
after World War II.  Simple ions of the metal contained in
an electrolyte of modest concentration are plated on cathodes
by a low-voltage direct current to give free metal atoms.  The
subsequent arrangement of these atoms produces the crystal-
line groups that make up the deposit.  When the buildup on
the cathode becomes sufficient, the plates are withdrawn
from the electrolytic cells and the deposited metal is
removed.

The electrolytic process for producing nearly pure metals is a
largely chemical operation insofar as the preparation of
electrolytes is concerned.  The sources of the feed materials
are ores, high-metal oxide slags, and ferroalloys produced
in submerged-arc furnaces.  The metal deposition is usually
made in a number of cells with multiple plates, connected
in a series of parallel electrical circuits, all contained
in a ventilated building.

Electrolytic Managanese

Electrolytic manganese is produced from manganese sulfate
in the presence of ammonium salts.  The manganese sulfate is
prepared from ore which is mixed with 10% coal and 10% fuel oil
and calcined.  The calcined ore is then mixed with a solution
of 40 g/liter sulfuric acid and 150 g/liter ammonium sulfate.
Manganese dissolves as MnS04 and the iron in the ore
precipitates as the hydroxide.  The solution is allowed to
settle, or may be filtered, and then sent to electrolysis after
further purification.  The prepared electrolyte generally
contains 33-35 g/liter Mn  and 150-160 g/liter  (NH4)2S04.

The electrolysis baths have stainless steel electrodes.  The
anodes are placed in  frames with diaphragms designed to
separate anodic and cathodic regimes in the bath.  The spent
electrolyte is continuously withdrawn at about 12-13 g/liter
                            31

-------
                          DRAFT

Mn and equivalent fresh electrolyte is added.  The baths are
cooled by water circulating through stainless steel coils.
Manganese settles at the cathode as a thin, brittle layer,
is removed and usually crushed and sold as chips.  It may be
melted in an induction furnace and cast into bars.  The spent
electrolyte is reused in leaching and the anodic slime containing
manganese dioxide is sent to the leaching vats.  The cathodes
are cleaned with potassium bichromate, washed and dried.  A
flow sheet for the process is shown in Figure 5.

Electrolytic Chromium

Electrolysis is used to produce high-purity metallic chromium.
An aqueous solution of CrC>3 or of the sulfate salts of
trivalent chromium may be used as the electrolyte.  The
metal obtained by electrolysis of Cr03 is purer than from
the sulfates; sulfate electrolysis, however, requires one-
half of the electrical energy required for Cr03 electrolysis.

Typically, chromium ores are reduced in an electric furnace
to produce high carbon ferrochromium.  The finely ground alloy
is leached with sulfuric acid and the anolyte solution which
contains sulfuric acid, chromic acid, and ammonium sulfate.
A flow sheet is shown in Figure 6.

RECOVERY OF METALS FROM SLAG

Some of the electric-arc smelting processes produce slag
along with the ferroalloy product.  These are:

     Low-carbon Ferrochromasilicon
     High-carbon Ferrochromium
     High-carbon Ferromanganese
     Silicomanganese

These slags may contain metal entrapped in the slag which is
recovered by crushing and separation of the slag and metal by
a wet sink-float process.  The slag fines are also separated
from the heavier particles so that a secondary product is
slag of such size that it is usable for road building and
similar purposes.

Another method of recovering metal values from slag is to
"shot" the slag, then use the slag as the raw material for
electrolytic production of the metal.  Rapid quenching of the
molten slag in a large volume of flowing water produces a
small-sized particle  (shot) which can be readily leached with
acid to produce the electrolyte solution.

VACUUM AND INDUCTION FURNACE PROCESSES
                           32

-------

ELECTROLYTI
DRAFT
Figure 5.
C MANGANESE FLOWSHEET
ORE SHED
4
DRYER
+
STORAGE BIN
i
GRINDERS
4
STORAGE TANK
*
REDUCING FURNACE

ANOLYTE . *
>

(OVERFLOW * 	
i
i
<
-HcooL

i
»

LEACHING TANK
1
CLARIFIER

REPULPING TANK
4
MOO RE FILTER
4
OLIVER FILTER
4
FILTRATE


	 H UNDERFLOW!
n
^


* SOLIDS
TO
. ... ft WASTE



CATHOLYTE STORAGE
ING TOWER 4
UJ
[My SALTS| >^

O
ANOLYTE w
FILTER
« 	 bULNUtb|

4^ Ml in Tn WA'iTFl

PURIFIED CATHOLYTE
1
ELECTROLYSIS CELLS
i

| MANGANESE METAL|

-------
             DRAFT
            Figure 6.

FLOW SHEET  FOR ELECTROLYTIC  CHROMIUM
ARSON
:HROME
GROUND)—
H2sq, — i
nil
o
— ANOLYTE ;H2SO4 CH
•-so;,
MOTHER LIQUOR
FROM FERROUS
AMMONIUM
SULFATE
1 	 »H2
-* 9

ROMIC ACC, AMMONIUM SULFATE")
SOLUTION OF IRON
AMMONIUM AND
CHROMIUM SULFATES •]
|— »Q«-STEAM
SILICEOUS T
RESIDUE VACUUM 1
CRYSTALLIZER 1 f 	
' (RUBBER s^*\ ,, „ T
LINER) f | HOQ-^JL^

*T ^^^

LEACHING COOLING
TANK TANK
- i x X X UHUM •
V 	 000 . ^itH
LEACH If— 	 J
TANK JSTEAM. , r*
u _ CONDTTCNING \ /
2 TN.
CRUDE «ON
SULFATE
CRYSTALS
SLURPY
AMMONIUM 4 CHROMIUM SULFATES MOTHER LIQUOR L,
FILTRATE
, DISCARD
ILOS
SIC
(ROME
JL FATES



Bl E ED
WASH WATER
rSOCHUM
CARBONATE


, r
FILT
CRUDE
IRON
SULFATE


ER
|
i r* '
SETTLERS Y
FOR AGING 1 	 > 	 1
I CRYSTALLIZATION
r*
•OHOzSOi
1 	 .
VACUUM
1
                             CATHOLYTE  SOLUTION
                             DIVALENT CHROMIUM, AMMONIUM SULFATE
                              AMMONIUM
                        H,0   CHROME
                              ALUM CRYSTALS
lunuiTfJjTai        I	1     I I I I  I   PURE'AMMONIUM
F??FB          DISSOLVER    FILTER   CHROME ALUM
           ~                       SOLUTION
                        MOTHER
                        LIQUOR
                             MOTHER  LIQUOR 1O
                            'COOLING TOWER
      CRYSTALLIZER      DRUM FILTER
                                                         >-.    FERROUS
                                                           h~^AMMONIUM
                                                         JJ    SULFATE
                                                                                                          CATHODE
                                                                                                          CLEANING I
                                                                                                          STOPPING

                                                                                                         CHROMIUM
                                                                                                         DEPOSIT
                                                                                                     0.0
                                                                                               HZO—1
                                                                                                                  DRER
                                                                                                    VWSHER
                                                                                                                 PUflE
                                                                                                                 CHROMIUM
                                                                                                                 METAL

-------
                          DRAFT
The vacuum furnace process for producing LC ferrochromium was
developed commercially in the early 1950's.  In this method,
carbon is removed from HC ferrochromium in a solid state
within vacuum furnaces carefully controlled at a temperature
near the melting point of the alloy.  Such a furnace is
shown in Figure 7.

The process is based on the oxidation of HC ferrochromium by
the oxygen in silica or chrome oxide, with which it has been
mixed after crushing.  The CO gas resulting from the reaction
is pumped out of the furnace in order to maintain a high
vacuum and to facilitate the ferrochromium decarburization.
Heat is supplied to the furnace by electric resistance elements.


Induction furnaces, either low-frequency or high-frequency,
are used to produce small tonnages of a few specialty alloys
through remelting of the required constituents.  Such a
furnace is shown in Figure 8.

PRODUCT SIZING AND HANDLING

Ferroalloys are marketed in a broad range of sizes from pieces
weighing 34.1 kg  (75 Ibs.) to granules of 100 mesh or finer,
depending upon the final usage.  Ferroalloys are intermediate
products, and are usually melted and blended with molten metal.
For this reason, the ferroalloy product size is important.

Molten ferroalloys from the submerged-arc furnaces are generally
tapped into refractory-lined ladles or into molds or chills for
cooling.  The chills are low, flat iron or steel pans that
allow heat to radiate rapidly from the molten pour.  After the
ferroalloy has cooled to a workable temperature,it is cleaned
of any adhering slag and sized to market specifications.

The sizing operation consists of breaking the large initial
chills by drop weights or hampers, then crushing and screening
the broken product.  Large jaw crushers, rolls, mills, or
grinders for reducing the product size and rotating and
vibrating screens are used for this purpose.  Conveyors and
elevators move the product between the crushing and screening
operations.  Storage bins are provided to hold the finished
or intermediate products.
                             35

-------
                                      DRAFT
                                     Figure  7.
                       VACUUM FURNACE  FOR FERROALLOY  PRODUCTION
     TO INERT
   GAS COOLING
                                    TO VACUUM
                                    PUMPING SYSTEM
    ELECTRICAL
    LEADS
           ;$j,1[;;tys&sJ$yA
T
                     7
REMOVABLE
END CLOSURE
-TRACK
                                         CARBON
                                         RESISTORS
        xx XT/ / X! / / X /7 mi/ 777 s J s/\(/ )f s s
                               *
   L2 - U _ LL4
                                                 n
                        EARTH
                       CAR
FURNACE
CHARGE

-------
                                       DRAFT

                                      Figure 8.

                              'NDUCTION  FURNACE DIAGRAM
                             FURNACE
FURNACE
CRUCIBLE
                                                      OPERATORS PANEL
                           	 —\
                                         ,  CHARGING
                                           PLATFORM
                                                    ELECTRICAL  LEADS
                                                            4 *+• ^ .-XT.••T_*^
                                                           FLECTRICAL SUBSTATION

-------
                          DRAFT

EMISSIONS FROM SUBMERGED-ARC FURNACES

Since the quantity and composition of the emissions from ferro-
alloy furnaces have a major impact upon the potential for water
pollution in those plants using wet air pollution control
devices, some discussion of such emissions is appropriate.  The
conventional submerged-arc furnace utilizes carbon reduction
of metallics in the oxide ores, and continuously produces
large quantities of hot carbon monoxide which can be greater
by weight than the metallic product.  The CO gas venting from
the top of the furnace carries fume from high-temperature
regions of the furnace and entrains the finer sized
constituents of the mix.

In an open furnace, all CO and other combustibles in the
furnace gas burn with induced air at the top of the charge,
resulting in a large volume of high-temperature gas.  In a
covered furnace, most or all of the CO and other gases are
withdrawn from the furnace without combustion.

Properties and quantities of emitted particulates depend upon
the alloy being produced.  Except for ejected mix particles
from the furnace the fume size is generally below two microns
(>i) and ranges from 0.1 to l.Qp with a geometric mean of 0.3
to 0.6 depending upon the ferroalloy produced.  In some cases,
agglomeration does occur, and the effective particle size
may be larger.  Grain loadings and flowrates are dependent
upon the type and hooding.  Open submerged-arc furnaces have
high flowrates and moderate grain loadings, while closed
furnaces have moderate flowrates and generally high grain
loadings.  In the dry state, the collected emissions are
very light and the bulk density varies from 64.1 to 480.6
kgs./cu. meter  (4 to 30 pounds per cubic foot).

Silicon alloys produce a gray fume containing a high per-
centage of silicon dioxide  (Si02).  Some tars and carbon are
present arising from the coal, coke, or wood chips used in
the charge.  Chromium furnaces produce an Si02 emission
similar to a ferrosilicon operation with some additional
chromium oxides.  Manganese operations produce a brown emis-
sion, which analyses indicate to be largely a mixture of
Si02 and manganese oxides.

Chemical analysis of the fumes indicate their composition to
be similar to oxides of the product being produced.  Additional
components in the fumes may consist of carbon from the reducing
agents, SiO, CaO, and MgO.  Typical chemical analyses are
given in Table 18.
                            38

-------
                                                   DRAFT

                                  Table 18.  TYPICAL FURNACE FUME CHARACTERISTICS

Furnace product
Furnace type
Fume shape

Fume size char-
acteristics.
microns
Maximum
Most particles
X-ray diffraction

trace constituents



Chemical
Analysis, %
SiO,
FeO
MgO
CaO
MnO
A1203
LOI
TCr as Cr2O3
Sic
Zr02
PbO
Na20
BaO
K20
50% FeSi SMZa
Open Open
Spherical, Spherical
sometimes sometimes
in chains in chains



0.75 0.8
0.05 to 0.3 0.05 to 0

All
FeSi Fe3°4
FeSi2 Fe2O3
Quartz
Sic

^
63 to 883 61.12
14.08
1.08
1.01
6.12
2.10
—
-
1.82
1.26
-
-
-
—
SiMnb
Covered
, Spherical




0.75
.3 0.2 to 0.4

SiMnb
Covered
Spherical




0.75
0.2 to 0.4

FeMn
Open
Spherical




0.75
0.05 to 0.4

HC FeCr
Covered
Spherical




1.0
0.1 to 0.4

Chrome cre-
lime melt
Open
Spherical
and
irregular



0.50
0.05 to 0.2

Mn ore-
lime melt
Open
Spherical
and
irregular



2.0
0.2 to 0.5

fumes were primarily amorphous
Mn304
MnO
Quartz



15.68
6.75
1.12
-
31.35
5.55
23.25
-
_
-
0.47
-
-
-
Quartz
SiMn
Spinel



24.60
4.60
3.78
1.58
31.92
4.48
12.04
-
_
-
-
2.12
-
-
Mn3O4
MnO
Quartz



25.48
5.96
1.03
2.24
33.60
8.38
—
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
Spinel
Quartz




20.96
10.92
15.41
-
2.84
7.12
_
29.27
_
_
-
-
_
-
Spinel





10.86
7.48
7.43
15.06
_
4.88
13.86
14.69
.
_
-
1.70
_
-
CaO





3.28
1.22
0.96
34.24
12.34
1.36
11.92
-
_
_
0.98
2.05
1.13
13.08
 Si - 60 to 65%;  Mn - 5 to 7%;  Zr - 5 to 7%
b
 Manganese fume analyses in particular are subject to
   wide variations, depending on the ores used.
                                                     39

-------
                         DRAFT

EMISSIONS FROM EXOTHERMIC PROCESSES


Oxide fumes similar in physical characteristics to those from
the submerged-arc furnace are emitted from the reaction ladle
or furnace while the reducing agent is being charged during
alumino- or silicothermic reduction.  This emission is due to
strong agitation of the molten bath and the rapid temperature
rise.  The reaction may take from 5-15 minutes per heat, and
the heat cycle is about 1 1/2 to 2 hours.  Therefore, atmospheric
emissions from the exothermic reactions take place about 10
percent of the time.

The quantity of emissions from the exothermic reactions ranges
from 9.08 to 18.6 kg  (20-40 Ibs) of particulates per ton of
ferroalloys produced.  The total tonnage of ferroalloys made
by the exothermic process amounts to 10 to 15 percent of the
total ferroalloys production in the United States.

OPERATING VARIABLES AFFECTING EMISSIONS

Because of the complexity of the heavy mechanical and
electrical equipment associated with a modern submerged-arc
furnace, close supervision and maintenance are required to
prevent frequent furnace shutdowns.  The furnaces are designed
to operate continuously to maintain satisfactory metallurgical
and thermal equilibrium.

Normal furnace shutdowns on an annual basis may average three
to eight percent of the operating time and are caused by a
wide variety of situations.  These can be electrode  install-
ations, maintenance and repair of water leaks at electrode
contact plates, mix chute failures, furnace hood or  cover
failures, taphole problems, electrical or other utility
failures, crane failures, ladle or chill problems or curtail-
ments of service by the power companies.  In general, furnace
interruptions are relatively short in duration and usually are
not more than several hours.  Following such interruptions,
the  furnace usually returns to normal operation with normal
emissions in a period of time approximately equal to the
length of the interruption.

Greater-than-normal emissions occur after returning  power to
the  furnace following a lengthy interruption caused  by  a
major furnace operational problem.  These problems may  include
electrode failure that makes it necessary to dig out an
electrode stub or to  bake at a  reduced load for self-baking
electrodes, serious mixture blows of  the furnace, metallur-
gical problems that require a  furnace burndown to return  it
to normal operations, serious water leaks that flood the
furnace with water, furnace hearth  failure, major taphole
problems, transformer or major  electrical system  failures,
                             40

-------
                          DRAFT

etc.  When starting up a new furnace or one with a cleaned
out hearth, as well as a furnace with a cold hearth after a
long shutdown, heavier-than-normal emissions may last up to a
week before the furnace operates in an optimum manner.

The quantity of emissions from submerged-arc furnaces will
vary up to several times the normal emission level over a
period of one to three percent of the operating time due to
major furnace interruptions and, to a lesser extent, because
of normal interruptions.

QUANTITIES OF EMISSIONS

Emissions and emission rates will vary with (1) type of alloy
produced,  (2) process  (i.e., continuous or batch),  (3) choice
of raw materials,  (4) operating techniques, (5) furnace size,
and (6) maintenance practices.

An example of the varying emissions that result from process
changes can be seen in the manufacturing of silicon alloys.
As the percentage of silicon in the alloy increases, the loss
of Si02 increases, therefore, a silicon-metal furnace emits
substantially more SiC>2 fumes than an equivalent-size 50%
ferrosilicon furnace.

Emissions from batch-operated open-arc furnaces are periodic.
Following sudden addition of mix containing volatile or
reactive constituents  (coal, moisture, aluminum, etc.) to a
hot furnace crucible, violent gas eruptions can occur.  This
is best exemplified by the manganese ore-lime melt furnace
where momentary gas flow following mix addition can be five
times the average flow.  Under these conditions, temperature,
dust loading, and gas flow all peak simultaneously.  In
contrast, chromium ore-lime melt furnaces, to which few or
no gas-releasing constituents are fed, are not subject to
this violent behavior.

Some of the special alloys are also produced by aluminothermic
reactions without the addition of electrical energy.  These
reactions also cause momentary peaks of gas flow with high
emission rates.

Volatile materials in the furnace charge may cause rough oper-
ation.  One significant contributor to such operation is the
presence of fines or dense material in the feed.  These
materials promote bridging and nonuniform descent of the charge
which may cause gas channels to develop.  The collapse of a
bridge causes a momentary burst of gases.  A porous charge will
promote uniform gas distribution and decrease bridging.  For some
products economics dicates the uee of raw materials with more fines
or with more volatile matter than desirable.  Each of these
factors has an adverse effect on the smooth operation of the
furnace, and consequently emissions may increase.
                            41

-------
                          DRAFT
Differences in operation techniques can have a significant
effect on emissions.  The average rate of furnace gas prod-
uction is directly proportional to electrical input,  so that a
higher load on a given furnace normally causes a proportional
increase in emissions.  In some cases, emissions increase at
a rate greater than the load increase, due to rough operation
and inadequate gas withdrawal.

At a fixed load and with the gas generation remaining almost
constant, the emission concentration and weight per hour of
particulates can vary by a factor of 5 to 1.  Operating with
insufficient electrode immersion promotes increased emissions.

Higher voltage operation for a given furnace will promote
higher electrode positions and increase the concentration
and amount of emissions.

On some operations, especially silicon metal production, the
charge must be stoked to break up crusts, cover areas of
gas blows, and permit the flow of reaction gases.  Therefore,
both furnace operations and emissions can be a function of
how well and how often the furnace is stoked.

Maintenance practices significantly affect emissions on
covered furnaces because accumulation of material under the
cover and in gas ducts reduces the gas withdrawal capacity
of the exhaust system.  Plugging of gas passages in the
control equipment results in reduced efficiency of gas
cleaning.

PRODUCTION AND EMISSION DATA FOR FERROALLOY FURNACES

The data in Table 19  summarize pertinent data from the EPA-
TFA air pollution study as to production and emission factors
for submerged-arc furnaces.

The data of Table 20  summarize the types of air pollution
control devices used  in various ferroalloy  furnaces producing
specific products in  the United States.

Some comparisions of  the off-gas volume  from covered furnaces
and controlled open furnaces  are shown in Table  21.
                            42

-------
                           DRAFT
Table 19.  PRODUCTION AND EMISSION DATA FOR FERROALLOY FURNACES

Uncontrolled Particulate
Product
Silvery Iron
50 % FeSi
65-75% FeSi
Si Metal
SMZ
MgFeSi
CaSi
HCFeMn
SiMn
FeMnSi
MCFeMn
Chg Cr
HCFeCr
Cr ore/lime
FeCrSi
kg/metric
_
158
603
1000
150
143
667
47
130
153
-
-
168
6
390
ton Ibs/short ton
_
316
1206
2000
300
285
1333
94
260
306
-
-
355
11
780
Emissions
kg/MWhr
_
35.9
47.2
65.8
11.8
25.9
51.3
17.7
26.8
25.9
-
-
28.1
5.0
48.1

Ib/MWhr
_
79
104
145
26
57
113
39
59
57
-
-
62
11
106
Electric
Energy
MWhr/metric ton MWhr/short
2.9
5.5
9.7
15.4
12.8
5.5
13.0
2.6
4.9
6.0
1.8
4.6
4.6
1.3
8.2
2.6
5.0
8.8
14.0
11.6
5.0
11.8
2.4
4.4
5.4
1.6
4.2
4.2
1.2
7.4
Ratio of Charge
ton to Product Weight
1.8
2.5
3.6
4.9
4.5
2.4
3.9
3.0
3.1
4.3
3.5
4.0
4.0
1.2
3.4
                            43

-------
        Table 20.  TYPES OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS USED ON FERROALLOY FURNACES
Covered furnaces with withdrawal and
  cleaning of unburned gases
                               Open furnaces with withdrawal and
                                 cleaning of burned gases
Control device

Wet scrubbers
     Products

Ferromanganese
50 to 75% Ferrosilicon

HC ferrochromium
Silicomanganese
Control device
Wet scrubbers
                                                  Cloth type
                                                    filters
                                                  Electrostatic
                                                   precipitator
       Products

50 to 85% Ferrosilicon
Silicomanganese
HC ferrochromium
Ferrochrome-silicon
Silicomanganese
Ferromanganese silicon
75% and higher grades
 of ferrosilicon
Silicon metal
Ferrochromesilicon
HC ferrochromium
Ferrochromesilicon

-------
                           DRAFT

Table 21.  OFF-GAS VOLUMES FROM OPEN AND CLOSED FURNACES
                       Closed Furnaces     Open Furnaces
    Product	   NmVMWhrscfm/MWhfNm3/MWhrscfm/MWhr

FeMn                6.16         220        370       13,200
FeSi (65-75)        5.88         210        269        8,600
SiMn                5.60         200        204        7,300
FeSi (50)           5.04         180        258        9,200
                            45

-------
                           DRAFT


                         SECTION IV

                   INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION

The purpose of the effluent limitation guidelines can be
realized only be categorizing the industry into the minimum
number of groups for which separate effluent limitation
guidelines and new sources performance standards must be
developed.  The categorization here is believed to be that
minimum, i.e., the least number of groups having significantly
different water pollution potentials and treatment problems.

I.    Open Electric Furnaces with Wet Air Pollution Control
      Devices
II.   Covered or closed Electric Furnaces and Other Smelting
      Operations with Wet Air Pollution Control Devices
III.  Slag concentration
IV.   Electrolytic Processes
V.    Non-Contact Cooling Water Uses

In developing the above categorization, the following factors
were considered as possibly providing some basis for categor-
ization.  These factors include characteristics of individual
plants, various production processes, and water uses.

1.  Raw Materials
2.  Product Produced
3.  Production Processes
    a.  Open furnaces
    b.  Closed furnaces
4.  Size and Age of Production Facilities
5.  Wastewater Constituents
6.  Treatability of Waste
7.  Water Uses
    a.  Wastewater from wet air pollution control devices
    b.  Cooling Water
    c.  Electric power generation
    d.  Sanitary waste
    e.  Slag processing waste
    f.  Drainage from slag or raw materials storage
    g.  Electrolytic processes

Raw Materials

Raw materials were not judged to be a significant basis for
differentiation between industrial segments.  The raw materials
for the smelting operations vary principally in the types of
ores and the proportions of the materials in the charge.  Slags
from electric furnace smelting are subsequently used in both
exothermic reactions and electrolytic processes.  There are no
differences, for example, in the raw materials used in the
production of 50% silicomanganese in open or closed furnaces.
                            46

-------
                          DRAFT

The off-gas volumes differ by a factor of 51 between the 2
methods of production and cyanides are present in scrubber
waters from the latter, but not from the former.  Low-energy
wet scrubbers can be used to control air pollution in closed
furnaces, but high-energy scrubbers are required with open
furnaces.  Waste loads and pollutant constituents thus differ
independently of raw materials in the smelting furnace
operations.  The wastes produced by the electrolytic process
for production of manganese differ but little whether
manganese ore, ferromanganese slag, or the recovered air-
borne particulates from ferromanganese refining are used as
the raw materials.  No consistent basis for industry
categorization could thus be found in raw materials used.

Products Produced

The products produced by smelting processes were also judged
to provide no basis for categorization.  The production of
chromium and manganese by electrolytic processes does provide
some basis for categorization, but this is due to the predom-
inantly chemical nature of the production processes rather
than to differences in the products themselves.

Similar products can be produced by both open and closed
submerged-arc furnace and, as pointed out above, the waste-
water effluents can be expected to vary significantly,
independently of the products.  Slag concentration is presently
confined to the processing of chromium alloy slags.  There is,
however, no reason to believe that such processing could not
be applied to ferromanganese slags.  The wastes here contain
suspended solids as the primary pollutant constituent and
neither treatment nor expected effluents would be expected
to vary in relation to the products produced.

Production Processes

The production processes, including type of smelting furnace,
were found to provide the best basis for categorization in
conjunction with consideration of water uses.  The differences
between open and closed or sealed electric smelting furnaces
are significant insofar as they differ as production processes,
and the water uses for wet air pollution control devices are
quite different due to the differences in the off-gas volumes.
person's  (5) published data show a difference in water use
with venturi scrubbers of a factor of 27 between open and
closed furnaces.  The final volume of water flowing from the
scrubbers on open or closed furnaces may not vary significantly;
the plant survey data indicate, in fact, that the differences
are not great.  The recirculation of water at the venturi
scrubbers on the open furnaces must be regarded as a part of the
                            47

-------
                         DRAFT


wastewater treatment methods and is so specified when effluent
limitations for such sources are determined.  The plant survey
data obtained at an exothermic operation using wet air
pollution control methods indicate that the water use is of
the same order of magnitude of that of closed electric
furnaces.  The electrolytic processes are by nature so
different from smelting operations that a separate category
is obviously necessary.

Size and Age of Facilities

The size and age of production facilities provide no basis for
categorization.  This judgement is based largely upon the
fact that the emissions factors for electric smelting furnaces
are not variable by furnace size in the EPA-TFA air pollution
study.  Since effluent loads were based upon units of electric
power used in the furnace, the factor of furnace size seems
to be eliminated by the nature of the process.  The exothermic
processes are all relatively small, so that size variations
do not appear to be significant.  The electrolytic processes
are modular by nature, so that scale-up factors are exactly
linear and variations in facility size are of no significance
insofar as water use is concerned. The age of the production
facility does not appear to be significant, since they are
being constantly repaired and modernized with little
relationship to the age of the plant.  Newer electric furnaces
differ from older ones only in size; the nature of the furnace
has changed little over many years.

Wastewater Constituents

The wastewater constituents provide a collateral, but not
independent basis for categorization.  Suspended solids are
the largest single constituent of the wastewaters and appear
in effluents from all of the various processes.  Suspended
solids obviously result from the use of wet devices to remove
particulates from smelting off-gases; they less obviously
appear in electrolytic process effluents as a result of the
gangue from ore or slag leaching.  Chromium, as another example, is
in the effluents from chromium smelting operations, electrolytic
chromium processes, and from recirculated cooling waters when
chromates are added as corrosion inhibitors.  Cyanides are
generated in significant concentrations only in covered
furnaces.  This distinction appears in the differentiation
between open and closed furnaces and is thus no independent
basis for categorization based on wastewater constituents.  The
only significant production process contributions to acidity,
i.e., low effluent pH, are the electrolytic processes, once
again categorized by process rather than independently by
wastewater constituents.
                           48

-------
                          DRAFT

Treatability of Wastes

Treatability of waste does not provide a basis for categori-
zation, largely for the same reasons that the waste constit-
uents do not.  Effluent concentrations largely depend upon
treatment unit sizes, and expressing loads per unit of
production  (MWhrs) automatically takes this factor into consid-
eration.  The treatment methods consist principally of coagula-
tion and sedimentation, neutralization and precipitation,
reduction of chromium, oxidation of cyanides, and recirculation
and re-use.  All of these methods, except for cyanide oxidation,
are applicable to one extent or another  in all of the various
types of production operations.  Cyanide is found in scrubber
water only from closed furnaces, but such a differentiation is
inherent in the chosen categorization, since closed furnaces
are separately considered for other reasons.

Water Uses

Water uses were judged to be a significant basis for categor-
ization.  It is, in fact, a moot question as to whether the
chosen categorization is based upon production processes or
water uses.  The categorization differentiates between
processes on the basis on water use for wet air pollution
control devices and on the basis of water use in electrolytic
processes.  Cooling water is used in all smelting operations
and should be a function of power input to the furnace.  Cooling
water can be handled in different ways that significantly affect
effluent heat loads and flow volumes.  Cooling system effluents
can also be used as process water makeup.  The use of different
systems requires that cooling water be separately categorized
so that a "building block" approach can be used in determining
allowable plant effluents.

Electric power is presently generated in only one ferroalloy
plant.  A separate category is not warranted; the guidelines
separately developed for steam electric power plants should
be applicable, since, as shown in the previous section,
water use per kwhr is about the same as for power plants in
general.  Sanitary wastes are common to all plants, whether
treated on-site or discharged to a municipal treatment
plant and no separate category is needed.

Slag concentration is an identifiable, separate process in
those plants where it is practiced.  The "building block"
approach to establishing allowable plant effluents requires
a separate category, since all plants do not use such a
process and the magnitude of the potential wasteload is
substantial.

The use of baghouses, of course, reduces water use to zero
insofar as air pollution controls are concerned, and a smelting
furnace shop so equipped does not fall under the categories
based upon furnace type, only the category for cooling water.
                            49

-------
                         DRAFT
                   WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

The waste characteristics to be determined may be considered
on the basis of the industry categories and the various water
uses as follows:

1.  Cooling Water
    a.  Electric Furnace Smelting
    b.  Exothermic Processes
    c.  Electrolytic Processes
2.  Water for Wet Air Pollution Control Devices
    a.  Electric Furnace Smelting
        i.    Disintegrator-type Scrubbers
        ii.   High Energy Scrubbers
        iii.  Electrostatic Precipitator Spray Towers
        iv.   Steam/Hot Water Scrubbers
    b.  Exothermic Smelting Processes
3.  Sanitary Uses, Boiler Feed, Air Conditioning, etc.
4.  Electrolytic Process Uses
5.  Slag Processing Uses

PUBLISHED DATA SOURCE CHARACTERIZATIONS

A total of 2,329,630 metric tons  (2,568,500 short tons) of
ferroalloys were produced in 1967, using 11,206 million
kw-hrs. of electric energy according to the 1967 Census of
Manufactures.  Of the total energy used, 3,354 million kw-hrs.
were generated by ferroalloy plants. Assuming miscellaneous
losses and other uses of 15 percent, an average use of
4,089 kw-hrs. per metric ton  (3,709 kw-hrs. per short ton
of alloy in terms of furnace power is indicated.

Total water intake for S.I.C. 3313 plants was 1128.7 X 109
liters  (298.2 X 109 gals.) per year according to the 1967
Census of Manufactures, while gross water use was 4997.3 X
10» liters  (1320.3 X 109 gals.).  Intake for cooling was
381.5 X 109 liters (100.8 X 109 gals.).  Assuming that all
water recirculation and reuse was for cooling, cooling water
use was 465.2 X 109 liters  (122.9 X 109 gals.)  Cooling water
use of 199,679 liters per metric ton  (47,849 gal. per short
ton) of alloy, or 48.8 liters  (12.9 gals.) per kw-hrs. of
furnace power is indicated.

The 1967 Census of Manufactures indicates a water use of
701.4 X IQy liters (185.3 X 109 gals.) of water in generating
the aforementioned 3,354 million kw-hrs.  of electric energy
in-plant.   The indicated use of 208.9 liters (55.2 gals.)
per kw-hrs.  is about  equal to the 1964 thermal electric power
                            50

-------
                          DRAFT

plant use of 215 liters  (56.8 gals.) per kw-hr.  (Final Report,
EPA Contract 68-01-0196).  Assuming losses and other uses at
15 percent, a water use of 245.6 liters  (64.9 gals.) per
kw-hr. of furnace power is indicated for in-plant power
generation.

The 1967 census data indicate a use of 40.9 X 109 liters
(10.8 X 109 gal.) per year for sanitary, boiler feed, air
conditioning, and other minor uses and plant employment of
8,700.  At 378.5 liters  (100 gals.) per capita per day, 250
days per employee per year, sanitary use would have been
825 X 106 liters (218 X 106 gals.) per year; air conditioning
use was 757 X 106 liters  (200 X 106 gals.) per year.  These
uses total 4.28 liters  (1.13 gals.) per kw-hr. of furnace power,
assuming losses and other uses at 15 percent.

Person's data (5) indicate the water use in high energy
scrubbers on open furnaces as 113.6 I/sec  (1,800 gpm) for each
of three furnaces producing FeCrSi, SiMn, and HC FeCr and rated
at 25, 30 and 30 MW, respectively.  At an assumed operating
load of 75% with 95% operating time, the indicated water use
is 1,226,340 liters  (324,000 gals.) per 60.6 MW-hrs., or 20,238
liters (5,347 gals.) per Mw-hr. of furnace power.

Person's data further indicated an average use of 5.5 I/sec
(87.5 gpm) for a high energy scrubber on a semi-closed 45Mw
50% FeSi furnace.  At 95% operating time and 75% operating
load, the indicated water use is 620.7 liters (164 gals.) per
MW-hr. of furnace power.

According to Retelsdorf, et.al. (6 ) an electrostatic precipitator
installed on a 20 MW ferrochromesilicon furnace uses water in
a spray tower proceeding the precipitator at the rate of about
9,084 liters (2,400 gals.) per hour.  This indicates a use of
635.9 liters (168 gals.) per MW-hr. of furnace power at 95%
operating time and 75% operating load.  About 10-15 % of the
water used is discharged from the bottom of the spray tower,
the remainder being evaporated into the gas stream.  These data
indicate about 556.4 liters  (147 gals.) of water per MW-hr. of
furnace power evaporated in the gas stream.

From the above data and those given in Section III, some
limited calculations of waste characteristics may be made.

Cooling water volumes for electric furnaces would be expected
to be about 48.8 liters  (12.9 gals.) per kw-hr. of furnace
power .  Once-through use would be expected to alter such water
only to the extent of increasing temperatures above the inlet
levels.  Most industrial cooling water systems are designed for
a change of temperature of 6.6 to 12.0°C  (10-20°F).  Recir-
culated cooling water blowdown may be expected to average about
1-2% of the recirculation rate, with 2 cycles of concentration,
                            51

-------
                          DRAFT

i.e., the blowdown will contain twice the concentrations of
constituents in the intake water.  Additionally, such blowdowns
will contain chromates or phosphates used for corrosion control,
and other treatment chemicals such as biocides, slime
inhibitors, etc.

Assuming that 556 liters (147 gals.) of water per MW-hr. of
furnace power is evaporated in the gas streams from open
furnaces using wet air pollution control devices and that such
evaporation in the case of closed furnaces is in proportion
to the gas volume, the effluent volumes expected would be as
follows:

High energy scrubbers (open furnace) = 19,682 1/MW-hr  (5200
gal/MW-hr)

High energy scrubbers (closed furnace) = 609 1/MW-hr (161 gal/
MW-hr)

Electrostatic precipitator =79.5 1/MW-hr (21 gal/Mw-hr)

On the basis of the data given in Section III on production
processes, compositions of raw materials, and compositions of
products and by-products, the following constituents/parameters
appear to be those potentially present in wastewater:

Acidity                 Columbium          Potassium
Alkalinity              Cyanide            Radioactivity
Aluminum                Dissolved Solids   Silica
Ammonia                 Iron               Sulfates
Barium                  Magnesium          Suspended Solids
B. 0. D.                Manganese          Temperature
Calcium                 Molybdenum         Titanium
Chromates               pH                 Vanadium
Chromium                Phosphates         Zirconium


WASTE CHARACTERIZATIONS FROM DISCHARGE PERMIT DATA

Waste constituents/parameters listed as present in discharge
permit applications for the plants in S.I.C. 3313 are  as
follow:

Algicides               Fluorides          Sodium
Aluminum                Hardness           Solids
Ammonia                 Iron               Sulfate
Barium                  Magnesium          Sulfide
Boron                   Manganese          Sulfite
Calcium                 Nickel             Surfactants
Chloride                Nitrate            Titanium
Chromium                Oil and Grease     Turbidity
Color                   Organic N          Zinc
Copper                  Phosphorous

Additionally, pH and temperature are given as waste parameters.

WASTE CHARACTERIZATIONS FROM PLANT SURVEY DATA

Waste characteristics were determined where possible from the
plant survey data for various specific waste-producing
                            52

-------
                           DRAFT

sources.  These data, of course, apply to the particular units
operating as they were during the sampling period and
represent the type of result to be expected during the
actual operation.  To the extent possible, reasons for
variations are explained.

The data from Plant B provides information on the wastewater
from low energy scrubbers operating  on covered furnaces
producing silicon alloys.  Raw waste loads of suspended
solids and cyanides are given in Table 22 on the basis of the
furnace power during the 16-hour sampling periods.

    Table 22.  RAW WASTE LOADS FOR COVERED FURNACES WITH
                    LOW-ENERGY SCRUBBERS
         Suspended Solids      Cyanides            Flow
 Product kg/MWhr Ibs/MWhr  kg/MWhr Ibs/MWhr kg/MWhr Ibs/MWhr

SiMnZr    20.1    44.3      .0338   .0745    8270    2185
75% FeSi  39.2    86.3      -       -        8967    2369
50% FeSi   5.1    11.3      .0001   .0002    8823    2331
75% FeSi   6.8    15.0      .0139   .0307    7562    1998
The data for the first two furnaces in Table 22 probably
represent reliable data, since at 75% particulate removal
efficiency the suspended solids loads are somewhat higher
than are given in the EPA-TFA study data.  The remaining data
in Table 22 indicate suspended solids loads as only about 20%
of those expected from the air emissions data.  The scrubbers
on these furnaces were not operating efficiently as evidenced
by the lower temperature of the effluent water  and observ-
ations of visible stack emissions, sometimes very heavy.

Plant A provides information on the wastewater resulting from
the recirculation and reuse of cooling water on electric
smelting furnaces producing silicon alloys and utilizing no
wet air pollution control devices.  A softener is used on
one cooling water circuit handling about 50 percent of the
total cooling water flow.  Treatment chemicals are used
with a phosphate reagent used rather than a chromate.  The
raw waste loads are given in Table 23 on the basis of the
total furnace power during the sampling period.
                             53

-------
                          DRAFT

    Table 23.   RAW WASTE LOADS FOR SUBMERGED-ARC FURNACES
             WITH NO WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS
Parameter
Suspended Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Iron, total
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium, total
Aluminum
kg/MWhr
"TUTS
.001
.00005
.002
.001
.0005
.00001
.000005
.002
Ibs/MWhr
DTI9"
0.003
0.0001
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.00003
0.00001
0.004
Flow
1/MWhr

502.6
   gals/MWhr

     132.8
The data from Plant C provides raw waste load data for a sealed
silicomanganese furnace where the off-gases are scrubbed in a
spray tower and a low energy (Dingier) scrubber.  These data
are shown in Table 24.

  Table 24.  RAW WASTE LOADS-SEALED SILICOMANGANESE FURNACE
                  WITH LOW ENERGY SCRUBBERS
     Constituent
Suspended solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, free
Iron
Zinc
Chromium, total
Lead
Aluminum
Manganese
Flow
kg/MWhr

18.5
  .057
  .009
  .038
  .043
  .012
  .056
  .241
  .0005
  .037
  .010
 4.84

1/MWhr

10,863
Ibs/MWhr

 40.8
  0.125
  0.020
  0.083
  0.094
  0.027
  0.124
  0.531
  0.0010
  0.081
  1.023
 10.66

gals/MWhr

 2,870
                            54

-------
                          DRAFT

The data from Plant D provides raw waste loads for open
submerged arc furnaces in which the off-gases are scrubbed
with steam/hot water scrubbers as shown in Table 25.

 Table 25.  RAW WASTE LOADS-OPEN CHROMIUM ALLOY AND SILICO-
 MANGANESE FURNACES WITH STEAM/HOT WATER SCRUBBERS
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
CN, total
CN, free
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Cr, total
Cr, hex.
Lead
Aluminum

Flow
kg/MWhr
8.2
.010
.0004
.002
.0001
.00005
.069
.005
.068
.003
.002
.008
.158
1/MWhr
2,691
Ibs/MWhr
18.1
0.023
0.001
0.004
0.0002
0.0001
0.152
0.010
0.149
0.007
0.004
0.018
0.348
gals/MWhr
711
The cooling water  flow  is equal  to  35.3 liters  (9.32 gals.) per
MWhr and the heat  load  at a  temperature rise of 7.2°C  (13°F) is
equal to 255 kg-cal  (1,010 BTU)  per MWhr.
                            55

-------
                          DRAFT
The data from Plant E provide raw waste load data for open
submerged-arc furnaces using venturi scrubbers, closed
furnaces using low energy scrubbers, slag shotting, electro-
lytic processes, and slag concentration as shown in Tables 26
through 31.


Table 26.  RAW WASTE LOADS-SCRUBBERS ON SUBMERGED-ARC FURNACES
    Constituent
Susp. Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide (Total)
Iron  (Total)
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Aluminum
Flow
    Open Furnaces

   Venturi Scrubber
 kg/MWhrIbs/MWhr"
 23.74
  0
  0.0005
  0.006
  0
  0.041
 10.06
  0.33
  0.002
  0.07
  1.13
52.29
 0
 0.001
 0.014
 0
 0.089
22.15
 0.72
 0.005
 0.16
 2.49
1/MWhr   gals/MWhr

6,382     1,686
            Closed Furnaces

            Low-Energy Scrubber
            kg/MWhr    Ibs/MWHr
4.01
0.004
0.002
0.022
0.007
0.08
0.016
0.21
0.002
0.023
0.07
1/MWhr
9,746
8.83
0.008
0.004
0.048
0.015
0.17
0.034
0.45
0.004
0.051
0.16
gals/MWhr
2,575
                            56

-------
      Table 27.
        DRAFT
RAW WASTE LOADS-SLAG SHOTTING PROCESS
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide (Total)
Iron (Total)
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Aluminum

Flow
kg/MWhr
1.55
0
0
0.011
0
0.036
0.21
0.000
0
0
0.05
1/MWhr
11,325
Ibs/MWhr
3.42
0
0
0.025
0
0.078
0.46
0.001
0
0
0.11
gals/MWhr
2,992
Table 28.  RAW WASTE LOADS-ELECTROLYTIC PROCESS FLUID WASTES
        Constituent
Suspended Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide  (Total)
Iron  (Total)
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium  (Total)
Lead
Aluminum
Flow
             kg/metric ton  Ib/short ton
                31.5
                 0.008
                 0.005
                 0.33
                 0.009
                 1.10
                29.83
                 4.54
                 0.56
                 0.12
                 2.72
63.0
 0.015
 0.009
 0.66
 0.017
 2.20
59.65
 9.07
 1.12
 0.24
 5.44
             I/metric ton  gals/short ton

                166,068       39,795
                             57

-------
                         Table 29.  RAW WASTE LOADS-FLECTROLYTIC CELL ACID WASTES
ui
oo

Constituent

Suspended Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Free)
Iron (Total)
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Aluminum

Mn
kg/metric ton
7,408.1
0
0.002
0.07
0
0
3.05
414.4
0.000
0
0.013
1.58
I/metric ton

Ib/short ton
14,816.1
0
0.004
0.13
0
0
6.10
828.7
0.000
0
0.025
3.15
gal/short ton

kg/metric
1,987.9
0
0
0.36
0
0
65.10
1,087.6
2.65
0.18
0
55.50
I/metric
MnO?
ton Ib/short ton
3,975.8
0
0
0.71
0
0
130.2
2,175.1
5.29
0.36
0
111.0
ton gal/short ton
      Flow
57,964        13,890
98,243
23,542

-------
                          DRAFT

   Table 30.  RAW WASTE LOADS-ELECTROLYTIC CHROMIUM ACID WASTE
Constituents
Susp. Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Free)
Iron (Total)
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Aluminum
kg/metric ton
72.8
0
0.007
0.14
0
0
1,138.8
26.7
0.23
254.3
0.15
1.21
Ib/short ton
145.5
0
0.014
0.28
0
0
2,277.5
53.3
0.45
508.5
0.30
2.41
Flow
1 /me trie ton

  156,662
    gals/short ton

        37,541
    Table 31.  RAW WASTE LOADS-SLAG CONCENTRATION PROCESS
        Constituent
Susp.Solids
Phosphate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide  (Total)
Iron  (Total)
Manganese
Zinc
Aluminum
Lead
Chromium,  (Total)
Flow
kg/MWhr
  26.65
   0
   0
   0.039
   0.000
   0,
   0
                31
                13
   0.006
   0.321
   0
   0.060

1/MWhr

32,063
0,
0
  Ib/MWhr
   58.70
    0
    0
    0.085
    0.000
     ,68
     ,29
    0.014
    0.706
    0
    0.133

gals/MWhr

  8,471
                             59

-------
                          DRAFT

The data from Plant F provide raw waste loads resulting from
the recirculation and reuse of cooling water on electric
smelting furnaces utilizing chromate treatment for corrosion
inhibition, as shown in Table 32.
   Table 32.  RAW WASTE LOADS-FOR SUBMERGED-ARC FURNACES
             WITH NO WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS
Parameter
Suspended Solids
Total Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Oil
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Aluminum

Flow
kg/MWhr
2.71
0.011
0.007
0.14
0.08
0.26
0.0001
0.013
1/MWhr
734
Ibs/MWhr
5.98
0.025
0.016
0.30
0.18
0.58
0.0003
0.03
gals/MWhr
194
The data from Plant G provide raw waste loads for open sub-
merged arc furnaces in which the off-gases are conditioned in
a spray tower preceding an electrostatic precipitator are
shown in Table 33.

       Table 33.  RAW WASTE LOADS-OPEN CHROMIUM ALLOY
          FURNACES WITH ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOP.r
         Constituent
Suspended Solids
Phosphate
Oil
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium, total
Aluminum
Flow
kg/MWhr   Ibs/MWhr
  .289
  .00001
  .0001
  .001
  .0012
  .001
  .0016
  .0070

1/MWhr

84.0
 0.636
 0.00002
 0.0002
 D.002
 0.0026
 0.003
 0.0036
 0.0155

gals/MWhr

  22.2
                            60

-------
                          DRAFT

The data from Plant H provide data on the raw waste loads
from aluminothermic production of chromium alloys in which
the off-gases are treated in a combination wet scrubber and
baghouse and are given in Table 34.
   Table 34.  RAW WASTE LOADS-ALUMINOTHERMIC SMELTING WITH
           COMBINATION WET SCRUBBERS AND BAGHOUSE
      Constituent
Suspended Solids
Phospate
Phenol
Oil
Cyanide  (Total)
Cyanide  (Free)
Iron  (Total)
Manganese
Zinc
Chromium  (Total)
Chromium  (Hex.)
Lead
Aluminum
Flow
 kg/metric ton  Ib/short ton
    3.6
    0
    0
    0.048
    0
    0
    0
    0.0005
    0
    2.98
    0.95
    0
    0
7.1
0
0
0.095
0
0
0
0.001
0
 .95
 .90
5,
1,
0
0
I/metric ton  gals/short ton

   26,332         6,310
                            61

-------
                          DRAFT

                         SECTION VI

              SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS


Pollutant parameters have been selected by industry categories
on the basis of those which originate in the production processes
in significant amounts and for which control and treatment
technologies are reasonably available.  The parameters for
each category have also been selected so as to be the minimum
number which will insure control.  The pollutant parameters
selected are shown by category in Table 35.

   Table 35.  POLLUTANT PARAMETERS FOR INDUSTRY CATEGORIES
          Parameters	  	Industry Category
                               I    II    III    IV    \
Heat Content
Suspended Solids
PH
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Lead
Phosphate
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
_
—
—
—
••
—
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
—
—
—
—
~
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
X
—
—
—
_
—
•
Flow, of course, is a basic parameter in that its magnitude
indicates the degree of recirculation and reuse practiced
and the degree to which water conservation is utilized.  The
heat content of cooling water discharges is of most signifi-
cance for this use and, together with the effluent volume,
indicates the nature and magnitude of thermal pollution
abatement measures.  Although effluent flow volumes are not
specified in the recommended guidelines, its measurement and
control is implicit in attaining the pollutant effluent loads
specified.

Suspended solids and oil are considered for all categories,
since they tend to be measures of good housekeeping practices,
                           62

-------
                           DRAFT


waste stream segregation, etc.  Suspended solids, additionally,
are primary pollutants resulting from wet air pollution control
devices, slag concentration, and electrolytic operations.  The
pH determination in conjunction with metals determinations
indicates that excessive free acidity or alkalinity has been
neutralized in electrolytic operations and after chromate
reduction and precipitation or acid treatment or cleaning in
cooling water systems.  Chromium, manganese, iron, zinc, and
aluminum are the principal metals originating in the production
processes.  Hexavalent chromium is additionally included be-
cause of its particularly high toxicity.  Cyanides originate
in the reducing atmospheres of closed furnaces and must be
considered in view of their toxicity as with hexavalent
chromium.  Phenols evidently originate from electrode binding
materials and are considered because of the taste-and-odor
producing potential of even low concentrations of such com-
pounds .

Lead and phosphate are considered because they have appeared
in significant concentrations in the plant survey data and
may be controllable insofar as they are contributed by
process sources.
                            63

-------
                         DRAFT

                         SECTION VII

              CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

The water pollution control and treatment technology used in
the ferroalloy industry is, in general, not very sophisticated.
Historically, treatment has most often been limited to sedi-
mentation in lagoons, some of which are very large.  The 8
plants which were surveyed in the course of the present study
cover the full range of processes used in the industry and
the various levels of control and treatment technology.

By far the most serious pollution problem in the industry has
been that of air pollution.  Air pollution abatement has been
the major concern of the industry and has involved most of
the expenditures for pollution control.  Air pollution control
systems installed, being built, or planned generally represent
the best available technology; in cases where controls have
been installed for 5 years or more, such controls were adequate
to meet then-existing regulations, but probably are marginal
insofar as newer regulations are concerned.  Water pollution
control technology is generally marginal even in plants where
air pollution control is very good.

The plants surveyed are classified in Table 36 in terms of the
industry categorization given previously, other than cooling
water  (Category V) which is common to all.

        Table 36.  CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED PLANTS
Plant

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G
  H
Category

 III

 II

 II

 I

 I, II, IV

 III

 I
 II
Processes and Water Uses and Air Controls

Baghouses being built, recirculated
cooling water
Disintegrators, once-through cooling
water
Sealed furnace, disintegrators, recircul-
ated cooling water and scrubber water
Steam/hot water scrubbers, recirculation of
all water
Disintegrators, venturi scrubbers, once-
through water use
Baghouse/no air controls, recirculated
cooling water
Precipitators, recirculated cooling water
Exothermic process, wet scrubbers and
baghouse
                           64

-------
                          DRAFT

PLANT A

This plant was built in 1952 with four 10MW submerged-arc open
furnaces; three of these  furnaces are presently operating.  A
35 MW furnace was built in 1968.  The large furnace produces
85% FeSi.  The other furnaces produce 50% FeSi, a proprietary
silicon alloy, and a rare earth silicide.  No wet air pollution
controls are used; baghouses are being installed.  The water
use system is as shown in Figure 9.

All plant water is supplied from wells and the furnace cooling
water is recirculated.  The No. 1 cooling tower was built in
1958 and serves the three 10 MW furnaces.  The No. 2 cooling
tower was built in 1968 to serve the 35 MW furnace.  Prop-
rietary treatment chemicals and sulfuric acid are used in
each system.  Slowdown from the No. 1 tower is manual and from
No. 2 tower is automatically controlled by total solids levels.
A softener is used in the No. 2 tower system with bulk salt
used as a regenerant.  Recirculated flow in the No. 1 tower
system is 227 I/sec  (3600 gpm) and can be increased to 341 I/sec
(5400 gpm) if required by cooling needs.  Recirculation flow
in the No. 2 tower system is 284 I/sec  (4500 gpm).  The total
furnace power during the  sampling period was 48.1 MW.  The
cooling water use was thus 38.2 liters  (10.1 gals.) per kwhr as
compared with the industry average of 48.8 liters  (12.9 gals.)
per kwhr.  Other furnaces exist in the plant, but have not been
recently operated, and there are no plans to reactivate them.

The treatment facilities  consist only of a settling lagoon
insofar as removal of constituents from the cooling tower blow-
down and miscellaneous yard drainage is concerned.

A storm sewer was installed to by-pass storm run off origin-
ating in the hills behind the plant.  This has reduced the
wet weather flow through  the treatment lagoon.

Summarized data from the  plant, survey are shown for various
sampling points as designated in Figure 9 in Tables 37 through
41.  The temperature drop accross cooling tower No. 1 was
determined to be 6.7°C  (12°F).  The operating power on the
furnaces served by this tower during the sampling period was
21.9 MW.
                            65

-------
                                   DRAFT
                                  Figure  9.
                    PLANT A WATER AND WASTEWATER  SYSTEMS
  BACKWASH
          STORM
          SEWER
^  TO
   RIVER
                                    DRAINAGE
                          FURNACE
                         CONDENSATE
                          WATER
                           ORE FIELD
                            DRAINAGE
                                 YARD
                               DRAINAGE
                           LABORATORY
                            DRAINAGE
                                 YARD
                                DRAINAGE
                                                        FCE
  SEPTIC
 SYSTEM
OVERFLOW

-------
   Table 37.
     DRAFT


ANALYTICAL DATA -SP1- PLANT A
  LAGOON INFLUENT

Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum Maximum
50
0.01
_
—
—
1.08
1.8
0.99
0.07
0.33
0.07
1.29
—
5.4
=10.1 I/sec
Average Temperature = -
440
0-.01
_
—
—
1.08
6.4
1.78
0.07
0.33
1.00
3.09
—
7.6
. ( 160
°C ( -
Average
183
0.01
_
_
_
1.08
4.3
1.39
0.07
0.33
0.40
2.42
_
6.7
gpm)
OF)
Net Average
170
0.01
_
0
0
0.76
3.5
1.36
0.03
0.33
0.06
2.34
0
-


   Table 38.
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2 - PLANT A
  LAGOON EFFLUENT

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Minimum
20
—
-
—
-
0.91
1.4
1.71
0.05
—
0.34
1.01
_
5.7
Maximum
440
0.01
—
—
-
1.15
58.6
2.06
0.06
—
0.71
1.35
_
7.6
Average
73
_
_
_
—
1.07
25.9
1.85
0.05
—
0.49
1.12
_
7.0
Net Average
60
0
0
0
0
0.75
25.1
1.82
0.01
0
0.15
1.04
0

Average Flow =10.1 I/sec.  (  106 gpm)
Average Temperature =13.3°C  (56 °F)
                     67

-------
                   DRAFT

   Table  39.   ANALYTICAL  DATA -SP4-  PLANT  A
               COOLING TOWER #2

Concentrations/ mg/1
Constituent Minimum Maximum
Suspended Solids 34
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average
Average
-
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
0.
5.
—
6.
Flow =
Temperature
38

32
4
23
03

04
26

9
I/sec
=
-
0.
1.
0.
0.
—
0.
5.
-
7.

32
0
36
08

57
79

8
(except as noted)
Average
36

0
0
0
0

0
5

7
-
-
.32
.7
.30
.05
—
.22
.47
-
.3
Net
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0

Average




.27
.01


.39


. ( gpi")
°c
(
OF)



   Table 40.   ANALYTICAL DATA -SP5 - PLANT A
               COOLING TOWER #1

Concentrations, mg/1
Constituents
Minimum
Suspended Solids 14
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)

0
0
0
0

0
4

6
-
.53
.4
.34
.03
—
.07
.47
-
.6
(except as
noted)
Maximum Average Net Average
500
-
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
0.
5.
-
8.


53
8
38
055

57
26

3
183

0
0
0
0

0
4

7
-
-
.53
.6
.36
.039
-
.31
.83
-
.4
170
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0



.21

.33



.75


Average Flow =  1.55 I/sec. ( 24.6 gpm)
Average Temperature =15.6°C (60 °F)
                     68

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 41.
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP7- PLANT A
    WELL WATER
                      Concentrations,  mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Minimum Maximum
8
_
_
—
-
0.32
0.6
—
0.022
_
0.30
—
—
6.9
= I/sec
Average Temperature =
16
—
_
—
-
0.32
1.0
0.06
0.07
_
0.41
0.14
—
7.7
. (
°C (
Average
13
_
_
—
-
0.32
0.8
0.03
0.044
_
0.34
0.08
—
7.3
gpm)
»F)
Net Average
.
—
_
—
-
-
-
-
—
_
—
-
—
-


          Table 42.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP1 - PLANT B
                        INTAKE WATER
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
 Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
 Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
           38
        20
  0.018
  0.4
  1.31
  0.02
  0.23

  6.5
0.016

0.018
1.5
1.37
0.02
0.23

7.7
0.005

0.018
0.8
1.34
0.02
0.23

6.9
       Average Flow =  353  I/sec.  (5,600 gpm)
       Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
                            69

-------
                         DRAFT
PLANT B

This plant has been operating since 1939 and has four covered
submerged-arc furnaces producing 50% ferrosilicon, 75% ferro-
silicon and silicon-manganese-zirconium  (SMZ).  These furnaces
have a total rating of 71.0 MW and operated during the plant
survey period at 54.3 MW.  The water and wastewater system for
the plant is shown in Figure 10.

The four covered furnaces use cooling water on a once-through
basis and the sewage by the 350 employees is treated at an
on-site plant.  The total effluent is 30,282 cu. m/day (8 mgd).
Water is drawn from a surface source.

The fume from the furnace is scrubbed using seven Buffalo Forge
scrubbers, each using 250 gpm (15.78 I/sec) of water.  During
the plant survey, one furnace (No.3) had only one scrubber,
each of the other furnaces had 2 scrubbers; a second scrubber
was being installed on No. 3 furnace.  The scrubber water is
combined at a lift station where lime and chlorine are added
to oxidize the cyanides produced in the covered furnaces.  The
scrubber water then flows through 2 lagoons in series totaling
30.5 acres in area and providing 5-6 days retention.  The flow
then goes to a clariflocculator where lime and a flocculant
are added for improved sedimentation.  The clariflocculator
underflow is recycled to the first lagoon and the clarifloc-
culator effluent is treated with chlorine, lime being added
if necessary, to destroy residual cyanides.  The clarifloc-
culator effluent then passes through 2 additional lagoons in
series totaling 2.2 acres in area.  The treated scrubber water
is then combined with cooling water, sewage plant effluent,
and yard drainage and flows through a final lagoon 0.25 acres
in area.  The cooling water temperature averages 8.33°C (15°F)
above ambient.

The total plant effluent was determined by measurements over
a rectangular weir and the sewage plant effluent was measured
by bucket and stopwatch.  The yard drainage flow was
estimated.  The furnace cooling water flow was determined
by difference and checked by a calculated chloride balance.
The discharge permit data for this plant indicated a cooling
water flow of 378.6 I/sec (6,000 gpm) and recirculation of
some of this water.  The lack of any chloride buildup and the
low temperature increment indicate that no recirculation is
used and that the survey cooling water volumes are correct.

The total operating loads on the furnaces during the sampling
was 54.3 MW.  Summarized analytical data are shown for the
sampling points as designated in Figure 10 in Tables 42
through 48.
                           70

-------
                                    DRAFT
                                    Figure  10.
                      PLANT B WATER AND WASTEWATER  SYSTEMS
                 FURNACE
                 COOLING
                 WATER
                             CHLORINE
                          * LIME—v
 YARD DRAINAGE
 SEWAGE TREATMENT
     PLANT

EFFLUENT
                                  4-COVERED ELECTRIC
                                  SUBMERGED  ARC
                                    FURNACES
                                           FOR
                                           COOLING
                                  INFLUENT
                                  WATER
                                        7-WET
                                      SCRUBBERS
                             C2)   -- _
                                OVERFLOW
                         DISPOSAL LAGOON
                           2.5 ACRES
• m — « 	 1
LIFT
STATION


DISPOSAL LAGOON
13.5 ACRES


DISPOSAL LAGOON
17 ACRES
4 "
• V.
1
UNDERFLOW
LIME FLOCCULANT
1 1
	 •. r i AD in nrn n ATOD —
OVERFLOW
                                                         CHLORINE	
                                                         pH CONTROL
                                                         OVERFLOW
SETTLING  LAGOON

   0 25 ACRES
SETTLING LAGOON
    I.I ACRES
SETTLING LAGOON

    I.I ACRES

-------
                           DRAFT

          Table 43.   ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2- PLANT B
                        WET SCRUBBERS

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Minimum Maximum
968 2
-
_
1.18
0.20
15.9
2.4
6.1
1.46
0.69
5.62
0.54
1.43
6.2
= 126 I/sec
Average Temperature =
,242
—
_
3.28
1.57
38.6
7.6
8.9
3.10
1.29
9.05
2.25
1.96
6.4
Average
1,555
—
_
2.49
1.04
24.0
4.5
7.8
2.10
0.99
7.27
1.11
1.71
6.3
Net Average
1,535
0
0
2.48
1.03
24.0
3.7
6.5
2.08
0.99
7.27
0.88
1.71

. (2,000 gpm)
°C (
°F)

          Table 44.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP3 - PLANT B
                       THICKENER INLET
     Constituents
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
MinimumMaximum  Average  Net Average
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
 70
96
        83
        63
  0.15
  0.15
  2.58
  0.6
  0.79
  0.94

  0.43
  0.45

  6.3
 0.36
 0.36
 2.97
 2.2
   ,14
   ,08
 0.29
 0.44
 0.54

 6.9
1,
1,
0.22
0.22
2.84
1.2
0.95
1.01
0.19
0.43
0.51

6.6
 0
0.21
0.21
2.82
0.4
0
0.99
0.19
0.43
0.28
       Average Flow =  126  I/sec.  (2,000 gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
                             72

-------
   Table 45.
      DRAFT

ANALYTICAL DATA -SP4- PLANT B
THICKENER OVERFLOW

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Minimum Maximum
8
_
_
0.15
0.15
0.88
1.2
0.41
0.38
—
0.49
0.27
—
8.2
= 126 I/sec
Average Temperature =
86
0.01
_
0.34
0.34
0.93
3.0
0.50
0.39
—
0.51
0.54
0.05
9.6
. (2,000
°C (
Average
56
_
_
0.21
0.21
0.90
2.2
0.47
0.38
_
0.50
0.41
0.03
9.0
gpm)
F)
Net Average
36
0
0
0.20
0.20
0.88
1.4
0
0.36
0
0.50
0.18
0.03



   Table 46.
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP5 - PLANT B
   COOLING WATER

Concentrations, mg/1
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Minimum
4
—
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
—
0.
6.


006
025
6

044
47

22
7
Maximum
22
—
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
—
0.
8.


061
025
8

044
47

22
5
(except as
Average Net
11

0
0
0

0
0

0
7

—
.025
.025
.7

.044
.47
-
.22
.9
0
0
0
0.
0
0.
0

0.
0.
0
0
0

noted)
Average


020
007

024
47



Average Flow = 217  I/sec.  (3,440 gpm)
Average Temperature =     °C  (    °F)
                     73

-------
                          DRAFT

          Table 47.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP?- PLANT B
                    SEWAGE PLANT EFFLUENT
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 20
  0.01
1.52
1.0
0.33
0.11
0.33

6.31

6.6
48
 0.01
           1.52
           2.6
           1.31
           0.11
           0.33

           6.31

           7.6
                 32
                  0.01
          1.52
          2.0
          0.82
          0.11
          0.33

          6.31

          7.2
                   12
                    0.01
                    0
                    0
                    0
                    1.50
                    1.2
                    0
                    0.09
                    0.33
                    0
                    6.08
                    0
       Average Flow =1.0  I/sec. ( 16   gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 48.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP8 - PLANT B
                    TOTAL PLANT DISCHARGE
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 10
  0.006
  0.006
  0.20
  1.0
  0.24
  0.08
  0.22
  0.11
  0.30

  8.1
70
 0.02

 0.030
 0.020
 0.22
 2.6
 0.28
 0.11
 0.35
 0.12
 0.33

 9.2
         35
          C.01

          0.020
          0.010
          0.21
          1.6
          0.27
          0.09
          0.30
          0.12
          0.31

          8.5
                          15
                           0.01

                           0.015
                           0.010
                           0.19
                           0.8
                           0
                           0.07
                           0.30
                           0.12
                           0.08
       Average Flow =  350  I/sec.  (5,556 gpm)
       Average Temperature =20.8°C  (69.4F)
                            74

-------
                          DRAFT
PLANT C

This plant was built in 1967 and has a single sealed furnace
rated at 33 MW.  The principal product is silicomanganese.
There have been several explosions in this furnace attributed
to the sealed design which results in the formation of carbon
monoxide and the lack of ability to observe or control the
action of the charge materials within the furnace.

The water use and waste treatment system is shown in Figure 11.
The furnace off-gases are scrubbed in a spray tower and a low
energy (Dingier) scrubber.  Water is recycled and reused in
both the scrubber system and the furnace cooling water system;
the latter incorporates a cooling tower.  Makeup for the
scrubber system is attained from blowdown from the cooling water
system.  The scrubber effluent is treated with potassium
permanganate to oxidize the cyanides and a flocculant aid to
improve sedimentation in the thickener to which all of the
scrubber water flows.  The thickener overflow is recycled to
the scrubbers and the underflow is treated in a series of 2
lagoons.  The effluent of these lagoons and the cooling tower
blowdown are combined and flow through 2 additional lagoons
in series.  The sanitary sewage is treated in a package-type
plant and polished in a lagoon before being combined with the
industrial wastewater for discharge.  The cooling tower
recirculation rate is 163 I/sec  (2580 gpm).  The temperature
drop across the cooling tower is 14°C  (25.2°F).

Summarized analytical data are shown for the designated
sampling points in Tables 49 through 55.
                             75

-------
                                  DRAFT
                                 Figure  II.
                   PLANT C WATER AND WASTE WATER SYSTEMS
COOLING
 TOWER
          SLOWDOWN  p
                           LIFT
                          STATION
                                      LAGOON
                          HM,'
                       LAGOON
     POLYELECTROLYTE
                         I
                                 EMERGENCY
                                  iVERFLOW
                                      ACTIVATED
                                      CARBON
                                      FILTERS
                       LAGOON
                                                                  DISCHARGE
REFUSE
WATER
 TANK
[
       SCRUBBE R
         KMn0
                                              SANITARY
                                               SEWER
                       THICKENER
                   «H|H
  LIFT
STATION
                                                SANITARY
                                               TREATMENT
                                                 PLANT
                                                 U
                                                              CHLORINE
                                                                      LAGOON


-------
          Table 49.
     DRAFT
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP1- PLANT C
    WELL WATER
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
 Concentrations/ mg/1 (except as noted)
 Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
  0.013

  0.51
  0.021
  6.9
0.017
0.4
0.51
0.029
7.5
0.016
0.2
0.51
0.026
7.2
       Average Flow =50.4 I/sec.  (800
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 50.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2 - PLANT C
                   COOLING TOWER BLOWDOWN
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
 Concentrations/ mg/1 (except as noted)
 Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
  40
   1.37

  49
   0.6
   0.51
   3.32

   0.14
   0.28

   7.6
50
 3.81

56
 1.2
 0.68
 3.40

 0.24
 0.95

 7.8
45
 2.21

52
 0.9
 0.57
 3.35

 0.19
 0.50

 7.7
44
 0
 0
 2.21

52
 0.7
 0.06
 3.32

 0.19
 0.50
       Average  Flow =3.1   I/sec.  ( 49
       Average  Temperature  =  36  °C  (96.8 °F)
                            77

-------
                          DRAFT

          Table 51.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP3- PLANT
                      SPRAY TOWER SUMP
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations/ mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average

1,280    2,076    1,529    1,528
    0.04     0.04     0.04     0.04
    2.46
    0.49
  271
    2.0
    3.02
   18.9
   38
    0.70
    4.54
    1.17
    7.6
  5.39
  1.29
608
  4.4
  7.91
 21.4
 38
  0.98
  5.23
  4.00
  8.5
  08
  99
  4,
  0,
447
  3.5
  5.12
 20.6
 38
  0.79
  4.77
  3.00
  8.1
  4.08
  0.99
447
  3.3
  4.61
 20.6
 38
  0.79
  4.77
  3.00
       Average Flow =69.3 I/sec.  (1,100 gpm)
       Average Temperature = 48 °C  (118.4°F)
          Table 52.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP4 - PLANT c
                     THICKENER UNDERFLOW
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average

8,158    39,012   24,397   24,396
   1.99
   0.54
  4.90
  0.89
3.33
0.68
           3.33
           0.68
   8.4
  8.9
8.6
       Average Flow =  1.6 I/sec.  ( 25   gpm)
       Average Temperature = 45 °C  (113°F)
                            78

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 53.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP6- PLANT C
                    SEWAGE PLANT EFFLUENT
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
          8
         6
 3.5
 1.0
 0.42
 0.181

 0.04
 5.2
6.3
1.6
0.47
0.181

0.29
7.0
5.0
1.3
0.44
0.181

0.17


6.1
          5
          0
          0
          0
          0
          5.0
          1.1
          0
          0.155
          0
          0.17
       Average Flow =0.06 I/sec.  (    1 gpm)
       Average Temperature = 19.3  °C  (66.7  °F)
          Table  54.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP8 - PLANT C
                   SLUDGE LAGOON EFFLUENT
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 106
   1.85
   0.32
  65
   1.4
   1.11
   1.93
   9.4
   0.15
   1.52

   7.3
312
  2.41
  1.08
 97
  2.4
  1.64
  3.11
 11.1
  0.36
  2.23
  0.77
  7.7
        Average  Flow =       I/sec.  (
        Average  Temperature  =     °C  (
  188
    2.15
    0.77
   75.5
    1.9
    1.30
    2.51
   10.0
    0.23
    1.82
    0.50
    7.5

  gpm)
°FJ
         187
           0
           0
           2.15
           0.77
          75.5
           1.7
           0.79
           2.48
          10.0
           0.23
           1.82
           0.50
                            79

-------
                DRAFT
Table 55.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP9- PLANT C
           THICKENER OVERFLOW

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Minimum Maximum
100
_
_
5.01
0.73
51
2.8
0.27
1.00
4.1
0.47
1.02
-
7.2
= 67. 7 I/sec
Average Temperature =
252
_
_
6.48
1.12
82
4.0
0.43
2.80
9.4
0.86
4.0
0.80
7.7
Average
181
_
_
5.60
0.90
71
3.4
0.38
1.73
6.2
0.64
2.05
0.49
7.5
Net Average
180
0
0
5.60
0.90
71
3.2
0
1.70
6.2
0.64
2.05
0.49

. (1,075 gpm)
°C (
oF)

Table 56.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP1 - PLANT D
               WELL WATER

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Average Temp*
Minimum Maximum
10
_
0.20
2.24
0.026
_
_
0.02
6.1
= 16.3 I/sec
srature =
16
_
0.20
2.30
0.026
_
—
0.04
7.9
. ( 259
°C (
Average
13
_
0.20
2.27
0.026
—
—
0.03
6.7
gpm)
OF)
Net Average
-
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
-

                   80

-------
                          DRAFT
PLANT D

This plant has open submerged-arc furnaces which produce ferro-
chromium, ferrosilicon, blocking chrome, and ferromanganese.
Three of the furnaces are rated at 5.5 MW and the fourth at
16.5 MW.

These furnaces are equipped with a new type of dust-removal
system utilizing waste heat from the furnace to provide the
energy for gas scrubbing without the use of exhaust fans.  This
system has recently been installed on four ferroalloy furnaces.
The reaction gas passes through a heat exchanger, a nozzle, and
a separator.  The heat from the reaction gases is transferred
to the water in the heat exchanger, increasing the temperature
of the water to about 177-204°C  (350-400°F) and the water pressure
to about 21 kg/sq cm  (300 psi) .  As the heated water is expanded
through the nozzle of the scrubber, partial flashing occurs, and
the remaining liquid is atomized.  Thus, a two-phase mixture of
steam and small droplets leaves the nozzle at high velocity.
The reaction gas from the furnace is entrained by this high-
velocity, two-phase mixture, and in the subsequent mixing,
the reaction gas is scrubbed and cleaned.  At the same, the
action of the gases leaving the nozzle aspirates reaction gases
from the furnace and propels them through the system.  The
mixture of steam, gas, and water droplets entrained with the
collected particulates from the gas passes through a separtor
after discharge from the mixing section.  The water and dust
are removed from the gas-steam mixture; the gas leaves the
separator through the stack, and the water and dust are discharged
from the separator to a wastewater treatment system.  Chemicals
and other treatment are applied to settle the solids and other
contaminants from the water, and the fluid slurry is discharged
to settling ponds.  This system is illustrated in Figure 12.
The water is then filtered, deionized, and returned to a pump
for recycling to the heat exchanger.  Makeup water is added
to replace any losses.

The water flow digram is shown in Figure 13.  The clarifiers
consist of 3 inclined, tube-type clarifier-flocculators in
parallel.  The filters are  3 deep-bed sand filters in parallel;
backwash on the filters is  controlled by a continuously reading
turbidimeter.  The softener is a fluidized moving-bed ion
exchange unit, rated  at 600 gpm  (38 I/sec).  The particular
softener design is claimed  to  minimize resin attrition to  less
than 1 percent per year and to minimize rinsewater requirements.

The recirculation rate at the  cooling tower is 284 I/sec  (4500
gpm), and 1.3 percent, since  the temperature change across  the
tower is 7.2°C  (13°F), or 3.7  I/sec  (58.5 gpm).
                            81

-------
                                                DRAFT
                                               Figure 12.
                                    STEAM/HOT WATER  SCRUBBING SYSTEM
oo
f\J
                                                                 OFFTAKE
                                                                 DUCT
EMERGENCY
 STACK
                                            HEAT
                                            EXCHANGER
                                      CLEAN GAS
                                      DISCHARGE
                                        PRIMARY
                                        PUMPS
                                                                    NOZZLE

                                                                 MIXING  DUCT
                                                               SEPARATOR
                               CLARIFIER
                                                         PUMP  HOUSE
           FURNACE
           ENCLOSURE

-------
                                               DRAFT
                                              Figure  13.
                                PLANT D WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
OD
01
                                     PLANT
                                     DISCHARGE  [
                            DRY SLUDGE
                            DUMP
                    BLOW DOWN
    PH
ADJUSTMENT
   CELL
                                                 BRINE
                                                             I	t
                                                          SCRUBBERS
TURBIDIMETER
   CELLS
                                                                           BLOW DOWN

-------
                          DRAFT

During the sampling period, 2 of the smaller furnaces were
operating as was the largest furnace.  The products produced
were blocking chromium,'ferrochromium, and 50% ferrosilicon.
The average daily power consumption on the furnaces totaled
695.5 MWhr, i.e., the 3 furnaces operated at 28.98 MW per hr.

Summarized analytical data for various sampling points as
designated in Figure 12 are shown in Tables 56 through 61.
                            84

-------
                    DRAFT

   Table  57.   ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2-  PLANT  D
            COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN

Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum Maximum
10
_
_
0.007
—
0.09
0.2
3.08
0.059
0.7
_
1.95
—
6.2
=0.38 I/sec
Average Temperature =
28
_
_
0.007
_
0.14
0.2
3.15
0.077
0.7

2.77
_
7.8
. ( 6
°C ( '
Average
19

_
0.007
_
0.11
0.2
3.10
0.069
0.7

2.54

6.8
gpm)
•F>
Net Average
6
0
0
0.007

0
0.2
0.83
0.043
0.7

2.51
0



   Table 58.
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP4 - PLANT D
 SLURRY BLEND TANK

Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum
768
0.10
0.06
—
-
0.60
—
2.47
11.2
10.8
0.03
0.45
0.68
8.7
Maximum Average Net Average
7,644 3
3.37
1.85
0.062
0.020
4.06
1.3
60.
34.
103.
0.48
6.95
4.4
9.3
,070
1.24
0.68
0.031
0.018
1.89
0.70
27.9
25.1
58.6
0.24
3.95
3.03
9.0
3,057
1.24
0.68
0.031
0.018
1.69
0.70
25.6
25.1
58.6
0.24
3.92
3.03

Average Flow =21.6   I/sec.  (343.5 gpm)
Average Temperature  =     °C  (    °F)
                     85

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 59.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP6- PLANT D
                    CONTINUOUS SLOWDOWN
     Constituent
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
 8
102
  2.24
38
 0.46
            0.014   0.005
 0.05
 0.2
 0.39
 0.173

 0.02
 0.04

 7.1
  0.60
  1.6
  0.77
  0.325
  0.6
  0.30
  0.10

 11.1
 0,
 1,
                    ,25
                    ,0
                   0.57
                   0.175
                   0.2
                   0.12
                   0.06

                   9.6
25
 0.46

 0.005

 0.05
 1.0
 0
 0.149
 0.2
 0.12
 0.03
       Average Flow =  6.3 I/sec.  ( 100  gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 60.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP5 - PLANT D
                     FILTER SUPPLY TANK
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
MinimumMaximum  Average  Net Average
68
 0.25

 0.020

 0.42
 0.3
 1.53
 0.288
 0.7

 0.01 -

 9.1
           134
             0.43

             0.029

             1.23
             1.6
             6.15
             2.51
             1.8
             0.23
          - - 0.18
             0.42
            10.3
         112
           0.31

           0.024

           0.78
           1.1
           3.15
           1.24
           1.3
           0.12
           0.07
           0.14
           9.7
          99
           0.31

           0.024

           0.58
           1.1
           0.88
           1.21
           1.3
           0.12
           0.04
           0.14
       Average  Flow  =19.2  I/sec.  (  305   gpn)
       Average  Temperature  =     °C  (   °F)
                            86

-------
          Table  61.
     DRAFT
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP8- PLANT D
  PLANT DISCHARGE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
 Concentrations,  mg/1 (except as noted)
 Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
  60
   0.54
   0.138
   0.014

   0.81
   0.4
   1.06
   0.592
   8.4
532
  1.35
  0.215
  0.030

  3.25
  0.61
  7.83
  3.79

  0.05
  0.10
  0.63
  9.6
186
  0.87
  0.177
  0.025

  1.81
  0.54
  3.79
  2.03

  0.02
  0.06
  0.21
  8.9
173
  0.87
  0.177
  0.025

  1.61
  0.54
  1.52
  2.00
  0
  0.02
  0.03
  0.21
       Average Flow =  9.8  I/sec.  (  155 gpm)
       Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
          Table 62.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SPl - PLANT
                   ELECTROLYTIC MANGANESE

Constituents
"onccn<:r
Minimum
a' dors, "•
Maximum
c/1 (.^rce
Average
r'i- a- r.cted;
Net Average
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
 85,072   161,660   129,337    129,304
     0.11      0.11     0.11        0
  5,563
     4.42
     0.025
    21.5
     0.17
     7.4
8,847
2.4
116
0.025
33
0.08
7,233
1.1
53.8
0.025
28.2
0.03
    0.24
    7.4
    0.22
    7.4
     0
     0
 7,233
     1.1
    53.2
     0.003
    27.5
     0.03
     0
     0.22
       Average Flow =14.6 I/sec.  (231.5 gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
                            87

-------
                           DRAFT

PLANT E

This plant has been operating since 1951 and has principally
two areas where wastewaters other than cooling waters are
generated and discharged.  These two areas contain electric
arc furnaces and electrolytic cells, respectively.

There are seven closed and two open submerged-arc furnaces
where 50% ferrosilicon, silicomanganese, standard and medium
carbon ferromanganese, and high carbon ferrochromium are
produced.  This area also contains manganese oxygen refining
and slag shotting operations.  These furnaces have a total
rating of 126 MW and operated during the survey period at 82 .MW.

There are three electrolytic operations that produce manganese,
manganese oxide, and chromium.  The cells were operated at
a total of 19.3 MW during the survey.

The nine furnaces and three electrolytic operations use cooling
water on a once-through basis.  The sanitary sewage is treated
at an on-site plant and discharges with the cooling water.  The
total plant effluent is 1.16 X 106 cu. m/day  (305.5 mgd), the
majority of which is cooling water from the plant's power
generating station.

The water and wastewater systems for the plant are shown in
Figure 14.  Also shown in this figure are the sampling points
used during the survey.

The fumes from the furnaces are scrubbed with either venturi
or low energy type scrubbers.  There are five venturi and 12
low-energy type scrubbers available for the nine  furnaces.  The
scrubbers use between 22-32 I/sec  (350-500 gpm) of the
water when operating.  The manganese refining operation also
utilizes a venturi scrubber.  The  scrubber water  flows via a
common line to the first of two lagoons operated  in series.
The lagoons have a combined surface area of 78 acres.  The
wash water from the electrolytic operations mixes with the
scrubber wastewater before entering the lagoons.

The acid wastewater from the electrolytic operations flows to  the
second of these lagoons where a hydrated lime slurry is
also added as a neutralizing agent.  This second  lagoon also
receives the effluent  from a flyash removal system at the power
plant.  The effluent  from the second lagoon flows to the
receiving stream.

A wastewater discharge from the slag concentrator flows to a
separate 4.3 acre tailings lagoon  and then to the receiving
stream.
                            88

-------
                                                                                    DRAFT
                                                                                  Figure 14
                                                                     PLANT £  WATER  AND WASTE WATER  SYSTEMS
CHLORINE!
      TwELL
       [WATER
                                                                       CHLORINE INFLUENT WATER
                                                                              ' FROM RIVER
FOR
COOLING
                    SUBMERGED
                  ARC-FURNACES
                  ELECTROLYTIC
                     PLANTS

                      VACUUM
                     FURNACE
                      PLANT
FOR
SCRUBBERS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS
OPERATIONS
                                SLUDGE  LAGOON  NO I
                                      6 5 AC RES
                                                SLUDGE  LAGOON N0.3
                                                    696 ACRES
                   OUTFALL
                     TO RIVER
                           OUTFALL
                              TO RIVER
SLAG
TRATOR
TEM
FLUID
WASTE
3)
\G
NGS
JONS
kCRES
»
gYARD


FLY ASH
REMOVAL

DRAINAGE
N < 	

FOR POWER
PLANT
                                             OUTFALL
                                              TO RIVER
                                           OUT FAI L
                                             TO  HIVER
            (JUT FAL L
              TO RIVIM

-------
                          DRAFT
Summarized analytical data for sampling points as designated
in Figure 14 are shown in Tables 62 through 81.  The 1971
average temperature increase in cooling water temperatures
over inlet was 3.9°C (7°F).

-------
                          DRAFT
         Table 63.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2- PLANT
              ELECTROLYTIC MANGANESE DIOXIDE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations , mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Ner Average

8,120    16,064   12,871   12,838
    1.06      1.47     1.33     1.17
                                0
                                0
                                0
4,610     9,595    7,024    7,024
              2.8      2.3      2.3
  1.4
342
 10
237
    2.7
532
 25
420
       421
        17
       359
                              420
                               17
                              358
                                0
                                0
                                0
4.8
           4.1
       Average Flow =14.6 I/sec.  (231.5 gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
         Table 64.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP3 - PLANT E
                   ELECTROLYTIC CHROMIUM

Concentrations, mg/1
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Minimum
514
1,755
—
—
—
207
1.
9,798
1.
11.
0.
_
1.
2.






2

83
4
03

24
1
(except as noted)
Maximum Average
1,294
4,344 2
_
_
—
343
1.6
15,120 11
2.63
16
0.12
_
1.74
2.3
782
,618
—
_
_
275
1.
,728
2.
13.
0.
_
1.
2.
Net Average

2,




4
11,
36
1
07

57
2
749
618
0
0
0
275
1.
727
2.
12.
0.
0
1.






4

34
4
07

57
       Average Flow =14.6  I/sec.  (731.5
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   '*F)
                           91

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 65.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP4- PLANT
               FURNACE #18 SCRUBBER DISCHARGE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
    (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
MinimumMaximum  Average  Net Average
 210
   0.01
  54
   1.2
   5.26
  18
   4.45
   1.79
   7.0
342
  0.01
 54
  1.2
  5.26
 18
  4.45
  1.79
  7.1
261
  0.01
 54
  1.2
  5.26
 18
  4.45
  1.79
  7.0
       Average Flow = 28.4 I/sec.  ( 450
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
228
  0
  0
  0
  0
 54
  1.2
  4.68
 18
  3.78
  0
  0
  1.79
          Table 66.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP5 - PLANT E
               FURNACE #17 SCRUBBER DISCHARGE
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
MinimumMaximum  Average  Net Average
  318
   0.09

   0.87

  256
   1.6
   18.0
   48
   13.0
   0.22

   5.6
   6.4
426
  0.09

  0.87

256
  1.6
 18.0
 48
 13.0
  0.22

  5.6
  6.9
373
  0.09

  0.87

256
  1.6
 18.0
 48
 13.0
  0.22

  5.6
  6.7
340
  0.09

  0.87

256
  1.6
 17.4
 48
 12.3
  0.22
  0
  5.6
       Average Flow  =25.2  I/sec.  (  400   gpm)
       Average Temperature  =     °C  (    °F)
                            92

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 67.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP6- PLANT
                   MOR SCRUBBER DISCHARGE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations,  mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 874
   0.06
 597
   1.2
   1.82
   0.46
   0.87
   7.8
1,674    1,204
    0.06     0.06
         1,171
             0
  597
    1.2
    1.82
    0.46
    0.87
    8.7
 597
   1.2
   1.82
   0.46
   0.87
    0
    0
  597
    1.2
    1.24
    0.44
    0.20
    0
    0
    0
   8.2
       Average Flow =  22.11/sec.  (   350gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 68.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP7 - PLANT E
                  SLAG SHOTTING WASTEWATER
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 132
   0.03
  54
   1.2
   0.28
   0.13
  10.5
   7.3
 302
   0.03
  54
   1.2
   0.28
   0.13
  10.5
   7.4
217
  0.03
 54
  1.2
  0.28
  0.13
 10.5
  7.5
184
  0

  0
  0
 54
  1.2
  0
  0.11
  9.8
  0
  0
  0
       Average Flow =110.3  I/sec.  (1,750 gpm)
       Average Temperature  =     °C  (   °F)
                            93

-------
                          DRAFT

          Table 69.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP9- PLANT E
               FURNACE #10 SCRUBBER DISCHARGE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 264
   0.57

   0.16

  21.9
   1.8
   3.19
   8.7
   7.1
   0.09
   0.32
   0.26
   7.3
       364
         0.57

         0.16

        21.9
         1.8
         3.19
         8.7
         7.1
         0.09
         0.32
         0.26
         7.3
         317
           0.57

           0.16

          21.9
           1.8
           3.19
           8.7
           7.1
           0.09
           0.32
           0.26
           7.3
         284
           0.41

           0.16

          21.4
           1.8
           2.61
           8.7
           6.4
           0.09
           0.32
           0.26
       Average Flow = 50.4 I/sec.  ( 800  gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 70.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP10 - PLANT E
                FURNACE #5 SCRUBBER DISCHARGE
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 268
   0.10

   0.96
   4.22
   1.6
     ,00
     ,00
     ,68
   0.15
   0.50
   1.03
   4.4
4.
3.
1.
414
  0.10

  0.96

  4.22
  1.6
  4.00
  3.00
  1.68
  0.15
  0.50
  1.03
  4.4
343
  0.10

  0.96

  4.22
  1.6
  4.00
  3.00
  1.68
  0.15
  0.50
  1.03
  4.4
                          310
                            0
0.96

3.73
1.6
3.42
  98
  01
0.15
0.50
1.03
2,
1,
       Average Flow =50.4 I/sec.  ( 800  gpm)
       Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
                            94

-------
                   DRAFT
   Table 71.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP11- PLANT E
         FURNACE #1 SCRUBBER"DISCHARGE

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Minimum Maximum
3,244 4
0.50
_
-
-
1,576 1
—
6.94
51
178
0.09
—
11.7
8.6
=44.1 I/sec
Average Temperature =
,140
0.50
_
-
-
,576
-
6.94
51
178
0.09
-
11.7
8.7
. ( 700
°C (
Average
3,753
0.50
—
-
-
1,576
—
6.94
51
178
0.09
-
11.7
8.6
gpm)
oF)
Net Average
3,720
0.34
—
0
0
1,576
-
6.36
51
177
0.09
0
11.7



   Table 72.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP12 - PLANT E
 FURNACE #1 SCRUBBER SETTLING BASIN DISCHARGE

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Minimum
3,348
0.17
_
—
-
1,322
1.0
7.16
89
178
—
-
9.1
8.5
Maximum
11,364
0.
—
-
-
1,322
1.
7.
89
178
—
-
9.
8.
Average
6,080
17 0.17
—
-
-
1,322
0 1.0
16 7.16
89
178
—
-
1 9.1
6 8.6
Net Average
6,047
0.01
—
0
0
1,322
1.0
6.58
89
177
0
0
9.1

Average Flow =44.1 I/sec.  ( 700  gpm)
Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
                     95

-------
                           DRAFT
          Table 73.  ANALYTICAL'DATA -SP13- PLANT
                SLAG CONCENTRATOR WASTEWATER
                      Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
	Constituent      Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average

Suspended Solids       856      872      864      831
Total Chromium           2.04     2.04     2.04     1.88
Hexavalent Chromium                                 o
Total Cyanide             -       0.013    0.007    0.007
Free Cyanide              -
Manganese                4.39     4.81     4.60     4.11
Oil                      0.2      2.2      1.2      1.2
Iron                     5.8     14.6     10.2      9.6
Zinc                     0.22     0.22     0.22     0.20
Aluminum                10.7     10.7     10.7     10.0
Phenol                                              0
Phosphate                                           0
Lead                                                0
pH  (units)               6.1      6.2      6.2

       Average Flow = 107.ll/sec. (1,700
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 74.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP14 - PLANT
                SLAG TAILINGS POND DISCHARGE
                      Concentrations/ mg/1  (except as noted)
	Constituents     Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average

Suspended Solids       46       90       62        29
Total Chromium          0.02     0.16     0.09      0
Hexavalent Chromium                                 0
Total Cyanide           0.006    0.006    0.006     0.006
Free Cyanide             -
Manganese               0.95     1.26     1.08      0.59
Oil                                                 0
Iron                    1.14     1.54     1.32      0.74
Zinc                    0.032    0.058    0.048     0.026
Aluminum                0.72     1.13     0.86      0.19
Phenol                  0.25     0.25     0.25      0.25
Phosphate                                           0
Lead                                                0
pH  (units)              6.2      6.9      6.4

       Average Flow =107.1 I/sec.  (1,700 gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (    °F)
                            96

-------
   Table 75.
      DRAFT
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP15- PLANT E
LAGOON #3 INFLUENT

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Cnromium
Hexavalent Cnromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Minimum Maximum Average Net Average
32
0.55
0.190
-
-
24.4
0.4
0.86
4.22
1.44
_
—
—
6.7
=447.3 I/sec
Average Temperature =
972
1.2
0.205
-
-
26.1
0.4
1.49
7.90
2.60
_
—
0.06
7.0
. (7,100
°C (
183
0.77
0.198
-
-
25.4
0.4
1.28
5.55
2.04
_
-
0.04
6.8
gpm)
F)
150
0.61
0.198
0
0
24.9
0.4
0.70
5.53
1.37
0
0
0.04



   Table 76.
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP16 - PLANT E
LAGOON #3 EFFLUENT

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Minimum
2
0.08
—
-
-
86
-
0.27
0.22
0.11
—
-
—
7.0
Maximum
30
0.08
—
0.008
-
93
0.4
0.43
0.46
0.21
—
2.73
-
7.2
Average
15
0.08
—
0.005
-
91
0.2
0.35
0.34
0.15
—
0.9
—
7.2
Net Average
0
0
-
0.005
0
91
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.9
0

Average Flow = 632.8l/sec.  (10,045  gpm)
Average Temperature =     °C  (    °F)
                     97

-------
                          DRAFT

          Table 77.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP17- PLANT
                     INTAKE RIVER WATER
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units).
concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  maximum  Average  Net Average
 24
  0.16
  0.49

  0.54
  0.022
  0.67
  7.2
       Average Flow = 13,366
       Average Temperature =
38
 0.16
 0.49
 0.2
 0.62
 0.022
 0.67
 7.2
33
 0.16
 0.49

 0.58
 0.022
 0.67
 7.2
         I/sec. ( 212,150  gpm)
          UC (   °F)
          Table 78.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP18 - PLANT E
                   COOLING WATER DISCHARGE
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
                      Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum
90
6.6
-
-
0.053
-
3.42
0.045
4.28
-
1.98
-
3.8
Maximum
176
6.6
-
0.014
4.61
0.4
32.
0.045
4.28
—
1.98
—
7.2
Average Net Average
125
6.6
-
0.005
1.58
0.3
15.0
0.045
4.28
-
1.98
-
5.4
92
6.4
0
0.005
1.09
0.3
14.4
0.023
3.61
0
1.98
0

       Average Flow = 3,571  I/sec.  ( 56,680    gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
                            98

-------
                          DRAFT

          Table 79.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP14- PLANT E
      COMBINED SLAG SHOTTING & COOLING WATER DISCHARGE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
wexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 148
   0.02
  19.1
   1.0
   3.72
   0.049
   4.95
   7.5
 192
   0.02
  19.1
   1.0
   3.72
   0.049
   4.95
   7.5
170
  0.02
 19.1
  1.0
  3.72
  0.049
  4.95
  7.5
       Average Flow =  50.4I/sec.  (
       Average Temperature =    °C  (
                SOOgpm)
137
  0.02

  0
  0
 18.6
  1.0
  3.14
  0.027
  4.28
  0
  0
  0
          Table 80.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP20A - PLANT E
                 FLY ASH INFLUENT TO .LAGOON
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations,  mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
1,246
20,156   7,667
         7,634
   6.6
    7.0
  6.7
       Average Flow =70.9 I/sec.  (1,125 gpm)
       Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
                             99

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 81.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP20B- PLANT E
                 PLY ASH INFLUENT TO LAGOON
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 510
5,200    2,209
           2,176
   6.6
    6.8
     6.7
       Average Flow =70.9  I/sec. (1,125 gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 82.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP1 - PLANT F
                        INTAKE WATER
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 17
  0.01
  0.026
  1.0

  0.008
  7.3
 17
  0.01
  0.026
  1.0

  0.008
  7.3
       Average Flow =      I/sec.  (
       Average Temperature =    °C  (
  17
   0.01
   0.026
   1.0

   0.008
   7.3

  gpm)
OF)
                           100

-------
                           DRAFT

PLANT F

This plant utilizes  seven electric arc furnaces to produce
a product line  including 50%  ferrosilicon, low carbon
ferrochromesilicon,  high carbon  ferrochromium, low carbon
ferrochromium and silicon metal.  The furnaces range in size
from 10 MW to 36 MW  with a collective capacity of 142 MW.  No
wet air pollution devices are used; baghouses have been
installed.  The water use system is as shown in figure 15.

All plant water is supplied from wells and the furnace cooling
water is recirculated.  Slowdown from all three cooling towers
is automatically controlled by total solids levels.  Flow rate
in the cooling  tower serving  4 furnaces with a capacity of
51 MW is 76 I/sec  (1200 gpm).  Bleed-off from this unit is
5 I/sec (80 gpm) or  6.6% of the  recirculating flow.  Another
cooling tower serving a 20 MW furnace has a flow rate of
50 I/sec (800 gpm) and a bleed-off of 1 I/sec (20 gpm) or
2.5% of the recirculating flow.  Two additional furnaces with
a capacity of 65 MW  are served by a 316 I/sec (5000 gpm)
recirculating flow and a bleed-off of 13 I/sec (200 gpm) or
4% of the flow.  Water treatment in the cooling system
consists of a zinc-chromate based proprietary compound and
algaecides.

Except for the  overflow from  septic tanks and isolated roof
drains, the cooling  system bleed-off is the major source of the
plant discharge.  Yard drainage  resulting from surface run-off
is collected and transfered to a small off-site lagoon.  Under
normal conditions there is no discharge from the lagoon as
accumulated wastewater either evaporates or drains through the
lagoon bottom.

With 6 furnaces operating during the sampling period at 92.8 MW,
the cooling water use was thus 17.15 1/kwhr (4.53 gal/kwhr).  A
limited number  of samples were collected at this plant and the
analytical data are  summarized in Table 82.  The temperature
drop across the cooling tower is 5.6°C (10°F).

A slag concentration process  is  used at this plant which
utilizes water  on a  completely closed recirculation system,
the only discharge of slag fines being to a closed lagoon,
i.e., a lagoon  with  no outlet.
                           101

-------
                    DRAFT
                   Figure  15.
    PLANT F  WATER AND WASTE WATER  SYSTEMS
                 SLAG CONCENTRATOR
                     llAGOONl

(No' Discharge;     (No D''«harqe)
                     102

-------
                   DRAFT

   Table b3   ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2- PLANT F
            COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituent Minimum Maximum
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow =
14
10.8
0.015
-
-
0.093
1.4
0.11
6.98
—
_
-
—
5.9
1/sec
Average Temperature =
14
10.8
0.015
—
-
0.093
1.4
0.11
6.98
—
—
-
—
5.9
. (
°C ( '
Average
14
10.8
0.015
—
-
0.093
1.4
0.11
6.98
—
_
-
—
5.9
gpm)
>F)
Net Average
0
10.8
_
0
0
0.067
0.4
0.11
6.97
0
0
0
0



   Table 84.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP3 - PLANT F
                PLANT DISCHARGE

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phospnate
Lead
ph (units)
Average Flow
Minimum Maximum
14
13.6
0.008
0.010
-
0.370
4.2
0.58
6.98
0.67
—
-
—
6.5
= I/sec
14
13.6
0.008
0.010
-
0.370
4.2
0.58
6.98
0.67
—
-
—
6.5
. (
Average
14
13.6
0.008
0.010
-
0.370
4.2
0.58
6.98
0.67
—
-
—
6.5
gpm)
Net Average
0
13.6
—
0.010
-
0.344
3.2
0.58
6.97
0.67
0
0
0


Average Temperature =     °C  (
                    103

-------
                          DRAFT

PLANT G

This plant has two 35 MW open furnaces which produce ferro-
chromium and a slag concentration operation.  At times ferro-
chromesilicon is produced here.  The water flow diagram for
the plant is shown in Figure 16.  Air pollution control is
by means of electrostatic precipitators which are preceded by
spray towers.  The gases from the furnaces are conditioned by
the water sprays in the towers in order to improve the
performance of the precipitators; ammonia is added to the
spray water.

The water supply is purchased city water and originates from
wells.  The cooling water used on the furnaces is recirculated
through a cooling tower at the rate of 316 I/sec  (5000 gpm) .
The spray towers remove a substantial percentage of the
particulates from the furnace gases prior to the precipitators;
the resultant slurry passes through settling basins near the
furnaces and then a lagoon which has been excavated from a
slag pile.

The slag concentrator is' a sink-float process in which slag
fines are separated from larger/ usable slag particles and in turn
from recoverable metal.  The products are thus slag for sale
and metal for reuse; the waste is a slurry of slag fines.
The waste stream is treated in 2 small lagoons in series prior
to discharge.

Plant production has been reported at 245 metric tons  (270
short tons) of alloy per day.  The EPA-TFA Study data indicate
a factor of 4.2 MWhr per ton, i.e., a furnace load of 1,134
MWhr per day.  Analytical data are summarized in Tables 85
through 90, for sampling locations designated in Figure 16.
                           104

-------
                               DRAFT
                              Figure  16.
                PLANT G WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
             CITY
            WATER


FURNACE








COOLING
TOWER
1
/j
r
s\



FURNACE


SPRAY
TOWER
    SETTLING
      BASIN
       SPRAY
       TOWER
SETTLING
 BASIN
                                  LAGOON
                                                     1
                                              SLAG
                                          CONCENTRATION
                                                  LAGOON
                                                     I
                                                  LAGOON

-------
                          DRAFT

          Table b5.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SPJ.- PLANT
                      INTAKE CITY WATER
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Pnenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations/ mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 0.030
 0.2
 0.13
 0.159
 6.9
        0.030
        0.2
        0.14
        0.159
        7.9
        0.030
        0.2
        0.13
        0.159
        7.3
       Average Flow =20.5  I/sec.  ( 325
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   UF)
          Table 86.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2 - PLANT G
                   COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phospnate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 18
  3.23
  1.43
0.094
0.2
0.19
0.52
0.98

0.05

7.3
        40
         3.35
         1.57
0.094
0.4
0.46
0.71
0.98

0.15

8.4
        25
         3.31
         1.49
                    0.094
                    0.3
                    0.32
                    0.65
                    0.98

                    0.12

                    8.0
25
 3.31
 1.49
 0
 0
 0.064
 0.1
 0.19
 0.491
 0.98
 0
 0.12
 0
       Average Flow =  1.6  I/sec.  (  25  gpm)
       Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
                           106

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 87.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP3- PLANT G
                    SPRAY TOWER DISCHARGE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
4,134
6,104
4,980
4,873
    2.66
    1.68
    0.2
    1.77
    0.75
    4.34

    0.01

    7.3
    8.36
    0.49
   14.0
    0.6
    3.50
    5.28
   23.0

    0.02

    8.6
    4.76
    0.32
    8.15
    0.3
    2.58
    2.45
   11.28

    0.02

    8.1
    4.76
    0.32
    0
    0
    8.12
    0.1
    2.45
    2.29
   11.28
    0
    0.02
       Average Flow =  1.1 I/sec.  (  17.5gpm)
       Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
          Table  88.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP4 - PLANT G
                   SETTLING BASIN  INFLUENT
     Constituents
Suspended  Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 204     1,898
    3.48      7.44
    2.89

    1.27
    2.67
    7.8
    7.7
    3.81

    5.87
    6.83
   29.0
    8.9
          784
            5.29
   3.33
   0.4
   2.95
   4.75
  21.9

   0.03

   8.3
784
  5.29
  0
  0
  0
  3.30
  0.2
  2.82
  4.59
 21.9
  0
  0.03
  0
        Average Flow = 3.8  I/sec.  (   60   gpm)
        Average Temperature = 38 °C (    °F)
                            107

-------
                           DRAFT

          Table 89.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP5- PLANT G
                       PLANT DISCHARGE
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 96
  2.2b
  O.B7
  0.4
  0.45
  0.35
  1.60

  0.01

  8.0
 104
   2.81
   1.45
   2.0
   0.83
     15
     49
1,
3,
   0.01

   8.2
       101
         2.52
1.2U
1.1
0.60
0.84
2.57

0.04

8.1
101
  2.52
  0
  0
  0
  1.17
  0.9
  0.47
  0.68
  2.57
  0
  0.04
  0
       Average Flow =  3.8 i/sec.  (  60  gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 90.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP6 - PLANT G
                  SLAG PROCESSING DISCHARGE
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 26
  0.55
  0.16
  0.50
  0.8
  0.98
  0.088
  0.27
  8.4
2,894
      1,250
       1,250
    4.54
    0.45
   10.8
    1.0
    5.33
    3.36
   37.0
    9.5
          2.61
          0.30
          4.14
          1.0
          4.38
          1.65
         14.1
           2.61
           0.30
           0
           0
           4.11
           0.8
           4.25
           1.49
          14.1
           0
           0
           0
          8.9
       Average Flow = 0.66 i/sec. ( 10.4 gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
                           108

-------
                          DRAFT
PLANT H

Chromium metal is produced at this plant by an aluminothermic
process using chromium oxide produced by the exothermic
reaction of wood flour and sodium dichromate.  The production
of chromium oxide is not considered here.

The off-gases from the aluminothermic process are cleaned in
a unique "wet baghouse" system shown in Figure 17.  Water
sprays and a wet dynamic scrubber preceed the baghouse and an
air heater which raises the gas temperature above the dewpoint
to prevent bag clogging.  The bags are cleaned by water
sprays between each batch-type operation and are dried prior
to the next cycle.  The wastewater effluent contains suspended
solids and hexavalent chromium as the principal pollutants.

The wastewater is treated batchwise in a series of rubber
lined lagoons as shown in Figure 18.  Each of the three
reduction basins treat one 56,775 liters (15,000 gallon)
heat  (batch) from the baghouse.  Treatment time as measured
from the filling of the basin to discharge of treated waste-
water to the sludge lagoon should take approximately two
hours.  Two 56,775 liters  (15,000 gallon) tanks are provided
for treatment flexibility and storage.

Sufficient sulfuric acid addition capacity is provided to
lower the wastewater pH to 3.0.   (It is at this point pH
level where the chemical reduction of the chromium is most
efficient.)  At maximum conditions, the daily sulfuric acid
requirements are expected to be 454 kg/day  (1,000 Ibs/day).

Sulfur dioxide added to the wastewater through clorine-type
sulfonators is the reducing agent for the treatment process.
The theoretical reduction of chromium requires approximately
.5 kg  (1 Ib.) of sulfur dioxide for every kg  (21b.) of
chromates  (Cr03) to be reduced.  On a daily basis, 136 kg
(300  Ib.) of SO2 is required.

Upon  completion of chemical reduction, sodium hydroxide is
added to the basin to raise the pH to 6.0.  The reduced chrome
also  forms an insoluble chromium hydroxide at this point.
Approximately 36 kg/day  (80 Ib/day) of sodium hydroxide is
required under maximum flow conditions.

Diffused air agitation is provided to completely mix the
reduction basin and to prevent the settling of precipitated
solids before the wastewater is released to the sludge
lagoons.  The air supply capacity was based on providing
0.054 cu. m/hr/gal.  (0.5 cu. ft./hr/gal.) of wastewater to be
mixed.
                           109

-------
                                  DRAFT
                                 Figure 17.
                         DIAGRAM  OF'WET BAGHOUSE" SYSTEM
                BAGS CLEANED BY
             INTERNAL  WATER SPRAY
                                                             MAIN  EXHAUST FAN
SLURRY TO
  DRAIN
           (CLEANED  GAS  TO  ATMOSPHERE)

-------
                          DRAFT
          Table 91.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SPl- PLANT
                      INTAKE CITY WATER
                      Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
	Constituent      Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average

Suspended Solids         -
Total Chromium           -
Hexavalent Chromium      -
Total Cyanide            -
Free Cyanide             -
Manganese                0.026    0.026    0.026
Oil                      -
Iron                     0.22     0.29     0.25
Zinc                     0.016    0.016    0.016
Aluminum                 -
Phenol                   -
Phosphate                -
Lead                     -
pH  (units)               5.6      5.7      5.6

       Average Flow = 28.4 I/sec.  ( 450
       Average Temperature =     °C  (   °F)
          Table  92.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP2 - PLANT
                 BAGHOUSE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
                       Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
     Constituents      Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
Suspended  Solids        106       220       136       136
Total Chromium         101       121       112       112
Hexavalent Chromium     17        44        37         37
Total Cyanide                                        0
Free Cyanide                                         0
Manganese                 0.040     0.051     0.048     0.022
Oil                       1.2       2.b       1.8       1.8
Iron                      0.04      0.04      0.04      0
Zinc                      0.002     0.003     0.002     0
Aluminum                                             0
Phenol                                               0
Phosphate                                            0
Lead                                                 0
pH  (units)               12.3      12.4      12.3

        Average Flow =1,670  I/sec. (26,500gpm)(per  Batch)
        Average Temperature  =     °C (    °F)
                           111

-------
                          DRAFT


          Table 93.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP3~ PLANT
                 TREATED BAGHOUSE WASTEWATER
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
bead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 674
 114
   0.047
   0.41
   0.8
   2.64
   0.90
 127

   0.41

   4.7
748
114
  0.363
  0.73
  2.0
  3.73
  1.53
130

  0.50

  6.2
713
114
  0.162
  0.54
  1.3
  3.27
  1.27
129

  0.46

  5.4
713
114
  0.162
  0
  0
  0.51
  1.3
  3.01
  1.25
129
  0
  0.46
  0
       Average Flow =1,670 I/sec.  ( 26,500 gal per batch)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Table 94.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP4 - PLANT H
                  SETTLING LAGOON DISCHARGE
     Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Pnosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Concentrations, mg/1  ('except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
 58
 17.9
  0.189
  0.70
  3.4
  0.24
  0.77
 31

  0.05

  4.9
70
18.3
 0.218
 0.70
 3.4
 0.42
 0.77
31

 0.05

 4.9
       Average Flow =      i/sec. (
       Average Temperature =    °C (
66
18.1
 0.208
 0.70
 3.4
 0.32
 0.77
31

 0.05

 4.9

gpm)
 66
 18,
    208
 0
 0
 0
 0.67
 3.4
 0.06
 0.75
31
 0
 0.05
 0
                           112

-------
                   DRAFT
   Table  95.  ANALYTICAL  DATA  -SP5- PLANT
           POLISHING  LAGOON DISCHARGE

Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Average Flow
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum Maximum
3b
7.13
0.214
_
_
0.92
4.0
0.17
0.44
15.3
_
0.05
_
5.2
=0.32 I/sec
Average Temperature =
56
7.56
0.261

_
0.92
4.0
0.17
0.44
15.3

0.05

5.2
. ( 5
°C (
Average
47
7.40
0.245

_
0.92
4.0
0.17
0.44
15.3

0.05

5.2
gpm)
°F)
Net Average
47
7.40
0.245
0
0
0.89
4.0
0
0.42
15.3
0
0.05
0



   Table 96.
ANALYTICAL DATA -SP6 - PLANT
  PLANT DISCHARGE

Concentrations, ng/1 (except as noted)
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units;
Minimum

0.37
0.024
—
-
0.22
2.0
0.27
0.023
—
_
0.05
-
5.2
Maximum
22
0.81
0.090
0.016
0.016
0.40
4.0
0.34
0.074
_
_
0.05
—
6.1
Average
6
0.57
0.057
0.009
0.009
0.32
2.7
0.29
0.048
_
_
0.05
_
5.7
Net Average
6
0.57
0.057
0.009
0.009
0.29
1.8
0
0.032
0
0
0.04
0

Average Flow =      I/sec.  (      gpm)
Average Temperature =    °C  i   °F)
                    113

-------
                           DRAFT
          Table y7.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP7- PLANT H
                      PLANT WELL WATER
     Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH  (units)
Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Minimum  Maximum  Average  Net Average
  0.037
  4.6
  0.52
  0.011
  0.05

  5.2
0.037
4.6
0.57
0.011
0.05

5.3
0.037
4.6
0.55
0.011
0.05

5.3
       Average Flow = 3.01 I/sec.  (  48  gpm)
       Average Temperature =    °C  (   °F)
          Tacle 98.  ANALYTICAL DATA -SP8 - PLANT H
                        COOLING WATER

Concentrations, mg/1 (except as noted)
Constituents
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH (units)
Minimum
40
0.44
0.38
-
-
1.45
2.2
1.49
0.060
0.27
—
-
—
6.0
Maximum
40
0.44
0.38
-
-
1.45
2.2
1.49
0.060
0.27
—
-
—
6.0
Average
40
0.44
0.38
-
-
1.45
2.2
1.49
0.060
0.27
-
-
-
6.0
Net Average
40
0.44
0.38
0
0
1.42
2.2
1.24
0.044
0.27
o-
0
0

       Average Flow =18.6  I/sec.  (   295 gpm)
       Average Temperature  =     °C  (    °F)
                           114

-------
                          DRAFT

The rubber-lined sludge lagoons have an approximate volume of
1,741,100 liters  (460,000 gallons) when gravity flow is used
from the reduction basins to the lagoons.  Pumping the treated
wastewater, however, could theoretically utilize the full 3.5 m
(11 ft.) depth of the lagoon and would almost triple their
capacity.  Currently, gravity flow is used, but provisions
have been made for the later addition of pumps if needed.

Sludge production is expected to approach 454 kg/day (1,000 lb/
day) .  Approximately six months of sludge storage is provided
before removal would be required.  This storage capacity will
allow for 180 days of continuous operation at the maximum flow
and chromium concentrations.

Analytical data from the plant survey are summarized in Tables
90 through 98 for sampling points indicated in Figure 18.  The
measured temperature rise of the cooling water was 6°C (10.0°F).
The cooling pond is designed for a maximum rise of 2.78°C (5°F),
and is 61 m X 67 m  (200 ft. X 220 ft.).

The control and treatment technologies which have been
identified herein are identified as applicable to the various
industry categories in Table 99.


  Table 99.  CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES BY CATEGORY
          Treatment
Category  Technology  	Description	

   I          1       Sedimentation lagoons, recirculation at
                      scrubber
              2       Clarifier-flocculators, sand filters and
                      sludge lagoons
              3       Level 2 + process water recirculation

   II         1       Sedimentation lagoons and CN destruction
              2       Clarifier-flocculators, sludge lagoons
                      and CN destruction
              3       Level 2 + process water recirculation and
                      CN destruction

   III        1       Once-through process uses
              2       Process water recirculation

   IV         1       Neutralization and sedimentation
              2       Process water recirculation

   V          1       Once-through water use
              2       Level 1 + cooling ponds
              3       Cooling towers, recirculation, and
                      chrornate removal
                           115

-------
               DRAFT
              Figure  18.
PLANT  H WATER AND  WASTEWATER  SYSTEMS
GASES
 1
EXOTHERMIC
SMELTING
OPERATION


BAG HOUSE
                CITY
                WATER
     TREATMENT
       LAGOON
       (LINED)
SETTLING
 LAGOON
 (LINED)
 SEASONAL  BY-PASS
^TO STREAM



THERMAL
POND
(UNLINED)
i
i
'

POLISHING
 LAGOON
 (LINED)
                                                  COOLING
                                                  WATER

-------
                          DRAFT
The raw waste loads to be expected for each industry category
and the effluent loads to be expected as a result of the
previously described control and treatment technologies are
given in Tables lOO through 104.  These tafcles have been
constructed on the following bases:
Category I:
     Raw Waste Load

     Treatment Level 1-
     Treatment Level 2-
     Treatment Level 3-
Category II:
     Raw Waste Load
     Treatment Level 1-
     Treatment Level 2-
     Treatment Level 3-
Category III:
     Raw Waste Load
     Treatment Level 1-
     Treatment Level 2-
Category IV:
     Raw Waste Load
     Treatment Level 1-
     Treatment Level 2-
Category V:

     Raw Waste Load

     Treatment Level 1-
     Treatment Level 2-

     Treatment Level 3-
                         @ 113.6 I/sec
Plant E, sample point 11
(1800 gpnu
Plant E, sample point 16
Plant E, sample point 16
Plant D, sample point 6
Plant C, sample point 3
Plant B, sample point 3
Plant B, sample point 4
Plant C, sample point 8
Plant E, sample point 13
Plant E, sample point 14
Plant F, Zero discharge
Plant E, sample points 1,  2, 3,  and 15
Plant H, sample point 5
As level 1, reduction fluid waste,
flow, 10% reduction acid waste flow
Average flow, average measured
temperatures
Once-through use
Once-through,2.8°C (5°F)  temperature
rise
Plant A, sample point 4@  1% blowdown
                           117

-------
                          DRAFT
STARTUP AND SHUTDOWN PROBLEMS

There have been no problems of consequence identified in
connection with the startup of shutdown or production facilities
insofar as wastewater control and treatment is concerned.
Cooling water, for example, is usually allowed to flow or
recirculate during short-term production stoppages, and as
often as not, scrubber water continues to flow during such
periods.  There might be some upsets in undersized lagoons or
clarifiers used in once-through systems if the water flow is
abruptly started after a shutdown.  Proper operating procedures
can easily handle such occurences and there would be little or
no effect in sufficiently large facilities.

Loss of power can effect most of the treatment systems such as
chemicals addition for flocculation, cyanide destruction, or
chromium reduction-precipitation.  In such cases, however, the
production process also will likely stop and little effect on
wastewater treatment would result.
                           118

-------
                  DRAFT
       Table 100.  INDUSTRY CATEGORY I
OPEN FURNACE WITH WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS

Raw Waste Load
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hex . Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
#/MWhr
5773
0.007
0.004
0.0002
0.0001
22.15
0.014
0.152
0.72
2.49
0.001
0.023
0.16
kef
23.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
/MWhr
003
002
0001
00005
06
006
069
33
13
0005
010
07
qal/MWhr
Flow

Heat Content
4,335
BTU/MWhr


mg/1
1,446
0.19
0.11
0.005
0.003
612
0.39
4.20
19.91
68.87
0.028
0.638
4.43
1/MWhr
16.410

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Level
8/MWhr
.21
.0011
.0011
.00007
.00007
.0882
.0028
.0049
.0048
.0021
.00014
.0126
.00042
1 Effluent Level 2 Effluent
kg/MWhr mg/1 #/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1
0.095 15 0.21 0.695 15
0.0005 0.08 0.0011 0.0005 0.08
0.0005 0.08 0.0011 0.0005 0.08
0.00003 0.005 0.00007 0.00003 0.005
0.00003 0.005 0.00007 0.00003 0.005
0.0400 6.3 0.0883 0.0400 6.3
0.0013 0.2 0.0028 0.0013 0.2
0.0022 0.35 0.0049 0.0022 0.35
0.0022 0.34 0.0048 0.0022 0.34
0.0010 0.15 0.0021 0.0010 0.15
0.00006 0.01 0.00014 0.00006 0.01
0.0057 0.90 0.0126 0.0057 0.90
0.00019 0.03 0.00042 0.00019 0.03


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
gal/MWhr 1/MWhr gal/MWhr 1/MWhr

kg-cal/MWhr

—

1,686
6,382 1,686 6,382

BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
—
Value
DH


7.2



_ - -
Value Value
7.2 9.6

Level
#/MWhr
.06559 0
.00079 0
.00046 0
.00001 0
.000001
.00043 0
.001700 0
.00098 0
.00030 0
.00035 0
.00021 0
.00010 0
.00005 0
gal/MWhr
207
BTU/MWhr
-
3 Effluent
kg/MWhr mg
.62978 38
.00036 0.
.00021 0.
0.
0 0
.00020 0.
.00077 1.
.00044 0.
.00014 0.
.00016 0.
.00010 0.
.00005 0.
.00002 0.
1/MWhr
783
kg-cal/MWhr
-

46
27
OOb
.OOb
25
0
57
17b
20
12
06
03




value

9
.6

                   119

-------
                  DRAFT

          Table 101.  INDUSTRY CATEGORY II
COVERD FURNACES WITH WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS


Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hex. Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead

Flow

Heat Content

PH
Raw Waste
Load

ff/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1
40.8 18.5
0.001 0.0005
_ —
0.094 0.043
0.027 0.012
10.66 4.84
0.083 0.038
0.124 0.056
0.531 0.241
1.02 0.46
0.134 0.061
0.125 0.057
0.081 0.037
gal/MWhr
2,870
1705
0.042
-
3.93
1.13
445.4
3.47
5.18
22.18
42.61
5.60
5.22
3.38
1/MWhr
10.863
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr

Value
8.1
_

Level 1
#/MWhr k
.161 0.
0
0
.0033 0.
.0033 0.
.052 0.
.0074 0.
0
.0183 0.
.0035 0.
.008 0.
.0052 0.
0
gal/MWhr
2,210
Effluent
f/MWhr mg/i
11 62.9$
0
0
0015 0.179
0015 0.179
024 2.82
0034 0.401
0
0083 0.993
0016 0.190
004 0.434
0024 0.282
0
1/MWhr
8,365


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
—
—

Value



6.6

Level 2 Effluent
#/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1
.664 0.301 36.03
0 0
0 0
.0055 0.0025 0.298
.0037 0.0017 0.201
.016 0.007 0.868
.0281 0.0128 1.52
0 0
.0066 0.0030 0.358
0 0
.0092 0.0042 0.499
.0033 0.0015 0.179
.00055 0.00025 0.030
gal/MWhr 1/MWhr
2,210 8,365
BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
_ _
Value
9.0

Level
3 Effluent
f/MWhr kg/MWhr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0




.402 0
0
0
.0047 0
.0016 0
.162 0
.0036 0
.0016 0
.0053 0
.0216 0
.00054 0
.004 0
.0012 0
gal/MWhr
258
BTU/MWhr
_
.183


.0021
.0007
.074
.0016
.0007
.0024
.0098
.00025
.002
.0005
mg/1
168.8
0
0
2.18
0.744
75.3
1.67
0.744
2.46
10.04
0.251
1.86
0.558
1/MWhr
976
.5
kg-cal/MWhr
-

Value

7
.5

                      120

-------
            DRAFT

Table 102.  INDUSTRY CATEGORY III
  SLAG CONCENTRATION PROCESSES


Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hex . Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead

Flow
Raw Waste
f/MWhr kg/MWhr
58.7 26.6
0.133 0.060
0.0007 0.0003
0 0
0 0
0.29 0.13
0.085 0.039
0.68 0.31
0.014 0.006
0.706 0.321
0 0
0 0
0 0
gal/MWhr
8,471
Load
mg/1
831
1.88
0.01
0
0
4.11
1.2
9.62
0.198
10.0
0
0
0
1/MWhr
32,063
BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
Heat Content

PH
—
Value
6.2
_


Level 1 Effluent
ft/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1
2.05 0.93 29.0
000
000
0.0004 0.0002 0.006
000
0.042 0.019 0.59
000
0.052 0.024 0.74
0.0017 0.0008 0.026
0.0135 0.006 0.19
0.0177 0.008 0.25
000
000
gal/MWhr 1/MWhr
8,471 32,063
BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr

Value
6.4
Level
#/MWhr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Effluent
kg/MWhr mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
gal/MWhr
0
BTU/MWhr




0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1/MWhr
0
kg-cal/MWhr

Value

—

Level 3 Effluent
tf/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1













gal/MWhr 1/MWhr

BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr

Value

             121

-------
         DRAFT
Tatole 103.   INDUSTRY CATEGORY IV
     ELECTROLYTIC PROCESSES


Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hex. Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead

Flow

Heat Content

PH
Raw Waste Load
#/ton kg/kkg mg/1
8417 426a 1653$
154.2 77.1 303
00 0
0.017 0.009 0.033
_ - -
909 455 1785
0.98 0.49 1.925
715 358 1405
10.2 5.1 20.04
2B.7 14.4 56.4
0.013 0.007 0.02b
0.015 0.003 0.029
0.344 0.172 0.675
gal/ton 1/kkg
61,054 254,534
BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
_
Value
2.2 - 7.4
Level 1 Effluent Level 2 Effluent
If/ton kg/kkq mg/l #/ton kg/kkg
23. » 12.0 47 B.b 4.3
J.8 1.9 7.40 1.4 0.70
00 000
0.002 0.001 0.005 0.0009 0.0005
0.002 0.001 0.005 0.0008 0.0005
0.47 0.24 0.92 0.17 0.09
2.0 1.0 4.0 0.73 0.37
0.07 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.015
0.22 0.11 0.44 0.08 0.04
7.8 3.9 IS. 3 2.8 1.4
0.005 O.OU3 0.01 O.OU2 0.001
0.03 0.02 0.05 0.009 0.005
0.02 0.01 0.03 0.006 0.003
gal/ton 1/kkg gal/ton
61,054 254,534 22,000
-4^
7.40
0
0.005
0.005
0.92
4.0
0.17
0.44
15.3
0.01
0.05
0.03
1/kkg
91,718
BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
_ _ —
Value Value
5.2 5.2
_


Level 3 Effluent
#/ton kg/kkg mg/1













gal/.ton 1/kkg

BTU/MWhr kq-cal/MWhr

Value

          122

-------
               DRAFT

Table 104.  INDUSTRY CATEGORY V
NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER USES

Raw Waste Load
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Total Chromium
Hex . Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
oil

Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead

Flow
Heat Content

PH

0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
n
0
0

§/MWhr kg/MWhr
0
0
0
0
.0008 0.0004
0
.145 0.066
.003 0.0013
.032 0.015
0
0
0
qal/MWhr
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0.007
0
1.23
0.024
0.27
0
0
0
1/MWhr
Level 1 Effluent
#/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

14,185 53,690
BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
1


.621 X 106 0.008
Value
7.0+
X 106


1


0
0
0
0
.0008 0.0004
0
.145 0.066
.003 0.0013
.032 0.015
0
0
0
gal/MWhr
0
0
0
0
0.007
0
1.23
0.024
0.27
0
0
0
1/MWhr
14,185 53,690
BTU/MWhr kg-cal/MWhr
.621 X 106 0.
Value
7.0+
408 X 106
Level
2 Effluent

#/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/l
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0008 0.
0 0
0.145 0.
0.003 0.
0.032 0.
0 0
0 0
0 0
gal/MWhr
14,185
BTU/MWnr
0.591 X 10
0
0
0
0
0004 0.007
0
066 1.23
0013 0.024
015 0.27
0
0
0
1/MWhr
53,690
kg-cal/MWhr
6 0.149 X 106
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



Value

7.
0+

Level
3 Effluent
1/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1
.03 0

0
0
0

.0003 0
.00001 0
0
0
.006 0
0
gal/MWhr
142
BTU/MWhr
16,779
.012 23

0
0
0

.0001 0.27
.000005 0.010
0
0
.003 5.39

1/MWhr
537
kg-cal/MWhr
4,228
Value

7.3
             123

-------
                          DRAFT


                         SECTION VIII

          COST,  ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT

Capital and operating cost information was obtained from each
plant surveyed.   From this information, costs for each
identified level of treatment in each Industry Category were
developed.  Capital costs are given in terms of installed
capacity and operating costs in terms of units of production
and alos in terms of wastewater flows.  These costs were
based upon cost of capital at an interest rate of 8 percent,
a depreciation period of 15 years.   Lagoon costs were taken
from Reference (31). Power costs, where not specifically
furnished by the plants, were calculated on the basis of flow
rates and pumping head.

Power costs have been assumed at one cent per KWhr, which is
the cost used in the EPA-TFA Air Pollution Study.  This estimate
has been confirmed by The Ferroalloys Association as being
equal to the average cost in the industry.

Capital costs have been adjusted to August, 1971 dollars using
the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index  (1957-59=100).  This
index has been indicated by a consultant to The Ferroalloys
Association to be best indicative of cost changes in the
industry.  Operating costs have been adjusted when necessary
on the basis of an average of 3.5 percent per year.

The following bases were used for cost calculations by
Category and Treatment Level:

Category I, Treatment Level 1.

    Costs based upon gravity flow from No. 1 furnace of Plant E
    to a lagoon sized in proportion to the furnace scrubber
    water flow as compared to the lagoon influent flow during
    the sampling period.

Category I, Treatment Level 2.

    Costs based upon the Plant D wastewater system, less
    softener costs taken at $100,000 capital costs and operating
    costs at $ 0.026 per 1,000 liters  ($ 0.10 per 1,000 gals)
    with power costs prorated in proportion to operating costs.

Category I, Treatment Level 3.

    Costs based upon the Plant D wastewater system.

Category II, Treatment Level 1.

    Costs based upon the Plant B system, less the cost of a
    clarifier-flocculator at $6.34 per I/sec  ($40 per gpm)
    and the costs of the 2 lagoons.  Operating costs were
    proportioned to capital costs and power costs were calculated
    at $17.46 per day.
                            124

-------
                           DRAFT
Category II, Treatment Level 2.

    Costs based upon those for the Plant B system with power
    costs calculated at $19.92 per day.

Category II, Treatment Level 3.

    Costs based on those for the Plant C system.

Category III, Treatment Level 1.

    Costs were based upon the cost of the tailings pond at
    Plant E.

Category III, Treatment Level 2.

    Costs for pumping equipment and appurtenances for recycle
    of the lagoon supernate were estimated at 50% of the
    lagoon costs.  Therefore, costs were taken at 1.5 times
    the cost for Treatment Level 1, with operating costs at
    $ 0.013 per 1,000 liters ($ 0.05 per 1,000 gals.).  Power
    costs were calculated at $4.32 per day.

Category IV Treatment Level 2.

    Costs were based upon those of the Plant E system, plus
    additional costs at the ratio of the Level 2  to Level 1
    flows.  Power costs were calculated at $3.60  per day.

Category V, Treatment Level 1.

    Once-through use taken at no cost.

Category V, Treatment Level 2.

    Cooling pond calculated at 315.5 I/sec (5,000 gpm) and
    2.2°C  (4°F) appraoch to equilibrium temperature.

Category V, Treatment Level 3.

    Costs were taken at the average for Plant A and Plant C
    cooling systems.
The costs for each are summarized in Tables 105 and 106.
                           125

-------
                       Table  105.  TREATMENT LEVEL COSTS ON UNIT OF  PRODUCTION  BASIS
                            (costs on basis of MW and MW day unless noted  thus*)
N>

Annual Costs ($ per MW day or ton)
Industry Category
and Treatment Level
Category I:
Treatment Level 1
Treatment Level 2
Treatment Level 3
Category II:
Treatment Level 1
Treatment Level 2
Treatment Level 3
Category III:
Treatment Level 1
Treatment Level 2
Category IV:
Treatment Level 1
Treatment Level 2
Category V:
Treatment Level 1
Treatment Level 2
Treatment Level 3
Investment
($ per MW or tpd)

2,665
18,728
21,760

3,327
5,581
8,571

1,304
1,956

15,632(*)
21,265(*)

0
1,266
7,111
Operating Cost
Capital

0.441
2.929
3.404

0.598
1.003
1.690

0.179
0.269

2.148(*;
2.933(*]

0
0.174
0.977
Depreciation

0.586
3.892
4.523

0.795
1.333
2.246

0.238
0.357

1 2.855(*)
) 3.884(*)

0
0.231
1.299
less Power

nil
11.18
12.55

3.50
5.81
7.75

0
0.426

3.83(*)
3.83(*)

0
0
4.462

Power Total

0
2.76
3.10

0.322
0.367
0.155

0
2.233

0.077
0.077

0
0
0.888

0.027
20.76
23.58

5.22
8.51
11.84

0.417
3.287

(*)8.91(*)
(*)10.71(*)

0
0.405
7.63

-------
                          Table 106.   TREATMENT LEVEL COSTS ON WASTEWATER FLOW BASIS
ISJ

Annual
Industry Category
and Treatment Level
Category I :
Treatment Level
Treatment Level
Treatment Level
Category II:
Treatment Level
Treatment Level
Treatment Level
Category III:
Treatment Level
Treatment Level
Category IV:
Treatment Level
Treatment Level
Category V:
Treatment Level
Treatment Level
Treatment Level

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2

1
2

1
2
3
Investment
($ per gpm)

114
1,807
2,100

118
198
257

35.29
52.94

368
501

0
16.54
92.96
Capital

0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.

0.
0.

0.
0.

0
0.
0.

Oil
172
201

0034
019
025

0034
0051

035
048


0016
009
Costs ($
Depreciation

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0

.015
.229
.267

.015
.025
.033

.0045
.0068

.047
.064


.0021
.012
per 1,
000 gal.]
1

Operating Cost
less Power Power


0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0

nil
.658
.738

.064
.110
.114


.008

.063
.063



.015

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0


.162
.182

.006
.007
.001


.042

.001
.001



.003

Total

0.026
1.221
1.388

0.096
0.161
0.173

0.008
0.062

0.146
0.176

0
0.004
0.039

-------
                          DRAFT
Figures 19 through 23 show the relative costs of treatment
for reduction of effluent volumes and loads of the most
critical pollutants from the raw wastes before any treatment
processes other than recirculation and/or water conservation
methods.  The most critical pollutants are taken as suspended
solids for Categories I, II, and III; manganese plus chromium
for Category IV; and heat loads for Category V.

The costs of Level 1 Treatments were equaled to unity and the
costs of the other Levels expressed as their costs relative
to unity.  As the curves show, more costly treatment does
not necessarily result in either volume or pollutant load
reductions.  In Category I, for example, increased treatment
costs provide no volume or pollutant load reductions, but the
lower cost treatment requires extensive land area for lagoons
which may not be available.  In the other Categories, more or
less volume and/or pollutant load reduction is gained at
varying cost.

These curves provide graphical information of interest, but
must be read in the context of the previously described
Treatment Levels to be of value.
                           128

-------
                  DRAFT

                 Figure 19.

COSTS OF TREATMENT VS. EFFLUENT  REDUCTIONS-CATEGORY  I
    50
 in
 is
 u


z
 ui 3
 cr
   % EFFLUENT  VOLUME REDUCTION
60        70         80        90
             UJ
             UJ
                         1
                     I
                                            1
                                o

                                $
                                Q
                                3
                                Q.
                                01


                                        i
  99.0      99.2       99.4       99.6      99.8
              °7o SUSPENDED  SOLIDS REDUCTION
                                                     100
                                                      100

-------
                                                  DRAFT

                                                 Figure  20.
                              COSTS OF TREATMENT VS.  EFFLUENT RE DUCT IONS-GATE GORY  H
                                 3.0
CM
O
                                 1.0
                                             % EFFLUENT  VOLUME  REDUCTION
                                         10   20   30   40  50  ,  60    70   80   90   100
                                   96.0
            gao          99.0
7o SUSPENDED  SOLIDS REDUCTION
100

-------
                      DRAFT
                      Figure  21.
  COSTS OF TREATMENT VS. EFFLUENT  RE DUCT IONS-CATEGORY IE
«/> 1.5
             % EFFLUENT  VOLUME  REDUCTION
         10   20   30   40   50   60   70   80   90   100
    960
97.0          98.0         99.0
% SUSPENDED SOLIDS REDUCTION

-------
                                                     DRAFT


                                                    Figure  22.

                                COSTS OF TREATMENT  VS. EFFLUENT RE DUCT IONS-CATEGORY
d
IM
                                           % EFFLUENT  VOLUME  REDUCTION
                                      10   20   30   40   50   60   70   80   90   100
99.0      99.2       994

      % CHROMIUM PLUS MANGANESE REDUCTION
                                                                                 100

-------
                     DRAFT


                    Figure 23.

COSTS OF TREATMENT VS. EFFLUENT REDUCTIONS-CATEGORY  3C
           % EFFLUENT  VOLUME REDUCTION

  0    10   20   30   40   50   60   70   80  90   100
       I     I     I     I     1    I     I     I
                     »    '    //
                     v    A
           60        70       80        90

          % EFFLUENT  HEAT LOAD REDUCTION
100

-------
                         DRAFT
INCREMENTAL COSTS OF ACHIEVING LEVELS OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

The cost of achieving the various levels of treatment techn-
ology in the industry will vary from plant-to-plant,  depending
upon the treatment currently in use.  The best estimates of
these costs are given below by Category, based upon the
assumed levels of present technology in "typical" plants.

Category I

The "typical" plant has a lagoon in which the scrubber waste-
water is treated by plain sedimentation prior to discharge.
Such a lagoon is probably smaller than that upon which the
Level 1 Treatment Level was established.  The cost of reaching
Treatment Level 1 is assumed about 50 percent of the total
costs for Treatment Level 1, i.e., about $1,330 per MW for
investment and about $0.50 per MW day for total annual costs.

If a plant were to go to Treatment Level 2 or 3, lagoons
would probably be abandoned in the face of constructing
pumping facilities and pipe lines to retain the use of a
lagoon with a limited life.  Therefore, the typical
incremental costs of achieving Treatment Level 2 would be
$18,728 per MW investment and $20.76 per MW day for total
annual costs.  The typical incremental costs of achieving
Treatment Level 3 would then be $3,032 per MW investment and
$2.82 per MW day for total annual costs.

Category II

The "typical" plant probably has a lagoon which is smaller
than that upon which the Treatment Level 1 technology was
established.  Assuming, as above, that the cost of achieving
Treatment Level 1 is about 50 percent of the total costs for
Treatment Level 1, the incremental costs would be about
$1,660 per MW investment and $4.52 per MW day for total
annual costs.

If a plant were then to go to Treatment Level 2 or 3, the
incremental costs would be $3,918 and $2,990 per MW,
respectively, for investment and $3.99 and $3.33 per MW day,
respectively, for total annual costs.

Category III

The "typical" plant again for this Category probably has a
lagoon smaller than that upon which the Treatment Level 1
technology was established.  The cost of achieving Treatment
Level 1 technology, assuming a lagoon 50 percent smaller
than that which the treatment level was established, would
                            134

-------
                         DRAFT


be $1,304 per MW for investment and $3.08 per Mw day for total
annual costs.

Category IV

The "typical" plant probably has treatment equal to Treatment
Level 1 technology and the incremental cost for achieving this
level would be zero.  The incremental cost to achieve
Treatment Level 2 technology would be $5,633 per ton per day
of capacity for investment and $1.80 per ton for total annual
costs.

Category V

The "typical" plant may be assumed to have Level 1 Treatment
Technology, i.e., once-through cooling water use at no cost.
The incremental costs to reach Level 2 Treatment Technology
would be $1,266 per MW for investment and $0.405 per MW day
for total annual costs.  A cooling tower would be an
alternative to a cooling pond and thus the incremental costs
to reach Level 3 Treatment Technology would be $7,111 per
MW for investment and $7.63 per MW day for annual operating
costs.
                           135

-------
                          DRAFT

ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS

There are significant energy and non-water quality aspects -to
the selection and operation of treatment systems.   These may
be considered as land requirements, air and solid  waste aspects,
by-product potentials, and energy requirements.

Land Requirements

One of the most important aspects in the selection of waste-
water treatment systems in this industry is the  land required
for sedimentation lagoons.  Many plants in the industry have
extensive land areas available for such uses and may elect
this generally lower cost treatment alternative.  Other plants
do not have land readily available and would have  to select
alternative treatment systems for this reason alone.

Air and Solid Wastes

The solid waste produced by treatment of wastewaters in the
industry derives principally from the smelting operation as
waste from air pollution control devices.  It may  also be
produced from ore leaching operations as gangue.  The solid
waste from air pollution controls is produced whether a dry
or wet system is utilized and varies only in that  the former
produces a slurry or sludge, the latter a fine dust.  The
slurry or sludge is generally accumulated in sludge lagoons,
while the dry dust may be bagged and landfilled  or simply
piled.  There has been little sucess in efforts  to agglomerate
these solids for recharging to the smelting furnaces.

By-Product Potentials

In the case of ferromanganese refining at one plant, a bag-
house is to replace a wet scrubber and the particulate matter
is to be leached to produce the electrolyte for  electroyltic
manganese production.  The potential for such recovery
methods is probably very limited.

Slag concentration is used at a number of plants to recover
metal values and to produce slag for sale.  The  sale or use
of slag varies from place to place.  In one location slag can
be readily sold at a good price, since stone must  be imported
from a distance.  At another plant all of the slag produced is
used on-site for road building.  At other plants,  markets or
uses for slag cannot be found.  The gangue from preleaching
operations presents no recovery potential and simply accumu-
lates as a solid waste.

Electrolytic manganese production produces ferrous ammonium
                           136

-------
                           DRAFT
sulfate as  a by-product.   At one plant, this material is
recovered and  sold  about  six months out of the year; at other
times it is disposed  of with the acid waste from the process
through neutralization and sedimentation.  The potential for
sale of ferrous  ammonium  sulfate is limited by the market
and varies  both  by  time and plant  location.  By-product
recovery in the  case  of the further use of the ferromanganese
refining particulates reduces a solid waste problem and does
not add to  potential  water pollution, since  the particulates
replace ore in the  electrolytic process.  Slag concentration
reduces solid  wastes, but results  in a water pollution
potential not  otherwise present.   The sale of ferrous ammonium
sulfate reduces  the wastewater pollutants otherwise discharged,

Energy Requirements

The use of  recirculation  cooling water systems is primarily
due to water supply limitations.   Plants that use well water
supplies generally  do not have enough water for once-through
cooling systems.  Those which use  purchased city water find
that water  costs favor recirculating systems.  One plant uses
well water  and recirculation with  cooling towers in preference
to pumping  river water over a distance of almost one mile.
Those plants which  have installed  facilities for thermal
pollution abatement have  used cooling ponds.  In cases where
land availability for cooling ponds might be a problem, the
use of spray canals would probably be preferred to cooling
towers for  required thermal pollution abatement.  In
considering alternative thermal pollution abatement methods,
the relative energy requirements may be significant.

Power requirements  for wastewater  treatment systems other than
cooling towers are  generally low.  Power uses range from less
than 0.1% to 1.3% of  the  power used in the smelting furnaces.
The higher  figure is  for  the most  power-intensive system
identified  which uses clarifier-flocculators, sand filters,
softening,  and recirculation of process water.  The lower
figure is for  a  system using lagoons, a clarifier-flocculater,
and recirculation.  The power requirements for cooling towers
reportedly  range up to about 1.8%  of the power used in the
smelting furnaces.  Power requirements for the use of the most
power-intensive  treatment systems  for process and cooling
water could thus amount to 3% of the power used in production.
This compares  with  the use of 10%  of the productive power for
operation of baghouses and high-energy scrubbers for air
pollution control.
                            137

-------
                               DRAFT
                              SECTION IX

       BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE,
                      GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS


     INTRODUCTION

     The effluent limitations which must be achieved July 1,  1977
     are to specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable
     through the application of the Best Practicable Control
     Technology Currently Available.  This is generally based
     upon the average of the best existing plants of various  sizes,
     ages and unit processes within the industrial category
     and/or subcategory.

     Consideration must also be given to:

         a.  The total cost of application of technology in relation
             to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from
             such application;

         b.  the size and age of equipment and facilities involved;

         c.  the processes employed;

         d.  the engineering aspects of the application of various
             types of control techniques;

         e.  process changes;

         f.  non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
             requirements).

     Also, Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
     emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing
     process but includes the control technologies within the process
     itself when the latter are considered to be normal practice
     within an industry.

     A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering
     reliability which must be established for the technology to be
     "currently available."   As a result of demonstration projects,
     pilot plants and general use, there must exist a high degree of
     confidence in the engineering and economic practicability of the
     technology at the time of commencement of construction or
     installation of the control facilities.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                               138

-------
                              DRAFT

    EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF BEST
    PRACTICABLE CONTROL  TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE (BPCTCA)

    Based upon the  information contained in Sections III through
    VIII of this report,  a determination has been made that the
    degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
    application of  the best practicable technology currently
    available is the  application of the levels of treatment described
    in Section VIII to the various industry categories as shown in
    Table 107.

      Table 107.  BPCTCA EFFLUENT GUIDELINES TREATMENT BASIS
     Industry Category            	Treatment Basis

             I                     Treatment Level 1
             II                    Treatment Level 2
             III                   Treatment Level 1
             IV                    Treatment Level 1
             V                     Treatment Level 2
    These guidelines  have been  selected on  the basis of the following
    considerations  and  assumptions:

    Category  I

    New, larger open  furnaces have been equipped with high-energy
    scrubbers when  wet  air  pollution  controls have been selected.
    The water use at  the scrubber is  high due to the volume of the
    off-gases to be treated, the wastewater effluent volume is
    reduced by recirculation at the scrubber and this lowered
    volume is assumed to be that to be treated for discharge.  The
    costs here would  be those given in Tables 105 and 106,
    Category  I, Treatment Level 1 using an  adequately sized lagoon.
    Sand filters might  be utilized to accomplish the same results
    if lagoon space were not available.  Capital costs should be
    no  higher than those estimated for the large lagoon, since sand
    filter installations generally cost about $ 792 per I/sec.
     ($ 50 per gpm); operating costs,  however, would be incurred.
    The alternative use of  steam/hot  water  scrubbers or electro-
    static precipitators should result in even less costs if
    treatment is  for  discharge, since wastewater volumes would be
    less.  There  is no  apparent reason to incur the high costs
    associated with the treatment identified as Level 2 under
    Category  I if  recirculation is not to be used.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                               139

-------
                               DRAFT

     Category II

     The effluent quality achieved by the methods identified as
     Level 2, Category II is considerably better than that achieved
     by the Level I technology and the added costs are moderate.
     This conclusion is further justified in the choice of Level  2
     technology at Plant B in preference to a simple lagoon.

     Category III

     The results achievable by the application of Treatment Level 1
     in this Category appear to be about as good as to be expected
     in once-through water use.  The solids apparently settle rapidly
     and little would be gained by additional treatment in cases
     where an adequately sized lagoon is in use.

     Category IV

     Neutralization and sedimentation, i.e., Treatment Level 1, in
     this Category, probably represents the best practicable end-
     of-pipe treatment of this type of wastewater.  Since
     the water use is for washing of filter cakes and transport of
     gangue, little reuse potential is offered in existing install-
     ations.  The alternative scrapping of existing facilities and
     construction of new does not appear to be justified for the
     1977 Guidelines.

     Category V

     Cooling ponds are in present use in ferroalloy plants, installed
     for thermal pollution abatement when once-through cooling is
     used.  The relatively low cost is probably justified when the
     receiving stream is small and supports aquatic life, i.e., when
     a benefit can be identified.

     Summary

     The suggested Guidelines do not appear to present any particular
     problems in implementation.  The processes involved are all  in
     present use in ferroalloy plants and no engineering problems are
     involved in design or construction.  Process changes are not
     required in any existing plants and the size or age of facilities
     has little or no bearing on the applicability of these methods.

     No additional solid wastes of significance are created by the
     suggested treatment methods and power consumption is negigible.

     The effluent concentrations and loads, together with estimated
     costs applicable to the Best Practicable Control Technology
     Currently Available Guidelines and Limitations are summarized
     in Table 108.


NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                                140

-------
                         DRAFT

APPLICATION OF LIMITATIONS

The application of these guidelines and performance standards
to specific plants is intended to be on the basis of a
"building block" approach to define the effluent limits from
the plant as a whole.  Consider, for example, a ferroalloy
plant with the following processes:

30 MW open furnace with a scrubber  (max. operating load=32 MW)
20 MW open furnace with a baghouse  (max. operating load=16 MW)
15 MW covered furnace with a scrubber  (max. operating load=
   15 MW)
2 tpd electrolytic manganese process with cooling water use of
   189,250 I/day  (50,000 gpd)
Slag processing from the 20 MW furnace

The total load of suspended solids would be calculated by
Category as follows:

Category I:   (32 X 34) MWhr/day X 0.21 Ibs/MWhr = 161 Ibs/day

Category II:  (15 X 24) MWhr/day X 0.664 Ibs/MWhr = 239 Ibs/day

Category III:  (16 X 24) MWhr/day X  2.05 Ibs/MWhr = 787 Ibs/day

Category IV:  2 ton/day X 23.9 Ibs/ton           =  48 Ibs/day

Category V: 24(32 + 15 + 16) MWhr/day X 0 lbs/MWhr=  0 Ibs/day
 (50,000 gpd X 8.34 Ibs/gal X 10-6) million
Ibs/day X 0 mg/1                                  =  0 Ibs/day

     Total plant load, Ibs/day suspended solids= 1,235 Ibs/day
                                                 (560.7 kg/day)

For the unique case of a wet scrubber or other wet air pollution
control on an exothermic smelting process, the scrubber water
flows and cooling water flows should be used  to directly
calculate loads from the effluent guidelines  concentration
limits in Category II.  For example, an exothermic process at
one plant uses 60,000 gpd in a wet  scrubber-baghouse unit
and 72,000 gpd of cooling water.  The effluent suspended
solids loads would thus be as follows:

Category II:
 (60,000 gpd X  8.34 Ibs/gal X 10~6)  million Ibs/day
   X 36 mg/1                                     =  18 Ibs/day

Category V:                      ,
 (72,000 gpd X  8.34 Ibs/gal X 10~b)  million Ibs/day
   X 0 mg/1                                      =   0 Ibs/day
      Total  plant load,  Ibs/day suspended  solids  =   18  Ibs/day
                                                     (8.2 kg/day)
NOTICE;  THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED  UPON INFORMATION
 IN  THIS  REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE  BASED UPON  COMMENTS RECEI
 AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                           141

-------
                                                               DRAFT

                                 Table 108.  BEST PRACTICABLE  CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
                                                      GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS

Constituent
Sus. Solids
Total Chromium
Hex. Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
PH
Category
#/MWhr kg/MWhr
0.21 0.095
0.0011 0.0005
-
0.00007 .00003
-
0.0882 0.0400
0.0028 0.0013
0.0049 0.0022
0.0048 0.0022
0.0021 0.0010
0.00014 .00006
0.0126 0.0057
0.00042 .00019
6
I
mg/i
15.0
0.08
-
0.005
-
6.3
0.2
0.35
0.34
0.15
0.01
0.90
0.03
.5-8.5
Category II
#/MWhr
0.664
0
0
0.0055
0.0037
0.016
0.0281
0
0.0066
0
0.0092
0.0033
0.00055

kg/MWhr mg/1 #/MWhr
0.301
0
0
0.0025
0.0017
0.007
0.0128
0
0.0030
0
0.0042
0.0015
0.00025

36.0 2.05
0 0
0 0
0.30 0.0004
0.20 0
0.87 0.042
1.52 0
0 0.052
0.36 0.0017
0 0.0135
0.50 0.0177
0.18 0
0.03 0
7.5-8.5
Category III
kg/MWhr
0.93
0
0
0.0002
0
0.019
0
0.024
0.0008
0.006
0.008
0
0
6
mg/1
29.0
0
0
0.006
0
0.59
0
0.74
0.026
0.19
0.25
0
0
.5-8.5
Category IV Category
it /ton
23.9
3.8
0
0.002
0.002
0.47
2.0
0.09
0.22
7.8
0.005
0.03
0.02

kg/kkg
> _^K^^_^^«_
12.0
1.9
0
0.001
0.001
0.235
1.0
0.045
0.11
3.9
0.0025
0.015
0.01

mg/1 #/MWhr kg/MWhr
• —^fcl>^_^_ _^_^«^_^ _^^^^_^___
47.0 0 0
7.40 0 0
000
0.005 0 0
0.005 -
0.92 0.0008 .0004
4.0 0 0
0.17 0.145 0.066
0.44 0.003 0.0013
15.3 0.032 0.015
0.01 0 0
0.05 0 0
0.03 0 0
6.5-8.5 6
V
mg/1
. *r
0
0
0
0

0.007
0
1.23
0.024
0.27
0
0
0
.5-8.5
kg-cal/MWhr BTU/MWhr
Heat Content

 Cost item       $/MW    $/MWday
                                                                   0.149 X 106 0.591 X 106
$/MW      $/MWdav
$/MW
$/MWday
$/ton/day  $/ton
Investment 2,665
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operating Cost
less Power
Power Costs
Total Operating
Costs
_
0.441
0.586
nil

0
1.027

5,581
1.003
1.333
5.81

0.367
8.51

1,304
0.179
0.238
0

0
0.417

15,632
2.149
2.855
3.83

0.077
8.91

1,266
0.174
0.231
0

0
0.405

                                    NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
                                    IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
                                    AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                                                                142

-------
                              DRAFT

                              SECTION X

         BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE,
                     GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS


    INTRODUCTION

    The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1983
    are to specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable
    through the application of the Best Available Technology
    Economically Achievable.  Best Available Technology Economically
    Achievable is determined by the very best control and
    treatment technology employed by a specific point source within
    the industry category or by technology which is readily trans-
    ferable from another industrial process.

    Consideration must also be given to:

         a.  The age of equipment and facilities involved;

         b.  the process employed;

         c.  the engineering aspects of the application of various
             types of control techniques;

         d.  process changes;

         e.  cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting
             from the application of this level of technology;

         f.  non-water quality environmental impact  (including
             energy requirements).

    Also, Best Available Technology Economically Achievable assesses
    the availability of in-process controls as well as additional
    treatment at the end of a production process.  In-process
    control options include water re-use, alternative water uses,
    water conservation, by-product recovery, good housekeeping, and
    monitor and alarm systems.

    A further consideration is the availability of plant processes
    and control techniques up to  and including "no discharge" of
    pollutants.  Costs for this level of control are to be the
    top-of-the-line of current technology subject to engineering
    and economic feasibility.


NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                               143

-------
                              DRAFT

     EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF BEST
     AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE  (BATEA)

     Based upon the information contained in Sections III through
     VIII of this report, a determination has been made that the
     degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application
     of best available technology economically achievable is the
     application of the levels of treatment described in Section VIII
     to the various industry categories as shown in Table 109.


       Table 109.  BATEA EFFLUENT GUIDELINES TREATMENT BASIS
      Industry Category                 Treatment Basis	

            I                       Treatment Level  3
            II                      Treatment Level  3, Category I
                                    with CN destruction
            III                     Treatment Level  2
            IV                      Treatment Level  2
            V                       Treatment Level  3
      These guidelines have been  selected on the basis of  the  following
      considerations and assumptions:

      Category  I and Category  II

      The  scrubber water treatment  system used  at Plant  D  produces
      the  best  effluent quality of  any  such technology identified.
      It is obviously available,  economically achievable technology,
      since it  has been recently  installed on a commercial basis
      after 9 months of testing in  a pilot unit.  The effluent load
      reduction is due primarily  to the effluent volume  reduction
      attained  through recirculation of the scrubber water.  The
      blowdown  rate seems  to be excessive, perhaps  due to  the  fact
      that this system has not been long in operation.   Effluent
      quality better than  that specified for Treatment Level 3,
      Category  I can be achieved  by reduction of blowdown  from the
      system and by better operation of the sand filters.  Treatment
      for  cyanide destruction  would have to be  included  for Category
      II;  the incremental  cost would be minor if such treatment were
      included  in an original  process design.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                                144

-------
                          DRAFT


Category III

Since water is used only as a transport medium in the slag
concentration process, the quality of recirculated water is of
little importance.  Operation with no water discharge, i.e.,
complete recirculation and reuse is practiced at least at one
plant of those surveyed.  The engineering problems are trivial,
requiring only recirculation pumps and perhaps a new, closed
lagoon close to the slag processing equipment.

Category IV

Water conservation here is the key to improved treatment.  The
reduction of the acid waste volume can be achieved by using
minimum amounts of water to wash out excess acid from filter
cakes and eliminating hydraulic transport of gangue.  Reduction
of the fluid waste volume can be achieved by minimizing water
use for rinsing, washing, and waste transport.  Treatment Level
2 thus specifies waste volume reduction and neutralization-
sedimentation equipment near the production facilities.  The
required technology requires no innovative engineering or
new process development.

Category V

Cooling water recirculation and reuse is specified in Treatment
Level 3 as being accomplished by the use of cooling towers with
non-chromate water treatment.  This level of effluent reduction
could also be achieved through the use of spray canals such as are
used in electric power plants.  The costs given are thus conser-
vatively high and are based upon methods in current use.  Such
technology is straightforward and readily available.

Summary

The suggested Guidelines present no particular problems in
implementation from an engineering aspect and require no
process changes.  Water reuse and good housekeeping are
emphasized.  Age of equipment and facilities are of no particular
importance.

No additional solid wastes of significance are created by the
suggested treatment methods.  Increased power consumption may
amount to as much as 3% of furnace power in the most energy
intensive water treatment system.  The effluent limitations
here apply to measurements taken at the outlet of the last
wastewater treatment process unit.  It is not judged to be
practical to require the treatment or control of runoff due
to storm water for the 1983 standards for existing plants.
Such treatment or control would be very difficult to accomplish


NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIV.
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                           145

-------
                           DRAFT

   in older plants  having many years of  accumulations of  slag,
   collected  airborne  particulates, etc.

   The  effluent  concentrations and  loads,  together with estimated
   costs,  applicable to  the Best Available Technology Economically
   Achievable Guidelines are  summarized  in Table  110.
   APPLICATION  OF  LIMITATIONS

   The  application of  these  guidelines  and performance  standards
   to specific  plants  is  intended  to be on the basis  of a
   "building block" approach to  define  the effluent limits from
   the  plant as a  whole.   The  application is as illustrated under
   Best Practicable Control  Technology  Currently Available in the
   previous  Section.
NOTICE: THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                              146

-------
                                                              DRAFT

                                     Table 110.  BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
                                                      GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS

Category
Constituent
Sus. Solids
Total Chromium
Hex. Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
pH
I Category
8/MWhr kq/MWhr mg/1 >/MWhr
0.06559
0.00079
0.00046
0.00001
-
0.00043
0.00170
0.00098
0.00030
0.00035
0.00021
0.00010
0.00005

0.02978
0.00021
0.00021
0
-
0.00020
0.00077
0.00044
0.00014
0.00016
0.00010
0.00005
0.00002

38.0 0.06559
0.46 0.00079
0.27 0.00046
0.005 .0047
0.0016
0.25 0.00043
1.0 0.00170
0.57 0.00098
0.18 0.00030
0.20 0.00035
0.12 0.00021
0.06 0.00010
0.03 0.00005
7.5-9.5
kg/MWhr
0.02978
0.00036
0.00021
0.0021
0.0007
0.00020
0.00077
0.00044
0.00014
0.00016
0.00010
0.00005
0.00002

II
Category III
Category IV Cat
mg/1 #/MWhr Kg/HWhr mg/1 It/ton
38.0 0
0.46 0
0.27 0
2.18 0
0.74 0
0.25 0
1.0 0
0.57 0
0.18 0
0.20 0
0.12 0
0.06 0
0.03 0
7.5-9.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
8.6
1.4
0
0.0009
0.0009
0.17
0.73
0.03
0.08
2.8
0.002
0.009
0.006

Xg/kkg
4.3
0.70
0
0.0005
0.0005
0.085
0.365
0.015
0.04
1.4
0.001
0.0045
0.003

_ mg/1 K/MWhr kj
47.0 0.03 0
7.40 0 0
00 0
0.005 0 0
0.005 0 0
0.92 0 0
4.0 0 0
0.17 0.0003 0
0.44 0.00001
15.3 0 0
0.01 0 0
0.05 0.006 0
0.03 0 0
7.5-9.5
egory V
g/HWnr mg/1
.012 23
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0001 0.27
.000005 0.01
0
0
.003 5.39
0
6.5-8.5
kg-cal/MWhr BTU/MWhr
Heat Content
Cost item
Investment
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operating Cost
less Power
Power Costs
Total Operating
Costs
S/MW
21,760
-
-
-

_
-

S/MWday
_
3.404
4.523
12.55

3.10
23.58

$/MW
21,760
-
-
-

-
-

$/MWday
—
3.404
4.523
12.55

3.10
23.58

S/MW
1,956
-
-
-

-
-

$/MWday
_
0.269
0.357
0.426

2.235
3.287

S/ton/day $/
21,265
2.
3.
3.

0.
10.

ton

923
884
83

077
71

$/MW
7,111
-
-
—

-
-

$/MWday
_
0.977
1.299
4.462

0.888
7.63

                                    NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION

                                    IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
                                    AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.

                                                               147

-------
                              DRAFT
                              SECTION XI

                   NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                       AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
     INTRODUCTION

     The effluent limitations which must be achieved by new sources,
     i.e., and source, the construction of which is started after
     publication of new source performance standard regulations,
     are to specify the degree of treatment available through the
     use of improved production processes and/or treatment techniques.
     Alternative processes, operating methods or other alternatives
     must be considered.  The end result is to identify effluent
     standards achievable through the use of improved production
     processes (as well as control technology).   A further
     determination which must be made for new source performance
     standard is whether a standard permitting no discharge of
     pollutants is practicable.

     Consideration must also be given to:

          a.  The type of process employed and process changes;

          b.  operating methods;

          c.  batch as opposed to continuous operation;

          d.  use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw
              materials;

          e.  use of dry rather than wet processes;

          f.  recovery of pollutants as by-products.

     In addition to recommending new source performance standards and
     effluent limitations covering discharges into waterways,
     constituents of the effluent discharge must be identified which
     would interfere with, pass through or otherwise be incompatible
     with a well designed and operated publicly owned activated
     sludge or trickling filter wastewater treatment plant.  A
     determination must be made as to whether the introduction of
     such pollutants into the treatment plant should be completely
     prohibited.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                                148

-------
                              DRAFT

    EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF NEW
    SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
    Based upon the information contained in Section III through
    VIII of this report, a determination has been made that the
    degree of effluent reduction attainable by new sources
    is the same achieved application of the levels of treatment
    described in Section VIII and/or the attainment of zero
    discharge of pollutants in the various industry categories
    as shown in Table 111.
     Table 111.   NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS BASIS
     Industry Category      	Treatment Basis	

             I              Baghouse for Air Pollution Control
             II             Treatment Level 3, Category I with CN
                            destruction
             III            Treatment Level 2
             IV             Treatment Level 2
             V              Treatment Level 3
    These performance  standards have been selected on the basis of
    the following assumptions and considerations.

    Category I

    Baghouses on open  furnaces achieve  air pollution abatement levels
    equal to those of  scrubbers and, of course, produce no
    wastewater effluents.   Industry representatives have indicated
    that this is the method of choice in the  face of more stringent
    effluent quality limitations than were previously in effect when
    wet scrubbers have been selected.   No significant engineering or
    other technical problems are involved; this technology is
    state-of-the-art and is in wide use in the industry. This means
    in effect, that there will be no Category I for new sources.

    Category II

    Although the possibility remains of developing baghouses which
    are explosion-proof and thus applicable  to covered furnaces, it
    is by no means clear that this  is a practical alternative.  There
    is reportedly one  such  baghouse on  a covered furnace in the world,
    but none in  the United  States.  A process change is possible in
NOTICE: THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.

                                149

-------
                               DRAFT

     that open furnaces could be constructed in preference to covered
     furnaces and thus result in the elimination of Category II for
     new sources.  If the construction of new covered furnaces is
     necessary and if the development of safe dry collection methods
     for such furnaces proves unsuccessful, the treatment level
     specified for BATEA, Category I appears to be that which will
     minimize waste discharge here.

     Category III

     Since the treatment level specified for BATEA is zero
     discharge of pollutants, this is the new source performance
     standard.

     Category IV

     Electrolytic processes necessarily produce gangue from the
     leaching step and acid waste from filter cake washing.
     Minimization of waste discharges as specified for BATEA
     treatment might be followed by distillation to dryness or by
     90% volume reduction by reverse osmosis with the residual
     stored in a closed lagoon.  Such methods would cost about 3
     times as much as the BATEA treatment; these are the only
     clearly available methods to achieve zero discharge in this
     Category.  The BATEA effluent volume for a typical electr-
     olytic process complex totals about 3.785 million I/day  (1 mgd)
     and would require some 8 billion BTU per day for distillation.
     No alternative processes are clearly available for production
     by electrolysis and the BATEA treatment level has been
     selected in view of the costs and energy requirements of the
     only clearly available treatment alternatives.

     Category V

     Recirculation of cooling water through cooling towers or the
     use of spray canals as specified for BATEA is the only
     clearly available technology.  The possibility of using dry
     cooling towers exist.  Since a dry cooling tower does not
     evaporate any of the cooled water, there is no concentration
     effect and no blowdown is necessary.  Dry cooling towers are
     not a likely alternative unless specified for industry generally
     and thus available readily from equipment manufactures.  The
     BATEA treatment has been selected on this basis.

     SUMMARY

     The suggested new source performance standards consider the
     means by which pollutant discharge of such pollutants.  Such
     "no discharge" standards are clearly available for 2 categories
      (I and III) and are possible for the others by means of process
     changes  (open furnaces rather than closed), added tertiary
     treatment  (reverse osmosis or distillation), and alternative


NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.

                                150

-------
                          DRAFT
treatment  (dry cooling towers).

The effluent concentrations and loads, together with estimated
costs, applicable to the New Source Performance Standards are
summarized in Table 112.

For the new source performance standards, it should be
additionally specified that all measurements taken for purposes
of meeting the effluent limits should be at the plant outfall.
This means, in effect, that run-off from materials handling and
storage, slag piles, collected air borne particulates, and general
plant areas must be collected and treated or that storm water must
not initially contact such sources of pollutants.  Such control
measures can rather easily be built into new plants, but would
be very difficult to accomplish in older plants, having many
years of accumulation of slag, collected airborne particulates,
etc.  Practical control measures might include impoundment of
storm water and use of such water as an intake source or land-
fill of waste particulates.  The option of treating runoff to
meet the effluent standard would, of course, be available.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

The data of Table 113 show concentrations of pollutants which
have been  shown to inhibit biological treatment processes  (24).
On the basis of the raw waste load data of Tables 100 through
104, the sources of pollutants exceeding the indicated lower
acceptable limits are indicated in Table 114 by Industry
Category.


Table 114.  SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS AT CONCENTRATIONS LIKELY TO
       INHIBIT BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES BY INDUSTRY CATEGORY
                            Industry Category
    Pollutant             I    II    III    IV    V
Total Chromium           -     -            X
Hex. Chromium            -
Free Cyanide                   X
Oil                      -
Zinc                     X     X     -      X
Lead                     X     X     -      X
NOTICE; THESE ARE  TENATIVE  RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT  AND ARE  SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                            151

-------
      Table  112.
                         DRAFT
                  NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Category
Constituent */MWhr kg
Sus. Solids
Total Chromium
Hex . Chromium
Total Cyanide
Free Cyanide
Manganese
Oil
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Phenol
Phosphate
Lead
PH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0

l/MWhr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

I
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Category II
t/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1 8
0.06559 0.02978
0.00079 0.00036
0.00046 0.00021
0.0047 0.0021
0.0016 0.0007
0.00043 0.0002
0.0017 0.00077
0.00098 0.00044
0.0003 0.00014
0.00035 0.00016
0.00021 0.00010
0.00010 0.00005
0.00005 0.00002
7
38.0
0.46
0.27
2.18
0.74
0.25
1.0
0.57
0.18
0.20
0.12
0.06
0.03
.5-9.5
Category III
/MWhr kg/MWhr mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Category IV Category V
it/ton
8.6
1.4
0
0.0009
0.0009
0.17
0.73
0.03
0.08
2.8
0.002
0.009
0.006

kg/kkg mg/1 t/Mwnr Kg/uwnr mg/i
4.3 47.0 0.03 0
0.70 7.40 0 0
0 000
0.00045 0.005 0 0
0.00045 0.005 0 0
0.085 0.92 0 0
0.365 4.0 0 0
0.015 0.17 0.0003 0
0.04 0.44 0.00001
1.4 15.3 0 0
0.001 0.01 0 0
0.0045 0.05 0.006 0
0.003 0.03 0 0
7.5-9.5
.012 23.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0001 0.27
.000005 0.01
0
0
.003 5.39
0
6.5-8.5
kg-cal/HWhr BTU/MWhr
Heat Content
Cost item
Investment
Capital Costs
Depreciation
Operating Cost
less Power
Power Costs
Total Operating
Costs

S/HW
0

-




$/MWday

0
0
0
0
0










$/MW $/MWday
21,760
3.404
4.523
12.55
3.10
23.58













$/MW
1,956
-
-



$/MVvday
_
0.269
0.357
0.426
2.235
3.287



4,228
$/ton/day $/ton ?/MW
21,265
-
—


7,111
2.923
3.884
3.83
0.077
10.71


16,799
$/MWday
-
0.977
1.299
4.462
0.888
7.63


NOTICE!  THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                        152

-------
        Table 113.
           DRAFT

CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS WHICH INHIBIT
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
                                   Concentration,  mg/1
         Pollutant
  Activated Sludge   Anaerobic
  & Trickling Filter Digestion
Nitrification
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Cadmium
Boron
Arsenic
Chromium^"*"
Chromium3"*"
Total Chromium
Nickel
Cyanide (HCN)
Sulfides (S=)
Sulfate (S0=4)
Ammonia
Salts (NaCl)
Chloroform
Free Oil3
Sodium (Na+)
Potassium (K+)
Calcium (Ca++)
Magnesium (Mg++)
1.0
5.0-10.0
0.1
*
1.0
*
1.0
1.0-10
3.0
1.0-3.0
1.0
*
*
*
10,000 mg/1
10.0
50.0




1.0-2.5
5.0
*
0.02
*
4.0
1.0-5.0
1.0-5.0
1.0-5.0
2.0
1.0-2.1)
150-2002
500
1,500-3,000
*
*
*
0 . 3 moles/L
0.1 moles/L
0.5 moles/L
0.1 moles/L
0.5
0.5
0.5
*
*
*
2-5
*
*
0.5
2.0
*
*
*
*
*
*




     * Available data are insufficient to establish a reasonable
       standard.
     1
       Concentrations refer to those present in raw wastewater
       unless otherwise indicated.
     2
       Sulfide concentrations apply to the digester influent only.
       Lower values may be required for protection of previous
       treatment units.
     3
       Oil concentration measured according to the API Method 733-58
       for the determination of volatile and non-volatile oily
       material.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE  SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL  REVIEW BY EPA.
                                153

-------
                               DRAFT

     The untreated waste from Categories III and V,  slag processing
     and cooling water,  respectively, could be accepted as is by a
     municipal sewage treatment plant.  Treatment of the wastes of
     Categories I and II,  furnace scrubber waters, to Treatment
     Level 1 would provide adequate pretreatment.  Treatment of the
     waste from Category IV would have to involve improved sediment-
     ation to meet the total chromium limit in Table 113.
NOTICE; THESE ARE TENATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION
IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
                                154

-------
                          DRAFT


                         SECTION XII

                      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation to the EPA
Project Officer, Ms. Patricia W. Diercks, and to her
associates in the Effluent Guidelines Division, particularly
Messrs. Edward Dulaney and Walter Hunt for their helpful
suggestions and assistance.

Thanks also is expresses to Messrs. Arthur M. Killan and
George A. Watson of the Ferroalloy Association for their
valuable assistance.

Acknowledgement and appreciation is extended to those
personnel of the industry who cooperated in plant
visitations and supplying of data including Dr. C.R. Allenbach
and Messrs. R. Bilstein and J. E. Banasik of Union Carbide
Corporation; L. C. Wintersteen, W. A. Moore, and L. A. Davis
of Airco, Inc.; R. D. Turner and W. A. Witt of Chromium
Mining and Smelting Corporation; F. W. Batchelor and
C. G. Adler of Foote Mineral Company; J. C. Cline and
F. Krikau of Interlake, Inc.; and C. F. Seybold, M. Evans,
and L. Risi of Shieldalloy.

Appreciation is also expressed to Mr. H. Rathman who acted as a
Consultant to Datagraphics, Inc. and provided invaluable
assistance in preparation of this report.
                            155

-------
                           DRAFT
                         SECTION XIII

                          REFERENCES

1.   Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Air  Programs,
     February,  1972 (N.T.I.S. No.  PB-209 559).

2.   Sherman,  P. R. & Springman, E.  R.,  "Operating Problems
     with High Energy Wet Scrubbers  on Submerged Arc Furnaces",
     a paper presented at the American Institute of
     Metallurgical Engineers  Electric  Furnace Conference,
     Chicago,  Illinois December, 1972

3.   Scherrer,  R. E., "Air Pollution Control for a Calcium
     Carbide Furnace", A.I.M.E.  Electric Furnace Proceedings,
     Volume 27, Detroit, 1969, pages 93-98

4.   Seybold,  Charles F., "Pollution Control Equipment for
     Thermite Smelting Processes", A.I.M.E. Electric Furnace
     Proceedings, Volume 27,  Detroit,  1969, pages 99-108

5.   Person, R. A., "Control  of Emmissions from Ferroalloy
     Furnace Processing", A.I.M.E. Electric Furnace  Proceedings,
     Volume 27, Detroit 1969, pages  81-92

6.   Retelsdorf, H. J., Hodapp,  E.,  &  Endell, N., "Experiences
     with an Flectric Filten  Dust Collecting System1 in Connection
     with a 20-MW Silicochromium Furnace", A.I.M.E.  Electric
     Furnace Proceedings, Volume 27,  Detroit, 1969,  pages 109-
     114

7.   Gamroth,  R. R., "Operation of 30,000 - KW Submerged Arc
     Furnace on Silicomanganese", A.I.M.E. Electric  Furnace
     Proceedings, volume 27,  Detroit,  1969, pages 164-166

8.   Dehuff, J. A., Coppolecchia, V.  D., & Lesnewich, A., "The
     Structure of Ferrosilicon", A.I.M.E. Electric Furnace
     Proceedings, Volume 27,  Detroit,  1969, pages 167-174

9.   "Annual Statistical Report - American Iron and  Steel
     Institute - 1970", A.I.S.I., Washington, D. C.  80 pages

10.  " 1967 Census of Manufactures - Blast Furnaces, Steel
     Works, and Rolling and Finishing Mills", U. S.  Department
     of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, MC67 (2) - 33A, 48 pages

11.  Elyutin, V. P., et al "Production of Ferroalloys Electro-
     metallurgy", Translated from Russian by the Israel Program
     for Scientific Translations, U. S. Department of Commerce,
                            156

-------
                           DRAFT

12.  "Water Use in Manufacturing", 1967 Census of Manufactures,
     U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,  ME 67
     (1) -7, April, 1971, 361 pages.

13.  Ferrari, Renco, "Experiences in Developing an Effective
     Pollution Control System for a Submerged Arc Ferroally
     Furnace Operation", Journal of Metals, April, 1968,pp.
     95-104.

14.  "Statement for Relief from Excessive Imports" The Ferro-
     alloys Association, Washington, D. C. 1973, 15 pages.

15.  Communications with Mr. Edwin F. Rissman of General
     Technologies Corporation - Trip Report from the Astabula,
     Ohio plant of Union Carbide Corporation, February 14, 1973.

16.  Braaten, O. and Sandberg, 0., "Progress in Electric Furnace
     Smelting of Coleium Carbide and Ferroalloys", 5th Inter-
     national Congress on Electro-Heat, 7 pages.

17.  Scott, J. W. , "Design of a 35,000 K. W. High Carbon
     Ferrochrome Furnace Equipped with an Electrostatic
     Precipitator", The Metallurgical Society of A.I.M.E.,
     paper No. EFC-2, 9 pages.

18.  "A Study of Pollution Control Practices in Manufacturing
     Industries - Part 1 - Water Pollution Control", Dun &
     Bradstreet, Inc., June, 1971.

19.  Blackmore, Samuel S., "Dust Emission Control Program
     Union Carbide Corporation Metals Division", Air Pollution
     Control Association 57 th Annual Meeting, June 21-25, 1964,
     16 pages.

20.  "Control Techniques for Emissions Containing Chromium,
     Manganese, Nickel, and Vanadium" Office of Air Programs,
     Environmental Protection Agency, January 12, 1973.

21.  Mantell, C. L. , "Electrochemical Engineering," McGraw-Hill
     Book Company, Inc., 4the Edition, 1960, pages 468-533.

22.  Person, R. A., "Emission Control of Ferroalloy Furnaces,"
     Paper presented at the 4th Annual North Eastern Regional
     Antipollution Conference, July 13-15, 1971, 30 pages.

23.  Smith, Robert & McMichael, Watter F., "Cost and Performance
     Estimates for Tertiary Wastewater Treating Processes",
     United States Dept. of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
     Control Administration, June, 1969, 27 pages.
                           157

-------
                          DRAFT
24.  "Pretreatment Guidelines for the Discharge of Industrial
     Wastes to Municipal Treatment Works",  Environmental
     Protection Agency,  November 17,  1972,  Draft Report.

25.  "Minerals Yearbook  - 1970", United States Bureau of Mines,
     pages 513-518.

26.  "Minerals Yearbook  - 1967", United States Bureau of Mines,
     pages 499-506.

27.  "A New Process for  Cleaning and Pumping Industrial Gases  -
     The ADTEC System",  Aronetics, Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee,
     22 pages.

28.  "Cleanup in Our Ferroalloy Plants", Union Carbide World,
     July 1972, Vol. 5,  No.  3, 16 pages.

30.  "Annual Statistical Report"- American Iron and Steel
     Institute - 1972, A.I.S.I., Washington, D. C. pages 45-51.

31.  Eckenfelder, W. W.  , "Water Quality Engineering", Barnes
     and Noble, New York (1970) .
                           158

-------
                         DRAFT

                         SECTION XIV

                          GLOSSARY

Blocking chrome - A high(10-12%) silicon grade of HC Ferro-
chromium, used as an additive in the making of chromium steel
where it 'blocks'  (i.e., stops) the reaction in the ladle.

Charge Chrome - A grade of HC ferrochromium, so called
because it forms part of the charge in the making of stain-
less steel.

Charging - The process by which raw materials ("charge")  are
added to the furnace.

Chrome ore - lime melt - A melt of chromium ore and lime
produced in an open arc furnace and an intermediate in the
production of LC ferrochromium.

Covered furnace - An electric furnace with a water-cooled
cover over the top to limit the introduction of air which
would burn the gases from the reduction process.  The
furnace may have sleeves at the electrodes  (fixed seals or
sealed furnaces) with the charge introduced through ports in
the furnace cover, or the charge may be introduced through
annular spaces surrounding the electrodes  (mix seals or
semi-closed furnace).

Electrolytic Process - A low voltage direct current passes
through an electrolyte containing metallic ions will cause
the metallic ions to plate on the cathode as free metal
atoms.  The process is used to produce chromium and manganese
metal, which are included with the ferroalloys.  Chromium
metal produced by this process is 99+% pure, whereas that
produced by the exothermic method is only 97% pure.

Exothermic Process - Silicon or aluminum, or a combination
of the two,combine with oxygen of the charge, generating
considerable heat and creating temperatures of several
thousand degrees in the reaction vessel.  The process is
generally used to produce high grade alloys with low carbon
content.

Ferroalloy - An intermediate material, used as an addition
agent or charge material in the production of steel and
other metals.  Historically, these materials were ferrous
alloys, hence the name.  In modern usage, however, the term
has been broadened to cover such materials as silicon
metal, which are produced in a manner similar to that used
for the true ferroalloys.
                           159

-------
                           DRAFT
Glossary (con't)

Induction furnace - Induction heating is obtained by inducing
an electric current in the charge and may be considered as
operating on the transformer principle.  Induction furnaces,
which may be low frequency or high frequency, are used to
produce small tonnages of specialty alloys through remelting
of the required constituents.

Open furnace - An electric submerged-arc furnace with the
surface of the charge exposed to the atmosphere, whereby
the reaction gases are burned by the inrushing air.

Open arc furnace - Heat is generated in an open arc furnace by
the passage of electric arc either between two electrodes or
between one or more electrodes and the charge.  The arc
furnace consists of a furnace chamber and two or more
electrodes.  The furnace chamber has a lining which can
withstand the operating temperatures and which is suitable for
the material to be heated.  The lining is contained within a
steel shell which, in most cases, can be tilted or moved.

Pre-baked electrodes - An electrode purchased in finished form
available in diameters up to about 130 cm (51 in.).  These
electrodes come in sections with threaded ends, and are
added to the electrode column.

Reducing Agent - Carbon bearing materials, such as metallurigical
coke,low volatile coal, and petroleum coke used in the
electric furnace to provide the carbon which combines with
oxygen in the charge to form carbon monoxide, thereby reducing
the oxide to the metallic form.

Self-baking electrode - The electode consists of a steel casing
filled with a paste of carbonaceous material quite similar
to that used to make prebaked amorphous carbon electrodes.
The heat from the passage of current within the electrode and
the heat from the furnace itself, volatilize the asphaltic or
tar binders in the paste to make a hard baked electrode.

Sintering - The formation of larger particles, cakes, or masses
from small particles by heating alone, or by heating and
pressing, so that certain constituents of the particles
coalesce, fuse, or otherwise bind together.  This may occur
in the furnace itself, in which case the charge must be stoked
to break up the agglomeration.

Steam/hot water scrubber - A system for removing particulates from
furnace gases, where water is first heated by the gases to
partially form steam, and then intimately contacted with the
dirty gases.  The scrubber water containing the particulates is
then separated from the cleaned gases, which are emitted to
the atmosphere.  This system is characterized by a low water
usage and pressure drop.
                           160

-------
                           DRAFT

Glossary  (con't)

Stoking - The stirring up of the upper portion of the charged
materials in the furnace.  This loosens the charge and allows
free upward flow of furnace gases.

Submerged-arc furnace - In ferroalloy reduction furnaces, the
electrodes usually extend to a considerable depth into the
charge, hence such furnaces are called "submerged-arc
furnaces".  This name is used for the furnaces whose load is
practically entirely of the resistant type.

Tapping - This term is used in the metallurgical industries
for the removal of molten metal from furnaces, usually by
opening a taphole located in the lower portion of the furnace
vessel.

Vacuum furnace - A furnace in which the charge can be brought
to an elevated temperature in a high vacuum.  The high vacuum
provides an almost completely inert enclosure where the
process of reduction and sintering can occur.
                           161

-------