&EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agencv
            Effluent Guidelines Division
            WH-552
            Washington, DC 20460
EPA ^0/1-80/073-a
September 1980
Development
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Draft
           Aluminum Forming
           Point Source Category

-------
      DRAFT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

               for the

           ALUMINUM FORMING
        POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
          Douglas M. Costle
            Administrator
           Steven Schatzow
    Deputy Assistant Administrator
 for Water Regulations and Standards
          Robert D. Schaffer
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division

         Ernst  P.  Hall,  P.E.
  Chief, Metals and Machinery Branch

           Janet K. Goodwin
            Project Officer
            September,  1980
     Effluent Guidelines Division
 Office of Water and Waste Management
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington,  D.C.   20460

-------
This document is a draft of the development document for the
Auminum  Forming Point Source Category and therefore, is subject
to revision and change and does not necessarily reflect the
Agency's policy.
                                ii

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION

   I     CONCLUSIONS

  II     SUMMARY OF ACHIEVABLE ALTERNATIVES               3
         BPT
         BAT
         BCT
         PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
         NSPS

 III     INTRODUCTION                                      5
         PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
         METHODOLOGY
              Approach of Study
              Data Collection and Methods of Evaluation
                   Literature Review
                   Existing Data
                   Data Collection Portfolios
         GENERAL PROFILE OF THE ALUMINUM FORMING CATEGORY
         ALUMINUM FORMING PROCESSES
              Casting
                   Direct Chill Casting
                   Continuous Casting
                   Stationary Casting
              Rolling
              Extrusion
              Forging
              Drawing
              Heat Treatment
              Surface Treatment
                   Solvent Cleaning
                   Alkaline and Acid Cleaning
                   Chemical and Electrochemical Brightening
                   Etching
                   Desmutting and Deoxidizing
              Ancillary Operations
                   Sawing
                   Swaging and Stamping
                   Noncontact Cooling

   IV      INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION                          47
          INTRODUCTION
          SUBCATEGORY SELECTION
              SUBCATEGORY SELECTION RATIONALE
              Subcategorization Factors Considered

-------
     Production Processes
     Wastewater Characteristics and Treatment Technologies
     Unit Operations
     Products Manufactured
     Process Water Usage
     Raw Materials
     Size
     Age
     Location
PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETER
     Mass of Aluminum Processed
     Number of Products Processed
     Area of Aluminum Processed
     Mass of Process Chemicals
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED SUBCATEGORIES
     Subcategory Terminology and Usage
     Subcategory     I - Rolling with Neat Oils
     Subcategory    II - Rolling with Emulsions
     Subcategory   III - Extrusion
     Subcategory    IV - Forging
     Subcategory     V - Drawing with Neat Oils
     Subcategory    VI - Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps

WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS            79
METHODS
     Historical Data
     Data Collection Portfolios
     Wastewater Samples and Analysis
     Screening Sample Analysis
WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
     Casting
          Direct Chill Casting Cooling
          Continuous Rod Casting Cooling
          Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant
          Continuous Sheet Casting Lubricant
          Stationary Casting
          Air Pollution Control for Degassing
     Rolling
          Rolling with Neat Oils
          Rolling with Emulsions
          Roll Grinding Emulsions
     Extrusion
          Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath
          Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse
          Air Pollution Control for Extrusion Die Cleaning
          Extrusion Dummy Block Cooling
     Forging
          Air Pollution Control for Forging
     Drawing
          Drawing with Neat Oils
                     iv

-------
                  Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
             Heat Treatment
                  Heat Treatment Quench
                  Rolling Heat Treatment Quench
                  Forging Heat Treatment Quench
                  Drawing Heat Treatment Quench
                  Extrusion Press Heat Treatment
                  Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Quench
                  Air Pollution Control for Annealing Furnace
                  Annealing Furnace Seal
             Surface Treatment
                  Degreasing Solvents
                  Cleaning or Etch Line Baths
                  Cleaning or Etch Line Rinses
                  Air Pollution Control for Cleaning or Etch Lines
             Ancillary Operations
                  Saw Oil
                  Swaging and Stamping
             Miscellaneous Wastewater Samples
             Treated Wastewater Samples

 VI     SELECTED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS                        343
        INTRODUCTION
        DESCRIPTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
        SELECTION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
             Reasons for Elimination from Consideration
             Direct Chill Casting
             Rolling Oil Emulsions
             Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse
             Air Pollution Control for Forging
             Rolling Heat Treatment Quench
             Forging Heat Treatment Quench
             Drawing Heat Treatment Quench
             Extrusion Press Heat Treatment Quench
             Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Quench
                  Air Pollution for Annealing
             Dummy Block Contact Cooling Water
             Etch Line Rinses
                  Air Pollution Controls for Etch Lines

VII     CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                      433
        END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
        MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES
             Chemical Reduction of Chromium
             Chemical Precipitation
             Granular Bed Filtration
             Pressure Filter
             Settling
             Skimming
             Emulsion Breaking

-------
              Flotation
         MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
              L & S Performance
              LS & F Performance
              Analysis of Treatment System Effectiveness
         MINOR TECHNOLOGIES
              Carbon Adsorption
              Centrifugation
              Coalescing
              Cyanide Oxidation by Chlorine
              Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone
              Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone with UV Radiation
              Cyanide Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide
              Evaporation
              Gravity Sludge Thickening
              Ion Exchange
              Membrane Filtration
              Reverse Osmosis
              Sludge Bed Drying
              Ultrafiltration
              Vacuum Filtration
         IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY
              Process Water Recycle
              Process Water Reuse
              Process Water Use Segregation
              Forming Oil and Deoiling Solvent Recovery
              Dry Air Pollution Control Devices
              Good Housekeeping

VIII     COSTS, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS        543
         BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATION
              Sources of Cost Data
              Determination of Costs
                   Capital
                   Annual
              Cost Data Reliability
         TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND RELATED COSTS
              Flow Equalization
              Gravity Oil and Water Separation
              Chemical Emulsion Breaking
              Dissolved Air Flotation
              Granular Media Filtration
              pH Adjustment
              Chemical Precipitation
              Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
              Cyanide Oxidation
              Activated Carbon Adsorption
              Vacuum Filtration
              Contractor Hauling
              Pumping
                              vi

-------
            Holding Tank
            Recycle
            Enclosures
       TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
            Cost Calculation Example
            Nonwater Quality Aspects

IX     EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF   569
         THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
       TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT
       TECHNOLOGY RATIONALE
            Total Recycle
            Recycle with Cooling Tower
            Gravity Oil and Water Separation
            Chemical Emulsion Breaking
            Dissolved Air Flotation
            pH Adjustment
            Chemical Precipitation
            Cyanide Oxidation
            Contractor Hauling
            Dry Air Pollution Control
       SELECTION OF BPT DISCHARGE FACTORS
            Casting
                 Direct Chill Casting
                 Continuous Rod Casting Cooling
                 Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant
                 Continuous Sheet Casting
                 Metal Treatment Air Pollution Control
            Rolling
                 Rolling with Neat Oils
                 Rolling with Emulsions
                 Roll Grinding Emulsions
            Extrusion
                 Extrusion Die Cleaning Caustic Bath
                 Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse
                 Extrusion Dummy Block Cooling
            Forging
                 Forging Scrubber Liquor
            Drawing
                 Drawing with Neat Oils
                 Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
            Heat Treatment
                 Heat Treatment Quench
                 Annealing Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor
                 Annealing Furnace Seal
                 Degreasing Solvents
            Surface Treatment
                 Cleaning or Etch Line Baths
                 Cleaning or Etch Line Rinses
                 Etch Line and Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor
                              vii

-------
              Ancillary Operations
                   Saw Oil
                   Stamping and Swaging
         ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
              Age and Size
              Process and Engineering Aspects
              Costs
              Energy and Nonwater Quality Environmental Impact
                   Energy Aspects
                   Nonwater Quality Aspects

   X     EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE
           BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE     573
         TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
         TECHNOLOGY RATIONALE
              Total Recycle
              Recycle with Cooling Tower
              Gravity Oil and Water Separation
              Chemical Emulsion Breaking
              Dissolved Air Flotation
              Filtration
              pH Adjustment
              Chemical Precipitation
              Cyanide Oxidation
              Chromium Reduction
              Activated Carbon Adsorption
              Contractor Hauling
              Dry Air Pollution Control
         SELECTION OF BAT DISCHARGE FACTORS
         ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
              Age and Size
              Process and Engineering Aspects
              Costs
                   Energy and Nonwater Quality Environmental Impact
                        Energy Aspects
                        Nonwater Quality Aspects

  XI     EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE BY BEST CON-             581
           VENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
         APPLICATION OF BCT METHODOLOGY
         ALTERNATIVE BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

 XII     NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                      583
              IDENTIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
               STANDARDS
                                                                CQC
XIII     PRETREATMENT STANDARDS                                 °
         IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
         FOR EXISTING SOURCES
         ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF PRETREATMENT FOR
                            viii

-------
        EXISTING SOURCES
        IDENTIFICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
        FOR NEW SOURCES
        ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF PRETREATMENT FOR NEW SOURCES

XIV     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                      587

 XV     REFERENCES                                            589

XVI     GLOSSARY                                              601
                                IX

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES

Table                             Title                         Pag

III-l         Profile of Aluminum Forming Plants                 12
II1-2         Plant Age Distribution by Discharge Type           1'
II1-3         Distribution of Facilities According to Time       18
              Elapsed Since Latest Major Plant Modification
IV-1          Plants Having Only one Aluminium Forming
              Production Process On-Site                         50
IV-2          Plants Having Only one Aluminum Forming Subcategory
              On-Site                                            ^
V-l           Aluminum Forming Process Wastewater Sources        g2
V-5           Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      105
              Priority Pollutants - Aluminum Forming
V-6           Direct Chill Casting Cooling                       111
V-7           Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      114
              Priority Pollutants - Direct Chill Casting
V-8           Sampling Data - Direct Chill Casting               117
V-10          Rolling with Neat Oils                             133
V-ll          Rolling with Emulsions                             134
V-12          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      135
              Priority Pollutants - Rolling with Emulsions
V-l3          Sampling Data - Rolling with Emulsions             138
V-14          Roll Grinding Emulsions                            147
V-15          Extrusion Die Cleaning Caustic Bath                148
V-16          Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse                       150
V-17          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      151
              Priority Pollutants - Extrusion
V-18          Sampling Data - Extrusion                          154
V-l9          Extrusion Dummy Block Cooling                      156
V-20          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      157
              Priority Pollution - Forging
V-21          Sampling Data -Forging
V-22          Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
V-23          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      165
              Priority Pollutants - Drawing With Emulsion
V-24          Sampling Data - Drawing With Emulsions             168
V-25          Heat Treatment Quench                              173
V-26          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      178
              Priority Pollutants - Rolling Heat Treatment
              Quench
V-27          Sampling Data - Rolling Heat Treatment Quench
V-28          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of
              Priority Pollutants - Heat Treatment Quench
V-29          Sampling Data - Heat Treatment Quench              186
V-30          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of      190
              Priority Pollutants - Heat Treatment Quench
V-31          Sampling Data - Heat Treatment Quench               193
V-32          Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of       197

-------
V-33
V-34

V-35
V-36

V-37
V-38
V-39

V-40
V-41
V-42
V-43
V-44
V-45
V-46
V-47
V-48
V-49
V-50
V-51
V-52
V-53
V-54
V-55
V-56
V-57
V-58
VI-1
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3

VI1-4

VII-5

VII-6
VII-7
VII-8
VI1-9
VII-10
VII-11
V-II-12
VII-13
VII-14
Priority Pollutants - Heat Treatment Quench
Sampling Data - Heat Treatment Quench
Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of
Priority Pollutants - Heat Treatment Quench
Sampling Data - Heat Treatment Quench
Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of
Priority Pollutants
Sampling Data - Annealing Scrubber
Cleaning and Etch Line Rinses
Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of
Priority Pollutants - Etch Line
Sampling Data - Etch Line Rinses
Air Pollution Control Cleaning or Etch Line
Frequency of Occurrance and Classification of
Priority Pollutants - Etch Line Air Pollution
Controls
Sampling Data - Etch Line Air Pollution  Controls
Saw Lubricants
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Sampling Data
Misscellaneous Wastewater
Plant B - Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
          Treated Wastewater
                Plant C
                Plant D
                Plant E
                Plant H
                Plant J
                Plant K
                Plant L
                Plant N
                Plant P
                Plant Q
                Plant R
                                   199
                                   202


                                  205
                                  207

                                   210
                                   212
                                   214

                                   217
                                   213
                                   245
248
250
252
282
289
294
304
314
315
318
320
322
324
328
331
335
417
                Plant U
Classification of Priority Pollutants
pH Control Effect on Metals Removal                   433
Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide for Metals Removal  441
Effectiveness of Lime and Sodium Hydroxide  for        442
Metals Removal
Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and  Sulfides   443
of Selected Metals in Pure Water
Sampling Data from Sulfide Precipitation -            443
Sedimentation Systems
Sulfide Precipitation - Sedimentation Performance      444
Concentration of Total Cyanide                         443
Multimedia Filter Performance                          453
Performance of Sampled Settling Systems                460
Skimming Performance                                   462
Trace Organic Removal by Skimming                      463
Chemical Emulsion Breaking Efficiencies                469
Hydroxide Precipitation - Settling  (L&S) Performance   434
Hydroxide Precipitation - Settling  (L&S) Performance   434
                               xi

-------
               (Additional Parameters)
VII-15         Precipitation - Settling - Filtration  (LS&F)            485
               Performance' (Plant A)
VII-16         Precipitation - Settling - Filtration  (LS&F)            486
               Performance (Plant B)
VII-17         Variability Factors of Lime and Settle (L&S)  Technology 487
VI1-18         Analysis of Plant A and Plant B Data                    489
VI1-19         Summary of Treatment Effectiveness                      490
VI1-20         Activated Carbon Performance  (Mercury)                  492
VI1-21         Ion Exchange Performance                                514
VII-22         Membrane Filtration System Effluent                     516
VI1-23         Ultrafiltration Performance                             527
VIII-1         Capital and Annual Cost Equations                       554
VIII-2         Sludge Production                                       561
                                  xfi

-------
                            LIST  OF  FIGURES

Figure                            Title                         Page

III-l         Aluminum Forming Products                           H
111-4         Geographical  Distribution of Aluminum Forming       15
              Plants
III-9         Direct Chill  Casting                                 22
111-10      .  Continuous Casting                                  24
III-ll        Geographical  Distrigution of Plants  With            27
              Hot and Cold  Rolling
II1-13        Common Rolling Mill Configuration                    29
111-14        Geographical  Distribution of Plants  with            31
              Extrusion
HI-16        Direct Extrusion                                     32
111-17        Geographical  Distribution of Plants  with Forging    34
II1-19        Forging                                              36
II1-20        Geographical  Distribution of Plants  with            37
              Tube, Wire, Rod and Bar Drawing
II1-22        Tube Drawing                                         39
II1-23        Vapor Degreasing                                     43
V-20          Wastewater Sources at Plant  A                       87
V-21          Wastewater Sources at Plant  B                       88
V-22          Wastewater Sources at Plant  C                       39
v~23          Wastewater Sources at Plant  D                       on
V-24          Wastewater Sources at Plant  E
V-25          Wastewater Sources at Plant  F
91
92
93
V-26          Wastewater Sources at Plant G
V-27          Wastewater Sources at Plant H
V-28          Wastewater Sources at Plant J                       qc
V-29          Wastewater. Sources at Plant K                       g?
V-30          Wastewater Sources at Plant L                       07
V-31          Wastewater Sources at Plant N                       qo
V-32          Wastewater Sources at Plant P                       ™
V-33          Wastewater Sources at Plant Q
V-34          Wastewater Sources at Plant R
V-35          Wastewater Sources at Plant S                       In9
V-36          Wastewater Sources at Plant T
V-37          Wastewater Sources at Plant U
v~38          Direct Chill Casting Cooling Water Use
V-39          Direct Chill Casting Cooling Wastewater
v~40          Direct Chill Casting Cooling Wastewater  for
              Plants Using Recycle
V-41          Rolling with Emulsions Wastewater
V-42          Extrusion Die Cleaning Caustic Bath
v~43          Drawing with Emulsion or Soap Wastewater
v~44          Heat Treatment Quench Water Use
v~45          Heat Treatment Quench Wastewater
v~46          Comparison of Heat Treatment Quench Water Use       177
v-*7          Cleaning and Etch Line Rinse Water Use              243
                                 xiii

-------
V-48
VII-1
VII-2

VII-3
VI1-4
VII-5
VI1-6
VII-7
VI1-8
VII-9
VII-10
VII-11
VII-13

VII-14

VII-15

VII-16

VII-17

VII-18

VII-19

VII-20

VII-21

VII-22

VI1-23

VI1-24
VII-25
VII-26
VII-27
VII-28
VII-29
VII-30
VII-31
VII-32
VII-33
VII-34

VII-35
VII-36
VII-37
Cleaning and Etch Line Rinse Wastewater
Flow Diagram for Hexavalent Chromium Reduction
The Relationship of Solubilities of Metal Ions
as a Function of pH
Effluent Zinc Concentrations as a Function of pH
Lead Solubilities in Three Alkalies
Filter Configurations
Granular Bed Filtration Example
Pressure Filtration
Representative Types of Sedimentation
Gravity Oil/Water Separator
Flow Diagram for Emulsion Breaking with Chemicals
Dissolved Air Flotation Configurations
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Cadmium
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Chromium
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Copper
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Iron
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Lead
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Manganese
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Nickel
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Phosphorus
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Zinc
Hydroxide Precipitation & Sedimentation Effectiveness -
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Flow Diagram of Activated Carbon Adsorption with
Regeneration
Centrifugation
Treatment of Cyanide Waste by Alkaline Chlorination
Typical Ozone Plant for Waste Treatment
UV/Ozonation
Evaporation
Gravity Thickening
Ion Exchange with Regeneration
Simplified Reverse Osmosis Schematic
Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configurations
Sludge Drying Bed
Flow Diagram for Batch Treatment Ultrafiltration
System
Simplified Ultrafiltration Flow Schematic
Vacuum Filtration
Flow Diagram for Recycling with a Cooling Tower
244
435
439

440
446
450
452
455
458
464
468
471
474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

493

495
500
502
504
506
510
513
519
520
523
526

529
533
536
                                   xiv

-------
VI1-38        Can Wash Line Countercurrent Configuration        535
VII-39        Schematic Diagram of Spinning.Nozzle Aluminum
              Refining Process
X-l           Treatment Options for Subcategory  I
X-2           Treatment Options for Subcategory  II
X-3           Treatment Options for Subcategory  III             577
X-4           Treatment Options for Subcategory  IV              57g
X-5           Treatment Options for Subcategory  V               579
X-6           Treatment Options for Subcategory  VI              580
                                  xv

-------
                              SECTION I



                             CONCLUSIONS





Conclusions will be developed after selection of options is completed,

-------
                              SECTION II



                           RECOMMENDATIONS







Recommendations will be added at the time of proposed rulemaking,

-------
                             SECTION III

                             INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 established
a  comprehensive  program  to  "restore  and  maintain  the  chemical,
physical,  and  biological  integrity of the Nation's waters," Section
101(a).   By  July  1,   1977,  existing  industrial  dischargers  were
required to achieve "effluent limitations requiring the application of
the  best  practicable  control technology currently available" (BPT),
Section 301(b)(1)(A); and by July  1,  1983,  these  dischargers  were
required to achieve "effluent limitations requiring the application of
the best available technology economically achievable .  . . which will
result  in  reasonable  further  progress  toward the national goal of
eliminating  the  discharge  of   all   pollutants"   (BAT),   Section
301(b)(2)(A).    New  industrial  direct  dischargers  were required to
comply with Section 306 new source performance standards  (NSPS), based
on  best  available  demonstrated   technology;   new   and   existing
dischargers  to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) were subject to
pretreatment standards under Sections  307(b)  and  (c)   of  the  Act.
While  the requirements for direct dischargers were to be incorporated
into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES)  permits
issued  under Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment standards were made
enforceable directly  against  dischargers  to  POTWs  (indirect  dis-
chargers).   Although Section 402{a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the
setting of NPDES permit requirements for direct dischargers on a case-
by-case basis, Congress intended that,  for  the  most  part,  control
requirements  would  be  based  on   the  degree  of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of BPT and BAT.  Moreover, Sections
304(c) and 306 of the Act required promulgation of regulations for new
sources  {NSPS), and  Sections  304(f),  307(b),  and  307(c)  required
promulgation  of  regulations for pretreatment standards.   In addition
to these  regulations  for  designated  industry  categories,  Section
307(a)  of  the  Act required the Administrator to promulgate effluent
standards applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollutants.  Finally,
Section 301(a) of the Act authorized the  Administrator   to  prescribe
any  additional  regulations  "necessary  to  carry out his functions"
under the Act.

The EPA was unable to promulgate many  of  these  regulations  by  the
dates  contained  in  the  Act.   In  1976,  EPA  was  sued by several
environmental groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit   EPA  and  the
plaintiffs  executed  a  "Settlement Agreement," which was approved by
the Court.  This Agreement required  EPA  to  develop  a  program  and
adhere   to  a  schedule  for  promulgating for 21 major  industries BAT
effluent   limitations  guidelines,  pretreatment  standards,  and  new
source  performance standards for 65 "priority" pollutants and classes

-------
of pollutants.  See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.  v. Train,
8 ERC 2120  (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9,  1979.   On  December  27,
1977,  the  President  signed into law amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 95-217).  The Act  as  amended  is  commonly
referred  to  as the Clean Water Act.  Although this Act makes several
important changes in the federal water pollution control program,  its
most  significant feature is its incorporation of several of the basic
elements of the  Settlement  Agreement  program  for  toxic  pollution
control.    Sections  301(b)(2)(A)  and  301(b)(2)(C)  of  the  Act now
require the achievement by  July  1,  1984,  of  effluent  limitations
requiring  application  of  BAT for toxic pollutants, including the 65
priority pollutants and classes of pollutants (the same pollutants  as
listed  in NRDC vs Train), which Congress declared toxic under Section
307(a)  of  the  Act.    Likewise,  EPA's  programs  for   new   source
performance   standards  and  pretreatment  standards  are  now  aimed
principally  at  control  of  these  toxic  pollutant.   Moreover,  to
strengthen  the  toxics control program, Congress added Section 304(e)
to  the  Act,   authorizing  the  Administrator  to   prescribe   "best
management  practices"  (BMPs)  to  prevent  the  release of toxic and
hazardous pollutants from plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge
or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material  storage  associated
with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing or treatment process.

In  keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water Act
also revised the control program for non-toxic pollutants. Instead  of
BAT  for  "conventional" pollutants identified under Section 304(a)(4)
(including biological oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal  coliform
and  pH), the new Section 301(b)(2)(E) requires achievement by July 1,
1984, of "effluent limitations requiring the application of  the  best
conventional   pollutant   control  technology"   (BCT).   The  factors
considered in assessing BCT for  an  industry  include  the  costs  of
attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits
derived compared to the costs and effluent reduction benefits from the
discharge  of publicly owned treatment works (Section 304(b) (4) (B)).
For non-toxic, non-conventional pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A)  and
(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT effluent limitations within three
years  after  their establishment or July 1, 1984, whichever is later,
but not later than July 1, 1987.

The purpose of this report is to provide the supporting technical data
regarding water use, pollutants and  treatment  technologies  for  any
BPT,  BAT,  BCT,  NSPS  or pretreatment standards for existing sources
(PSES), and pretreatment standards for new sources   (PSNS)  which  EPA
may  choose to issue for the Aluminum Forming Category, under Sections
301, 304, 306, 307 and 501 of the Clean Water Act.

METHODOLOGY

-------
Approach of Study

The EPA gathered and evaluated technical data in the  course  of  this
study in order to perform the following tasks:

    1.   To profile the category with regard to the production,  manu-
         facturing  processes,  geographical  distribution,  potential
         wastewater streams and discharge  mode  of  aluminum  forming
         plants.

    2.   To  subcategorize  in  order  to  permit  regulation  of  the
         aluminum forming category in an equitable and manageable way.

    3.   To characterize wastewater detailing  water  use,  wastewater
         discharge,  and  the occurrence of priority, conventional and
         non-conventional pollutants in waste  streams  from  aluminum
         forming processes.

    4.   To   select   pollutant   parameters—those    priority    or
         conventional pollutants present at significant concentrations
         in   wastewater   streams—that   should  be  considered  for
         regulation.

    5.   To consider control  and treatment  technologies,  and  select
         alternative  methods for reducing pollutant discharge in this
         category.

    6.   To evaluate the costs of implementing the alternative control
         and  treatment technologies.

    7.   To present possible  regulative alternatives.

Data  Collection and Methods of Evaluation

Literature Review.  The EPA reviewed and evaluated existing  literature
to provide background  information, which served  to clarify and  define
various  aspects of the study and to determine general characteristics
and   trends   in production   processes   and   wastewater   treatment
technology.   The  review  of current  literature   about  some topics
continued during most of the  study.    Information   gathered  in  this
review  was   used,  along  with  information  from other sources in the
following specific areas:

    o   Introduction - description of production processes  and the
         associated lubricants and wastewater streams.
    o   Subcategorization -  identification of differences in manu-
         facturing process technology and their  potential  effect on
         associated wastewater streams.
    o   Selection of Pollutant Parameters -  information regarding the
         toxicity and potential sources of the pollutants  identified  in

-------
          wastewater from aluminum forming processes.
     o    Control  and Treatment Technology - information on alternative
          controls and treatments, and corresponding effects on pollutant
          removal.
     o    Costs -  evaluation of the current capital and annual cost to
          apply the selected treatment alternatives.

Existing  Data.  Information related  to  aluminum  forming  processes,
wastewater  or  wastewater  treatment  technology  was compiled from a
number of sources.  Data gathered for  technical  studies  of  related
categories  such  as  the Nonferrous Metals Category were reviewed and
incorporated into this study where applicable.

The concentration or mass loading of pollutant  parameters  in  waste-
water  effluent  discharges  are monitored and reported as required by
individual state agencies.   These  historical  data,  available  from
National  Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES) Discharge
Monitoring Reports, were used to evaluate  the  degree  of  long-range
fluctuation  of  pollutant  loadings  in  the discharges from aluminum
forming plants.

Throughout this study we maintained frequent  contact  with   industry
personnel.   Contributions from these sources were particularly useful
for clarifying differences in production processes.

Data Collection Portfolios.  The aluminum forming plants were surveyed
in conjunction with this study, to gather information regarding  plant
size, age and production, the production processes used, and the quan-
tity,  treatment and disposal of wastewater generated at these plants.
This information was requested in data collection  portfolios  (dcp's)
mailed  to  all  companies  known  or  believed  to be involved in the
forming of aluminum or aluminum alloys. The original mailing list  was
compiled from the following sources:

    0  US Department of Commerce, Directory of Aluminum Suppliers in
       the United States, Revised January 1978.
    0  Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association, Membership
       Directory 1977.
    °  Aluminum Foil Container Manufacturers Association, Membership
       Roster as of May 1, 1978.
    °  Dunn & Bradstreet, Inc., Million Dollar Directory 1978.

In all, dcp's were sent to 580 firms.  Approximately 95 percent of the
companies  have  responded  to  the  survey.   In many cases companies
contacted were not actually members of the aluminum  forming  category
as  it  is  defined  for this study.  Where firms had aluminum forming
operations at more than one location, a  dcp  was  returned  for  each
plant.  A  total  of  266  dcp's  applicable  to  the aluminum forming
category have been returned and included in the  data  base  for  this
                                 8

-------
study.    In  cases where the dcp responses were incomplete or unclear,
additional information was requested by telephone or by letter.

The dcp responses were interpreted individually and the following data
were computerized for future reference and evaluation:

  ° company name, plant address and name of the contact listed in the
    dcp
  ° plant discharge status as direct (to surface water), indirect (to a
    POTW) or zero discharge
  0 production process streams present at the plant as well as the
    associated flow rates; production rate; operating hours; wastewater
    treatment, reuse or disposal methods, the quantity and nature of
    process chemicals; and the percent of any soluble oil used
    in emulsified mixtures
  ° capital and annual treatment costs
  0 availability of pollutant monitoring data provided by the plant.

The  computerization  of  this  information  provided   a   consistent
systematic method of evaluating and summarizing the dcp responses.  In
addition,  a  number  of  computer programs were developed to simplify
subsequent  analyses.   The  programs  developed  had  the   following
capabilities:

  0 selection and listing of plants containing specific production
    process streams or treatment technologies
  ° summation of the number of plants  containing specific process stream
    and  treatment combinations
  0 calculation  of the percent recycle present for  specific process
    streams and  summation of the number  of plants recycling this stream
    within various percent recycle ranges
  0 calculation  of annual production values  associated with each process
    stream and summation of the number of plants with these process
    streams having production values within  various ranges
  0 calculation  of water use and blowdown  from individual process streams,

The  calculated   information  and  summaries were  used throughout  the
study.   Principal areas of application included the category   profile,
evaluation  of   subcategorization,  analysis of   in-use  treatment  and
control  technologies, and determination  of   water   use  and  discharge
values    for  the  conversion  of  pollutant concentrations   to  mass
loadings.

GENERAL  PROFILE  OF THE ALUMINUM FORMING  CATEGORY

There are a number of advantages to using  aluminum  in a   wide   variety
of  products.    Chief  among  these are  that aluminum  is  light weight,
tough, resistant to corrosion and has  high  electrical   conductivity.
The  major  uses of  aluminum  are   in   the building and construction

-------
 industry,    transportation   industries,   container    and    package
 manufacturers  and  the electrical products industry.

 Products  manufactured by aluminum forming operations frequently serve
 as  stock for subsequent forming operations, as shown in Figure  III-l,
 and are also sold  either as raw material to fabricators or as finished
 products.   Cast   ingots and billets are used to make sheet and plate,
 extrusions, forgings, and as sand or mold casting  stock.   Continuous
 casting is used to make sheet and foil products or to make rod for use
 in  drawing operations.  Rolled aluminum sheet and plate can be used as
 stock  for  stampings,  can blanks and roll formed products, or can be
 used as finished products in building, ship and aircraft construction,
 or  as foil.  Extrusions can be used  as  raw  stock  for  forging  and
 drawing, to fabricate final products such as bumpers, window frames or
 light  standards,  or  can  be sold as final products such as beams or
 extruded tubing.  Forgings are either sold  as  finished  products  or
 used as machinery, aircraft and engine parts.

 The  variety and type of products produced at one location has a large
 influence on the production capacity of the forming plant, the  number
 of  people  employed,  and  the  amount  of  water  used.  The capital
 intensive investment, large source of energy required and  specialized
 labor  force involved in making aluminum sheet, strip, foil, and plate
products limits the number of facilities available to meet the  demand
 for these sheet products.  Most sheet products are made at a few large
plants  owned  by major companies.   Table III-l summarizes data about
 these and other products of aluminum  forming.   A  variety  of  sheet
products  are  often  produced  at the same location.  Other products,
 such as billets and extrusions are frequently made in conjunction with
 the rolled products at these plants.

Tubes, rod, cable and wire are produced at sites that  range  in  size
 from  very  large to small.  Most drawn products are produced by a few
 large companies or factories while the remainder  are  produced  by  a
number  of  smaller  firms.   Employment  varies from a few to several
hundred people.

Extrusion and forging processes,  which  produce  a  wide  variety  of
products,  do  not  require large facilities.  Consequently, extrusion
and forging  products  are  formed  at  many  sites  by  a  number  of
 companies.    Production and employment at facilities using either type
of process range from small plants with few workers  to  large  plants
with  hundreds of employees.  Some extrusion plants have other forming
operations as well.  Forging, however, is usually performed by  plants
 that are not involved in other processes.

Casting,  both  continuous  and direct chill, is usually done prior to
another operation, such as rolling or extrusion.  Aluminum billets  or
 ingots  are  rarely  cast at aluminum forming plants for sale to other
 industries or firms.  Stationary  casting  in  this  industry  usually
                                 10

-------
                  INGOT
                          STATIONARY
                            CASTING
                         IN - HOUSE
                           SCRAP
                         CONTINUOUS CASTING
                                                                    FORGING
                                                                              FORCINGS
 MOLTEN
ALUMINUM
  ALLOY
  DIRECT CHILL
OR STATIONARY
   CASTING
 INGOT
  OR
BILLET
HOT/COLD ROLLING^-**
/ £
//EXTRUSION ""
TUBE,
ROD,
OR BAR
_J
DRAWING

TUBE, ROD,
BAR, OR
WIRE
HOT &
ROLLING
PLATE
COLD
ROLLING
r*
SHEET
COLD
ROLLING
FOIL
                        CONTINUOUS CASTING
             FIGURE m- 1   ALUMINUM   FORMING  PRODUCTS

-------
                             TABLE  III-l
                  PROFILE OF ALUMINUM FORMING PLANTS
Aluminum
Product

Plate

Sheet

Strip

Foil

Tube

Rod

Wire &
Cable

Extrusions

Forgings
    PRODUCTION (tons/yr)
Industry    Plant      Plant
 Total     Average     Range
 40,000     8,000

540,000    42,000

500,000    29,000

160,000

 70,000
 14,000
14,000

 2,900

 2,800
189-33,900

250-245,400

12.5-127,500

385-63,500

0.5-17,900

1-11,800
130,000     3,200    0.1-27,000

1,000,000   6,900    7.5-75,000

   40,000   3,300     13-27,000
Number of
Plants
5
13
17
11
25
7
41
146
12
EMPLOYMENT
Plant Plant
Average Range
800 98-2,042
500
170
200
180
120
40
100
204
19-2,042
3-674
7-701
1-2,100
60-233
1-233
3-1,376
9-1,376

-------
involves  only  melted  in-plant  scrap aluminum.  The ingots produced
from stationary casting are normally remelted and used  as  stock  for
continuous  or  direct  chill casting or it may be sold to a secondary
aluminum processor.

The dcp responses  indicated  that  149  companies  own  266  aluminum
forming  plants.   Four  of the companies own 20 percent of the plants
and 16 companies own 43 percent of the 'production facilities.

In the dcp responses, 216 of  the  plants  (81%  of  the  total)  gave
employment  figures.   These plants reported a total of 26,284 workers
involved in aluminum forming.   Employment  at  the  individual  sites
ranged  from  1  to  2,100  people.   The  employment  distribution is
summarized as follows: of the 257 plants reporting employment data, 64
percent employed fewer than 100 people in aluminum forming operations;
88 percent employed fewer than 200 people in  this  capacity;  and  93
percent employed fewer than 500 people.

Reported  production  of formed aluminum at the individual plant sites
ranged from .09 kkg  (0.1 tons) to almost 360,000  kkg  (400,000  tons)
during  1977.   The  production distribution is summarized as follows:
of the 217 plants  for which 1977 production  data  was  available,  75
percent  produced   less  than  91,000  kkg  (100,000  tons)  of formed
aluminum and aluminum alloy products;  87 percent  produced   less  than
180,000  kkg  (200,000 tons); 94 percent produced less than 270,000 kkg
(300,000 tons).  Although production data was  not  reported  for  the
entire  industry;   one   firm  did  produce  33%  of the reported total
production.

Aluminum forming plants  are  not  limited  to  any  one  geographical
location,  but  the majority are located east of the Mississippi River.
As shown in Figure II1-4., plants  are  found  throughout  most  of  the
United  States.    Population  density  was  not found to be  a limiting
factor in plant location.  Aluminum forming plants  tend  to  be  more
common  in urban areas but they are frequently found in rural areas as
well.

The dates of most  recent modification  were  reported  by  210  plants.
The  majority   of   the aluminum forming plants  (56%) that reported the
age of their facility indicated they were  built  since  1957.   Table
III-2  shows the age distribution  of aluminum forming plants according
to their classification  as direct, indirect and zero  discharge  type.
The  distribution   of facilities according to time elapsed since their
last major plant modification is given in  Table  III-3.   This  table
shows that 50%  of  the plants have  been modified since 1972.

Over  half  of  the plants reported achieving zero discharge, i.e., 165
plants  indicated that no wastewater from aluminum  forming   operations
is  discharged  to  either surface waters or POTWs. Of the remainder, 49
discharge an effluent from aluminum forming directly to surface waters
                                 13

-------
D- DIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
 - INDIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
Z-ZERO PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
                      FIGURE m-4 GEOGRAPHICAL   DISTRIBUTION  OF
                                    ALUMINUM   FORMING  PLANTS
                                                                                   PUERTO RICO- Z-2

-------
                               TABLE III-2
                 PLANT AGE DISTRIBUTION BY DISCHARGE TYPE

 Type of                      Plant Age As of 1977 (Years)
  Plant
Discharge  0-5  6-10  11-20  21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  61-75  75+   Total
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
2
7
17
26
6
5
25
36
13
17
57
87
14
7
38
59
10
6
9
25
0
2
6
8
1
4
2
7
2
2
2
6
2
4
5
11
50
54
161
265

-------
                                        TABLE III-3
            DISTRIBUTION OF FACILITIES ACCORDING TO TIME ELAPSED SINCE LATEST MAJOR
                                    PLANT MODIFICATION
Type of
Plant
Discharge
Direct
Indirect
Zero
Total
Years Elapsed Since Latest Major Modification (As
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+
25
30
79
134
9
6
30
45
4
2
7
13
1
2
7
10
1
• 1
6
8
of 1977)
Total
40
41
129
210
CD

-------
and 52  discharge  indirectly,  sending  effluent  through  POTWs  for
treatment.    The  volume  of aluminum forming wastewater discharged by
plants in this industry ranges from 0 to 63,100,000 liters per day  (0
to  16,700,000 gallons per day, gpd).  The mean and median volumes are
approximately 2,300,000 liters per  day  and  88,800  liters  per  day
(600,000  gpd  and  23,500 gpd), respectively, for those plants having
discharges.  The wastewater discharge distribution  is  summarized  as
follows:   of  the 265 plants for which wastewater data was available,
65 percent reported no  wastewater  discharge  from  aluminum  forming
operations;  88  percent  discharge  less  than 190,000 liters per day
(50,000 gallons per day); and 93 percent discharge less than 7,600,000
liters per day (200,000 gallons per day).  The total number of  plants
in  this  figure  is  less  than  the total number of aluminum forming
plants in the study because eight plants with indirect  discharge  and
one  with  direct  discharge  did  not  provide  enough information to
calculate the flows.  There is no correlation  between  overall  water
use  and  total aluminum production; however, a correlation does exist
between water discharge and production on a process  basis.   This  is
discussed further in Section V.

One hundred and one plants reported some form of treatment or disposal
for  wastewater  from  aluminum  forming processes.  Another 43 plants
mentioned treatment only for wastes  from  other  processes,  such  as
chemical  reduction  of wastewater from metal surface treatment lines.
The most common forms  of  wastewater  treatment  are  pH  adjustment,
clarification,   gravity   oil   separation  and  lagooning.    In-line
filtration and  cooling  towers  are  frequently  used  as  wastewater
controls.   Disposal  of wastewater  is being accomplished by discharge
to surface waters or  a  POTW,   by   contractor  removal,  or  by   land
application.   Oily  wastes are  separated  into oil and water fractions
by emulsion breaking using heat  or chemicals.  Gravity  separation   is
frequently  used  to  separate  neat oil and broken emulsions from  the
water  fraction.  The oil portion is  usually removed by  a  contractor,
although  some  plants dispose of  it by  land application,  incineration
or lagooning.  Sludges generally are not thickened, but  are  disposed
of   without   treatment.     However,  vacuum  and  pressure  filters,
centrifuges and drying beds are  occasionally  used.   Sludge  disposal
methods  include landfill and  contractor  removal.

ALUMINUM FORMING PROCESSES

Aluminum   forming  processes   are  defined,   for  the purposes  of  this
study,  as  those manufacturing operations in which aluminum or aluminum
alloys are made into semi-finished products by hot  or  cold  working.
These   manufacturing    operations   include   the  rolling,  drawing,
extruding, and forging of aluminum.  Associated processes, such as the
casting of aluminum alloys for  subsequent forming,  heat  treatment,
cleaning,  etching  and  solvent  degreasing,  are also  included.   The
following  are classified as major  aluminum forming processes:
                                  19

-------
    0    casting for subsequent forming
    0    rolling
    °    extrusion
    0    forging
    0    drawing of wire, rod, bar and tube
    0    heat treatment
    0    cleaning and etching.

A number of other operations, although not themselves aluminum forming
processes, are frequently performed at these plants and contribute  to
the overall wastewater discharge.  The more common examples include:

    °    foundry casting of final products
    °    mechanical finishing
    0    chemical-electrolytic finishing
    0    painting
    0    noncontact cooling.

Casting

Before  aluminum  alloys  can  be  used  for  rolling or extrusion and
subsequently for other aluminum forming operations, they  are  usually
cast  into  ingots of suitable size and shape.  Although ingots may be
prepared at smelters or at other forming plants, 79 of the 266  plants
surveyed indicated that casting is done on site.

The  aluminum  alloys used as the raw materials for casting operations
are sometimes purchased from nearby smelters and  transported  to  the
forming  plants  in  the  molten  state.   Usually, however, purchased
aluminum ingots are  charged  together  with  alloying  elements  into
melting furnaces at the casting plants.  Several types of furnaces can
be  used, but reverberatory furnaces are the most common.  The melting
temperatures used range from 650°C to 750°C.

At many plants, fluxes are added to  the  metal  in  order  to  reduce
hydrogen  contamination, remove oxides and eliminate undesirable trace
elements.  Solid fluxes such as  hexachloroethane,  aluminum  chloride
and  anhydrous magnesium chloride may be used but it is more common to
bubble gases such as chlorine, nitrogen, argon, helium and mixtures of
chlorine and inert  gases  through  the  molten  metal.   One  of  the
problems associated with furnace fluxing with chlorine is the need for
air  pollution  control.   If  the alloy being fluxed does not contain
magnesium, the chlorine gas will react to form  aluminum  chloride,  a
dense  white smoke.  The presence of hydrochloric acid in these vapors
necessitates the use of wet scrubbers.  For this reason,  other  gases
or mixtures of gases may be preferred as fluxing agents.  In addition,
a  number  of  in-line  treatment  methods that eliminate the need for
fluxing when degassing aluminum have recently been developed  and  are
being  adopted  by  the  industry.  For a more detailed description of
these see Section VII.  Three of the 79 plants with casting operations
                                 20

-------
reported using wet air pollution controls to treat  fumes  from  their
melting  furnaces.   Chlorine  was  occasionally  cited as a degassing
agent.  One other plant  uses  cyclone  separation  to  control  smoke
generated  from the remelting of painted scrap.  However, afterburners
could be substituted for this purpose,   as  is  demonstrated  in  the
secondary aluminum industry.

The casting methods used in aluminum forming can be divided into three
classes:

    °    direct chill casting
    °    continuous casting
    0    stationary casting.

The process variations among these techniques affect both the metallic
properties  of  the  aluminum  that is cast and the characteristics of
associated  wastewater  streams.
Direct Chill Casting.  Vertical direct chill casting  is  performed  at
57  plants  and is the most widely used method of casting aluminum for
subsequent forming.  The  production  distribution  is  summarized  as
follows:   of  the  51  direct chill casting operations for which 1977
production data was available, 55 percent produced  less  than   23,000
kkg (25,000 tons) of aluminum and aluminum alloys;  73 percent produced
less  than 45,000 kkg  (50,000 tons); and 90 percent produced less than
180,000 kkg (200,000 tons).  Direct chill casting is  characterized  by
continuous  solidification of the metal while it is being poured.  The
length of an ingot  cast  using  this  method  is   determined  by  the
vertical   distance  it   is  allowed  to  drop  rather  than  by mold
dimensions.

As shown in Figure III-9  molten aluminum is tapped  from  the  melting
furnace  and  flows through a distributor channel into a shallow mold.
Noncontact cooling water  circulates within this mold  causing solidifi-
cation of the aluminum.   The  base  of  the  mold   is attached  to   a
hydraulic  cylinder  which  is gradually lowered as pouring continues.
As the solidified aluminum leaves the mold it is sprayed with  contact
cooling  water  reducing  the  temperature  of the  forming ingot.  The
cylinder continues to  lower into a tank of water, causing  cooling  of
the ingot as it is immersed.  When the cylinder has reached its  lowest
position,  pouring  stops and  the ingot is lifted from the pit.  The
hydraulic cylinder is  then raised and positioned for  another  casting
cycle.

In direct chill casting,  lubrication of the mold is required to  ensure
proper  ingot  quality.   Lard or castor oil is usually applied  before
casting begins and may be reapplied during  the  drop.   Much  of  the
lubricant   volatilizes   on  contact  with  the  molten  aluminum  but
                                    21

-------
ro
ro
         FURNACE TEr

                                              -^.DISTRIBUTOR TROUGH
                         j / / / / / s^r? / j / / j / > y
                LIQUID  METAL
                SOLIDIFIED INGOT-

I
                                      NONCONTACT COOLED MOLD
                                      CONTACT COOLING SPRAY
                                          CONTACT  COOLING

                                            WATER  TANK
                                     HYDRAULIC  CYLINDER
                                 '*>-'
                                 I
                FIGURE IH-9   DIRECT  CHILL  CASTING

-------
contamination of the contact cooling water with oil and  oil  residues
does occur.

Continuous  Casting.  Of the aluminum forming category plants surveyed
14 use continuous instead of, or in addition to, direct chill  casting
methods.    The  production  distribution is summarized as follows:  of
the 13 continuous casting operations for which  1977  production  data
was  available, 54 percent produced less than 18,000 kkg (20,000 tons)
of aluminum and aluminum alloys; 69 percent produced less than  27,000
kkg  (30,000  tons)  and  100  percent  produced  less than 36,000 kkg
(40,000 tons).  Unlike  direct  chill  casting,  no  restrictions  are
placed  on  the  length  of  the  casting  and  it is not necessary to
interrupt  production  to  remove  the  cast  product.   The  use   of
continuous  casting  eliminates  or  reduces  the degree of subsequent
rolling required.

A relatively new technology, continuous casting of aluminum first came
into  practice  in  the   1950s.    Since   then,   improvements   and
modifications  have  resulted  in  the  increased use of this process.
Current applications include the casting of  plate,  sheet,  foil  and
rod.   Because continuous casting affects the mechanical properties of
the aluminum cast, the use of continuous casting  is  limited  by  the
alloys  used,  the  nature  of  subsequent  forming operations and the
desired properties of the finished  product.    In  applications  where
continuous  casting  can  be  used, the following advantages have been
cited:

    °    increased flexibility in the dimensions of the cast product.
    °    low capital costs, as little as 10-15  percent of the cost of
         conventional direct chill casting and  hot rolling methods.
    0    low energy requirements, reducing the  amount of energy required
         to produce comparable products by direct chill casting and
         rolling methods by 35-80 percent depending on the product being
         cast.

In addition, the use of continuous casting techniques have been  found
to  significantly reduce or eliminate the use of contact cooling water
and oil lubricants.

A number of different continuous casting processes are currently being
used in the industry.  Although the methods vary  somewhat,  they  are
similar  in  principle  to  one  of  the  three processes  diagrammed
schematically  in Figure I11-10.  The most common method of  continuous
sheet  casting,  shown in Figure III-10A, substitutes a single casting
process for the conventional direct chill casting,  scalping,  heating
and  hot  rolling sequence.  The typical continuous sheet casting  line
consists of melting and holding furnaces, a caster, pinch roll, shear,
bridle and coiler.  Molten aluminum flows  from the  holding  furnace
through  a  degassing  chamber  or  filter to the caster headbox.  The
level of molten aluminum maintained in the headbox causes the metal  to
                                  23

-------
           -MOLTEN ALUMINUM
                                           SHEAR
                                             '
                                    5
                                  ooo
         HOLDING
         FURNACE
        CASTER ROLLS
        (NONCONTACT
       WATER COOLING)
                                       PINCH
                                       ROLL
                                  oocr
                                 BRIDLE
    ro
     rBELT
    A. CONVENTIONAL SHEET  CASTING



MOLTEN ALUMINUM

  ROD
      SHEAR
^CASTING  WHEEL
 PINCH
 ROLL
ROUGH
TRAIN
                                    ..MOLTEN ALUMINUM
                                       ROTATING
                                      PERFORATED
                                       CYLINDER

                                       COOLING)
                                                           REHEATING
                                                            CHAMBER
                                                                             COMPACTING
                                                                         W  ROLLERS
  (NONCONTACT/MINIMAL CONTACT
   WATER COOLING)
F!N!SHING
 TRAIN
                                                                                    COILER
                                                               B. CASTING SHEET FROM  PELLETS
                  C. WHEEL CASTING OF ROD
                          FIGURE m -10   CONTINUOUS CASTING

-------
flow upwards through the top assembly which distributes  it  uniformly
across  the width of the casting rolls.  The aluminum solidifies as it
leaves the tip and is further  cooled  and  solidified  as  it  passes
through  the internally water-cooled rolls.  It leaves the caster as a
formed sheet and successively passes through pinch rolls, a shear  and
a  tension  bridle  before being wound into a coil.  The cooling water
associated with this method of continuous sheet  casting  never  comes
into contact with the aluminum metal.

Another method of casting continuous aluminum sheet is shown in Figure
III-10B.   This  process  is  not  very common, and its application is
limited, due to the  mechanical  properties  of  the  sheet  produced.
Molten  aluminum  is  poured into a rotating perforated cylinder.  The
droplets formed are air cooled and solidify as  they  fall.   At  this
point  the  pellets  may  either  be  removed for temporary storage or
charged directly to a preheated chamber, hot  rolled  into  sheet  and
coiled.   This  unique  process  design not only eliminates the use of
contact cooling water but also results in considerable  reductions  in
the  amount  of noncontact cooling water required in the production of
sheet.

Several methods of wheel casting, similar to the one shown  in  Figure
III-10C, are currently being used to produce aluminum rod.  Typically,
continuous  rod  is  manufactured on an integrated casting and rolling
line consisting of a wheel belt caster,  pinch  roll,  shear,  rolling
trains  and a coiler.  A ring mold is set into the edge of the casting
wheel.  The mold is bound peripherally  by  a  continuous  belt  which
loops  around the casting wheel and an associated idler wheel.  As the
casting  wheel  rotates,  aluminum  is  poured  into-  the   mold   and
solidifies.    After  a  rotation  of  approximately  180°7  the  belt
separates from the mold, releasing the  still  pliable  aluminum  bar.
The  bar then enters directly into an in-line rolling mill where it is
rolled into rod and  coiled.   Noncontact  cooling  water  circulating
within  the  casting  wheel  is used to control the temperature of the
ring  mold.   Cooling  of  the  belt  is,  for  the  most  part,  also
accomplished  by  noncontact  water, though some plants indicated that
contact with the aluminum bar as it leaves the mold  is  difficult  to
avoid.   Some  models  are  actually  designed  so  that cooling water
circulates within the interior of the wheel and then  flows  over  the
freshly cast bar and onto the belt as the belt separates from the ring
mold.   Because  continuous  casting  incorporates casting and rolling
into  a  single  process,  rolling   lubricants   may   be   required.
Frequently,  oil  emulsions  similar to those used in conventional hot
rolling are used for this purpose.   Graphite solutions may be suitable
for roll lubrication of some continuous casting processes.   In  other
instances, aqueous solutions of magnesia are used.

Stationary   Casting.    Stationary  casting  of  aluminum  ingots  is
practiced at 15 aluminum plants, usually to recycle in-house  aluminum
scrap.   The production distribution is summarized as follows:  of the
                                 25

-------
nine stationary casting operations for which 1977 production data  was
available,  44  percent  produced  less than 1,800 kkg  (2,000 tons) of
aluminum and aluminum alloys; 67 percent produced less  than 4,500  kkg
(5,000  tons);  and  89  percent  produced less than 9,100 kkg (10,000
tons).  In the stationary casting method  molten  aluminum  is  poured
into  cast-iron molds and allowed to air cool.  Lubricants and cooling
water are not required.   Melting and casting procedures  are  dictated
by the intended use of the ingots produced.  Frequently the ingots are
used as raw material for subsequent aluminum forming operations at the
plant.  Other plants sell these ingots for reprocessing.

Rolling

The  rolling process is used to transform cast aluminum ingot into any
one of a number of intermediate or final products.   Pressure  exerted
by  the  rollers  as  aluminum  is  passed  between  them  reduces the
thickness in the metal and may cause work hardening.   Of  the  plants
surveyed,  51 have rolling operations, 21 of which discharge wastewater
directly  to  surface water, 5 discharge indirectly through POTWs, and
25 do not discharge process wastewater.  The geographical location  of
plants  with  aluminum  rolling  operations is given in Figure I11-11.
The annual production of rolled aluminum at these plants  during  1977
varied  from  270  to  580,000 kkg (300 to 640,000 tons) with mean and
median values of 100,000 and 21,000  kkg  (110,000  and  23,000  tons)
respectively.    The  production distribution is summarized as follows:
of the 41 rolling  operations  for  which  1977  production  data  was
available,  37  percent produced less than 18,000 kkg (20,000 tons) of
aluminum and aluminum alloys; 71 percent produced less  than 91,000 kkg
(100,000 tons); and 90 percent produced less than 360,000 kkg (400,000
tons).  At sheet mills,  ingots are heated to temperatures ranging from
400°C to 500°C and hot rolled to form slabs.  Hot rolling  is  usually
followed  by  further  reduction  of thickness on a cold rolling mill.
The hot rolled product is generally limited to plate typically defined
as being greater than or equal to .6.3 mm (0.25 inches)  thick.   Cold
rolled  products are classified as sheet from 6.3 mm to 0.15 mm (0.249
inches to 0.006 inches)  thick and foil is below 0.15 mm (0.006 inches)
thick.

Square ingots cast by the direct chill method described previously are
often used in the production of wire, rod and  bar.   The  ingots  are
usually  reduced  by  hot  rolling  to blooms.  Additional hot or cold
rolling may be used to produce rod, bar or wire.  Rod   is  defined  as
having  a  solid  round  cross-section 3/8 inches or more in diameter.
Bar is also identified by a cross section  with  3/8  inches  or  more
between   two   parallel   sides,  but  it  is  not  round.   Wire  is
characterized by a diameter of less than 3/8 inches.

Although  the  design  of  rolling  mills  varies  considerably,   the
principle  behind the process is essentially the same.  At the rolling
mill aluminum is passed through a  set  of  rolls  which  reduces  the
                                26

-------
 ! 0
  I
D-DIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
I-INDIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
Z-ZERO PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
              FIGURE HE-II  GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION  OF  PLANTS
                              WITH  HOT/COLD   ROLLING

-------
thickness  of  the  metal  and  increases its length.  Two common roll
configurations are shown in Figure 111-13.   Multiple  passes  through
the  rolls  are  usually required and mills are frequently designed to
allow rolling in  the  reverse  direction.   For  wire,  rod  and  bar
products, grooves in the upper and lower rolls account for the various
reductions in cross sectional area.

As  will be discussed later in this section, heat treatment is usually
required before and between stages of the rolling process.  Ingots are
usually made homogeneous in grain structure prior to  hot  rolling  in
order  to  remove  the effects of casting on the aluminum's mechanical
properties.   Annealing is typically required during  cold  rolling  to
keep  the metal ductile and remove the effects of work-hardening.  The
kind and degree  of  heat  treatment  applied  depends  on  the  alloy
involved,  the  nature  of  the  rolling  operation and the properties
desired in the product.

It is necessary to use  a  cooling  and  lubricating  compound  during
rolling to prevent excessive wear on the rolls, to prevent adhesion of
aluminum  to the rolls, and to maintain a suitable and uniform rolling
temperature.    Oil-in-water  emulsions,  stabilized  with  emulsifying
agents  such  as soaps and other polar organic materials, are used for
this purpose  in  hot  rolling  operations.   Emulsion  concentrations
usually vary between 5 percent and 10 percent oil.  Evaporation of the
lubricant as it is sprayed on the hot metal serves to cool the rolling
process.   Mist  eliminators  may  be used to recover rolling emulsion
which is dispersed to the atmosphere.   The  emulsions  are  typically
filtered  to  remove  fines  and  other  contaminants and recirculated
through the mills.  The use of deionized water to replace  evaporative
and   carryover   losses   and   the   addition  of  bactericides  and
antioxidizing agents are practiced at many plants to increase the life
of the  emulsions.   Nevertheless,  the  emulsions  eventually  become
rancid or degraded by biological oxidation and must be eliminated from
circulation  either  by  continuous bleed or periodic discharge.  Most
cold rolling operations use mineral oil or kerosene  based  lubricants
rather  than  water  based  compounds  to  avoid staining the aluminum
surface.  Emulsions are used  for  cold  rolling,  however,  in  other
countries and, to a more limited extent, in the United States.

The  steel  rolls  used  in  hot  and  cold rolling operations require
periodic machining to remove aluminum buildup and to  grind  away  any
cracks  or  imperfections  that  appear  on  the surface of the rolls.
Although the survey of the industry indicated that roll grinding  with
water  is  practiced, the use of an oil-in-water emulsion is much more
common.  This emulsion is usually recycled and periodically discharged
after treatment with other  emulsion  waste  streams  at  the  plants.
However,  some  plants  have  demonstrated  that the discharge of roll
grinding emulsions can be avoided by in-line  removal  using  magnetic
separation  of steel fines from the emulsion or filtration techniques.
                                   28

-------
                       (l
                    o o
              A. TWO-HIGH  REVERSING MILL
         B. THREE-HIGH  CONTINUOUS ROLLING  MILL
FIGURE m-13  COMMON  ROLLING MILL CONFIGURATIONS



                          29

-------
With this treatment, the emulsion can be recycled indefinitely with no
bleed stream other than carry-over on the rolls.

Extrusion

In the extrusion process, high pressures are applied to a cast  billet
of  aluminum,  forcing  the  metal to flow through a die orifice.  The
resulting product is an elongated shape  or  tube  of  uniform  cross-
sectional  area.  In all, 157 extrusion plants were identified in this
survey.  Of these, 96 indicated that no wastewater is discharged  from
aluminum  forming operations at the plant, 29 identified themselves as
direct dischargers and 32 indicated indirect discharge of the  process
effluent  to POTWs.   However, in subsequent investigation of extrusion
practices it became apparent that these figures may be misleading.  At
many of the extrusion plants contacted, personnel did not realize that
die cleaning rinse water was considered  to  be  an  aluminum  forming
wastewater  stream as defined in this study.  For this reason, some of
the plants classified as zero discharge are believed to be discharging
this effluent stream either to surface waters or POTWs.

The geographical location of the extrusion plants is shown  in  Figure
II1-14.   Annual  production  of  extruded  products from these plants
ranged between 6.8 kkg and 68,000 kkg (7.5 tons and  75,000  tons)  in
1977.   The  production distribution is summarized as follows:  of the
146 extrusion operations for which 1977 production data was available,
49 percent produced less than 3,600 kkg (4,000 tons) of  aluminum  and
aluminum  alloys;  82  percent  produced  less  than 9,100 kkg (10,000
tons); and 94 percent produced less than 18,000 kkg (20,000 tons).

Extrusions are manufactured using either a mechanical or  a  hydraulic
extrusion  press.  The direct extrusion process is shown schematically
in Figure 111-16.  A heated cylindrical  billet  is  placed  into  the
ingot  chamber  and  the  dummy block and ram are placed into position
behind it.  Pressure is exerted on the ram by hydraulic or  mechanical
means,  forcing  the  metal  to  flow  through  the  die opening.  The
extrusion is sawed off next to the die, and the dummy block and  ingot
butt  are  released.   Hollow  shapes  are  produced with the use of a
mandrel positioned in the die opening so that the aluminum  is  forced
to  flow  around  it.  A less common technique, indirect extrusion, is
similar except that in this method  the  die  is  forced  against  the
billet  extruding  the metal in the opposite direction through the ram
stem.  A dummy block is not used in indirect extrusion.

Although aluminum can be extruded cold, it is usually first heated  to
a  temperature  ranging  from  375°C  to  525°C,  so that little work-
hardening  will  be  imposed  on  the  product.   Heat  treatment   is
frequently  used  after  extrusion  to  attain  the desired mechanical
properties.  Heat treatment techniques will be described later in this
section.  At some plants, contact cooling of the extrusion (also known
as press heat treatment quench) is practiced as it leaves  the  press.
                                   30

-------
D-DIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
I-INDIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
Z-ZERO PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
PUERTO RICO- Z-2
              FIGURE ILT-14  GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF PLANTS
                               WITH  EXTRUSION

-------
CO
ro
Z
                  PISTON
                                 -RAM /-DUMMY BLOCK
                                           •INGOT
                                               DIE
                                 •INGOT
             DIE
CONTAINER   HOLDER
                                                      EXTRUSION
                   FIGURE HI-16  DIRECT  EXTRUSION

-------
This  can  be done one of three ways, with a water spray near the die,
by immersion in a water tank adjacent  to  the  run-out  table  or  by
passing  the aluminum through a water wall.  A third wastewater stream
which may be associated with the  extrusion  process  is  dummy  block
cooling water.  Following an extrusion, the dummy block drops from the
press  and  is  cooled  before  being used again.  Air cooling is most
commonly used for this purpose but at a few plants water  is  used  to
quench the dummy blocks.

The  extrusion  process  requires  the  use  of a lubricant to prevent
adhesion of the aluminum to the die and ingot container walls.  In hot
extrusion, limited amounts of lubricant are applied to the ram and die
face or to the billet ends.  For cold extrusion, the container  walls,
billet surfaces and die orifice must be lubricated with a thin film of
viscous  or  solid  lubricant.   The  lubricant  most commonly used in
extrusion is graphite   in  an  oil  or  water  base.   A  less  common
technique,  spraying liquid nitrogen on the billet prior to extrusion,
is also used.  The nitrogen vaporizes during the extrusion process and
acts as a lubricant.

The steel dies used in  the extrusion process require frequent dressing
and repairing  to  insure  the  necessary  dimensional  precision  and
surface  quality of the product.  The aluminum that has adhered to the
die orifice is typically removed by  soaking  the  die  in  a  caustic
solution.   The  aluminum  is  dissolved   and  later  precipitated  as
aluminum oxide.  The caustic bath is followed by a water rinse of  the
dies.  The rinse is frequently discharged  as a wastewater stream.

Forging

Forging  of aluminum alloys  is practiced at  15 plants located as shown
in Figure 111-17.  Of those  plants,   10   discharge  aluminum  forming
wastewater  indirectly  to   POTWs,   and  one  discharges this effluent
directly to  surface  waters.   The  remaining   four  plants  have  no
discharge  of  process  wastewater.   The  production  distribution is
summarized as follows:  of the 12 forging  operations  for  which  1977
production  data  was available, 67  percent produced less than 910 kkg
(1,000 tons) of aluminum and aluminum alloys; 83 percent produced less
than 4,500 kkg (5,000 tons); and 92  percent produced less  than  9,100
kkg  (10,000 tons).

There  are  three  basic  methods of forging practiced  in the aluminum
forming category:

     0  closed die forging
     °  open die forging
     0  rolled ring forging.
                                   33

-------
D- DIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
I- INDIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
Z- ZERO PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
              FIGURED!-17  GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION  OF  PLANTS
                               WITH  FORGING

-------
In each of these techniques pressure is exerted  on  dies  or  in  the
latter case rolls,  forcing the heated stock to take the desired shape.
The three methods are shown schematically in Figure II1-19.

Closed  die  forging,  the  most  prevalent method, is accomplished by
hammering or squeezing the aluminum between two steel dies, one  fixed
to  the  hammer  or  press  ram  and  the other to the anvil.  Forging
hammers, mechanical presses and hydraulic presses can be used for  the
closed  die forging of aluminum alloys.  The heated stock is placed in
the lower die and,  by one or more blows of the ram, forced to take the
shape of the die  set.   In  closed-die  forging  aluminum  is  shaped
entirely  within  the  cavity  created by these two dies.  The die set
comes together to  completely  enclose  the  forging,  giving  lateral
restraint t© the flow of the metal.

The process of open die forging is similar to that described above but
in  this  method  the  shape  of the forging is determined by manually
turning the stock and regulating the blows of the hammer or strokes of
the press.  Open die forging requires a great deal of skill  and  only
simple,  roughly  shaped forgings can be produced.  Its use is usually
restricted to items produced in small quantities  and  to  development
work where the cost of making closed type dies is prohibitive.

The  process  of  rolled  ring forging, as shown in Figure III-19C, is
used in the manufacture  of  seamless  rings.   A  hollow  cylindrical
billet  is  rotated  between a mandrel and pressure roll to reduce its
thickness and increase its diameter.

Proper lubrication of  the  dies   is  essential  in  forging  aluminum
alloys.   Collodial  graphite  in  either  a water or an oil medium is
usually sprayed onto the dies  for  this  purpose.   Particulates  and
smoke  may  be  generated  from  the  partial  combustion of oil-based
lubricants as they contact the hot forging dies.  In those  cases  air
pollution controls may be required.

Drawing

Of  the plants surveyed, 78 are involved in the drawing of tube, wire,
rod and bar.  The geographical location of these plants  is  shown  in
Figure  II1-20.  No aluminum forming wastewater is discharged at 55 of
the plants.  Of the remainder, 12 discharge directly .to surface  water
and  11 discharge indirectly to POTWs.  The production distribution is
summarized as follows:  of the 54 drawing operations  for  which  1977
production  data  was available, 46 percent produced less than 910 kkg
(1,000 tons) of aluminum and aluminum alloys; 76 percent produced less
than 4,500 kkg (5,000 tons); and 89 percent produced less  than  9,100
kkg (10,000 tons).

The term drawing, when it applies to the manufacture of tube, rod, bar
or wire, refers to the pulling of metal through a die or succession of
                                  35

-------
                  PISTON  ROD
                      RAM
                   TOP  DIE
A

— 4. 	
1 UrtVJlJMb
BOTTOM DIE
ANVIL CAP
ANVIL
f^\
*..—.. A
	 J. 	
A. CLOSED  DIE FORGING       B. OPEN DIE FORGING
                   RING
    EDGING
     ROLLS
                                      PRESSURE ROLL
                         MANDREL
               C. ROLLED  RING  FORGING
             FIGURE m-19   FORGING

                      36

-------
   I
D- DIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
I-INDIRECT PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
Z-ZERO PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PLANTS
              FIGURE in-20 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION  OF PLANTS
                              WITH  TUBE ,  WIRE ,  ROD AND BAR DRAWING.

-------
dies  to  reduce  its  diameter,  alter  the  cross sectional shape or
increase its hardness.   In the drawing of aluminum tubing, one end of
the extruded tube is swaged to form a  solid  point  and  then  passed
through  the  die.  A clamp, known as a bogie, grips the swaged end of
tubing, as shown in Figure 111-22.  A mandrel is inserted into the die
orifice and the tubing is pulled between the mandrel and die, reducing
the outside diameter and the wall thickness of the tubing.  Wire, rod,
and bar drawing is accomplished in a similar manner but  the  aluminum
is drawn through a simple die orifice without using a mandrel.

In  order  to  ensure uniform drawing temperatures and avoid excessive
wear on the dies and mandrels used, it is essential  that  a  suitable
lubricant  be applied during drawing.  A wide variety of lubricants is
used for this purpose.  Heavier draws may require oil-based lubricants
but oil-in-water emulsions  are  used  for  many  applications.   Soap
solutions  may  also  be  used for some of the lighter draws.  Drawing
oils are usually  recycled  until  their  lubricating  properties  are
exhausted.

Intermediate  annealing  is frequently required between draws in order
to restore the ductility lost by cold working of  the  drawn  product.
Degreasing of the aluminum may be required to prevent burning of heavy
lubricating oils in the annealing furnaces.

Heat Treatment

Heat  treatment  is  an integral part of aluminum forming practiced at
nearly every plant in the category.  It is frequently  used  both  in-
process  and as a final step in forming to give the aluminum alloy the
desired mechanical properties.  The general types  of  heat  treatment
applied are:

    °    homogenizing, to increase the workability and help control
         recrystallization and grain growth following casting.
    0    annealing, to soften work-hardened and heat treated alloys, to
         relieve stress and to stabilize properties and dimensions.
    0    solution heat treatment, to improve mechanical properties by
         maximizing the concentration of hardening constituents in solid
         solution.
    0    artificial aging, to provide hardening by precipitation of
         constituents from solid solution.

Homogenizing,  annealing  and  aging  are dry processes while solution
heat treatment typically involves significant  quantities  of  contact
cooling water.

In  the casting process, large crystals of intermetallic compounds are
distributed heterogeneously throughout the ingot.   Homogenization  of
the  cast  ingot  provides  a more uniform distribution of the soluble
constituents within the alloy.  By reducing the brittleness caused  by
                                38

-------
CO
vo



S//SS//S / / x
////;;;///.
^TUBE
L
\
/
/
' /
^Z^-r
^f-^
	 1
-DIE
iOLDE
/-DIE
/-MANDREL ^SWAGGED END
/ / OF TUBE
/
,,,,,,,,>>*> > ^L u^_
< , , f < , < , < j^vW
^DRAWN TUBE ^^
R
                    FIGURE HT-22  TUBE DRAWING

-------
 casting,  homogenization  prepares  the  ingot  for subsequent forming
 operations.  The need for homogenization and the time and temperatures
 required are dependent on the alloy  involved,  the  ingot  size,   the
 method  of  casting  used  and  the  nature  of the subsequent forming
 operations.  Typically,  the ingot is heated to a  temperature  ranging
 between  800°F  and  1,200°F  and held at that temperature for 4 to 48
 hours.  The ingots are then allowed to air cool.

 Annealing is used by plants in the aluminum forming category to remove
 the effects of strain-hardening or solution heat treatment.   The alloy
 is raised to  its  recrystallization  temperature,   typically  between
 650°F and 775°F.   Non-heat-treatable,  strain-hardened alloys need  only
 be  held  in  the  furnace until the annealing temperature is reached-
 heat-treatable alloys usually require a  detention  time  of  2  or  3
 hours.     In  continuous  furnaces  the  metal  is  raised  to  higher
 temperatures,  i.e.,  800  °F to 850°F,  and detained in the  furnace   for
 30  to  60   seconds.   Once  removed from the annealing furnace,  it is
 essential that the heat-treatable alloys be cooled to 500°F  or  lower
 at  a  slow  controlled   rate.    After annealing,  the aluminum is  in a
 ductile, more  workable   condition  suitable  for  subsequent  forminq
 operations.

 Solution heat treatment is accomplished by raising the temperature of
 a  heat-treatable  alloy to levels approaching the  eutectic temperature,
 where it is  held   for the  required  length  of   time,   and  quenched
 rapidly.   As  a   result of this process,  the metallic constituents in
 the  alloy are held in a  super-saturated solid solution,  improving   its
 mechanical    properties.     The  metal   temperatures  recommended   for
 solution heat treatment  of formed aluminum alloys typically range  from
 830  op  to 1,025°F.  The  required length of time the metal must be  held
 at this  temperature varies from  1   to  48  hours.    In  the  case  of
 extrusion,   certain   aluminum  alloys   can  be solution  heat treated
 immediately  following the extrusion  process.   In  this procedure, known
 as press heat   treatment,   the   metal   is   extruded  at  the  required
 temperatures   and  quenched  with contact cooling  water as  it emerges
 from  the die  or press.

 The  quenching  techniques   used  in   solution heat   treatment    are
 frequently  critical  in   achieving  the desired mechanical properties.
 The  sensitivity  of  alloys  to quenching   varies,   but delays    in
 transferring   the  product  from the  furnace  to the  quench, a quenching
 rate that is   incorrect   or   not uniform,   and  the  quality  of   the
 quenching  medium used can  all  have  serious  detrimental  effects.   With
 few exceptions, contact  cooling water  is used to quench  solution   heat
 treated  products.    Immersion   quenching   in  contact   cooling water
 typically ranging from 150<>F  to  212QF,  is   used   for   most  aluminum
formed  products.   Forgings  can  be quenched at cooler temperatures,
 i.e., 140 op to 160°F.  Spray or  flush  quenching  is  sometimes used  to
quench  thick  products.   Solution  heat  treated  forgings  of  certain
alloys can be quenched using an  air blast  rather than a  water  medium.
                                   40

-------
Air  quenching can also be used for certain extrusions following press
heat treatment.

Artificial aging, also  known  as  precipitation  heat  treatment,  is
applied  to  some  aluminum  alloys in order to cause precipitation of
super-saturated constituents in the metal.  The alloy is heated  to  a
relatively  low  temperature, i.e., 250 °F to 400°F, for several hours
and then air cooled.  Artificial aging is  frequently  used  following
solution  heat  treatment to develop the maximum hardness and ultimate
tensile and yield strength in  the  metal.   For  certain  alloys  the
mechanical  properties are maximized by sequentially applying solution
heat treatment, cold working and artificial aging.

At elevated temperatures, the presence of water vapors can disrupt the
oxide film on the surface of the product, especially if the atmosphere
is also contaminated  with  ammonia  or  sulfur  compounds.   Possible
detrimental    effects    include    surface   blistering,   porosity,
discoloration and a decrease in tensile properties.  When this occurs,
it is necessary to control the  atmosphere  within  a  heat  treatment
furnace.    A  number  of  techniques  can  be  used  to  control  the
atmosphere.  At some aluminum forming plants natural gas  is burned  to
generate  an inert atmosphere.  The resulting flue  gases  are cooled to
remove moisture and are  introduced  to  the  heat   treatment  furnace.
Under  the  proper conditions the same fuel that heats the furnace can
be used for this purpose.  Because the high  sulfur content  in  most
furnace   fuels,  however,  the  off-gases  require  treatment  by  wet
scrubbers before they  can   be  used  as   inert  atmosphere  for  heat
treatment.

Surface Treatment

A  number of  chemical   or  electrochemical treatments may be applied
after the forming of aluminum or aluminum  alloy  products.   Solvent,
acid and  alkaline solutions, and detergents can be  used to clean  soils
such  as  oil  and grease from the  aluminum surface. Acid and alkaline
solutions can  also be  used  to etch  the product or   brighten   its
surface.   Deoxidizing   and  desmutting   are  accomplished  with  acid
solutions.  Surface treatments  and their  associated rinses are usually
combined  in a  single line of successive  tanks.   Wastewater  discharge
from  these   lines  are   typically  commingled  prior  to treatment or
discharge.  In some cases rinsewater from  one treatment  is  reused   in
the  rinse  of  another.   These   treatments  may be used for cleaning
purposes, to provide the desired finish  for an aluminum formed product
or they may simply  prepare the  aluminum  surface for subsequent coating
by processes  such as anodizing,  conversion  coating,  electroplating,
painting  and  porcelain enameling.   A number of  different terms  are
commonly  used  in referring to sequences  of surface  treatments,   e.g.,
pickling  lines,  cleaning   lines,  etch  lines, preparation  lines,  and
pretreatment  lines.  The terminology depends, to  some  degree,  on  the
purpose   of   the lines,  but   usage   varies  within  the  industry.   In
                                 41

-------
addition,  the   characteristics  of  wastewater  generated  by  surface
treatment   is  determined by the unit components of the  treatment  lines
rather  than the specific purpose of  its  application.   In  order  to
simplify   discussion,  the term cleaning and etch line  is used in this
document to refer  to  any  surface  treatment  processes  other  than
solvent cleaning.

In   situations   where  surface  treatment   is  immediately followed by
coating processes, wastewater from the the  etching, conversion coating
and  painting operations will be regulated under the coil coating  point
source  category  and  will  not  be  considered  as  aluminum  forming
wastewater.

Solvent Cleaning.  Solvent cleaners are used to remove oil and grease
compounds from the surface of  aluminum  products.   This  process  is
usually used  to  remove  cold  rolling and drawing lubricants before
products are annealed, finished, or shipped.  There  are  three   basic
methods  of  solvent  cleaning:   vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and
emulsified solvent degreasing.

Vapor degreasing, the predominant method of solvent  cleaning  in the
aluminum forming industry, uses the hot vapors of chlorinated solvents
to remove oils,  greases and waxes.  In simplest form, vapor degreasing
units consist of an open steel tank similar to the one  shown in Figure
II1-23.   Solvent  is  heated at the bottom of a steel  tank and,  as it
boils,  a hot solvent  vapor  is  generated.   Because   of  its  higher
density,  the vapor displaces air and fills the tank.   Near the top of
the tank,  condenser coils provide a cooling zone in which  the  vapors
condense and are prevented from rising above a fixed level.  When cool
aluminum  forming  products are lowered into the hot vapor the solvent
condenses onto the product, dissolving oils present  on the  surface.
Vapor  degreasing  units may also incorporate immersion or spraying of
the hot solvent  for more effective cleaning.  Conveyor  systems similar
to the one shown in Figure II1-23 are used  in some applications.

The solvents most commonly used  for  vapor  degreasing in   aluminum
forming   are  trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and perchloro-
ethylene.   Selection of the solvent depends on  a  number  of  factors
including  solvent  boiling point, product dimension and alloy makeup,
and the nature of the oil, grease or wax to be  removed.   Stabilizing
agents are usually added to the solvents.

Vapor  degreasing  solvents  are frequently recovered by distillation.
Solvents can be distilled either within the degreasing  unit itself  or
in  a  solvent  recovery  still.   The sludge residue generated in the
recovery process is toxic and may be flammable.  Suitable handling and
disposal procedures must be followed  and are discussed in  subsequent
sections of this report (principally in Section VII).
                                42

-------
     CONDENSATE-
        TROUGH
                                 	3 WATER JACKET
                                       (NONCONTACT COOLING)
            VAPOR  ZONE
                                       SOLVENT
                     HEATING ELEMENT

                -CLEANOUT DOOR

            A.  OPEN TOP VAPOR  DEGREASER
SHEET
      VAPOR
       ZONE
               CHEATED SOLVENT


B.  STRIP CONVEYORIZED DEGREASER
                                                WATER
                                           /  JACKET
          FIGURE m-23   VAPOR  DECREASING
                          43

-------
Cold  cleaning  is  another  solvent  cleaning  method, involving hand
wiping, spraying or immersion of metal parts in  organic  solvents  to
remove oil, grease and other contaminants from the surface.  A variety
of  solvents  or  solvent blends, primarily petroleums and chlorinated
hydrocarbons, are used  in  cold  cleaning.   These  solvents  can  be
reclaimed  by  distillation  either  on-site or by an outside recovery
service.  For highly contaminated solvents, however,  reclamation  may
not  be cost-effective.  In general, cold cleaning is not as effective
as vapor degreasing treatment,  but the costs are considerably lower.


Emulsified solvents can also be used to clean aluminum  but  they  are
less  efficient  than  pure  solvents  and their use is limited to the
removal of light oil and grease.  Reclamation of  emulsified  solvents
is not economically feasible at this time.

Because  of  the  toxic  nature  of  many  cleaning solvents, emission
controls may be required.

Alkaline and Acid Cleaning.  Alkaline  cleaning  is  the  most  common
method  of cleaning aluminum surfaces.  The alkaline solutions vary in
pH and chemical  composition.   Inhibitors  are  frequently  added  to
minimize  or  prevent attack on the metal.  Alkaline cleaners are able
to emulsify vegetable and animal oils and greases to a certain  degree
and  are  effective  in  the  removal  of  lard,  oil  and  other such
compounds.  Mineral oils and  grease,  on  the  other  hand,  are  not
emulsified  by  alkaline  cleaning  solutions  and, therefore, are not
removed as effectively.

Aluminum products can be cleaned with an alkaline solution  either  by
immersion   or  spray.   The  solution  is  usually  maintained  at  a
temperature ranging between 140°F and 180°F.  Rinsing, preferably with
warm water, should follow the alkaline cleaning process to prevent the
solution from drying on the product.

Acid solutions can also be used for aluminum  cleaning  but  they  are
less  effective  then  either  alkaline  or  solvent cleaning systems.
Their use is generally limited to the  removal  of  oxides  and  smut.
Acid  cleaning solutions usually have a pH ranging from 4.0 to 5.7 and
temperatures  between  room  temperature  and  180°F.   The  solutions
typically   contain   one   or  two  acids,  e.g.,  nitric,  sulfuric,
phosphoric, chromic, and hydrofluoric acids.

Chemical and Electrochemical Brightening.  The surface of aluminum  or
aluminum  alloys  can be chemically or electrochemically brightened to
improve surface smoothness and reflectance.  Chemical  brightening  is
accomplished  by  immersing  the  product  in baths of concentrated or
dilute acid solutions.  The acids most commonly used for this  purpose
are  sulfuric,  nitric,  phosphoric,  acetic  and, to a lesser extent,
                                44

-------
chromic and hydrofluoric.  Other constituents, such as copper or  lead
salts,  glycerol and ethylene glycol may be added as well.

Aluminum  can  also  be  brightened  by  electrochemical methods.  The
product is immersed in  an  electrolyte  bath,  through  which  direct
current  is passed.  The electrolytic solutions are acidic, containing
hydrofluoric, phosphoric, chromic, or sulfuric acid, or  they  may  be
alkaline,  containing sodium carbonate or trisodium phosphate.

Etching.   Chemical etchants are used to reduce or eliminate scratches
and other surface  imperfections,  to  remove  oxides  or  to  provide
surface  roughness.   The  most  widely  used  etchant   is  an aqueous
solution of sodium hydroxide.  The concentration  and  temperature  of
the caustic bath is carefully controlled to provide the  desired degree
of  etching.   In  general,  the sodium hydroxide concentration ranges
from 1 to 5 percent and the solution is maintained between  120°F  and
180°F.   It is important that products are rinsed immediately following
caustic etching.

As  a  result  of  etching with a caustic solution, the  surface of the
product may be discolored.   Alloying  constituents  such  as  copper,
manganese and silicon as well as other impurities in the metal are not
dissolved  in the  etchant and form a dark residual film  referred to as
smut.   In  order  to  alleviate  this  problem,  caustic  etching  is
frequently followed by desmutting.

For  specific aluminum alloys or desired finishes, acid  etching may be
used.  Aluminum-silicon  alloys  are frequently  etched  in  a  solution
containing  nitric and  hydrofluoric  acids.  Fumes generated by acid
etching are corrosive and may constitute  a  health  hazard  requiring
suitable  air  pollution  control.   In general, etching with acids is
more expensive and less  effective than caustic etching.

Desmuttinq and Deoxidizing.  Acid solutions are used in  desmutting and
deoxidizing  aluminum  products.   Desmutting,  a  process  frequently
applied  following caustic etching,  is accomplished by immersion in an
acid solution that dissolves the residual film.  Although a number  of
acid  solutions can be used  to  remove smut, dilute nitric acid is most
commonly employed.

Deoxidizers are acid solutions  formulated  to  remove  specific  oxide
films  and  coatings  from the  aluminum products.  The oxides may have
been formed naturally or they may result from heat treatment or  other
surface  treatments.   Deoxidizing   solutions  can  be   composed  of  a
variety of acids including chromic,  phosphoric, sulfuric,  nitric  and
hydrofluoric acid.

Ancillary Operations
                                 45

-------
 Sawing.    Sawing  may  be  required  for  a number of aluminum forming
 processes.  Before  ingots  can  be  used  as  stock  for  rolling  or
 extrusion,  the   ingot  may  require  scalping or sawing to a suitable
 length.  Following processes such as rolling, extrusion, and  drawing,
 the   aluminum products may  be sawed.  The circular saws and band saws
 used  generally require  a  cutting  lubricant  in  order  to  minimize
 friction  and  act  as  a  coolant.  Oil-in-water emulsions or mineral
 based oils are usually applied to the sides of the blade as  a  spray.
 In  some  cases,  a heavy grease or wax may be used as a saw lubricant.
 Normally, saw oils are not discharged as  a  wastewater  stream.   The
 lubricants  frequently  are  carried  over  on  the product or removed
 together with the saw chips for reprocessing.  In some cases, however,
 recycle  and  discharge  of  a  low-volume  saw  lubricant  stream  is
 practiced.

 Swaging and Stamping.  Swaging and stamping are two forming operations
 frequently  associated  with  drawings.   Swaging is often the initial
 step  in drawing tube or wire.  By repeated blows of one or more  pairs
 of  opposing dies a solid point is formed.  The point is then inserted
 through the drawing die and gripped.  In a few cases swaging  is  used
 in    tube  forming  without  a  subsequent  drawing  operation.   Some
 lubricants, such as waxes and kerosene may be used to prevent adhesion
 of the metal or oxide  on  the  swaging  dies.   Stamping  is  another
 operation  frequently  associated with drawing processes.  It may also
 be used to form final products such as foil containers.  The sheet  or
 foil  is  usually lubricated prior to stamping.  None of the plants in
 this  study  reported  discharge  of  either   swaging   or   stamping
 lubricants.

Noncontact  Cooling.   Noncontact cooling water is used extensively in
 the aluminum forming  industry.   It  is  required  for  furnaces  and
machinery  used in every forming process.  In most cases, the water is
recycled through a cooling tower  with  a  bleed  stream  to  avoid  a
buildup  in  solids  concentration.   Where hydraulic oils are used in
equipment such as the extrusion and  forging  presses,  the  oils  are
cooled  by heat exchange with noncontact water.  Care must be taken to
control leakage of these hydraulic oils and avoid contamination of the
noncontact cooling water stream.
                                46

-------
                              SECTION IV

                      INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Subcategorization  involves  the  identification  and  evaluation   of
factors  that  may  affect  the applicability of uniform and equitable
regulations.  Division of the industry into subcategories  provides  a
mechanism  for  addressing process, product and other variations which
result in distinct wastewater characteristics.  The following  factors
were  considered in determining subcategories for the aluminum forming
industry:

    o    Production processes employed
    o    Wastewater characteristics and treatment technologies
    o    Unit operations
    o    Products manufactured
    o    Process water usage
    o    Raw materials
    o    Size
    o    Age
    o    Location.

In addition to  considering  how  the  individual  factors  influenced
Subcategorization,  interrelationship  between  different  factors was
also evaluated.

After considering  the  above  factors,  it  was  concluded  that  the
aluminum  forming  industry  is  comprised  of  separate  and distinct
processes with enough variability  in products and  wastes  to  require
categorization   into   a   number  of  discrete  subcategories.   The
individual processes,  wastewater  characteristics,  and  treatability
comprise the most significant factors in the Subcategorization of this
complex  industry.  The remaining factors either served to support and
substantiate the Subcategorization or were shown to  be  inappropriate
bases  for  Subcategorization.   Discussion  on each of the factors is
presented later in this chapter.

From this evaluation, the following subcategories were selected:

1.  Rolling with Neat Oils
2.  Rolling with Emulsions
3.  Extrusion
4.  Forging
5.  Drawing with Neat Oils
6.  Drawing with Emulsions.
                                  47

-------
Effluent limitations and standards, establishing mass  limitations  on
the  discharge  of  pollutants,  are  applied to specific dischargers,
through the permit issuance process.   To  allow  application  of  the
national  standards to plants in a wide range of production sizes, the
mass  of  pollutant  discharge  must  be  referenced  to  a  unit   of
production.   This  factor is referred  to as a production normalizing
parameter   (PNP)   and   is    developed    in    conjunction    with
subcategorization.   The  selection  of  PNPs  provides  the means for
compensating for differences in production  rates  among  plants  with
similar  products  and  processes  within  a uniform set of mass-based
effluent limitations and standards.

To establish effluent limitations that relate the mass  of  pollutants
discharged  to  production within the above subcategories, appropriate
PNPs had to be selected.  In this analysis, the following alternatives
were considered:

    o    Mass of aluminum processed
    o    Number of products processed
    o    Area of aluminum processed
    o    Mass of process chemicals used.

The evaluation of alternative PNPs involved consideration of the  same
factors  used  in  analyzing subcategorization.  It was concluded that
mass of aluminum processed is the most appropriate  PNP  on  which  to
base effluent limitations for this category.

SUBCATEGORY SELECTION

Subcateqory Selection Rationale

In  order  to  regulate  the  effluent discharge from aluminum forming
operations, it is necessary to  divide  the  category  into  distinct,
homogeneous  segments.  In selecting the subcategories, an attempt was
made to minimize the number of subcategories, but at  the  same  time,
provide sufficient segmentation to account for the differences between
processes  and  associated  wastewater  streams.  Because the aluminum
forming category encompasses a variety  of  operations  that  generate
wastewaters   with  differing  characteristics,  it  is  necessary  to
consider a combination of factors when establishing subcategorization.

The most important factor identified for subcategorization is the type
of (aluminum forming) production process employed at  a  plant.   Four
subcategories  are  established  on  this basis — rolling, extrusion,
forging, and drawing — which are readily recognizable by the industry
and permitting authority.  Frequently only one of these  processes  is
practiced  at  any  one  plant, which simplifies regulation.  However,
because of differences in wastewater  characteristics  generated  from
the  above  production  processes  and  the  associated  variations of
wastewater   treatment    technologies,    further    refinement    of
                                  48

-------
subcategorization  was  necessary.  The rolling and drawing operations
were each divided into  two  separate  subcategories  to  account  for
wastewater  streams  contaminated  by  either  emulsified  or neat oil
lubricants,  i.e., rolling with  neat  oils,  rolling  with  emulsions,
drawing with neat oils, and drawing with emulsions.

Further  inspection  of  the entire category indicated that additional
refinement of subcategories would be necessary  in  order  to  develop
reasonable regulations.  Frequently specific unit operations which are
associated with the basic aluminum forming processes may or may not be
present  at  any  individual  plant.  Occurrance of an additional unit
operation at a plant could result in pollutant discharge in excess  of
the  pollutants  generated  from  the basic aluminum forming processes
operations.   For example, one extrusion plant may be  forced  to  heat
treat its extruded product using a quench water bath because of design
or specification requirements, while another facility can air cool its
extrusions.    A second example is a facility required to clean or etch
its product in order to meet  customer  specifications  while  another
facility  would not need this operation.  Because of the large variety
of such circumstances encountered   in  this  industry,  regulation  of
subcategories distinguished solely  by production processes would yield
effluent  limitations  that  are  either too high or too low  for many
facilities.  For instance, consider the extrusion plant example above.
If the regulation were based on  plants  that  require  solution  heat
treatment  of  their  extrusions,   the plant that simply air cools its
product would  be  provided  with   an  unnecessarily  large  pollutant
discharge  allocation.   Because  of  this,  treatment required of the
plant's other waste streams to attain the  total  pollutant  discharge
allocation  would  be  much less stringent.  Alternately,  if the basis
were established on the plant which air cooled the product, the  plant
which   must  use  heat  treatment  quench  water  would   be  unfairly
restricted.

To account for these unit operations, additional  pollutant  discharge
(add-on) allocations were developed to be  used in  conjunction with the
basic  core  allocation.   These add-on allocations are  identified and
regulated under  each of the above listed subcategories.    Add-ons  for
waste  streams   where  a  pollutant discharge  allocation was deemed
necessary are heat treatment quench water,  cleaning  and etch  line
rinses  and  air  pollution  control scrubber waters, direct chill and
continuous rod casting contact cooling water, extrusion  die  cleaning
air  pollution   control  scrubber water, forging air pollution control
scrubber water and annealing atmosphere scrubber water.

Subcateqorization Factors Considered

Each of the factors  considered   in developing  subcategorization   is
discussed   independently  below.    In  evaluating  these   factors  the
following items  were addressed:  the nature of subcategorization  based
on  the  factor  being  considered; the positive and negative aspects  of
                                  49

-------
 the  potential subcategorization; and the potential PNP's that could be
 used in conjunction with this subcategorization scheme.

 Production Processes.  There are four principal  production  processes
 in   the  aluminum  forming industry:  rolling, extrusion, forging, and
 drawing.  Because the above terminology  is  common  to  the  aluminum
 forming  industry,  subcategorization using these four processes would
 be easily recognized and understood.

 Typically, a company will have only one of these process operations at
 an individual plant site, as shown in Table IV-1.   Consequently,  all
 the plant operations associated with that facility would be covered by
 one  subcategory.   Minor  waste  streams  could be easily included as
 additional pollutant  discharge  allocations.   Not  only  would  this
 facilitate ease in understanding the regulations but would also reduce
 difficulties  in  establishing effluent limitations for a given plant.
 Since the industry typically maintains production records for the mass
 of aluminum rolled, extruded, forged and  drawn  the  production  data
 used  in  calculating  limitations  for  a  discharge  permit would be
 readily available.  A limitation based on mass of production would  be
 easily used by permitting authoritites.


                              Table IV-1

               Plants Having Only One Aluminum Forming
                      Production Process On-site

                                Number of plants with    Percent of
Production Process                only this process        total

 1.  Rolling                             23                  38
2.  Extrusion                          140                  89
3.  Forging                             12                  80
4.  Drawing                             85                  81


However,   subcategoriztion  based  simply  on  these  four  production
processes would be inadequate.   One  major  deficiency  is  that  the
presence  or  absence  of  ancilliary  streams, such as heat treatment
quenching, cleaning or etching, are not accounted for.

A second major difficulty with this subcategorization scheme  is  that
 the  wastewater  characteristics and treatment for rolling and drawing
operations are largely dependent on the type of lubricant used.  Waste
streams consiting  of  emulsified  oil  lubricants  require  different
treatment than do waste streams consisting of neat oil lubricants.

 If  properly  addressed, the above difficulties with subcategorization
on the basis of production processes can be  overcome.   As  discussed
                                50

-------
                           TABLE IV-2

             Plants Having Only One Aluminum Forming
                      Subcategory On-Site


                                   # of plants with         % of
Subcategories                      only this process        total

1.  Rolling with neat oils                22                 49
2.  Rolling with emulsions                 1                  4
3.  Extrusion                            140                 89
4.  Forging                               12                 80
5.  Drawing with neat oils                50                 74
6.  Drawing with emulsions or soaps        8                 73
                                 51

-------
 previously,   this  was  done  by  providing additional allocations for
 ancilliary operations and by further refinement  of  the  rolling  and
 drawing  subcategories.   The  industry  can  be  said  to be markedly
 oriented  toward  construction  of  individual  production  facilities
 around  one  of  the six resulting subcategories, as is shown in Table
 IV-2.  Production processes  are  the  primary  basis  of  identifying
 subcategories.

 Wastewater   Characteristics   and   Treatment   Technologies.   Using
 wastewater  characteristics  as  a  criterion,  the   following   sub-
 categorization  would result: emulsions, neat oils, oil-in-water (non-
 emulsified) mixtures, and acidic  or  basic  wastewaters.   The  major
 types  of  aluminum  forming operations producing the identified waste
 streams are listed below.


                             Major Type of Aluminum Forming Unit
                             Process Operations Producing the
Waste Streams                Waste Streams	

Emulsions                         Hot Rolling
                                  Cold Rolling
                                  Drawing

Neat Oils                         Cold Rolling
                                  Drawing

Oil-in-Water (Non-emulsified)     Casting Contact Cooling
  Mixtures                        Heat Treatment Quench
                                  Cleaning and Etching Rinses

Acidic or Basic Wastewaters       Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinses
                                  Cleaning and Etching Rinses


This  subcategorization  scheme  reflects  the  fact  that   effective
wastewater   pollutant   removal   is   dependent  on  the  wastewater
characteristics and treatment system designed  for  removal  of  these
pollutants.  Treatment of emulsified and oil-in-water (non-emulsified)
mixtures  wastewaters  in  the same treatment system is inappropriate,
because additional treatment steps are required  to  break  emulsions.
Wastewaters  generated during the cleaning or etching of aluminum with
an acid or base solution may require pH adjustment with metals removal
and may not need to be treated for oil removal.  Finally, since  spent
neat  oils  are  pure oil and contain no water, they may frequently be
disposed of by incineration or sale, thus requiring no treatment.

The major deficiency associated with this  method of subcategorization
encountered is the selection of an appropriate production  normalizing
parameter.   For  instance,  although hot rolling and drawing may both
                                 52

-------
result in the discharge of spent emulsions, the volume  of  wastewater
generated  per  mass  of aluminum rolled in a hot rolling operation is
very different than the volume of wastewater  generated  per  mass  of
aluminum  drawn in a drawing operation.  Effluent limitations based on
one of these operations may be inappropriate.

Although it would be difficult to base subcategorization on wastewater
characteristics and treatment technologies alone, this  factor  should
be  taken  into  consideration.   Wastewater treatment systems must be
tailored  to  the  wastewaters  they  are  treating.    As   discussed
previously, this factor was considered and has been used to modify the
subcategorization scheme based on production processes.

Unit   Operations.    Using   unit   operations   as   the  basis  for
subcategorization would result in the subcategories shown below.
                                53

-------
    Unit
  Operation
Direct chill
  casting
Continuous rod
  casting
Continuous sheet
  casting
Stationary casting
Hot rolling
Cold rolling
Roll grinding
Degassing
Extrusion die
  cleaning
Extrusion dummy
  block cooling
Forging
Drawing
Annealing
Press heat
  treatment
Solution heat
  treatment
Homogenizing
   Waste
   Stream
 Contact cooling water
 Spent rolling lubricant
 Contact cooling
 Spent rolling lubricant
 None
 Spent emulsion
 Spent neat oil or emulsion
 Spent emulsion
 Scrubber liquor
Bath caustic solution
Rinse water
Scrubber liquor
Contact cooling water
Scrubber liquor
Spent neat oil, emulsion
or soap solution
 Atmosphere scrubber
 liquor
 Seal water
Contact cooling water
Contact cooling water
None
Comments
Typically total
recycle
Typically total
recycle
Dry operation
Total recyle, in-
line treatment
Can be eliminated
by use of dry air
pollution control or
in-line refining
Typically not
discharged
Typically air
cooled
Typically not
required
Typically not required
Dry operation
                                  54

-------
Artificial aging    None                         Dry operation

Degreasing          Spent solvents               Typically not
                                                 discharged

Cleaning or         Bath caustic, acid or        Typically not
  etching           detergent solutions          discharged
                    Rinse water
                    Scrubber liquor

Sawing              Spent neat oil or            Typically not
                    emulsion                     discharged

Stamping            None                         Dry operation

Swaging             None                         Dry operation


The principle benefit from using this basis  of  subcategorization  is
that  an  effluent limitation can be established for each waste stream
generated.  For each regulated pollutant, a  specific  pollutant  mass
discharge  value  would be calculated for each waste stream present at
the facility; these values would be summed and the total would  become
the total mass discharge allowed for that pollutant at that facility.

The  difficulties  with  this  approach  include  the  large number of
subcategories (approximately 25) that would be involved, the fact that
separate  PNPs  would  have  to  be  established  for  each  of  those
subcategories,  and  that  NPDES application procedures and monitoring
requirements would be burdensome to industry.

Included within these subcategories are several operations that either
do not produce waste stream or produce  insignificant  quantitites  of
pollutants.  For these cases, unnecessary paper work would be required
to  account  for  an  essentially  minor  portion  of  the  facility's
pollutant discharge.

This subcategorization scheme, although it accounts for process  type,
does  not  take  into  account  the  different  types of oils used for
lubrication.  For example, drawing can use a neat oil lubricant or  an
emulsified oil lubricant.  Waste characteristics and treatment schemes
are different for the two types of oils used.

Primarily   because   of   the   large  number  of  subcategories  and
complications  associated  with  it,  subcategorization   using   unit
operations  alone  was  not considered to be appropriate.  However, it
was used as a basis for establishing additional allocation  wastewater
streams  from  unit  operations  which  may  or  may not be present at
specific plants.
                                   55

-------
 Products Manufactured.  A potential subcategorization scheme, based on
 the products manufactured, and the production  processes  which  could
 produce those products is listed below.
Products

Plate
Sheet
Strip
Foil
Rod and Bar
Tubing
Miscellaneous shapes
Wire and Cable
Other (example: L shapes,
  I-beams, etc.)
 Manufacturing Processes
which can Produce the Products

      Rolling
      Rolling
      Rolling
      Rolling
      Rolling, Extrusion, Drawing
      Extrusion, Drawing
      Forging
      Drawing
      Drawing, Extrusion
The    product    manufactured   is   an   excellent   criterion   for
subcategorization if the waste characterization and production process
to produce a given item are  the  same  from  plant  to  plant.   This
analysis  is  not  applicable  to  the  manufacture  of many products,
however; for example, rods can be produced by two different production
processes which generate similar wastewater, i.e. rolling and drawing.
However, the mass of pollutants generated per unit of rod produced  by
rolling  will  be  different  than the amount generated by drawing the
rod.  Furthermore some products produced by the same process  may  use
different  lubricants,  therefore  generating  a  waste with different
characteristics.  Strip and sheet, for example,  can  be  produced  by
operations which using either neat or emulsified oils as lubricants.

Finally,  this  subcategorization  method  does  not  account  for the
associated operations such as cleaning and etching, heat treating, and
casting which may or may not be found at any given facility.   All  of
these  factors  make  it very difficult to develop a reliable effluent
limitation.

Process Water Usage.  Major differences in water use (volume of  water
used  per  mass  of  product)  between facilities with large and small
production volume could warrant further  refinement  of  subcategories
and will be discussed in Section V.

As  discussed  in Section V, analysis of the data indicated that water
use, i.e. gallons per  ton,  of  aluminum  formed  for  a  given  unit
operation is usually independent of production volume.  For example, a
large direct chill casting operation will use about the same amount of
water  per  ton  of  ingot  produced as an operation casting much less
aluminum by the same method.  There are a few exceptions to this rule.
For certain unit operations there is a trend for water use to decrease
                                  56

-------
with increased production.  However, in these cases no distinct  break
point  could  be  identified  to distinguish between water use at high
production and low production plants.  For these  reasons,  water  use
was  not  considered to be an appropriate basis for subcategorization.
In  selecting  the  discharge  rates  used   to   establish   effluent
limitations  and  standards,  factors  which account for variations in
water use were considered further (see Section IX).

Raw Materials.   The  raw  materials  used  in  the  aluminum  forming
category can be classified as follows:

    o aluminum and aluminum alloys
    o lubricants
    o surface treatment, degreasing, and furnace fluxing chemicals
    o additives to lubricants and cooling water.

Although  the  wastewater  discharge of pollutants is dependent on raw
materials, the amounts of pollutants  discharged  does  not  correlate
directly  with  the  nature of raw materials used.  Discharge of heavy
metals may result, for example, from the presence of  these  compounds
in  the  aluminum  alloy.  The amount of metal discharged, however, is
much more dependent on operations performed than on the type of  alloy
involved.  For instance, etching a given aluminum alloy will result in
a  higher  metal discharge than rolling that same alloy.  Furthermore,
subcategorization  based  on  the  aluminum  alloys  used  -in  forming
operations  would  be  prohibitively complex.  Plants in this category
usually handle a number of different alloys.  Regulation on this basis
would involve an unecessary amount of record keeping on  the  part  of
industry.

At   times  the  same  raw  material  may  take  on  various  effluent
characteristics, which will require different treatment.  For  example
an  oil  that is emulsified requires different treatment than the same
oil in a pure state.  Further, because of process variations  and  the
proprietary  nature  of  many  chemical  additives, it is difficult to
establish a production normalizing  parameter  that  directly  relates
pollutant  discharge  to  specific  process  chemicals  or lubricants.
Absence of reliable raw material information  and  the  complexity  of
using this data to establish mass based limitations causes this factor
to be an unacceptable basis for subcategorization.

Size.  In accounting for size differences, the number of employees and
amount of aluminum processed were considered.

Subcategorization   based   on   number  of  employees  is  difficult.
Wastewaters produced by a production process are  largely  independent
of  the number of plant employees.  Variations in staff occur for many
reasons  such  as  shift  differences,  clerical  and   administrative
support,  maintenance  workers,  efficiency  of  plant operations, and
market fluctuations.  Because of these and other factors the number of
                                   57

-------
 employees  is constantly fluctuating/ making it difficult to develop  a
 correlation between the number of employees and wastewater discharge.

 Similarly/  the  amount  of aluminum processed/ both in the plant as a
 whole, or by a specific production process  is  not  considered  as  a
 viable   subcategorization   factor.   Although  less  pollutants  are
 generally discharged from smaller facilities/ the mass  of  pollutants
 discharged per mass of aluminum produced in an individual process is a
 much more appropriate means to fine tune the regulations to best limit
 pollutant discharges.   The alternative subcategorization based on mass
 of   product   produced/  provides  ranges  of  productions  in  which
 limitations would all  be the same.  Depending upon  where  a  facility
 happens  to  fall  within that range/ it may be given excess pollutant
 credit or may  be  unjustifiably  limited.   Therefore/  size  is  not
 considered    as    an   appropriate   factor   on   which   to   base
 subcategorization.   As mentioned previously/ production was taken into
 consideration/  however/ when specifying the discharge  rates  used  to
 establish effluent limitations and standards (see Section IX).

Age.   Aluminum  forming  plants are  relatively modern; most are less
 than 30 years old.   Furthermore, to remain competitive, plants must be
 constantly  modernized.   Modernization   of   production   processes,
 treatment  systems,  and air pollution control equipment is undertaken
on a continuous basis throughout the industry.  Data regarding the age
and the date of the latest  major  modification  for  each  plant  was
 compiled from the dcp responses and summarized in Table II1-2.  On the
basis  of  this  data,  correlations  between plant age and wastewater
characteristics cannot be established.

Because  wastewater  characteristics  are  apparently  independent  of
facility  age,   it has been determined that this factor is not a valid
basis for subcategorization.

Location.  The geographical location of the aluminum forming plants is
shown in Figure  II1-5.   The  plants  are  not  limited  to  any  one
geographical   location   but   are  generally  located  east  of  the
Mississippi River with pockets of plants located in the western states
of Washington,  California, and Texas.  Although some cost savings  may
be realized for facilities located in non-urban settings where land is
available   to  install  lagoons,  equivalent  control  of  wastewater
pollutant discharge can be achieved by urban plants with  the  use  of
physical  and  chemical  treatment  systems  which  have  smaller land
requirements.  Because most plants are located in the Eastern part  of
the United States (an area where precipitation exceeds evaporation) or
 in urban areas, evaporation and land application of the wastewater are
not  commonly  used.  Presently only 12 of the 266 plants evaporate or
apply wastewater  to  land.   For  these  reasons,  location  was  not
selected as a criterion on which to base subcategorization.
                                58

-------
PRODUCTION NORMALIZING PARAMETER

In  order  to  insure  equitable  regulation of the category, effluent
limitations  guidelines  and  standards  of  performance   have   been
established  on  a production related basis, i.e., kg of pollutant per
unit of production.   The  units  of  production  specified  in  these
regulations  are  known  as  production normalizing parameters (PNPs).
The alternative of establishing concentration limitations rather  than
production  related regulations was considered.  However, a plant that
dilutes  its  wastewater  would   have   an   advantage   in   meeting
concentration  limitations  over  plants that conserve water.  Thus, a
plant might actually be penalized for having good  water  conservation
practices  by  a concentration based limitation.  In order to preclude
this possibility the concentration of pollutants in the discharge must
be related to a specific PNP to establish regulation that will provide
a pollutant mass discharge limitation per unit of PNP.

The approach used in selecting the appropriate PNP for  a  given  sub-
category  or  additional  allocation  process is two-fold: achieving a
correlation between production  and  the  corresponding  discharge  of
pollutants;  and insuring feasibility and ease of regulation.  Some of
the alternatives considered in specifying the PNP include:

    0    mass of aluminum processed
    °    number of products  processed
    0    area of aluminum processed
    0    mass of process chemicals used.

The evaluation of these alternatives is summarized in  the   discussion
which follows.

Mass of Aluminum Processed

Because  the  aluminum forming industry typcially maintains  production
records of the pounds of aluminum  processed  by  an   individual  unit
operation,  mass  of  aluminum processed  in a particular operation has
been selected as  the  associated  production  normalizing   parameter.
Availability  of  this  production data and lack of available data for
other production parameters such as area  of  aluminum  and   number  of
products makes this the most advantageous parameter to use.

Number of_ End Products Processed

The number of products processed by a given plant is an unsatisfactory
unit  of  production  for regulation of the aluminum forming industry.
The use of the PNP would not account for  the variations   in  size  and
shape  typical  of  formed  products.   Extrusions,  for  instance, are
produced in a wide range of sizes.  It would be unreasonable to  expect
the quenching of a large extrusion to require  the same amount of water
required for a smaller extruded product.
                                   59

-------
Area of Aluminum Processed

The area of aluminum processed was not selected as an appropriate  PNP
primarily   because  records  of  this  parameter  processed  are  not
generally maintained by industry.  In some cases/ such as  in  forging
of  miscellaneous  shapes,  surface  area  data  would be difficult to
collect.   While  surface  area  may  be  an  appropriate   production
normalizing  parameter  for aluminum which has been cleaned or etched,
it was not used for that. purpose because of the  excessive  additional
monitoring  which  would  be  required  on  the  part  of  industry to
calculate the surface area  Effluent  limitations  can  be  reasonably
established  based on mass of aluminum produced, a parameter for which
industry currently maintains records.

Mass of Process Chemicals

The mass of process chemicals used, e.g.,  lubricants,  solvents,  and
cleaning  or  etching solutions was not selected as an appropriate PNP
because the  characteristics  of  wastewater  produced  is  much  more
dependent  on the processing which the aluminum is undergoing than the
other raw materials being used in the  process.   The  composition  of
process  chemicals, especially oils, are often of a proprietary nature
which could be a problem when the permit writer needs to  obtain  this
information.  Even though the waste streams frequently contain process
chemicals,   the concentrations and mass of pollutants being discharged
does not directly correlate to the amount  of  these  compounds  being
used.   Accordingly, the mass of process chemicals has not been used as
a production normalizing parameter.

DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED SUBCATEGORIES

Subcateqory  Terminology and Usage
Each  subcategory  is broken into a "core" and "additional allocation"
operations.  The core is defined as those operations that always occur
with the subcategory, are dry  operations,  are  designated  as  zero-
pollutant-allocation   operations,  or  can  be  shown  to  contribute
insignificant pollutants and  wastewater  volume  in  comparison  with
other  core  streams.   In some cases, operations are listed that will
not occur at every plant.  These operations are  included  within  the
development  of  the  core,  however, because they will not affect the
effluent limitation.  It is much easier  to  handle  all  these  waste
streams together when this is possible.

Operations  not  included  in  the  core  are classified as additional
allocation  operations.   These  are  ancillary  operations  involving
discharged  wastewater streams of significant pollutant concentrations
and flows that may or may not be present at any one facility.  If they
are present, the permit writer adds the pollutant  allocation  to  the
core discharge allocation to determine the effluent limitation for the
                                  60

-------
facility as a whole.   The most common additional allocation operations
are:

    o cooling water from direct chill casting
    o quench water from heat treatment
    o rinse water from cleaning and etch lines.

Finally,  it  must  b.e  noted  that  at  several  plants more than one
subcategory will be involved.  In such cases/ the subcategories should
be used as building blocks to establish  permit  limitations.   It  is
conceivable  that  a  single  additional allocation operation, such as
direct chill casting,  may be associated with more than one subcategory
at those plants.  In these situations, care must  be  taken  to  avoid
duplicating  the  pollutant allocation when calculating the facility's
permit limitation.  For example, consider a plant where  direct  chill
casting  is used to make ingots that are subsequently hot rolled using
emulsions and then cold rolled using neat oils.  This plant  would  be
classified under two subcategories, Rolling with Neat Oils and Rolling
with Emulsions.  Because the casting operation is most closely related
to  the  hot  rolling  operation it precedes, the direct chill casting
stream is considered as an  additional  allocation  stream  associated
with  the  Rolling with Emulsions subcategory and is not included when
considering  streams  associated  with  the  Rolling  with  Neat   Oil
subcategory.

In  the  following  discussion, the aluminum forming subcategories are
presented on an individual basis.  The core and additional  allocation
operations included in each subcategory are briefly described, and the
appropriate production normalizing parameters are identified.

The  tables presented in the following discussions provide information
specific  to  the  subcategory  being  addressed.   The  frequency  of
occurrance  of  additional  allocation  streams  relates the number of
plants in  the  subcategory  at  which  specific  add-on  streams  are
associated  with  this  subcategory.   At  some  plants  more than one
additional  allocation  stream  may  be  associated   with   a   given
subcategory.  For this reason summation of the frequency of occurrance
values  listed  may  not reflect the total number of plants which will
require regulation of additional  allocation  streams.   However,  the
number   of  plants  with  additional  allocations  streams  has  been
calculated for each subcategory, and is presented in the text.

The tables which will be presented also show the frequency of  overlap
with  other  subcategories,  i.e.,  the  number  of  plants within the
subcategory  that  are  also  classified  in  other  aluminum  forming
subcategories.    Once   again,   however,   care  must  be  taken  in
interpreting the summation of these frequency  of  occurrance  values,
since a plant may be included in  several subcategories.

Subcateqory I - Rolling with Neat Oils
                                   61

-------
This  subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges resulting
from or associated with aluminum rolling operations in which neat oils
are used as a lubricant.  The unit  operations  and  associated  waste
streams  covered  by  this  subcategory and the appropriate production
normalizing parameters are listed below
                                62

-------
  Unit Operations
  Included in the

CORE:

Rolling using neat
  oils

Roll grinding
Degassing
Stationary casting
Continuous sheet casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Cleaning or etching

Sawing
Stamping
                        Waste Stream
                        Spent oils
                        Spent emulsions
                        Scrubber liquor
                        None
                        Spent lubricant
                        None
                        None
                        Spent solvents
                        Caustic, acid, or
                        detergent baths
                        Spent oils
                        None
ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OPERATIONS:

1
Solution heat
treatment
    Cleaning or etching


    Annealing
Contact cooling
water
                        Rinse water
                        Atmosphere scrubber
                        liquor
                     Production
                     Normalizing
                     Parameter
                    Mass of aluminum
                    rolled using neat
                    oil lubricants
                    None1
                    None1
                    None, dry operation1
                    None1
                    None, dry operation1
                    None, dry operation1
                    None1
                    None1

                    None1
                    None, dry operation1
Mass of aluminum
quenched in the
solution heat treat-
ment processes

Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched

Mass of aluminum
annealed
 1 See Section  IX for detailed discussion
 In the following table,  data pertaining  to the number of plants
 in Subcategory  I and  the streams which are present at those
 plants are summarized:
          ASSOCIATED WASTE STREAMS
 CORE:
    Rolling  neat  oils
    Roll  grinding emulsions
    Degassing  scrubber  liquor
    Continuous sheet casting lubricant
    Degreasing solvents
                                             FREQUENCY
                                         NO. OF  PLANTS

                                             45

                                             45
                                               *
                                             K4
                                             11
                                               8
                                  PERCENT
                                    100
                                    (100)+
                                     K9
                                     24
                                     18
                                  63

-------
    Cleaning and  etch  line baths                  8              18
    Saw oils                                     K4              K9
    Stamping                                      4               9

ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS:

    1. Solution heat treatment quench             4               9
    2. Cleaning and etch line rinse water         8              16
    3. Annealing  atmosphere scrubber liquor      K4       .       K9

INCIDENCE OF OVERLAP WITH OTHER SUBCATEGORIES:

   II  Rolling with emulsions                    17              38
   III Extrusion                                  2               4
   IV  Forging                                    0               0
    V  Drawing with neat oils                     5              11
   VI  Drawing with emulsions or soaps            1               2

* An accurate count could not be determined from available data.
+ Assumed to be present at all plants.
K Less than — If fewer than four plants reported the presence of a
  given wastewater stream, the number of plants is withheld for reasons
  of confidentiality.

As this table shows, 45 of the  plants  surveyed  in  this  study  are
included  in  Subcategory  I.  For the majority of these plants (78%),
the core regulations can be  applied  without  alteration  because  no
additional   allotment  streams  are  present.   However,  etching  or
cleaning of the rolled product is practiced at eight plants (18%), and
the presence of heat treatment quenching was  reported  at  only  four
plants.   No  plant  in  this subcategory had more than two additional
allocation streams.

Half of the plants (23 of 45) associated with  this  subcategory  were
also  associated  with one or more additional subcategories.  The most
common case, overlap with Subcategory II - Rolling with Emulsions, was
reported at 17  of  the  45  plants  (38%).   Frequently,  rolling  of
aluminum  with emulsions is followed by rolling to desired gauge using
neat  oils.   It  is   important  to  realize  that  at  these  plants,
operations  such  as casting were considered to be associated with the
emulsion  rolling  rather  than  neat  oil  rolling  for  purpose   of
subcategorization.   In  this  way, duplication of streams is avoided.
Five of the plants (11%) were  included  both  in  Subcategory  I  and
Subcategory  V - Drawing with Neat Oils.  In these cases, the aluminum
was usually first rolled and then drawn to form the  desired  product.
If the drawn product was then etched or heat treated, these operations
were associated with Subcategory V rather than Subcategory I.  In only
two  cases  was  overlap with more than one other subcategory found to
exist.
                                   64

-------
Stamping is a dry forming operation frequently used  to  produce  foil
products such as pie plates and food containers.  It has been included
in  the  core of both the rolling with neat oils and drawing with neat
oils subcategories.  However, many plants which do only  stamping  may
not  recognize  themselves  as a rolling or drawing plant.  Therefore,
the Agency will consider the creation of a separate subcategory, which
would include all stamping operations with the exception  of  can  top
stamping.  The proposal development document will incorporate any. such
changes.

Subcateqory ll_ - Rolling with Emulsions

This  subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges resulting
from or associated with aluminum rolling operations in  which  oil-in-
water  emulsions  are  used  as  lubricants.   The unit operations and
associated  waste  streams  covered  by  this  subcategory   and   the
appropriate production normalizing parameters are listed below.
                               65

-------
  Unit Operations
  Included in the
CORE:

Rolling
emulsified
lubricants
Roll grinding
Degassing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Cleaning or etching
Sawing
                Waste Stream
                Spent emulsions
                Spent emulsions
                Scrubber liquor
                None
                None
                None
                Bath acid caustic,
                or detergent
                solutions
                Spent oils
ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OPERATIONS:
1.  Direct chill casting
    and continuous rod
    casting

2.  Solution heat
    treatment

3.  Cleaning or etching
                Contact cooling
                water
                Contact cooling
                water

                Scrubber liquor
                and rinse water
1 See Section IX for detailed discussion
 Production
 Normalizing
Parameter
  Mass of aluminum
  hot rolled or
  cold rolled
  None1
  None*
  None, dry operation
  None, dry operation
  None, dry operation
  None*
  None1
Mass of aluminum
cast by direct
chill or continuous
rod casting methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched following
solution heat treatment
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
In the following table, data pertaining to the number of plants
in Subcategory II and the streams associated with them are summarized
below:
        ASSOCIATED WASTE STREAMS
CORE:
    Rolling emulsions
    Roll grinding emulsions
    Degassing scrubber liquor
    Cleaning and etch line baths
    Saw oils
                                   FREQUENCY
                                 NO.  OF PLANTS

                                      23

                                      23
                                       *
                                      K4
                                      K4
                                       *
              PERCENT
                100
               (100)+
                K17
                K17
                                66

-------
ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS:

    1.  Solution heat treatment quench             5              22
    2.  Direct chill casting cooling              18              78
    3.  Cleaning and etch line rinse water        K4             K17

INCIDENCE OF OVERLAP WITH OTHER SUBCATEGORIES:

    I  Rolling with neat oils                    17              74
   III  Extrusion                                  4              17
   IV  Forging                                    0               0
    V  Drawing with neat oils                     5              22
   VI  Drawing with emulsions or soaps            1               4

* An accurate count could not be determined from available data.
+ Assumed to be present at all plants.
K Less  than — If fewer than four plants reported the presence of a
  given wastewater stream, the number of plants is withheld for reasons
  of confidentiality.

Of  the plants surveyed in this study, 23 were classified as belonging
to Subcategory II.  The  core  streams  in  this  subcategory  include
rolling emulsions which are expected to be present at every plant.  As
shown  in  the  preceding  table,  the  regulation  of  plants in this
subcategory  will  usually  require  consideration  of  waste  streams
associated   with   additional   allocation  operations.   The  survey
indicated that direct chill casting is  associated  with  the  rolling
operations  at  18 of the plants surveyed.  Solution heat treatment is
practiced at five plants.  A few plants will also  require  regulation
of cleaning or etch line rinses as an additional allocation stream.

In all  but one case (96%), plants in Subcategory II were also included
in  one or more other subcategories.  Association with Subcategory I -
Rolling with Neat  Oils  was  most  common  (74%),  but  overlap  with
Subcategories III, V, and VI was observed as well.

Subcateqory III - Extrusion

This  subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges resulting
from or associated with extrusion.  The unit operations and associated
waste  streams  covered  by  this  subcategory  and  the   appropriate
production normalizing parameters are listed below.
                                  67

-------
  Unit Operations
  Included  in  the

CORE:

Extrusion die  cleaning
Extrusion die  cleaning
Extrusion dummy  block
  cooling
Degassing
Stationary casting
Artificial aging
Annealing
Degreasing
Cleaning or etching
Sawing

ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OPERATIONS:
Waste Streams
 Bath caustic solution
 Rinse water
 Contact cooling water

 Scrubber liquor
 None
 None
 Seal water
 Spent solvents
 Bath caustic acid or
 detergent solutions
 Spent oils
1.  Direct chill  or
    continuous  rod
    casting
2.  Press and solution
    heat treatment
 Contact cooling water
 Contact cooling water
3.  Cleaning or etching  Scrubber liquor and
                         rinse water
4.  Extrusion die
    cleaning
5.  Annealing
 Scrubber liquor
 Atmosphere
 scrubber water
   Production
   Normalizing
   Parameter
None*
Mass of aluminum ex-
truded through dies
cleaned with caustic
None1

None'
None, dry operation1
None, dry operation*
None*
None*
None1

None1
Mass of aluminum
cast by direct
chill or continuous
rod casting techniques

Mass of aluminum
quenched in heat
treatment processes

Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched

Mass of aluminum
extruded through
dies cleaned by
paustic

Mass of aluminum
annealed in a
furnace with
an associated
scrubber
1 See Section IX for detailed discussion
                                 68

-------
The frequency with which these streams are associated with plants
in Subcategory III is summarized in the following table.
     ASSOCIATED WASTE STREAMS

CORE:

    Extrusion die cleaning bath
    Extrusion die cleaning rinse
    Degassing scrubber liquor
    Extrusion dummy block cooling
    Degreasing solvents
    Cleaning and etch line baths
    Saw oils

ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS:
  FREQUENCY
NO. OF PLANTS

     157
       6
      K4
       4
      10
       *
    1. Direct chill casting cooling              41
    2. Press and solution heat treatment quench  56
    3. Cleaning and etch line scrubber and
       rinse water                               11
    4. Die cleaning scrubber liquor              K4
    5. Annealing atmosphere scrubber liquor      K4

INCIDENCE OF OVERLAP WITH OTHER SUBCATEGORIES:

    I  Rolling with neat oils                      2
   II  Rolling with emulsions                      4
   IV  Forging                                     3
    V  Drawing with neat oils                    12
   VI  Drawing with emulsions or soaps             2
 PERCENT
(100)+
(100)+
   4
  K3
   3
   6
                      26
                      36

                       7
                      K3
                      K3
                        1
                        3
                        2
                        8
                        1
* An accurate count could not be determined from available data
+ Assumed to be present at all plants
K Less than — If fewer than four plants reported  the presence of  a given
  wastewater stream, the number of plants  is withheld for reasons  of
  confidentiality.

The   Extrusion  subcategory  includes  more  plants  than   any  other
subcategory, 157,  or  approximately  half  of  the  plants   surveyed.
Although  an  accurate count was not possible from the  available data,
extrusion die cleaning water rinse is expected  to  be present at  every
extrusion  plant, and this stream serves as the principal component of
the core for this subcategory.

More than half  of  the  plants  in  this  subcategory   (54%)  can be
regulated  on  the  basis  of  the  core streams alone,  but  the others
                                 69

-------
require the consideration of between one and four other  streams.   As
shown  in  the  preceding table,  the most common additional allocation
operation is heat treatment quench (associated with extrusion  at  36%
of these plants), followed by direct chill casting (26%), and cleaning
and etching (7%).

Although  most  of  the  plants  in  Subcategory  III  (89%)  are  not
associated with any other subcategories,  some overlap does occur.   In
the  most  common  example,   12  of the extrusion plants (8%) are also
associated with Subcategory V - Drawing with Neat Oils.  Three of  the
extrusion   plants  surveyed  were  also  classified  with  two  other
subcategories and, in one case, three subcategories were  involved  in
addition to Subcategory III.
                                 70

-------
Subcategory IV - Forging

This  subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges resulting
from  or  associated  with  forging  of  aluminum  or  aluminum  alloy
products.   The unit operations and associated waste streams covered by
this   subcategory   are  listed  below  along  with  the  appropriate
production normalizing parameter.
  Unit Operations
  Included in the

CORE:

Artificial aging
Annealing
Degreasing
Cleaning or etching

Sawing
                        Waste Streams
None
None
Spent solvents
Bath caustic, acid
or detergent solution
Spent oils
ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OPERATIONS:
1.  Forging
2.  Solution heat
    treatment
Scrubber liquor
Contact cooling water
3.  Cleaning or etching  Scrubber  liquor  and
                         rinse water

1 See Section IX for detailed discussion
                         Production
                         Normalizing
                         Parameter
                                                 None, dry operation1
                                                 None, dry operation1
                                                 None*
                                                 None1

                                                 None1
                                                 Mass of aluminum
                                                 forged on a press
                                                 requiring air
                                                 pollution control
                                                 Mass of aluminum
                                                 quenched in the
                                                 solution heat
                                                 treatment process
                                                 Mass of aluminum
                                                 cleaned or etched
The frequency with which  these  streams  are present at forging
plants is summarized  in the  following table.
         ASSOCIATED WASTE  STREAMS
 CORE:
    Degreasing solvents
    Cleaning and  etch  line baths
    Saw oils
                      FREQUENCY
                  NO.  OF  PLANTS

                        15

                        K4
                        12
                          *
                                                             PERCENT
                                                                 K27
                                                                  80
                                   71

-------
ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS:

    1. Forging scrubber liquor                    4              27
    2. Solution heat treatment quench            12              80
    3. Cleaning etch line rinse and
       scrubber liquor                           12              80

INCIDENCE OF OVERLAP WITH OTHER SUBCATEGORIES:

    I  Rolling with neat oils                     0               0
   II  Rolling with emulsions                     0               0
  III  Extrusion                                  3              20
    V  Drawing with neat oils                     1               7
   VI  Drawing with emulsions or soaps            1               7

* An accurate count could not be determined from available data.
K Less than — If fewer than four plants reported the presence of a
  given wastewater stream,  the number of plants is withheld for reasons
  of confidentiality.

Of the 15 plants identified with Subcategory IV,  only  one  could  be
regulated  by  the  core  streams  alone.   The most common additional
allocation streams,  heat treatment quench and cleaning  or  etch  line
rinses,  are  associated  with  80  percent  of  the  forging  plants.
Frequently more than one additional allocation stream  was  associated
with  a  given  plant.    Seven of the 15 forging plants involved three
such streams.

Most of the plants in Subcategory IV (80%)  did  not  have  operations
associated  with  any  other  Subcategory.   Some  overlap  did occur,
however, with extrusion and drawing operations  (Subcategories III,  V,
and VI, respectively).   At most, two other subcategories were involved
at forging plants.

Subcateqorv V - Drawing with Neat Oils

This  Subcategory is applicable to all wastewater discharges resulting
from  or  associated  with  drawing  operations  that  use  neat   oil
lubricants.   The unit operations and associated waste streams covered
by this Subcategory  are  listed  below  along  with  the  appropriate
production normalizing parameter.
                                 72

-------
  Unit Operations
  Included in the

CORE:

Drawing with neat oils
Continuous rod casting

Stationary casting
Artificial aging
Annealing
Degreasing
Cleaning or etching

Sawing
Stamping
Swaging
Waste Streams
 Spent oils
 Spent rolling lubri-
 cants
 None
 None
 Seal water
 Spent solvents
 Bath caustic, acid, or
 detergent solutions
 Spent oils
 None
 None
ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OPERATIONS:
1.  Continuous rod
    casting
2.  Solution heat
    treatment
 Contact cooling water
 Contact cooling water
3.  Cleaning or etching  Rinse water
1 See Section IX for detailed discussion
 Production
 Normalizing
 Parameter
None*
None1

None, dry operation1
None, dry operation1
None1
None1
None1

None1
None, dry operation1
None, dry operation1
Mass of aluminum
rod continuously
cast

Mass of aluminum
quenched in the
solution heat
treatment process

Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
                                73

-------
The number of plants  in this subcategory and the process streams
associated with them  are shown in the following table.
          ASSOCIATED WASTE STREAMS
CORE:
    Drawing with neat oils
    Continuous rod casting lubricant
    Annealing seal water
    Degreasing solvents
    Cleaning and etch line baths
    Saw oils
    Stamping
    Swaging

ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS:

    1. Continuous rod casting cooling
    2. Solution heat treatment quench
    3. Cleaning and etch line rinse water

INCIDENCE OF OVERLAP WITH OTHER SUBCATEGORIES:

    I  Rolling with neat oils
   II  Rolling with emulsions
  III  Extrusion
   IV  Forging
   VI  Drawing with emulsions or soaps
FREQUENCY
NO. OF PLANTS

   62

   54
   K4
   K4
   15
   12
    *
    8
   K4
   K4
    8
   12
    5
    5
   12
    1
    1
PERCENT
  87
  K6
  K6
  24
  19

  13
  K6
  K6
  13
  19
   8
   8
  19
   2
   2
* An accurate count could not be determined from available data.
K Less than — If fewer than four plants reported  the  presence of a
  given wastewater stream, the number of plants is withheld for
  reasons of confidentiality.
                                 74

-------
The   second  largest  aluminum  forming  subcategory,  Subcategory  V
contains 62 of the 266 plants surveyed in this  study.   Most  of  the
plants  (84%)  are involved in drawing operations, but the subcategory
also includes plants with swaging or stamping as the major  production
process.   As  can  be seen in the preceding table, solvent degreasing
and cleaning or etching  baths  are  also  frequently  occurring  core
streams.   According  to  this  survey,  76  percent  of the plants in
Subcategory V can be regulated on the basis of the core alone.

Heat treatment quench and cleaning or etch line rinses  are  the  most
common  additional  allocation streams in this subcategory.  According
to this survey, no more than three additional allocation  streams  are
involved  at  any  one  plant in Subcategory V.  Frequent overlap with
other subcategories was noted, however.  The most common  example  was
Subcategory  III—19 percent of the neat oil drawing plants were found
to have extrusion processes as well.  In all, 29 percent of the plants
in Subcategory V were also associated with one or more other  aluminum
forming  subcategories.   At one plant, three additional subcategories
were involved.

Subcateqorv VI - Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps

Subcategory VI is applicable to all  wastewater  discharges  resulting
from or associated with the drawing of aluminum products using oil-in-
water  emulsion  or  soap  solution  lubricants.   The  operations and
associated waste streams covered by this subcategory are listed  below
along with the appropriate production normalizing parameter.
                                   75

-------
  Unit Operations
  Included in the

CORE:

Drawing with emulsions
  or soaps

Continuous sheet
  casting
Stationary casting
Artificial aging
Annealing
Degreasing
Cleaning or etching
                    Waste Stream
                     Spent lubricants
                     Spent rolling
                     lubricants
                     None
                     None
                     None
                     Spent solvents
                     Bath caustic, acid, or
                     detergent solutions
                     Spent oils
Sawing

ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OPERATIONS:

1.  Continuous rod       Contact cooling water
Continuous rod
casting
2.  Solution heat
    treatment
                     Contact cooling water
3.  Cleaning or etching  Rinse water
1 See Section IX for detailed discussion
 Production
 Normalizing
 Parameter
Mass of aluminum
drawn using emulsion
or soap lubricants
None1

None, dry operation1
None, dry operation1
None, dry operation1
None1
None1

None1
Mass of aluminum
rod continuously
cast

Mass of aluminum
quenched in the
solution heat
treatment process

Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
                                 76

-------
As shown in the following table, Subcategory VI contains only 11
of the 266 plants surveyed.


                                              FREQUENCY
        ASSOCIATED WASTE STREAMS            NO. OF PLANTS       PERCENT

CORE:                                            11

    Drawing emulsions or soaps                   11             100
    Continuous sheet casting lubricant           K4             K36
    Degreasing solvents                           4              36
    Cleaning and etch line baths                 K4             K36
    Saw oils                                      *

ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS:

    1. Continuous rod casting cooling            K4             K36
    2. Solution heat treatment quench            K4             K36
    3. Cleaning and etch line rinse water        K4             K36

OTHER SUBCATEGORIES:

    I  Rolling with neat oils                     1               9
   II  Rolling with emulsions                     1               9
  III  Extrusion                                  2              18
   IV  Forging                                    1               9
    V  Drawing with neat oils                     1               9

* An accurate count could not be determined from available data.
K Less than — If fewer than four plants reported the presence of a given
  wastewater stream, the number of plants is withheld for reasons of
  confidentiality.


The  principal  core stream in this subcategory, drawing oil emulsions
or soaps,  is present at all 11 plants; solvent degreasing is  used  by
four  of  them  (36%).   For  the  majority  of plants (64%), the core
streams  accurately  describe  all  wastewater  associated  with   the
subcategory.   At  a  number  of  plants,  solution  heat treatment is
applied to the drawn product.  Continuous rod casting and etching were
each reported  less  frequently.   Consideration  of  the  appropriate
additional   allocation   streams   is   required  for  these  plants.
Similarly, most of these plants (73%)  are  not  associated  with  any
other subcategories.  Overlap with other subcategories was observed at
three of the 11 plants surveyed.
                                  77

-------
                              SECTION V
               WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
This section presents data that characterize the raw wastewater of the
aluminum  forming  industry  and indicate the effectiveness of various
wastewater treatment processes.  As such, the data serve  as  a  basis
for  developing wastewater effluent guidelines for this category.  The
data were obtained  from  three  sources:  long-term  data  collection
portfolios  (dcps),  and  field sampling.  This section also discusses
the method of wastewater data collection and interpretation.

METHODS

Historical Data

The only long-term  or  historical  data  available  on  the  aluminum
forming  category are the Discharge Monitoring Reports of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).  All applicable  NPDES
reports  were  obtained  through  the  EPA  regional offices and state
regulatory agencies for the year 1977, the last complete  year  before
the   study  began.   Some  historical  data  were  supplied  in  data
collection portfolios; however, the information  provided  too  little
detail to be considered valuable for wastewater characterization.  The
analysis  of  NPDES data will be presented in the development document
which will accompany  publication  of  proposed  regulations  for  the
aluminum forming category.

Data Collection Portfolios

Wastewater  characteristics  determined from dcp responses include the
water use rate and wastewater rate.   The  water  use  factor  is  the
volume  of  water  applied to a production process per unit of mass of
product (I/kg or gal/ton).  Similarly, the wastewater  factor  is  the
volume  of  wastewater  produced  per  unit of mass of product.  These
factors are important in determining  the  total  mass  of  pollutants
discharged  and  in  determining  the  size  and  cost  of  wastewater
treatment facilities.  Most dcp responses  supplied  the  quantity  of
production  for  1976,  1977,  and  at  full  capacity.  When data was
supplied, the quantity of wastewater produced by a production  process
and  the  quantity  of  production  of  that process were added to the
computer data base.  EPA chose 1977 production as most  representative
and this has been used as the basis for calculations.


Data  supplied  by  dcp  responses  were  evaluated  with the aid of a
computer.  Flow and production information was added to  the  computer
base  and  two  flow-to-production  ratios  were  calculated  for each
stream.   The  two  ratios,  water  use  and  wastewater   rate,    are
                                   79

-------
differentiated  by  the  flow value used in calculation.   Water use is
defined as the volume of water or other fluid  required  for  a  given
process per mass of aluminum product and is therefore based on the sum
of  recycle  and  make-up  flows  to a given process.   Wastewater flow
discharged after pretreatment or recycle (if  these  are   present)  is
 used  in  calculating  the  wastewater  rate—the volume of wastewater
discharged from a given process  to  further  treatment,   disposal  or
discharge  per  mass  of  aluminum  produced.   Differences between the
water use and wastewater rates associated with a given stream  result
from   recycle,   evaporation  and  carryover  on  the product.   The
production values used in  calculation  correspond  to the  pollutant
normalizing  parameter,   PNP,   assigned to each stream, as outlined in
Section IV.

The flow-to-production ratios were compiled and statistically analyzed
by stream type.  Where appropriate,  an attempt was  made   to  identify
factors  that  could  account  for  variations  in  water  use.   This
information is summarized in this  section.   A  similar   analysis  of
factors  affecting  the  wastewater  values is presented  in Section IX
where representative BPT discharge  rates  are  selected   for  use  in
calculating the effluent limitations.

The  BPT  discharge rates were also used to estimate flows at aluminum
forming plants that supplied  EPA  with  only  production  data.   The
estimated  flow  was  then  used  to  determine the cost  of wastewater
treatment at these facilities (see Section VIII).

Wastewater Samples and Analysis

The objective of the sampling program was to characterize raw aluminum
forming wastewater  and  determine  the  effectiveness  of  wastewater
treatment  processes  used  in the aluminum forming industry.  To meet
this objective, samples were collected from  22  plants.    Sites  were
selected  so  that  at least one sample was collected from every waste
stream in the  aluminum  forming  category.   Table  V-l   lists  every
aluminum  forming  waste  stream  known to the Agency.  The table also
indicates how many streams of each type were sampled.   The  selection
of  aluminum forming plants to be included in the sampling program was
based on a thorough evaluation  of  the  available  information.   The
plants  from  which  samples were collected were chosen because of the
availability  of  representative  sample  streams.   The  presence  of
effective  wastewater  treatment  was  also  considered.   The sampling
points at each sampled plant were selected during a presampling  plant
visit  by  representatives  of the plant and the technical contractor.
Whenever possible, attempts were made to avoid sampling more than  one
or two plants owned by a given firm.

The  methods  used in evaluation of wastewater data varied as dictated
by the intended use of the results.  For example, in  Section   VI  the
wastewater  data   is  examined   in  order  to  select  pollutants  for
                                  80

-------
consideration in regulating the category.  This evaluation  took  into
account the results of each sample collected during this study.

For  some  purposes,  the  results of all samples collected at a given
site, e.g., three daily-samples, were averaged prior to evaluation  of
the  data.   In  this  way the evaluation was not biased by plants for
which many samples were collected at  a  given  site.   Evaluation  of
effluent concentrations achievable by specific treatment processes was
based on a comparison of average pollutant concentrations demonstrated
by   various   plants.    Daily   wastewater  samples  were  collected
immediately downstream from the  treatment  process.   The  analytical
results  of  samples  taken  at  one  site  were then averaged.  These
concentrations  served  as  a  basis  for  evaluating   the   effluent
concentrations  achievable  for  the  category  as  a whole using this
treatment process discussed further in Section VII.

A more complex method of analysis was required to evaluate typical raw
wastewater conentrations associated with each wastewater stream in the
aluminum forming industry.  The concentration of  pollutants  detected
in  individual  samples  may  not  be representative of the wastewater
stream due to differing degrees of dilution at  each  plant;  however,
the  mass  of pollutants discharged is proportional to the production,
as discussed in Section IV.   Thus,  the  mass  loading  data  (kg  of
pollutant  per  kkg  of  production), not the concentration data, from
sampled plants were averaged to determine  concentrations  typical  of
the  different wastewater streams.  The calculations can be summarized
as follows:

mass of pollutant  X volume of water discharged = mass of pollutant (q)
volume of wastewater       mass of product          mass of product (kg)

(measured concentration (actual discharge rate = actual mass loading
   of pollutant)             at sampled plant)      (g/kg or kg/kkg)


In addition, it was sometimes not  possible  to  determine  wastewater
flows  during  sampling.  When this occured, flows reported in the dcp
response for the plant were used to supplement the measured data.  The
mass loadings corresponding to the sampled plants were  then  averaged
and  this  value  was divided by the typical discharge rate, (based on
dcp responses from all plants-see Section IX).  The result, a weighted
average of pollutant concentrations, most  accurately  represents  the
typical   raw   wastewater  concentrations  associated  with  a  given
wastewater stream.  Typical concentrations  are  shown  in  subsequent
sections of this report.

All  analytical  results  were computerized along with the appropriate
flow and production information.  The computer was used to  sort  data
by  wastewater stream and pollutant.  The computer also calculated the
mass loading of each  sample  (kilograms  of  pollutant  per  thousand
                                    81

-------
kilogram  of  product)  if appropriate flow and production information
was available.  If more than one sample  was  collected  at  a  sample
site, the the results were averaged

                              TABLE V-l

             ALUMINUM FORMING PROCESS WASTEWATER SOURCES

                                      Plants Known to    Number
                                       Have Process    of Samples
Wastewater Source                      Wastewater        Sites

Direct chill cooling                        29              8
Continuous rod  casting cooling               3              0
Continuous rod  casting lubricant             2              0
Continuous sheet casting                     3              0
Stationary mold casting                      0              0
Air pollution control for metal treatment    5              1
Rolling with neat oils                      45              1
Rolling with emulsions                      27              5
Roll grinding emulsions                      4              1
Extrusion die cleaning bath                 11              0
Extrusion die cleaning rinse                 5              1
Air pollution control for extrusion
    die cleaning                             2              0
Extrusion dummy block cooling                3              1
Air pollution control for forging            3              1
Drawing with neat oils                      55              0
Drawing with emulsions or soaps              5              1
Heat treatment  quench                       43             16
Air pollution control for annealing furnace  1              1
Annealing furnace seal                       1              0
Degreasing solvents**                        2              5
Cleaning and etch line baths                12              7
Cleaning and etch line rinses               20             19
Air pollution control for etch lines         4              1
Saw oil                                      30
Swaging and stamping                         0              0
Miscellaneous  (combined or nonaluminum forming
    stream)                                                17
Source water                                               23

 * Some plants  have more than one waste stream from each source and the!
   duplicates were not counted.

** Although solvents are reported to be discharged or hauled from only
   two plants,  samples were taken from solvents within the degreasing
   system.
                                    82

-------
Sampling.  Wastewater samples were collected in two stages:  screening
and verification.  Ideally, the screening phase involves collection of
samples from every waste stream in the category.  Pollutants that were
not  detected  during  screening  were  not  considered further in the
study.  Because of the tight schedule of this  study,  there  was  not
time  to  analyze  all of the samples obtained during screening before
verification sampling began.   Therefore,  verification  samples  were
analyzed  for  almost  all  of  the priority pollutants as well as the
conventional and non-conventional pollutants.

The samples were collected and analyzed according to EPA  protocol  as
of  April  1977.   That protocol requires that three 24-hour composite
samples or one 72-hour composite sample be collected.

The samples were to be collected through teflon and tygon tubing.  The
tygon tubing contains some of the priority  pollutants;  therefore,  a
tubing  blank  was  collected  as  well.   Approximately one gallon of
organic-free water was passed through the  tubing  immediately  before
sampling  began;  it  was  then  collected and analyzed.  However, the
wastewater stream is frequently of a  corrosive  nature  and  may  not
leach  from the tubing the same quantity of organics that the organic-
free blank water does.  This problem is discussed in more detail later
in this section and in Section VI.

Blanks  for  the  volatile  organic  acid  (VOA)  samples  were   also
collected.   They  were  prepared  by  pouring organic-free water into
sample  bottles  while  at  the  sampling  site,  thereby  giving   an
indication  of the VOA concentrations present in the atmosphere during
sampling.

Samples of the source water used as make-up in the production  process
were collected so that the concentration of  pollutants present in the
background could be determined.

Sample Analysis.  Samples were sent by air to one of two laboratories:
Cyrus  Wm.   Rice  Division  of NUS Corporation of Pittsburgh, PA, and
Radian Corporation of Austin, TX.  Screening  samples  went  to  Rice;
there  the samples were split for metals analysis.  An aliquot of each
metal sample received by Rice was sent to the EPA's Chicago laboratory
for inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectrophotometry (ICAP)
analysis;   Rice   retained   an   aliquot   for   atomic   absorption
spectrophotometry (AA).  The following tabulation indicates the method
of analysis used for each metal during the screening program.
                                  83

-------
 Metals  by  ICAP                       Metals by AA

 Ca      Cu                            Sb
 Mg     . Fe                            As
 Na      Mn                            Se
 Ag      Mo                            Tl
 Al      Ni                            Hg
 B        Pb
 Ba      Sn
 Be      Ti
 Cd      V
 Co      Y
 Cr      Zn

 Many  of  the metals analyzed by I CAP are not classified as pollutants
 and are not  reported  in  this  document  as  pollutants.   They  are
 considered   only  because  they  consume  lime  and  increase  sludge
 production in wastewater treatment facilities.

 Verification samples went to Radian where metal analysis was performed
 by AA.  Since metals analysis of screening samples was complete before
 verification metals analysis began/ Radian analyzed  only  for  metals
 shown  to  be  significant  in  the aluminum forming category or those
 expected to consume large amounts of lime.  The  following  tabulation
 indicates the metals included in verification analysis.

 Metals Included in Verification Analysis

         Sb             Cu
         As             Fe
         Ca             Mn
         Mg             Mo
         Na             Ni
         Al             Pb
         B              Sn
         Ba             Ti
         Be             V
         Cd             Y
         Co             Zn
         Cr             Hg

 Because of time constraints imposed on the aluminum forming study, All
 pollutants  (with  the  exception of a few metals discussed previously
 and Pollutant  85  as  mentioned  below)  were  analyzed  for  in  the
 verification samples.

Due  to  their  very  similar  physical and chemical properties, it is
extremely difficult to separate the  seven  polychlorinated  biphenyls
 (pollutants 107-113) on the list of priority pollutants for analytical
identification    and    quantification.    For   that   reason,   the
                                   84

-------
concentrations of the polychlorinated biphenyls are  reported  by  the
analytical  laboratory in two groups:  one group consists of PCB-1242,
PCB-1254 and PCB-1221; the other group consists of PCB-1232, PCB-1248,
PCB-1260 and PCB-1018.  For  convenience,  the  first  group  will  be
referred to as PCB-1254 and the second as PCB-1248.

Pollutant  85,  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin  (TCDD),  was  not
analyzed for because no authentic reference sample  was  available  to
the analytical laboratory.

Concentrations  of  pollutant  117,   asbestos  are not included in the
present draft because analytical data has not yet been received.

Past studies by EPA  and  others  have  identified  many  non-priority
pollutant  parameters  useful in characterizing industrial wastewaters
and in evaluating treatment process removal efficiencies.  Certain  of
these and other parameters may also be selected as reliable indicators
of the presence of specific priority pollutants.  For these reasons,  a
number  of  non-priority pollutants were also studied for the aluminum
forming category.  These additional pollutants may be divided into two
general groups:
         Conventional

         total suspended solids (TSS)
         oil and grease
         pH
Non-convent ional

chemical oxygen demand (COD)
phenols (total)
total organic carbon
total dissolved solids (TDS)
The EPA criteria for the selection of conventional pollutants
32857 January 11, 1980) are given below:
                   (43  FR
1.  Generally those pollutants which are naturally occurring,
    biodegradable, oxygen demanding materials, and solids which
    have characteristics similar to naturally occurring
    biodegradable, substances; or,

2.  Include those classes of pollutants which traditionally  have
    been the primary focus of wastewater control.

In addition, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, alkalinity, total dissolved
solids, and sulfate were measured to provide data to  evaluate  the  cost
of  lime  and  settle  treatment of certain wastewater streams.  These
pollutants were not considered for regulation in establishing  effluent
limitations guidelines.

The  analytical  quantification  levels  used  in  evaluation  of   the
sampling data reflect the accuracy of  the  analytical  methods employed.
Below  these  concentrations,  the  identification  of   the  individual
compounds is possible, but quantification  is  difficult.    Pesticides
                                  85

-------
can be analytically quantified  at  concentrations above 0.005 mg/1, and
other  organic   priority  pollutants above 0.010 mg/1.  The analytical
quantification  levels associated with  toxic  metals  are  as  follows:
0.100  mg/1  for antimony;  0.010 mg/1 for arsenic; 1 x 107 fibers/1 for
asbestos;  0.010 mg/1 for beryllium; 0.002 mg/1 for cadmium; 0.005 mg/1
for chromium; 0.009 mg/1 for  copper; 0.100 mg/1 for cyanide; 0.02 mg/1
for lead;  0.0001 mg/1 for mercury;  0.005 mg/1 for nickel;  0.010  mg/1
for  selenium;   0.020  mg/1   for   silver; 0.100 mg/1 for thallium; and
0.050 mg/1 for  zinc.

WATER USE  AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS

To simplify  the presentation  of the sampling data,  tables  were  made
that  present   ranges  of  concentrations and the number of samples at
which each  pollutant  was found   within  these  ranges.   Table  V-5
presents   the   frequency  of  occurrance of all 129 priority pollutants
from all samples collected at  aluminum  forming  plants.   Table  V-5
shows  that   54  pollutants  were   either never detected (ND) or never
detected above  analytically quantifiable levels listed in  Table  V-3.
These  54  pollutants  were not listed in any of the subsequent tables
for this section.

The same approach was used for  each  aluminum  forming  waste  stream
sampled.   For   each  waste  stream a frequency of occurrance table is
presented  for   the  remaining  75  priority  pollutants.   For  those
pollutants  detected above analytically quantifiable concentrations in
any sample of that wastewater stream, the actual  analytical  data  is
presented  in   a  second table.  The letter K is used in sampling data
tables to  represent "less than  or  equal to." Where no data  is  listed
for  a  specific  day  of  sampling,   it indicates that the wastewater
samples for  the stream were not collected.

In the following discussion,  water  use  and  field  sampling  data  is
presented  on   a  stream  by  stream basis rather than by subcategory.
Appropriate  tubing or background blank and source water concentrations
are also presented.  Figure V-20 through V-37  show  the  location  of
wastewater sampling sites.

Average aluminum forming wastewater characteristics were determined by
collecting  and  analyzing  wastewater  samples.   Concentrations  of
samples  are not  average wastewater  characteristics   because   of
different  degrees of dilution at each plant sampled.

Casting

Direct  Chill   Casting  Cooling.    Of  the  266  plants  surveyed,  57
indicated that  they cast aluminum  or aluminum alloys using the  direct
chill  method.    Because  the ingot or billet produced by direct  chill
casting is used  as  stock for  subsequent  rolling  or  extrusion,  this
                                  86

-------
       SOURCE
      TAP WATER
       FORGING
        HEAT
      TREATMENT
       CAUSTIC
      ETCH LINE
        RINSE
        ACID
      ETCH LINE
        RINSE
                    A-2
                    A-3
                    A-4
  TO
 POTNV

FORGING
bCRUBBER



-5
1 	 6?v— >
\Cy

OIL -WATER
SEPARATION






SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK


TO
LANDFILL
^-


     NONCONTACT
       COOLING
 TO
POTW
FIGURE  Y-20  WASTEWATER  SOURCES  AT PLANT A
                            87

-------
SOURCE  TAP

  WATER
 DEIONIZER

REGENERANT
B-l
-®	^
DEIONIZER
COLD ROLLING
HEAT
TREATMENT

DIRECT
CHILL
CASTING

HOT
ROLLING

COLD
ROLLING

SOLVENT
DECREASING
STILL

CAUSTIC
ETCH LINE
RINSE

ACID
ETCH LINE
RINSE


ACIC
CAU
SUR
^^
E
E




STIC
FACTANT
B-6
1-2
J-3
8> —
B-5
— <8>— -*•





^. SLUDGE SAMPLING
"*~ B-IO
-o*. CONTRACTOH
EMULSION ... Q$) HAULED
t BREAKING
OOfi 7 T
J CONCENTRATE
f 1 TO MILL
hOR
ULTRA- B-8 REUSE
X> »^ r.i ArfiriFR »^
FILTRATION ^

RECYCLED
I
                      TO
                   DISCHARGE
 FIGURE TT-21  WASTEWATER SOURCES  AT PLANT B
                         88

-------
      SOURCE
    TAP  WATER
     HOT S COLD
       ROLLING
                         RECYCLE
       DIRECT
        CHILL
      CASTING
                   E-2


COOLING
TOWER
      ROD  a BAR
    HEAT TREATMENT
       QUENCH
    CAUSTIC 8 ACID
     ETCH  LINE
        RINSE
      DETERGENT
        RINSE
NON -ALUMINUM
FORMING
WASTEWATER


CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
                                             E-7
E-3
                                     E-4
                                     E-5
                                     E-6
     STORM WATER
     NON -ALUMINUM
        FORMING
       WASTEWATER
                                                   CONTRACTOR
                                                     HAULED
                                                       t
                                                      POND
                                                       I
                                                     FILTER
                                                       I
              STEAM TRACING
               OIL - WATER
               SEPARATION
                                                       I
                 POND
                                                          IE-8
             EMULSION BREAKING
                                                          E-9
                                                          lE-IO
                  POND
                                                           E-ll
                                                    RETENTION
                                                     POND  8
                                                   pH ADJUSTMENT
FIGURE 3Z>24    WASTEWATER  SOURCES  FOR
                   PLANT   El
                                                        TO
                                                     DISCHARGE
                             89

-------
D-l
          SOURCE
        TAP WATER
           HOT
         ROLLING
                    D-2
           ACID
         ETCH LINE
          RINSE
                    D-3
         CAUSTIC
         ETCH LINE
          RINSE
                    D-5
        PAINT  LINE
         BAKING
         QUENCH
                    D-6
       DIRECT CHILL
                    D-7
        NON -ALUMINUM
           FORMING
         WASTEWATER
       COLD ROLLING
           HEAT
       TREATMENT
                    D-IO
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
                            RECYCLE
CASTING

NONCONTACT
COOLING
^&~

 CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
       HOT ROLLING
           HEAT
       TREATMENT
                        D-ll
         SOLVENT
        DECREASING
  STILL
            D-15
                                      D-8
                                      D-9
                                                          D-16
                        pH ADJUSTMENT
I
                   D-13
                  SETTLED
                  SLUDGE
                         OIL-WATER
                         SEPARATION
                        8 CLARIFIER
                                                  FLOCCULATION
                                                   CLARIFIER
                                D-14

                                   TO
                                DISCHARGE
   FIGURE Y-23     WASTEWATER  SOURCES  FOR PLANT D
                                90

-------
   SOURCE
  TAP WATER
                   C-l
   DIRECT
    CHILL
   CASTING
                 COOLING
                              TOWER
HOT ROLLING

COLD ROLLING

SOLVENT
DECREASING
STILL


C-3
C-4
<
(
1
                             POLYMER
                              ALUM
                              NaOH
                      C-2
                             EMULSION


                             BREAKING
                          C-9
                      H2S04-i SLUDGE
              n
NON -ALUMINUM
   FORMING
 WASTEWATER
  C-5
H5H
   CAUSTIC
  ETCH  LINE
    RINSE
               C-6
    ACID
  ETCH  LINE
    RINSE
               C-7
  ETCH  LINE
  SCRUBBER
               C-8
 1
OIL FOR
REUSE
                                          TO
                                        STORM
                                        SEWER
                                 POND
                                             TO
                      _^ DISCHARGE
COOKERS
SLUDGE

POND
                                                     TO POTW
  FIGURE TT-22      WASTEWATER  SOURCES  AT  PLANT C
                                91

-------
 F-l

          SOURCE
           TAP
          WATER
          DIRECT
          CHILL
         CASTING
                      F-2
                    •M   0
        NONCONTACT
         COOLING
        NONCONTACT
         COOLING
F-5
              TO
           DISCHARGE
EXTRUSION
PRESS HEAT
TREATMENT
,.
CAUSTIC
DIE CLEANING
RINSE

NONCONTACT
COOLING
F-6
/\/\ -^
V^v
F-7
/V^ 	 fc
^^ ^

1

                                    F-8
                                                  TO
                                               DISCHARGE
          WASTE
        HYDRAULIC
           OIL
   CONTRACTOR
    HAULED
FIGURE  3C-E5   WASTEWATER SOURCES  AT PLANT  F
                          92

-------
 G-l
        SOURCE
       TAP WATER
 G-2

        SOURCE
       DEIONIZED
        WATER
        EXTRUSION
          PRESS
      HEAT TREATMENT
        EXTRUSION
          PRESS
      HEAT TREATMENT
        VIBRATORY
          FINISH
       DEIONERISER a
       DEMINERALIZER
       REGENERATE
       CAUSTIC  FOR
       DIE CLEANING
                     G-3
                      G-4,566
     CLARIFIER
                                DISCARDED
                                FINES
PERIODIC DISCHARGE
                                                   TO
                                                   POTW
       NONCONTACT
         COOLING
      COOLING
      TOWER
EVAPORATION
   POND
FIGURE  TT-26   WASTEWATER  SOURCES  FOR PLANT  G
                             93

-------
 H-9

        SOURCE
       TAP WATER
DIRECT
CHILL
CASTING

-0.
COOLING
TOWER
                  H-l
                                  H-2
                                       OIL-WATER
                                       SEPARATION
                                                    H-3
 H-7
 OIL
SAMPLE
                                             H-8
                                             OIL
                                            SAMPLE
      N ON CONTACT
        COOLING
  OIL- WATER
  SEPARATION
                     TO
                  DISCHARGE
       DETERGENT
       ETCH  LINE
         RINSE
        CAUSTIC
       ETCH  LINE
         RINSE
                    H-4
         ACID
      ETCH  LINE
         RINSE
                    H-5
                    H-6
        TO
       POTW
FIGURE 3C-27    WASTEWATER  SOURCES AT PLANT   H
                           94

-------
J-l
      SOURCE
     TAP WATER
    SPENT SAW
       OILS
CONTRACTOR
  HAULED
ACID
ETCH LINE
RINSE

ETCH LINE
SCRUBBER

VIBRATORY
FINISH
J-2
J-4
(\/\ f
     FORGING
      HEAT
    TREATMENT
               J-3







4
H
J-5

/>x\ _
\s\r


WASTE
RECEIVING
TANK




J






PH
ADJUSTMENT
i
CLARIFIER
i

HOLDING
TANK



J-6
/O\ REUSE AS
^CV^ETCH RINSE
\
} 	 TO
POTW
FIGURE 21-28   WASTEWATER SOURCES  AT PUNT J
                        95

-------
      SPENT
    HYDRAULIC OIL
         _^ CONTRACTOR
             HAULED
      SOURCE
     TAP  WATER
  K-l
       ACID
     ETCH  LINE
       RINSE
      CAUSTIC
     ETCH LINE
       RINSE
                 K-2
                 K-3
               PH
           ADJUSTMENT
 CATION 1C
FLOCCULANT
                                         IK-4
           FLOCCULATION
                                    CLARIFIER
                        K-5
                      HSh
                         ANIONIC
                        FLOCCULANT
   TO
DISCHARGE
                                         SLUDGE
                                   FLOCCULATION
                                     VACUUM
                                      FILTER
                             FILTER CAKE
                             TO LANDFILL
    NONCONTACT
      COOLING
             COOLING
             TOWER
   TO
DISCHARGE
FIGURE 3C-29   WASTEWATER SOURCES AT   PLANT  K
                          96

-------
L-9
      NONCONTACT
        COOLING
      DIRECT CHILL
        CASTING
        BUFFING
       SCRUBBER
  L-l
H8>-
  L-3
H8H
       EXTRUSION
      DUMMY BLOCK
        COOLING
                    L-4
                             OIL- WATER
                            SEPARATION
       CONVERSION
     COATING  RINSE
    L-5
H8H
       PAINT LINE
         RINSE
       ANODIZING
         RINSE
       CAUSTIC
      PAINT  LINE
         RINSE
        SOURCE
     TAP  WATER
                    L-6
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
                                        L-8
                                  ) SLUDGE
                              SLUDGE
                            DRYING BEDS
                   TO
                DISCHARGE
                   .* TO
                    LANDFILL
               SLUDGE
                            CLAR1FIER
           CHEMICAL
          PRECIPITATION
                                                          TO
                                                       DISCHARGE
    FIGURE  Y-30   WASTEWATER  SOURCES  AT PLANT  L
                              97

-------
N-l
 SOURCE
TAP WATER
       CONVERSION
        COATING
         RINSES
       PAINT  LINE
         RINSES
                      CHROMIUM
                      REDUCTION
  LAND
APPLICATION
9TORMWATFR


EXTRUSION
HEAT TREATMENT

DIRECT
CHILL
CASTING


PAINT BAKE- OVEN
QUENCH

CAUSTIC
ETCH LINE
RINSE

ANNEALING FURNACE
ATMOSPHFRF
SCRUBBER

DETERGENT
RINSE



N-2
fif\ m.
^•y
COOLING
	 m TOWER N^ ^
__ a -®-Hg)-
OIL- WATER x-x x-x
SEPARATION

-5
/9\
w

-6
6^
w

N-7
^
w

N-8
(9\
w
                                                         TO
                                                     "DISCHARGE
      HOT AND COLD
        ROLLING
                                   CONTRACTOR
                                     HAULED
   FIGURE  3Z-3I    WASTEWATER  SOURCES  AT PLANT N
                             98

-------
P-6
P-4
          SOURCE
         WELL WATER
          SOURCE
       SOFTENED WATER
          SOURCE
       DEIONIZED WATER
DIRECT
CHILL
CASTING

HOT ROLLING

HYDRAULIC 8
TRAMP OILS

P-5


. ^
COOLING
TOWER


HOLDING
TANK
i

EMULSION
BREAKING

TO
m DISCHARGE
j

OIL -WATER
SEPARATION
P-7
/O\ EVAPORATION
V^y * LAGOON
                                   P-8
                             CONTRACTOR
                               HAULED
  FIGURE 2-32   WASTEWATER  SOURCES  AT PLANT  P
                            99

-------
  Q-l
          SOURCE
        TAP WATER
        CAUSTIC 8 ACID
         ETCH LINE
          RINSES
                     Q-2
         FORGING
          HEAT
        TREATMENT
                      Q-3
CLARIFIER
             Q-4
TO POTW
                                       Q-5
                                          SLUDGE TO LANDFILL
FIGURE 1-33   WASTE WATER  SOURCES  AT PLANT  Q
                           100

-------
R-ll
         SOURCE
         WATER
         DIRECT
         CHILL
        CASTING
  MELTING
  FURNACE
ELECTROSTATIC
 PRECIPITATOR
        BILLET  a
        EXTRUSION
         SAW OILS
        FORGING a
        EXTRUSION
        HYDRAULIC
          OILS
        CONVERSION
       COATING RINSE
         FORGING
          HEAT
        TREATMENT
        EXTRUSION
           HEAT
        TREATMENT
        NONCONTACT
         COOLING
        STORMWATER
                      COOLING
                      TOWER
                    CONTRACTOR
                     HAULED
                      COOLING
                       TOWER
                      COOLING
                       TOWER
                      COOLING
                       TOWER
                                        R-2
HgH,
                                        R-3
                                        R-7
                                 &-
CAUSTIC a
ACID ETCH
LINE RINSES
1
(

                                        R-6
                                        R-4
H8>-
                                        R-;
Hg>-
                                                R-8
                                                       TO
   FIGURE  3L-34   WASTEWATER  SOURCES AT PLANT  R
                            101

-------
S-l
         SOURCE
        WELL WATER
          DRAWING
                     S-2
  LUBRICANT
HOLDING TANK
TO POTW
     BATCH
    DISCHARGE
  FIGURE 3T-35   WASTEWATER  SOURCES AT PLANT  S
                        102

-------
HOT ROLLING
             T-l
NONCONTACT
  COOLING
           BATCH 4 x/yr
COOLING
 TOWER
                                                TO POTW
FIGURE 3T-36  WASTEWATER SOURCES AT PLANT T
                      103

-------
  U-l
1
        SOURCE
       WELL WATER
       STORMWATER
       NON CONTACT
        COOLING
                                                   -WATER
                                                 SEPARATION
                  TO
                DISCHARGE
                                                              WASTE
                                                              WATER
                                                             TO LAND
                                                            APPLICATION
                                                        U-IO
                                   TO
                                DISCHARGE
  OIL TO
BOILER FEED
     FIGURE 3T -37   WASTEWATER  SOURCES AT PLANT   U
                              104

-------
o
en
                                                             TABLE V-5



                                  FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                                                      ALUMINUM FORMING INDUSTRY




                                                          RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical Number
Quantification of
Level Streams
Pollutant (ug/1) Analyzed
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.
acenaphthene
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
benzidine
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
hexachloroethane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
1,1, 2- trichloroethane
1,1,2, 2- tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
bis(chloromethyl)ether
bis(chloroethyl)ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4, 6- trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
88
86
86
86
88
86
86
88
88
86
86
88
86
86
86
86
88
88
86
88
89
89
86
89
88
88
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10
81
86
86
78
86
86
84
88
88
86
83
88
85
86
86
86
88
88
86
88
87
88
71
86
88
88
11-100 101-1000
4 2


6
2

2



1 1

1







1
1
13 1
2 1


1000+
1


2






1









1

1




-------
                           TABLE V-5 (Continued)



FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                    ALUMINUM FORMING INDUSTRY



                        RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant (ug/1)
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene
3,3' -dichlorobenzidine
1 , 1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
1 , 2-dichloropropane
1 , 3-dichloropropylene
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
2 , 4-dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-dinitrotoluene
1 , 2-diphenylhydra2ine
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
methylene chloride
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
bromoform
dichlorobromome thane
trichlorof luoromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
88
88
86
86
89
86
86
89
88
88
88
86
88
88
88
88
88
86
86
86
92
92
86
86
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10
88
88
85
83
88
86
86
88
87
87
88
82
85
88
88
88
88
45
86
86
92
92
86
86
11-100 101-1000 1000+


1
1 2
1


1
1
1

4
3




13 22 6







-------
                           TABLE V-5 (Continued)



FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS




                    ALUMINUM FORMING INDUSTRY




                        RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quanti f ication
Level
Pollutant (ug/1)
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
chlorodibromomethane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2 ,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a) anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo (b)fluoranthene
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
92
88
88
88
88
88
89
89
89
89
88
88
88
89
89
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10
91
88
88
84
85
87
89
88
82
87
88
82
88
87
78
61
81
79
84
79
85
87
87
88
11-100 101-1000
1


4
1 2
1

1
4 1
2

5 1

1
10
19 5
5 2
5 2
4
9 1
2 1
1
1

1000+








2




1
1
3

2

1





-------
                           TABLE V-5 (Continued)



FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                    ALUMINUM FORMING INDUSTRY



                        RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quant i f icat ion
Level
Pollutant (ug/1)
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
89)
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
benzo (k) f luoranthene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo (ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
• indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4' -DDT
4,4' -DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha -endosulf an
beta-endosulfan
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
93
93
93
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10
88
86
87
n ^
81
88
86
81
87
87
84
88
87
90
86
85
86
85
86
86
86
85
f\ S
86
11-100 101-1000

1 1
1
5 1

2
5
1
1
4
2
3 3
1 1

1

1



1

1000+



1


2



3

1










-------
o
vo
                                                             TABLE V-5 (Continued)



                                  FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                                                      ALUMINUM FORMING INDUSTRY



                                                          RAW WASTEWATER

98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
Pollutant
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BBC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxaphene
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
Analytical
Quanti f ication
Level
(ug/1)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 (a)
5 (a)
5(a)
5(b)
5(b)
5{b)
5(b)
5
200
50
100
10
50
100
100
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86

86


86


86
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10
84
86
84
86
86
85
85
86
85

80


80


86
88
81
86
79
50
50
64
59
11-100
2

2



1

1

6


5



2
9
4
8
18
16
25
11
101-1000













1



2
2
2
4
8
12
2
10
1000+




















1
16
14



-------
                                                 TABLE V-5  (Continued)




                      FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS




                                          ALUMINUM FORMING  INDUSTRY



                                              RAW WASTEWATER


Analytical
Number
Quantification of


124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.

Pollutant
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
Level
(UR/1)
1
100
10
100
100
500
Streams
Analyzed
92
92
92
92
92
92




Number of Times Observed

ND-10
90
72
90
89
88
44
in Streams
11-100
2
11
1
3
2
17
(ug/1)*
101-1000

5
1

2
15

1000+
•r'
4



16
* Net concentration (source subtracted)



(a),(b) Reported together

-------
wastewater stream is associated as an add-on with Subcategories II and
III, Rolling with Emulsions and Extrusion, respectively.

Contact  cooling  water  is used in the direct chill casting method to
spray the ingot or billet as it drops from the mold and then to quench
it as it is immersed in a cooling tank at the bottom  of  the  casting
pit.    As  described  in  Section  III,  the  cooling  water  may  be
contaminated by lubricants applied to the mold before and  during  the
casting  process.   Some  plants  discharge  this cooling water stream
without recycle but it is  commonly  recirculated  through  a  cooling
tower.    Even  with  recycle, periodic discharge or the discharge of a
continuous bleed stream is required to  prevent  the  accumulation  of
dissolved  solids.   Of  the  42  plants  for  which  information  was
available, 26 recycle the contact cooling water stream used in  direct
chill  casting  through  a cooling tower.  The average recycle rate at
these plants was 95 percent but the reported values ranged between  50
and 100 percent.

The  calculated  water  use,  percent  recycle  and  wastewater values
corresponding to direct chill casting  cooling  water  streams  at  48
plants  are presented in Table V-6 along with a statistical summary of
this data.  Histograms are also used to  compare  the  water  use  and
wastewater rates in Figures V-38 and V-39, respectively.  In addition,
a  histogram  comparing  discharge  rates  at  those plants practicing
recycle of the cooling water stream is shown in Figure V-41.

Table V-7 shows the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants for
this wastewater stream  type.   The  field  sampling  data  for  those
priority pollutants detected above analytically quantifiable levels is
summarized   in  Table  V-8,  which  also  contains  the  non-priority
pollutant data for this waste stream.  The method by which each sample
was collected is indicated in Table V-8 as follows:

    1  one time grab
    2  24 hour manual composite
    3  24 hour automatic composite
    4  48 hour manual composite
    5  48 hour automatic composite
    6  72 hour manual composite
    7  72 hour automatic composite.

                              TABLE V-6

                     DIRECT-CHILL CASTING COOLING

                   Water Use          Percent     Wastewater
Plant                (gpt)            Recycle       (qpt)

  1                   *                *              0
  2                   *               100             0
                               111

-------
3
4
5
^J
7
8
A
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
33

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
STATISTICAL
660
*
vr
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
220
9,000
94
*
18,000
7,500
3,400
8,500
8,900
17,000
15,000
*
17,000
10,000
810
920
1,200
170'000
I' 500
e'soo
13^000
14,000
22,000
*
*
*
*
*
*
12,000
*
*
*
*
SUMMARY
50
97
*
*
100
100
99
99
100
99
*
97
0
* •
97
98
93
94
97
96
96
*
94
92
0
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
96
0
0
0
0
100
98
100
0
90
0
0
o
0
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
29
60
94
120
150
150
230
270
280
370
470
500
580
660
1 / 200
1 , 400
2,200
2, 300
4,000
6, 800
13,000
14,000
22,000
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*






081
083
099
10


































MAXIMUM                170,000                           22>000
                             112

-------
MEAN                    15,000                            1,900
MEDIAN                   8,500                              230

NON-ZERO MINIMUM            94                                0 08
NON-ZERO MEAN           15,000                            2,500
NON-ZERO MEDIAN          8,500                              470

FOR PLANTS WITH RECYCLE:
MINIMUM                    660                                0
MAXIMUM                170,000                            1,400
MEAN                    23,000                              230
MEDIAN                  10,000                              104

NON-ZERO MINIMUM           660                              0 08
NON-ZERO MAXIMUM       170,000                             1 400
NON-ZERO MEAN           23,000                               300
NON-ZERO MEDIAN         10,000                               230

* Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
Note:     Difference between water use and wastewater values are due to
         recycle, evaporation and carryover.

Continuous Rod Casting Cooling.  Three of the plants surveyed in  this
study   use  continuous casting methods to manufacture aluminum rod for
subsequent drawing.  This process, frequently referred to as  Properzi
or  wheel  casting, is described in Section III.  Although the cooling
water  associated with continuous rod casting is, for  the  most  part,
noncontact,  some  contact  with  the  freshly cast aluminum bar as it
leaves the ring mold is difficult to  avoid.   For  this  reason,  the
cooling  water used in continuous rod casting operations is classified
as an  additional allocation stream associated with Subcategories V and
VI, Drawing with Neat  Oils  and  Drawing  with  Emulsions  or  Soaps,
respectively.

Water  use and wastewater factors corresponding to this stream could be
calculated  for  only  one of the three continuous rod casting plants.
At this facility no recycle of the cooling water was practiced and the
water  use and wastewater rate  were  both  250  gpt.   Water  use  and
wastewater  rates  could  not  be calculated for the other two plants.
One is known  to  recycle  and  periodically  discharge  this  stream,
however, and the second indicated that recycle was not practiced.

No field samples were collected of this cooling water stream.

Continuous  Rod  Casting  Lubricant.   As  discussed  in  Section III,
continuous casting incorporates casting  and  rolling  into  a  single
process.   Oil-in-water  emulsions  are used as lubricants in recycle,
evaporation and carryover.  All of the  rod  casting  plants  surveyed
practiced  total  recycle  of  this stream although two indicated that
periodic disposal was required.  Sufficient flow and  production  data
                                   113

-------
                        TABLE V-7
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS
                      DIRECT CHILL CASTING
                      Contact Cooling Water
                        RAW WASTEWATER

1.
4.
5.
11.
U.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34
3b.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
•)4.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Pollutant
acenaphtbeoe
benzene
benzidine
1 , 1 , 1-trichlorouthane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-trichloroph«?nol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-tr.ius-dichloroethylene
2,4-dichloropheuol
2,4-diiuethylphenol
2,4-dinitrololuene
2, 6-diiiitro toluene
ethylbenzene
f luoranthene
mettiylene chloride
chlorodibromome thane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-creBol
N-iiitrosodiphenylaoiine
peiitachlorojthenol
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
hntvl h*»n7Vl nhthalate
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/l)
10
10
10
10
10
10
'10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
]0
10
10
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
20
23
20
23
23
20
20
23
20
23
20
20
20
20
23
20
23
23
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Number of Tines Observed
in Streams (ug/l)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
12
11 1
12
12
12
12
12
6 6
11 1
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
525
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
9 3
642
9 1 2

-------
    TABLE V-7
DIRECT CHILL CASTING (continued)
Contact Cooling Water
   RAW WASTEWATER

68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Pollutant
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a )anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4, 4' -DDT
4,4' -DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
«
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
23
23
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
7 5
10 2
9 3
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

-------
CTl
                                                                   TABLE V-7
                                                            DIRECT CHILL  CASTING
                                                               Contact  Cooling Water
                                                                  RAW WASTEWATER


103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.

I'ol lulanl
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gjiuma-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
'PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PC B- 1260
PCB-1016
antimony (tot.il)
arsenic (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total )
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
zinc (total)
Analyl icul
Quantil icalion
Level
(UK/I)
5
5
5
5
5(aj
5(a)
5(a)
5(b)
5(b)
5(b)
5(b)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
s
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
12
12
12
12

12


12


12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
16
16
16
16

16


16


20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20 .
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
12
12
12
12

12


10 2


12
12
12
12
12
12
8 4
11 1
11 1
12
255
      *Net concentration (source subtracted)
      (a),(b) Reported together

-------
 Pollutant
 4. benzene
23. chloroform
Stream   Sample
 Code"   Type
0-7
K-2
E-3
K-2
F-3
II- 1
11-2
L-l
N-3
l'-2
H-2
U-2
D-7
K-2
K-3
I--2
K-3
11-1
11-2
L-l
N-:J
l'-2
K-2
U-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1






1
1
1
1
1
1
                                                           TABLE V-8
                                                          SAMI'LINC, DATA

                                                      DIRECT CHILL CASTING

                                                      Contact Cooling Water

                                                         RAW VASTEWATER

                                                      CNOSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source            Day  1            D;iy  2

         PKIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
                           NO
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           NO
                           23
                           23
                           Nl)
                           ND
                           ND
                           Nl)
                         K 10

                           20
                         K 10
                         K 10
                           12
                           12
                           66
                           66
                          100
                           40
                           NL>
                           40
                         K 10
                                                                  Nl)
                                                                  ND
                                                                  13
                                                                  ND
                                                                    1
                                                                 K  1
                                                                  Nl)
                                                                  Nl)
                                                                  Nl)
                                                                  ND
                                                                 K  5
                                                                  6r>
                                                                  66
                                                                  36
                                                                  12
                                                                  14
                                                                  27
                                                                  10
                                                                  10
                                                                  ND
                                                                  10
                                                                  ND
                                   K  1

                                   K  1

                                      1

                                   K  1

                                      •i
                                    ND



                                      5

                                    72

                                    19

                                    12

                                    Nl)
                                    Nl)
   2

   2

 K 1

  ND
  Nl)

  ND



 lr>0
K 10
  10

  Nl)
                                                                                                                             Mass
                                                                                                                            Loading
                                                                                                                  Average   (kg/kkg)
K 1
Nl)
K 1
13
1
1
K 1
ND
2
ND
ND
K 2
5
65
96
:id
ir>
14
15
K 10
K /
:t
HI
Nl)



4.7E-4
4K-5
3E-7


2E-6


5E-5



1.3K-3
5.4K-4
4.8E-6

6K-6
i; 711-6
2K-6



-------
                                                                               TABLE V-B

                                                                          DlkECT CHILL  CASTING

                                                                          CunUcl Cooling Water
                     Pollutant
                    24. 2-chlorophenol
Stream  Sample
 Code*  Type
00
                    44.  nethylene chloride
    D-7
    E-2
    E-3
    F-2
    F-3
    H-l
    11-2
    L-l
    N-3
    F-2
    K-2
    U-2

    D-7
    E-2
    E-3
    F-2
    F-:J
    H-l
    11-2
    L-l
    N-3
    P-2
    K-2
    U-2
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
                                                                 Source
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND

 K 10
   17
   17
   24
   24
1,100
                                                                 1
             100
              ND
              ND
              10
             K 5
             K 5
                                                                          CKOSS CONCtNTKATIONS
                                                                                  Day  1
                                                        Day 2
                                                              Day 3
                                                                         PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)   (Continued)
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   12
                                                                                   10
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
                                                                                   ND
K 10
  13
 185
  40
 150
 110
 K 5
   5
  10
 K 5
 470
 Nl)



 ND


 Nl)

 ND

230

 58

 84

140

  5
 10
  ND



  ND


  ND

  ND



 393

 160

  34

   5
  10

K 10
                                                                           Mass
                                                                          Loading
                                                                 Average   (k>;/kkg)
                                                   ND
                                                   ND
                                                   ND
                                                   12
                                                 K 10
                                                   NU
                                                   Nl)
                                                   ND
                                                   NO
                                                   ND
                                                   ND
                                                   NO
  230
 K  10
  155
  185
   
-------
 Pollutant
65. phenol
Stream
 Codr*
Sample
Type
66. bis(2-etl>ylhexyl)
      phthalate
D-7
E-2
K-3
K-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
I'-2
k-2
U-2
D-7
K-2
K-3
F-2
K-3
ll-l
11-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
K-2
U-2
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
';
2
3
1
d
2
3
7
6
:j
i
:i
                                                           TABLE V-8

                                                      D1HKCT CHILL CASTING

                                                      Con 1.111 Cooling Water

                                                        KAW WASTKWATEH
                                                      CKObS CONCENTKATJONS
                                             Source            Day 1           Day  2            Day 3

                                                      PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)    (Continued)
                  ND
                 K 5
                 K 5
                  ND
                  Nf)
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  Nl)
                  ND
                  ND
                  NO
               K  10
               K  10
               K  10
                  25
                  25
                  65
                  65
                  ND
                  ND
                  5
                K 5
                K 5
                                         ND
                                         56
                                         ND
                                         NO
                                         ND
                                         ND
                                       K 10
                                         ND

                                         10
                                         50
                                         ND
                                         46
                                         64
                                        140
                                         23
                                          4
                                        280
                                         66
                                         ND
                                         Nl)
                                         ND
                                         ND
                                         20
 ND



 ND


  5

 ND




 ND



200


  5

K 5
                                                                                                 ND
                                                                                                 Nl)

                                                                                                 50
                                                                                                  5

                                                                                                 ND
                                                                                                 ND



                                                                                                180


                                                                                                 10

                                                                                                K 5
                                          Mass
                                         Loading
                               Average    (kg/kkg)
  ND
  56
  ND
  ND
  Nl)
  ND
 K 3
  ND
  50
   7
  50
  ND
  46
  64
  50
  23
   4
 280
 150
  Nil
  ND
   5
  ND
K 10
5E-5
4E-6
8.4E-4
1E-4
9.5E-5
3E-6

2E-4

-------
                      Pollutant
                     67. butyl  benzyl
                            phthulate
Stream   Sample
 Code"   Type
ro
o
                     68. di-n-butyl plilhaldtc
D-7
E-2
K- J
F-2
F-l
II- I
11-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
E-3
f-2
f-:»
II- 1
11-2
I.-I
N-.J
l'-2
R-2
U-2
2
^
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
                           Nl)
                        K  10
                        K  10
                        K  10
                        K  10
                           Nl)
                           ND
                           Nl)
                           ND
                           ND
                           ND
                           NO

                        K  10
                        K  10
                        K  10
                        K  10
                        K  10
                        K  10
                        K  10
                           NO
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                         K r>
                        K  10
                                                                                   TABLE V-a

                                                                              DIRECT CHILL CASTING

                                                                              CouLucL Cooling Water

                                                                                HAW WASTEVATtK
                                                                             UKOSS CUKCtNTKATIONS
Source            Day 1            Day 2            l)«ty 3

         PK10KITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)   (Continued)
                   37
                   NI)
                   NO
                   ND
                   Nl)
                  230
                  130
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   Nl)
                   ND

                   ND
                   43
                   55
                   11
                   ND
                   29
                   15
                   Nl)
                   ND
                    5
                   NI)
                   Nl)
340


 ND

 ND



 13



 22


 Nl)

 10
                                                                                                                         ND



                                                                                                                        600


                                                                                                                         ND

                                                                                                                         Nl)
                                                                                                                         22


                                                                                                                         ND

                                                                                                                       K 10
                                          Mass
                                         Loading
                                Average   (kg/kkg)
 37
 Nl)
 0.3
 ND
 Nl)
230
360
 Nl)
 Nl)
 ND
 Nl)
 ND
 ND
 43
 24
 11
 Nl)
 29
 20
 ND
 ND
  2
 ND
K 7
                                             7.8E-5
4E-4

9.9E-6



1E-6

-------
 I'ollul i'it
Stream   Sample
 Coili'*   Type
69. di-n-octyl uhthalate
70. diethyl  phthaJate
D-7
K-2
K-3
F-2
F-3
II- 1
II- 2
l.-l
N-:t
l'-2
K-2
U-2
I)-/
li-2
ii-3
F-2
K-3
II- 1
11-2
1.-1
N-:»
P-2
\<-2
U-2
2
2
;i
1
6
2
:i
/
d
3
1
'(
2
^J
1
1
d
2
1
7
6
3
1
3
                                                               TABLE V-8

                                                         UIKECT CHILL CASTING

                                                         Contact. Cooling Wjter

                                                            KAW VASTKWATEK

                                                         GKOSS CONCENTKAT10NS
Source            Day  1             Day 2            Day 3

         PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/l)    (Continued)
                           N!)
                           N!)
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           ND
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           ND
                           Nl)
                           ND

                           Nl)
                         K 10
                         K 10
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                         K 1U
                         K 10
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                           Nl)
                          K 5
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   «J4
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND
                  K  5

                   ND
                   73
                  110
                 K  10
                    12
                   Nl)
                 K  10
                   ND
                   Nl)
                   Nl)
                   Nl)
                  K  5
  ND



 120


  ND

  ND



  ND



  Nl)


  ND

K 10
  ND



  ND


  ND

  ND



  Nl)



  Nl)


  Nl)

K 10
                                                                                                                              Mass
                                                                                                                             Loading
                                                                                                                   Average   (kg/kkg)
  ND
  Nl)
  Ni)
  ND
  ND
  94
  40
  Nl)
  Nl)
  Nl)
  Nl)
 K 2
  ND
  73
  40
K 10
  12
  ND
 K 3
  ND
  Nl)
  ND
  ND
 K 8
                                                                                                                                3.2E-5
                                                                                                                                5E-5
                                                                                                                              K 4E-4
                                                                                                                                4.4K-4
                                                                                                                                2E-4

-------
                   Pollutant
                 110. PCB-1232  (b)
                 111. PCB-1248  (b)
                 112. l'CB-1260  (b)
                 113. PCB-1016  (b)
ro
ro
                J23.  lead
Stream  Sample
 Code*  Type
D-7
K-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
II- 1
11-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
0-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
                                                                               TABLE V-8
                                                                         DIRECT CIIII.L CASTING

                                                                         Contact Cooling Water

                                                                            RAW WASTEUATKH
                                                                         CROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source            Day 1           Day  2            Day 3

        PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)    (Continued)
                           0.29
                           1.2
                           1.2
                           0.22
                           0.22
                           1.10
                           1.1
                          Nl)
                          Nl)
                          NO
                          NO
                          NO
                    1.4
                   32
                   27
                   NO
                    0.10
                    0.21
                   NO
                   NO
                   ND
                   NO
                   ND
                   NO
                        K 20
                        K 20
                        K 20
                        K 20
                        K 20
                        K 20
                        K 20
                          14
                          10
                           2
                         K 1
                          10
                   20
                   20
                 K 20
                 K 20
                 K 20
                  100
                   90
                   21

                    2
                    6
                   12
  ND

  ND



K 20



  90


   6

   7
  NO

  NO



K 20



  90

  14
   4

  11
                                          Mass
                                         Loading
                                Average   (kg/kkg)
                                    1.4
  27
  Nl)
   0.10
   0.21
  Nl)
  Nl)
  Nl)
  Nl)
  Nl)
  Nl)

  20
  20
K 20
K 20
K 20
 100
  90
  21
  14
   4
   6
  10
                                                                                                                                              4K-G
                                                                                                                                              7.2K-8
                                                                                                                                            K 7E-4
                                                                                                                                            K 7E-4
                                                                                                                                              312-5

                                                                                                                                              1.2E-5
                                                                                                                                              1.4E-5
                                                                                                                                              2E-6

                                                                                                                                              2E-4

-------
                     Pollutant
                   124.  mercury
ro
co
                   129.  zinc
Stream  Sample
 Code*  Type
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
II- 1
11-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
E-2
K-3
F-2
F-3
II- 1
11-2
l.-l
N-'i
l'-2
K-2
U-2
2
2
3
1
6
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
(,
2
3
7
6
3
1
3
                                                                                TABLE V-8
                                                                          U1RJO.T CHILL CASTING

                                                                          Contact Cooling Water

                                                                             KAW WAS'I'EVATKK
         GROSS  CONCKNTKATIONS

Source            Day 1           Day  2            Day  t

        PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)    (Continued)
                           0.6
                           0.4
                           0.4
                           0.6
                           0.6
                           0.
                           0.
                                                                   K 0
                                                                     0
      4
      4
    7.3
    9.1
      1
      7
    5
                        K 50
                        K 50
                        K 50
                        K 50
                        K 50
                         100
                         100
                          53
                          10
                          10
                          53
                          10
    0.5
    0.5
    0.4
   20
  K 0.1
    0.2
  K 0.1
    7.6

  K 0.1
    2.1
    2

  100
  100
  100
 K 50
 K 50
  200
  300
 K 10

 K 10
1,000
  220
   0.8



   0.2


 K 0.4

   2



 100



 300


K 10

 240
                                                                                                                      0.4
                                                                            3
                                                                          K 0.1
                                                                                                                    100
                                                                                                                    200

                                                                                                                    370
                                                                                                                   K 10

                                                                                                                    140
                                                  Average
                                                                    100
                                                                    100
                                                                    100
                                                                   K 50
                                                                   K 50
                                                                    200
                                                                    300
                                                                   K 10
                                                                    370
                                                                   K 10
                                                                  1,000
                                                                    200
                                                                                                                                             Mass
                                                                                                                                            Lo.iflir
                                                                                                                                             (!.,'/•
0.5
0.5
0.5
20
K 0.1
0.2
K 2
7.6
3
K 0.2
2.1
2



7E-4
K 4E-6
6.8E-8

4.3E-6
3E-6
5E-6

1E-7
K 2E-3
K 2E-3
  7K-5

  6E-6
  3.8E-4
  5F.-3

-------
                     Pollutant
                     CONVENTIONAL
                   ISO. oil and grease
ro
Stream  Samplt!
 Code"  Type
    D-7 .
    K-2
    1C-3
    F-2
    F-3
    ll-l
    11-2
    11-7**
    L-l
    N-3
    l>-2
    K-2
    U-2
                                                                                    TABLE V-8

                                                                             UJHKCT CHILL CASTING

                                                                             CoiiUcl Cooling WJU.T

                                                                                KAW WASTEWATtK

                                                                             CKOSS CONCtNTKATIONS
                                                                  Source           Day  1            Day 2

                                                                     NON-PKIOR1TY POLLUTANTS (ing/1)
                                                                    K 5
 27
137
226
  5
  7
 50
 65
 6?
 19

 15
200
K 5
                                                                                                    236

                                                                                                     10
                                                                                                     60
                                                                                                    155
103
  7
                                 Day  3
                 181

                  15

                 140
32
 8

59
                                         Mass
                                        Loading
                               Average   (kg/kkg)
  27
 137
 214
   5       2K-1
  11       4K-1
  60       2E-2
 120
  69
  19       1.1E-2
  68       6.9G-2
  10       5E-3
 200
K 24       5.6E-1

-------
                   Pollutant
                 152. suspended  solids
Stream  S.imple
 Code--  Type
ro
tn
                 15'J. pll
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
F-3
II- 1
11-2
I.-l
N-3
P-2
R-2
U-2
D-7
K-2
K-3
F-2
F-3
II- 1
11-2
N-3
K-2
U-2
2
2
3
1
6
1
3
6
6
3
1
3










                                                                                  TABLE V-6

                                                                            UIKtCT CHILL CASTING

                                                                            Contact Cooling Water

                                                                              RAW WASTEVATKK
                                                                            GROSS CONCKNTKATJONS
Source            Day 1            Day 2            Day 3

   NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (mg/1)    (Continued)
                                                                  K 1
                                                                  K 1
                                                                  K 2
                                                                  K 2
                                                                    5
                                                                    7.6
                                                                    7.6
                                          37
                                          44
                                          26
                                         K 1
                                           6
                                         160
                                         113
                                           7

                                          14
                                         220
                                           4
                                           7.9
                                           7
                                           6.8
                                           7.6
                                           7.5
                                            .0
                                            .8
                                            .4
                                             1
                                                                                    7.8
                                    45



                                   135


                                    14

                                     5
                                     7.5

                                     7.9

                                     7.5
                                     7.2
                                     7.9
                                     8.4
                                     7.')
 40
149

  3
 19
                                                                                                                      7.0
                                                                                                                      7.4
                                                                                                                      6.9
                                                                                                                      8.1
                         Mass
                        Loading
               Average   (kg/kkg)
 37
 44
 37
K 1     K  4E-2
  6        2F.-1
160        5.4E-2
132
  7        4i!-3
  3        3K-3
 16        fc..'iK-3
220
  5        1E-1

-------
                     Pollutant
                     NON-CONVENTIONAL
                   149.  chemical  oxygen
                          demand  (COD)
Stream  Sample
 Code*  Type
ro
CTi
                    156. phenols  (total;  by
                          4-AAP  method)
D-7
E-2
E-3
K-2
F-3
II- 1
11-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
K-2
U-2
l)-7
E-2
E-3
K-2
K-3
H-l
H-2
L-l
N-3
P-2
K-2
U-2
2
2
3
1
6
1
3
7
6
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
6
1
3
7
6
3
1
3
                                                                                TABLE V-8

                                                                         DIRECT CHILL CASTING

                                                                         Coiil*ct. Cooling Water

                                                                            HAW WASTtWATKK
        UKOSS CONCENTRATIONS

Source           Day  1            Day 2           Day 3

   NON-PRIOKITY  POLLUTANTS (mg/1)   (Continued)
                                                                    K  5
                                                                    K  5
                                                                    K  5

                                                                    K  5
                                                                      2.8

                                                                      2
                                         62
                                        281
                                        236
                                        K 5
                                         12
                                        420
                                        374
                                         24

                                         24
                                        400
                                         14
                                         25
                                        150
                                        136
                                           1
                                           5
                                         93
                                         3B
                                           5.9
                                         19
                                           r>.6
                                         13
                                           2.8
                                  350



                                  312


                                   32

                                   25




                                  119



                                   76
373
343

 82
 39

 33
                                                                                                                    153
                                                                                                                     74
                        Mass
                       Loading
              Average   (kg/kkg)
                                    4

                                    3.3
  4

  5.1
 62
281
320
K 5
 12
420
343
 24
 K2
 32
400
 24
 25
150
136
  1
  5
 93
 63
  5.9
 19
  5
 13
  3.7
K 2E-1
  4.4K-1
  1.3E-1

  1.4K-2
  8.4E-2
  1.7E-2

  5.6E-1
                                                                                                                                               4E-2
                                                                                                                                               2E-1
                                                                                                                                               3.2E-2

-------
                   Pollutant
                                         Stream
                                          Code*
    Suni|>le
    Type
                 157. phenols  (total; by
                         4-AAP  method)
D-7
E-2
E-3
F-2
K-3
II-1
11-2
I.-1
N-3
l'-2
K-2
U-2
f\>
2
2
1
1
6
2
1
6
6
2
1
1
                                                                           TMiU V-B

                                                                      IHKKCT CHILL CASTING

                                                                      Coulacl Cooling Water

                                                                        KAU WASTEWATEK
                                                                      CKOSS CONCKNTKATIONS
           Source            Day  1            Day 2            Day 3

              NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (mg/1)   (Continued)
  0.01
  0.003
  0.004
K 0.001
  0.002
  0.014
  0.032
  0.004
  0.077

  0.117
  0.018
                               •Sample Type

                                  1   one  time grab
                                  2   24 hour luanual
                                  3   24 Ituur automatic c»/wi»Oh>ite
                                  4   4U hour manual uouiiJusitu
                                  5   4U hour automatic
                                  ti   12 hour manual cuiup. usi LCJ
                                  7   72 hour automatic
                                  N-Jte:
                                                                                                     0.005



                                                                                                     0.016


                                                                                                     0.012

                                                                                                     0.027
0.014



0.011


0.006
                                                           Mass
                                                          Loading
                                                Average    (kg/kkj-)
  0.01
  0.003
  0.008
K 0.001 K 4E-5
  0.002   7E-5
  0.014   5E-6
  0.02
  0.004   2E-6
  0.077   7.9E-5
  0.009   5E-6
  0.117
  0.022   5.2K-4
                                          Thu-:ic nuudjiiCb ulbo apply  to subsequent
                                                        T.iL/Je.-.  in  this suction.
                                ill ir.im II- / .nijly/< J

-------
c
JO

Q. 4
V
.a
E
5  3
o

UJ

o
UJ
Cd
u.
I  I
                                               i  1  i   1
                                        RANGE' 94-170,000 GPT
                                        MEAN: 15,000 GPT
                                        MEDIAN: 8,500
                                        SAMPLERS OF 57 PLANTS
I _. cvi  jo if
 I  I  I  I
 O —  eg K>
               in
  N  09
I  I  I
OWN
                                   _u
                              '  I

O —  N
CVI CJ  CM
                                                                   0>
                                                                   10
                       WATER USE (thousand gallons/ton)

   FIGURE  3C-.38  DIRECT  CHILL CASTING COOLING WATER  USE

-------
ro
vo
C.C.
20
18
^ 16
4-
c
o
£ «
o
b.
0)
.0 12
6
c
>- I0
O
-9
FREQUEf
A OB
4
2
0
1 1
-

-
.

_
-
1
?:•:•


'******<
* * * •
>*•*•*•'
*******!
* * *•*!
X;X
•ivi-
*•/*•*
:|:$:
•!•:•:•:
:••:::!








\ <
O — N
0 —








j
IO
1
CM








I1"")
if in
i i
10 *








1 i 1 I 1
RANGE: 0- i
MEAN: 1,90
MEDIAN: 23C
SAMPLE: 37
NON-ZERO DIS
NON-ZERO DIS
NON-ZERO DIS
NON-ZERO DIS






WNW'W'O'-'N
1 ' ' ' 7 7 i
« «> N co ' 1 1






>Xv X*X'
1 i i i i
'2,000 GPT
JOGPT
)GPT
OF 57 PLANTS
CHARGE RANGE:
CHARGE MEAN:
CHARGE MEDIAN:
CHARGE MEDIAN:






r i i i i i
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
cvj *n «^ tn tf\ it_ m m
i 1 i I
0.08-22.000GPT
2,500 GPT
470 GPT
29 OF 49 PLANTS

-


^
—
;X;X
—, w •*) ^ in
« eg w 
-------
to
o





o
o.
•Ss
0)
XI
c
z
UJ
§3
UJ
o:
2
1
0
1 1 I 1 1 1




—
-
-

-

ijijij:
•*vX
:•:::•::
|:j:|:|:





*•*•*•*
:§:•:
Xv!
»*•*•*«
•*•*•*«
*«*•*•*




° ? ?
o m
A CM









|
m
i
o
n



















1 8
1 1
m o
r* o











o
m
T
m
CM










;
m
N
I
O
in
i









I i 1
RANGE'-
MEAN:
i i i
0-
•III
,400 GPT
230 GPT

i i



MEDIAN: 104 GPT
MEAN % RECYCLE' 95%
SAMPLE: 20 OF 26 PLANTS
NON-ZERO DISCHARGE RANGE:
NON-ZERO DISCHARGE MEAN:
NON-ZERO DISCHARGE MEDIAN:
NON-ZERC
NON-ZERC




0 *0 0
O «M in
CM CVJ M
I 1 i
« S fi
N O CM
— CM CM




in
cM
1
O
K)
CM




) DISCHARGE
) DISCHARGE



• • :
0.08-
300 GF
230 GF
MEAN % RECY
SAMPLE;



1 i<
o in o m S "° 9
o CM m r- o <^ "°
jo to ro to v 'J- *r
i i i i i i *
m o m o m g m
r*. o CM in N O N
CM to fO (O IO f V




m
N
1



CLE: 97%
I50F



8m o m
CM m r-
i i i i




i














,400 GPT
»T
»T
20 PLANTS



o m o
O CM m
<0 u> <0
i i i
mom
N O CM
m IP to




-12
u>
i
o
m
(0



-v/-i —





-
-

*

1 W
m o
N O
<0 ^
                              WASTEWATER (gallons/ton)


           FIGURE Y-40  DIRECT CHILL CASTING COOLING WASTEWATER

                        FOR  PLANTS  USING RECYCLE

-------
was  not available to calculate water use or wastewater rates for  this
stream.

No continuous rod casting lubricant field samples were collected.

Continuous Sheet Casting Lubricant.  Of the  266  plants  surveyed  in
this   study,   12  cast  aluminum  sheet  products   using  continuous
techniques such as the Hunter or Hazelett methods.    While  continuous
sheet  or  strip  casting  uses  only  noncontact cooling water, a few
plants indicated that lubricants  were  required  for the  associated
rolling  line.  Oil-in-water emulsions, graphite solutions and  aqueous
solutions of magnesia can be used for this  purpose.   Of  the  plants
surveyed,  four  reported  the  use  of lubricants in their continuous
sheet casting operations.  The lubricants were always recycled  and two
of the plants indicated that periodic  disposal  of   this  stream   was
required.   Water use and wastewater rates of this stream are shown in
Table V-9 for four plants.  One other plant reported  periodic disposal
of  the  lubricant  but  provided  no  flow  data.    Seven  additional
facilities with continuous sheet casting did not indicate the use  of a
rolling lubricant.

No  wastewater  samples  were  collected from continuous sheet  casting
operations.

                              TABLE V-9

                  CONTINUOUS SHEET CASTING LUBRICANT

                         Water Use      Percent       Wastewater
Plant                     (gpt)         Recycle         (gpt)

  1                         *             100-             0
  2                         *             100             0
  3                         1-2             *             0.24
  4                         *               *             0.64

STATISTICAL SUMMARY
MINIMUM                                                    0
MAXIMUM                                                    0.64
MEAN                                                       Q 22
MEDIAN                                                     0;12

NON-ZERO MINIMUM                                           0 24
NON-ZERO MEAN                                              0*44
NON-ZERO MEDIAN                                            0^44

*  Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
Note:  Differences between water use and wastewater values are due
      to recycle evaporation and carryover.
                                     131

-------
 Stationary Casting.  All  of  the  14 -stationary  casting  facilities
 surveyed  indicated  that contact cooling water is not associated with
 stationary casting.  Any water used to  cool  the  molds  is  strictly
 noncontact.

 Air  Pollution  Control   for  Degassing.    The purpose, variations and
 limitations  of metal  treatment technologies are described  in  Section
 III.    Five   of the 80 plants  with casting operations surveyed in this
 study use wet air pollution  controls in  association with  their  metal
 treatment operations prior  to   casting.    One  plant  reported a 75
 percent  recycle of the  water   stream and  a  second  indicated  that
 recycle was  not practiced.   Sufficient data was not available from any
 of  the plants,  however,  to  calculate the water use or wastewater rate
 of this stream.

 Rolling

 Rolling with Neat Oils.   As  described in Section III, the cold rolling
 of aluminum  products  typically requires  the  use  of  mineral  oil  or
 kerosene-based lubricants.   The oils are usually recycled with in-line
 filtration and periodically  disposed of  by sale to an oil reclaimer or
 by  incineration.   Because  discharge of this stream is not practiced,
 limited flow data was available   for analysis.    Of  the  45  plants
 surveyed  that  use  neat oil rolling  lubricants, water use could be
 calculated for only five.  This data is  presented  and  summarized  in
-Table  V-10.    None  of   the  plants  provided sufficient flow data to
 calculate the degree  of  recycle practiced or the  wastewater  rate  of
 this  stream.

 Wastewater  sampling   data  for neat oil lubricants are presented with
 other miscellaneous streams  in Table V-45.
                                 132

-------
                             TABLE V-10

                       ROLLING WITH NEAT  OILS

                    Water (Oil) Use    Percent       Wastewater
Plant                     (qpt)         Recycle        (Oil) (qpt)

  1                       0.73             *               *
  2                       0.75             *               *
  3                       1.1              *               *
  4                       1.1              *               *
  5                       2.4              *               *

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM                     0.73
MAXIMUM                     2.4
MEAN                        1.3
MEDIAN                      1.1

* Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.

Rolling with Emulsions.  Of the plants  surveyed,  27 rolling operations
were identified  that  use  oil-in-water   emulsions  as  coolants  and
lubricants.   As  will  be discussed in Section VII, rolling emulsions
are typically recycled using in-line  filtration  treatment.   Several
plants discharge a bleed stream but periodic discharge of the recycled
emulsion is more commonly practiced.

Hater  use,  wastewater  factors  and   recycle  or  disposal practices
corresponding to this stream are summarized  in Table V-ll.   Available
information  was  insufficient  for  calculating these values for nine
plants.  Wastewater factors evaluated for  rolling emulsion streams are
also compared using a histogram in Figure  V-41.

Table V-12 presents the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants
for this wastewater stream type.   Table   V-13  summarizes  the  field
sampling   data   for   those   priority   pollutants  detected  above
analytically  quantifiable  levels.     Data    for   the   non-priority
pollutants are also presented in Table  V-13.
                                  133

-------
                              TABLE V-ll
                        ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS
   1
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   8
   9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
      Plant
    Water Use
       (qpt)
    14
    *
 7,300
    *
    *
    *
18,000
13,000
 9,900
 Percent
  Recycle

P
P
P
99
P
99+
P
P
P
P
P
P
99+
P
P
P
97
85
*
10
   Wastewater
      (qpt)

 0.080
 0.094
 0.14
 0.14
 0.16
 0.23
 0.33
 0.49
 1.2
 1.2
 3.0
 1.7
 3.2
 3.6
 5.6
12
44
73
STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
         14
     18,000
      9,600
      9,900
                    0.080
                   73
                    8.4
                    1.2
*  Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
+  Rolling emulsion flows are unknown.
P  Total recycle with periodic discharge.
Note:  Differences between water use and wastewater values are due
      to recycle evaporation and carryover.

Roll  Grinding  Emulsions.  The steel rolls used in rolling operations
require periodic machining to  remove  aluminum  buildup  and  surface
imperfections.   In  responding  to  the  dcps  most  plants  did  not
interpret the scope of aluminum-  forming  processes  to  include  roll
grinding.   For  this  reason,  a  number  of plants were contacted by
telephone to supplement the dcp responses.  Although  the  survey  for
this  stream  is  not  as  complete  as for the other aluminum forming
processes, it provided a basis for  the  analysis  of  water  use  and
                                  134

-------
CO
en
                                                                    TABLE V-12


                                               FREQUENCY OF  OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS


                                                                ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS


                                                                 Rolling Oil Emulsions


1.
4.
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
3'-.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58,
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.

Pollutant
acenapbthene
benzene
benzichne
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-tnchlocophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-trans-dirhloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
2, 4-dimethyl phenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluorantheoe
methylene chloride
chlo rod ibromome thane
isophoroue
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2 , 4- d ini l ropheno 1
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pent a chlo ropheno 1
phenol

Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
RAW WASTEWATER
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
6
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
6
6
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
3 1
3
4
3
3
3 1
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
1 2
4
2 1
3
4
2 2
4
4
4
4
4
2 1 1

-------
CO
CTl
                                                                       TABLE V-12

                                                                   ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS

                                                                    Rolling Oil Emulsions


66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.

Pollutant
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phtbalate
butyl benzyl phtbalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyreae
chrysene
aceoaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
pheaanthrene
d i benzo(a , h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha -endosulf an
beta-eadosulfan
endosulfan sulfate

Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ua/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
s
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
RAW WASTEWATER
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
N umber
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-lO 11-100 101-1000
3
3 1
3
3
3
4
4
4
3 1
4
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 1 1
4
4
2 2
2
1 1 1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1000+
1

1
1






1

1



1












-------
GO
                                                                             TABLE V-12



                                                                       ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS



                                                                        Rolling Oil Emulsions
                                                                           RAW WASTEWATER

99.
100.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
endrin
endrin aldehyde
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
zinc (total)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/D
5
5
5
5
5
5
5(a)
5(a)
5 (a)
5(b)
5(b)
5(b)
5(b)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3

3


3


3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
5

5


5


5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
ND-TO
3
2
3
2
3
3

2


2


3
2
3



2

3


Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/lj*
IT-T6&~~ToT:"ioo6 ioBo+

l

l



1


1



l

2
1

1


1

















1
2
1 2
1
3

2
3
               *Net concentration (source  subtracted).



               (a),(b) Reported together.

-------
CO
00
                                                              TABLE V-13
                                                              SAMPLING DATA

                                                         ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS

                                                          Rolling Oil Emulsions

                                                             RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

1. acenaphthene


21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol


38. ethylbenzene

44. roethylene chloride

55. naphthalene



P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
95
ND
ND
ND ND
22
ND
ND
20 30
40
ND
1,200 1,000
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
150
10
ND ND
95
ND
ND
ND ND
22
ND
ND
70 40
40
ND
1,300 1,200
K 5
K 5
750 375
ND
150
10
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)

1.5E-6


3.5E-7


6E-8

1.7E-6

5.47E-7



-------
CO
<£>
                                                                TABLE V-13

                                                          ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS


                                                           Rolling Oil Emulsions


                                                              RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
65. phenol P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
67. butyl benzyl
phthalate P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
68. di-n-butyl phthalate P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
70. diethyl phthalate P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND

ND
ND

5
K 5
K 5

ND

ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
ND

K 5
K 5
ND 180
9,900
ND
ND

ND
1,900
ND
ND

ND
190
ND
ND
ND
19,000
ND
ND
ND
3,100
ND
ND
ND 60
9,900
ND
ND

ND ND
1,900
ND
ND

ND ND
190
ND
ND
ND ND
19,000
ND
ND
ND ND
3,100
ND
ND
9E-8
1.5E-4



3.0E-5




3.0E-6


3.0E-4



4.9E-5



-------
       TABLE V-13





ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS



 Rolling Oil Emulsions



    RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
76. chrysene



78. anthracene



80. fluorene



81 . phenanthrene



84. pyrene



86. tetrachloroethylene


P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

360
ND
K 10

K 1,100
90
200

450
70
40

K 1,100
90
200

98
ND
20
4,700
K 5
10
Day 2 Day 3 Averaee
(ug/1) (continued)
ND ND ND
360
ND
K 10
ND ND ND
K 1,100
90
200
ND ND ND
450
70
40
ND ND ND
K 1,100
90
200
ND ND ND
98
ND
20
1,900 4,200 3,600
K 5
10
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)


5.7E-6



1.7E-5



7.1E-6



1.7E-5



1.5E-6


5.3E-6



-------
       TABLE V-13




ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS



 Rolling Oil Emulsions




    RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

87. toluene


94. 4, 4' -DDE


96. alpha-endosulfan

100. endrin aldehyde

103. alpha-BHC

104. beta-BHC


107. PCB-1242
108. PCB-1254
109. PCB-1221

P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-ll
P-5
T-l
U-ll

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND

ND
200 40
40
K 10
ND ND
2
ND
ND ND
1.2
ND
ND ND
58
ND
ND ND
4
ND
ND ND
18
ND
ND ND
63
ND
160 130
40
K 10
ND ND
2
ND
ND ND
1.2
ND
ND ND
58
ND
ND ND
4
ND
ND ND
18
ND
ND
63
ND
1.9E-7



3E-8

1.9E-8

9.1E-7

6E-8


2.8E-7


9.9E-7


-------
ro
                                                                TABLE V-13



                                                         ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS



                                                          Rolling Oil Emulsions



                                                             RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream Sample
Code Type Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
110.
111.
112.
113.
116.


119.


120.


121.


122.



PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
arsenic


cadmium


chromium


copper


cyanide



P-5
T-l
U-ll

P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll

P-5
U-4
U-ll
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
ND

ND

1.1
K 2
K 2
K 0.5
2
2
2
K 1
K 1
9
13
13

ND


ND ND
65
ND

16 19
K 2
K 2
14 16
65
180
31 70
115
124
1,100 ND
7,400
4,140

160 2,500
K 0.02
K 0.02
ND ND
65
ND

13 16
K 2
K 2
14 15
65
180
23 41
115
124
780 630
7,400
4,140

170 940
K 0.02
K 0.02

l.OE-6


2.3E-8


2.2E-8


6.0E-8


9.2E-7



1.4E-6



-------
Co
                                                                 TABLE V-13




                                                          ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS




                                                           Rolling Oil Emulsions




                                                              RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
123. lead


125. nickel


129. zinc


P-5 1
U-4 1
U-ll 1
P-5 1
U-4 1
U-ll 1
P-5 1
U-4 1
U-ll 1
2
10
10
K 1
16
16
K 10
K 10
K 10
2,100 2,400
12,100
56,900
70 140
214
130
1,300 1,700
4,200
2,200
1,500 2,000
12,100
56,900
49 86
214
130
1,100 1,400
4,200
2,200
2.9E-6


1.3E-7


2.0E-6


NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease




152. suspended solids





P-5 1
T-l 1
U-4 1
U-ll 1

P-5 1
U-4 I
U-ll 1


ND




5




13,000 2,300
1,300
28,400
30,700

2,200 1,700
3,910
890


14,000 9,500
1,300
28,400
30,700

3,500 2,400
3,910
890


1.4E-2
2.1E-2



3.5E-3



-------
       TABLE V-13




SOILING WITH EMULSIONS



 Rolling Oil Emulsions



    RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source
159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
133. aluminum
136. calcium
139. magnesium
147. alkalinity (as CaC03)
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
151. total dissolved
sol ids
P-5
P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
U-4
U-ll
P-5
U-4
U-ll
U-4
U-ll
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (continued)

1 K 0.5
1 K 100
1 K 100
1 96
1 58,700
1 58,700
1 26
1 7,440
1 7,440
1
1
1 K 5
1
1
1
1
7.1 6.9
52 41 40
210,000
20,000
19 30 17
26,700
18,100
10 14 9
11,500
16,700
440
620
22,000 37,000 30,000
109,900
148,500
26,700
34,300

44
210,000
20,000
22
26,700
18,100
11
11,500
16,700
440
620
30,000
109,900
148,500
26,700
34,300

6.4E-5
3.2E-5
1.6E-5

4E-2


-------
                                                            ;TABLE v-13

                                                       ROLLINS WITH EMULSIONS


                                                        Rolling Oil Emulsions


                                                           RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
Stream Sample
Code Type
P-5 1
U-4 1
U-ll 1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (continued)
1,300 3,000 1,100
6,800
23,000

Average
1,800
6,800
23,000
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
2.6E-3
          157. phenols (total; by

                 4-AAP method)                                                                                              „,,--,
                                     P-5     i                       0.228            0.258           0.224           0.237   3.46E-7
en

-------
 c 5
 _o
 Q.
«*•
 O

 % 4

 E
 3
 C


O 3

LJ

0»
UJ 2
a:
u.

>*•*•".
|:|:|:
*•'!"!

:•:•:•:






j:|:|:



CM, lft.
• i









in o *> o
NS 0 N «

'. I ;
in
N










T 	 1 	 1 	





•
8 in O m O in
CM in N 0 N

;•
O
m


in


	 1 	 1 	 1 	






R/
Ml
Ml
Sfi
T 	 1 	
tNGE:
-AN:
IDIAN:
iMPLE:





§m o m O in o
N in s. o CM m

Is.

.08-73. GPT
8.4 GPT
1.2 GPT 	 • 	
18 OF 27 PLANTS





S1 S3 S eQ
     iii7frr????»?3B35!9$S33

     AW»-«!?S5|§S^S|^!»8a8M*ii8i
              "*~"~""McMCM'cMWlOl';'fO^«-'*:
-------
wastewater  rates  typically  associated   with  roll  grinding.    This
information is summarized in Table  V-15   along  with  the  degree  of
recycle or disposal mode practiced at  those plants.

Wastewater  sampling  data  for  roll  grinding emulsions are presented
with with other miscellaneous streams  in  Table V-45.

                             TABLE V-14

                      ROLL GRINDING EMULSIONS

                        Water Use      Percent       Wastewater
Plant                     (gpt)         Recycle         (qpt)

  1                        *            100              0
  2                        *            100              0
  3                        *               P              0.16
  *                        *               P              4.3
  5                      0.014             P              *
  6                        *               P              *
  7                        *               *              *

* Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
P Total recycle with periodic discharge.
Note:  Differences between water use and  wastewater values are due
     to recycle evaporation and carryover.

Extrusion

Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath.  As discussed in Section III,  the  steel
dies  used  in  extrusion  require  frequent  dressing  to  insure the
necessary dimensional precision and surface quality  of  the  product.
The  aluminum that has adhered to the  die orifice is typically removed
by soaking the die in a caustic solution.   A few plants indicated that
mechanical brushing could be  used  to clean  very  simple  dies  but
caustic cleaning is a much more common method.   As with roll grinding,
it was  necessary to supplement the survey of die cleaning operations
with telephone calls to several plants.   Thirty of the  157  extrusion
plants  were  contacted  for  information  about  their  die  cleaning
facilities.   Water use and wastewater  values corresponding to the  die
cleaning  caustic  bath  could  be  calculated for 11 of these plants.
This information is presented and statistically summarized in Table V-
15;  The distribution of the data is shown using a histogram in Figure
V*42>.

Although recycle of the caustic solution,  as such, is never practiced,
stagnant baths with periodic discharge are common.   For  this  reason
water  use  and  wastewater  factors are  identical.   Variations in the
water use of die cleaning caustic baths may result from the following:
                                147

-------
    o  the intricacy and size of the die orifice
    o  the aluminum alloy being extruded
    o  the concentration of caustic used
    o  individual plant practices.

Sufficient information is not available, however, to analyze the
effect of these factors.

No wastewater samples were collected.
                              TABLE V-15
                 EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING CAUSTIC BATH
Plant

  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
  Water Use
   (qpt)

  0.060
  0.12
  0.43
  0.49
  0.67
  1.9
  2.8
  3.3
  4.4
  9.5
 13
 0.060
13
 3.3
 1.9
Percent
Recycle

  P
  P
  0
  P
  P
  0
  P
  P
  P
  P
  0
Wastewater
  (qpt)

 0.060
 0.12
 0.43
 0.49
 0.67
 1.9
 2.8
 3.3
 4.4
 9.5
13
              0.060
             13
              3.3
              1.9
P  Total recycle with periodic discharge.
Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse.   After caustic treatment  the  extrusion
dies  are rinsed with water.  At some plants the dies are simply hosed
off,  but a rinse tank is frequently used for this purpose.   Most  of
the  plants  contacted  indicated  that  rinsing was required to avoid
damage to the die and extrusion.  However, water  use  and  wastewater
factors  could  be  calculated  for  only five of the 30 plants.  This
information is presented and summarized in  Table  V-16.   As  can  be
seen,  water  use  is  small  and  recycle, as such, is not practiced.
Water use does not appear to be affected  by  differences  in  rinsing
method,  i.e. hose or rinse tank.  Other factors such as the intricacy
of the dies, the concentration of caustic  used,  the  aluminum  alloy
                                148

-------
•£.
VO
5



4
^W
•••»
"c
"o.
*o
•_ 3
0>
"i
c
«•-••
UJ
O
UJ
ec
u.
i
i




1




i-iv
•*•%"
**•*•*
|Xv
• * * »
'•:•:•'.'
• *!*••"•
• **•"•
•Xv
S'.V
X*X
X;X
X;X
X;X
•*•*•*•
*•*•*•
*• • •
o
1
o
A

RANGE' 0.06- 13 GPT
MEAN: 3.3 GPT
MEDIAN: 1.9 GPT
SAMPLE; n OF 30 PLANTS KNOWN TO
HAVE DIE CLEANING.
(157 EXTRUSION PLANTS TOTAL)



•



-




.
• *•*•*• L l*»*l*4* * I", *** * •* • •* •"• •"
'•*•*•"' »'•*»*• »* t*, *,' 1 •" • •* t'l •*
•*•*•*• *»*»*• •" »*. ".* •* • •* «*• •*
• • » • '*•*•*• »" ,*. *t' • • *t 1*1 •*
uVij — p^| — f1'1'1'!"1'! — r^\ — \ — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — ']•'•'•'•] |— — } i i r^n i
O^OiPOinOinqi^qinqinqipqinqm.qinqipqin.o,
i i i i i i i i i i i i i ' > t i TTT~"I*~TTT
in onomomoinomoinoinqin. OmoiqOinoi^om
cJ—""CU(xjfi'J^f^ioio*o<'''r<"^"0'wo>(nooiiziwcM'*'i''
                   WATER USE / WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATE (gallons/ton)

              FIGURE Y-42  EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING  CAUSTIC  BATH

-------
being  extruded,  and  individual  plant  practices,  could account for
variations in  water  use.    Sufficient  data  was  not  available  to
determine, the degree of influence these factors might have.

Table V-17 presents the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants
for  this  wastewater  stream  type.   Table V-18 summarizes the field
sampling  data  for  those   priority  pollutants  detected  above  the
analytically   quantifiable   levels.    Data   for  the  non-priority
pollutants is also presented in Table V-18.

                              TABLE V-16

                     EXTRUSION DIE CLEANING RINSE
                    Water Use
                     (gpt)

                     0.31
                     2.2
                     2.8
                     3.8
Plant

  1
  2
  3
  4
  5                 13

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM                 0.31
MAXIMUM                13
MEAN                    4.3
MEDIAN                  2.8
SAMPLE:
Percent
Recycle

  P
  P
  P
  P
  0
Wastewater
  (qpt)

  0.31
  1.7
  2.8
  3.6
  13
                                                 0.31
                                                13
                                                 4.4
                                                 2.8
hose
hose
tank
hose
tank
         Five  of 30 plants known to have die cleaning
        (157 extrusion plants total)

P  Total recycle with periodic discharge.
Note:  Differences between water use and wastewater values are due
      to recycle, evaporation and carryover.

Air Pollution Control for  Extrusion  Die  Cleaning.   Of  the  plants
surveyed, two indicated the use of wet scrubbers associated with their
die  cleaning  operations.   As  with  the other die cleaning streams/
however, this survey may not accurately represent the total number  of
plants  with  this  operation.  Wet scrubbers may be required to treat
fumes from the caustic die cleaning operation in order to control  air
pollution  emissions and insure a safe working environment.  Water use
and wastewater factors could not be calculated for this stream.
No field samples of air pollution control for extrusion
were collected.
                                                         die  cleaning
Extrusion  Dummy  Block Cooling.  As described in Section III, a dummy
block is placed between the ram and ingot during the direct  extrusion
                               150

-------
                           TABLE V-17




FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE  AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                           EXTRUSION



                  Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse



                         RAW WASTEWATER

1.
4.
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Pollutant
acenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1 , 1 , 1-trichloroe thane
1 ,1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-trichloropbenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2 ,4-dichlorophenol
2 ,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthcne
methylene chloride
chlorodibromomethane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol'
bis (2-cthylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalat'*
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Cug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number Number
of of Number of Times Observed
Streams Samples in Samples (ug/lj*
Analyzed Analyzed ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 11
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1

-------
ro
TABLE V-17
EXTRUSION
Extrution Die Cleaning Rime
RAW WASTEWATER


68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.

Pollutant
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chryiene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4' -DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4' -ODD
alpha -endoaulf an
beta-endoaulfan
endoBUlfan culfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
Analytical Number Number
Quantification of of Number of Tlmea Obaerved
Level Streams Sample* in Sanplei (ug/D*
(u(t/l) Analyzed Analyzed ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
10 1 1]
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 11
10 1 1 ]
10
10
10
10
10
5
5








i i
i i
i i
i i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i i
i i i

-------
                                                                             TABLE V-17
                                                                             EXTRUSIOX


                                                                   Extruiion Die Cleaning Rime


                                                                          RAW WASTEWATER

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
•Ipha-BHC
beta-UIIC
gaama-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-124S
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Analytical Number
Quantification of
Level Streams
(ug/1) Analyzed
5

5
5
5(a)
5 (a)
5{a)
5(b)
5(b)
5(b)
5(b)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
1
1
1
1

1


1


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1

1


1


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Tines Observed
in Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1
1
1
1

1


1


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
on
CO
              *Net concentration (source  subtracted)


              (a),(b) Reported together

-------
                                                             TABLE V-18

                                                            SAMPLING  DATA
in
-£»
                                                              EXTRUSION


                                                    Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse


                                                           RAW WASTEWATER
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
44.
66.
119.
120.
121.
123.
124.
129.
methylene chloride
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
mercury
zinc
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
CONVENTIONAL
150.
152.
159.
oil and grease
suspended solids
ph
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source
Day 1 Day 2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
24
25
K 2
K 5
K 9
K 20
0.6
K 50
NON-PRIORITY



36
27
20
90
200
600
0.7
"100
POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
8
28
10.8
Mass
Loading
Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
36
27
20
90
200
600
0.7
100
8
28


-------
en
en
                                                             TABLE V-18



                                                             EXTRUSION



                                                   Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse



                                                          RAW WASTEWATER


Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
NON-CONVENTIONAL
133. aluminum
136. calcium
139. magnesium
147. alkalinity
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
151 . dissolved solids
1SS. sulfate
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 1
F-7 ]
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (continued)
K 0.09 400
K 5 K 1
K 0.1 K 1
ND
12
3,200
60

J
Average 1
400
K 1
K 1
ND
12
3,200
60
          156. Total Organic

                 Carbon  (TOC)
F-7
          157.  phenols  (total; by

                 4-AAP  method)       F-7
19





 0.005
                                                                                                                        Mast.

                                                                                                                       Loading
19





 0.005

-------
process.   After  the  extrusion is complete, the ingot butt and dummy
block are released from the press.   Typically  the  dummy  blocks  are
allowed  to  air cool, but three of the 157 extrusion plants indicated
that water was used for this purpose.   As can be seen in  Table  V-19,
none  of  these  plants  recycle  the  cooling  water.   Water use and
wastewater factors could be calculated for two of the three plants.

Data from wastewater sampling of dummy block  cooling  water  will  be
presented  later  in this section with the miscellaneous data in Table
v-45.

                              TABLE V-19

                    EXTRUSION DUMMY BLOCK COOLING

                         Water Use      Percent       Wastewater
Plant                    (qpt)         Recycle         (qpt)

  1                       500             0             500
  2                       520             0             520
  3                        *              0              *

*  Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.

Forging

Air Pollution Control for Forging.   Of the 15 forging plants surveyed,
three indicated that wet scrubbers were used to  control  particulates
and   smoke   generated  from  the  partial  combustion  of  oil-based
lubricants in the forging process.   Water use and  wastewater  factors
of  1,400  gpt  and  1,000  gpt, respectively, were calculated for the
forging scrubber at one plant.  The other two plants did  not  provide
sufficient flow information for these calculations.

Table V-20 presents the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants
for  this  wastewater  stream  type.   Table V-21 summarizes the field
sampling  data  for  those  priority  pollutants  detected  above  the
analytically   quantifiable   levels.    Data   for  the  non-priority
pollutants is also presented in Table V-21.

Drawing

Drawing with Neat Oils.  Of the 266 plants surveyed, 57 draw  aluminum
products  using  neat  oil  lubricants.  Two plants avoid discharge of
this stream by 100 percent recycle of the drawing oil.   Most  of  the
plants,   however,  dispose  of  the  spent  oil  by  incineration  or
contractor hauling, and did not provide  the  flow  data  required  to
calculate  water  use  (oil)  and  wastewater   (oil) values.  The only
exception was a plant that has 1.3 gpt of spent drawing oil hauled  by
an outside contractor.
                                 156

-------
tn
                                                                             TABLE V-20



                                                  FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                                                                              FORGING



                                                                      Air Pollution Controla



                                                                           RAW WASTEWATER

1.
4.
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
5».
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Pollutant
•cenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1,1, 1-trichloroe thane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-crecol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-clichlorophenol
2 , 4-dime thylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2 ,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
chlorodibromomethane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitropheuol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalatc
Analytical Numb<
Quantification o
Level Strr
(ug/1) Anal;
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
:r Number
f of Number of Tinea Observed
irna Sample* in Samples (ug/1)*
/zed Analyzed ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
10 1 11
10 1 11

-------
                                                                              TABLE V-20
                                                                               FORCING
                                                                       Air Pollution Controls
                                                                           RAW VASTEWATER
in
00

Pollutant
66. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
72. benzo(a)anthracene
73. benzo(a)pyfene
76. chrysene
77 . acenaphthylene
78. anthracene
80 fluorene
81 . phenanthrene
82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83. indeno (l,2,3-c(d)pyrene
84. pyrene
86. tetrachloroethylene
87. toluene
88. trichloroetbylene
90. aldrin
91. dieldrin
92. chlordane
93. 4,4'-DDT
94. 4,4'-DDE
95. 4,4' -ODD
96. alpha-endosulfan
97. beta-endosulfan
98. endosulfan aulfate
99. endrin
100. endrin aldehyde
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Cug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10(c)
10
10(c)
10
10
10
10
10
10











Number Number
of of
Streams Samples
Analyzed Analyzed
1 I
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

-------
in
                                                                                    TABLE V-ZO
                                                                                     FORGING
                                                                             Air Pollution Controls
                                                                                  RAW WASTEWATER

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118,
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
alpha-BJIC
beta-BHC
gamma -BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(UR/1)
1
1
1
1
100
100
100
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
Q
100
20
0.1
5
30
Number Number
of of Number of Times Observed
Streams Samples in Samples (ug/1)*
Analyzed Analyzed ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1 1 1
111
1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1 1


1 1 1


1 11
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
: i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
                     *Nct concentration (source subtracted)



                     (<0,(b),(c) Reported together

-------
CTl
O
TABLE V-21
SAMPLING DATA
FORGING
Air Pollution Controls
RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Dav 1 Day 2
Mass
Loading
Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
31.
39.
44.
59.
60.
62.
72.
76.
78.
81.
84.
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
2 , 4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N- n i t r o s od ipheny 1 -
amine
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
anthracene (a)
phenanthrene (a)
pyrene
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
38
18
950
23
24
17
19
19
28
28
21
38
18
950
23
24
17
19
19
28
28
21
       107. PCB-1242  (b)
       108. PCB-1254  (b)
       109. PCB-1221  (b)
A-5
0.15
1.3
                                                                                1.3

-------
                                                   TABLE V-21

                                                   FORGING

                                            Air Pollution Controls

                                                 RAW WASTEWATER
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Tvoe
123. lead
129. zinc
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
NON-CONVENTIONAL
133. aluminum
136. calcium
139. magnesium
147. alkalinity
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
151. dissolved solids
155. sulfate
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
A-5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
K 20 2,000
60 300
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
162
K 1 2
K 0.09 0.5
39 59
8.7 10
110
8 349
388
95
Mass
Loading
Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
2,000
300
162
2
0.5
59
10
110
349
388
95
156.  Total Organic
       Carbon  (TOC)
A-5
98
98

-------
Ol
ro
                                                           TABLE V-21


                                                           FORGING


                                                   Air  Pollution  Controls


                                                        RAW WASTEWATER
                                                    GROSS  CONCENTRATIONS
                             Stream  Sample                                                                           Loading

      Pollutant _ Code   Type   Source _ Day  1    _ Day 2 _ Day 3 _ Average   (kg/kkg)


                                               NON-PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS  (mg/1) (continued)
      157.  phenols (total;  by

             4-AAP method)        A-5    1                       0.067                                            0.067



      (a),  (b)  Reported together

-------
No wastewater  samples  were collected from neat oils for drawing.

Drawing   with   Emulsions or Soaps.   Of the plants surveyed, eight draw
aluminum  products  using oil-in-water  emulsions  and  three  indicated
that  soap  solutions   were used as drawing lubricants.  Water use and
wastewater factors  calculated  for  this  stream  are  presented  and
summarized  in  Table   V-22.    As can be seen, sufficient data was not
available to analyze water  use  factors  for  drawing  emulsions  and
soaps,  but 6  of  the  11  plants  did provide wastewater data.  The
solutions are  frequently recycled and  discharged  periodically  after
their lubrication  properties  are  exhausted.   Wastewater discharge
factors were calculated for 6 of the  11  plants.   As  shown  by  the
distribution  in  Figure  V-43,  the wastewater values associated with
these plants vary  considerably.  Analysis of the data has  shown  that
this  variation  is related  to  differences in the dimension of wire
being drawn.   The  amount of lubricant required  for  drawing  a  given
length of wire is  roughly the same for fine and coarse wire.  However,
since the  weight of  finer wire is less, the corresponding production
figures   will   be   lower.   As  a  result,  the  wastewater   factors,
calculated  as flow per unit production, will be higher for lubricants
used in fine wire  drawing.  The effects that production, the  type  of
lubricant  used  and other factors have on the wastewater discharge of
drawing emulsions  and  soaps are discussed in more  detail  in  Section
IX.

Table V-23 presents the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants
for  this  wastewater   stream  type.   Table V-24 summarizes the field
sampling   data  for   those   priority   pollutants   detected   above
analytically   quantifiable   levels.    Data   for  the  non-priority
pollutants is  also presented in Table V-24.  The data shown  on  Table
V-24  samples   of   can  drawing  emulsions.   The type of oil emulsion
required  as a  lubricant for drawing cans does not differ greatly  from
oil  emulsions  used  to draw other products, therefore, the data from
can drawing operations have been included.
                               163

-------
                              TABLE V-22

DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS

                         Water Use  Percent  Wastewater  Lubricant
Plant                      (qpt)    Recycle    (qpt)       type


  I                         *         *         0         emulsion
  2                         *         p         0.81      emulsion
  3                         *         P        62.        emulsion
  4                         *         P       260         soap
  5                         *        99       270         emulsion
  6                  2,400,000        0     2,400,000     soap

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM                                        0
MAXIMUM                                2,400,000
                                         400,000
MEDIAN
SAMPLE                                 6 of 11 plants

NON-ZERO MINIMUM                               0.81
NON-ZERO MEAN                            480,000
NON-ZERO MEDIAN                               260
SAMPLE                                 5 of 11 plants

*   Sufficient data not available  to  calculate these  values.
P   Total recycle with periodic discharge.
Note:  Differences between water  use and wastewater  values  are  due
      to recycle, evaporation and carryover.

Heat Treatment

Heat Treatment Quench.   Heat treatment of  aluminum products frequently
 involves the use of   a   water  quench  in   order   to  achieve  desired
metallic   properties.  At the 266 aluminum forming plants surveyed,  84
 heat treatment processes were identified  that involve  water quenching.
 Water  use  and wastewater factors  calculated for  these  plants are shown
 in Table V-25 along  with the degree of recycle   used.    Histograms   in
 Figures  V-44 and V-45 show  the distributions of  this  data.  The water
 use factors calculated for this stream were analyzed to determine if a
 correlation exists  between water  use  requirements  and  the  type   of
 products   being   quenched or   the method of heat treatment used, e.g.
 press  vs.  solution  heat  treatment of extrusions.   As shown  in  Figure
 V-46,   neither   of   these  factors account for  the variations in water
 use.
                                 164

-------
en
                                                                              TABLE V-23




                                                    FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS




                                                                      DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS




                                                                    Drawing Oil Emulsions/Soap*




                                                                            RAW WASTEWATER

1.
4.
5,
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Pollutant
acenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1 , 1 , 1-trichloroe thane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-triehlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 , 2-trans-dlchloroethylene
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-dinit rotoluene
ethylbenzeae
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
chlorodibromomethane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinit rophenol
4, 6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
r»ntachlorophenol
]lUt'MOl
bis (2-cthylhexyl) phthalate
Iwtyl l>f»ri/yl phthalntr
Analytical
Quantification
Level

-------
                                                                             TABLE V-23
CT)
                                                                       DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
                                                                     Drawing Oil Emulsions/Soaps



                                                                             RAW WASTEWATER

68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84,
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Pollutant
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a ) anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphtbyleae
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)antb.racene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
' tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethyleae
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4'-DDT
4.4--DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(us/l)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
JO
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of Time* Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1 1
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

-------
                                                                             TABLE V-23
Oi
                                                                       DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS



                                                                     Drawing Oil Emulsions/Soaps



                                                                             RAW WASTEWATER

103,
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120,
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant 	
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
KB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Analytical
Quantification
Level
1
1
1
1
l(a)
l(a)
Ka)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2

2


2


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
4
4
4
4

2


4


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Number of Tines Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10
2

2
2

2


2


1

1
1


I

1


11-100 101-1000 1000+












1


1
1



1
1
                  *Net concentration (source subtracted)




                  (a),(b) Reported together

-------
co
TABLE V-24
SAMPLING DATA
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
Drawing Oil Emulsions/Soaps
RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2 Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
11.
13.
22.
24.
35.
38.
44.
54.
66.
68.
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
isophorone
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
0-2
0-2
0-2
S-2
0-2
S-2
0-2
S-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
S-2
S-2
S-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
3
ND
110
70
ND
28
ND
130
ND
77
5
ND
ND
39
34
23
180 1,300 530
10 210 100
ND ND ND
28
ND ND ND
130
ND ND ND
77
ND 40 15
10 ND 3
ND ND ND
39
34
23
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
2.2E-4
4.2E-5
3.2E-5
1.5E-4
8.9E-5
6.4E-6
1 . 3E-6
4.5E-5
3.9E-5
2.7E-5

-------
en
                                                           TABLE V-24





                                                      DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS




                                                    Drawing Oil Emulsions/Soaps




                                                          RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
69.
87.
96.
108.
111.
116.
119.
120.
121.
123.
125.
129.
di-n-octyl phthalate
toluene
alpha-endpsulfan
PCB-1254
PCB-1248
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
Source
Day 1
Day 2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
S-2
0-2
0-2
S-2
0-2
S-2
0-2
S-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.32
ND
K 1
K 0.2
K 0.5
K 1
10
11
K 1
300
23
20
ND
1.8
ND
3
ND
3
70
14
90
560
220
3
46,000

ND
ND
ND
ND
4
8.7
16,000
400
65
65

L
Day 3 Average
23
570 200
ND ND
1.8
ND ND
3
ND ND
3
37
11
8,000
480
140
34
46,000
Mass
oading
(kg/kkg)
2.7E-5
8.5E-5
2.1E-6
3E-6
3E-6
1.6E-5
4.6E-6
3.4E-3
2.0E-4
6.0E-5
1.4E-5
1.9E-2

-------
         TABLE V-24





  DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS




Drawing Oil Emulsions/Soaps




      RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
133. aluminum
136. calcium
139. magnesium
Stream Sample
Code Type
S-2 1
0-2
0-2 1
0-2 1
0-2 1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source
NON- PRIORITY
5
K 0.5
64
15
Day 1
POLLUTANTS
1,500
7.1
200
23
6
Day 2
(mg/1)
7.2
470
230
67
Day 3 Average
1,500
7.3
340
130
37
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
1.7
1.4E-1
5.5E-2
1.6E-2

-------
 JO
 a.
  a>
 .a
  E
 z
 UJ
 tr
 u.
          RANGE:  0 - 2 ,400,000 GPT
          MEAN:   400,000
          MEDIAN:  160 GPT
          SAMPLE: 6 OF II PLANTS

          NON-ZERO RANGE: 0.81-2,400,000 GPT
          NON- ZERO RANGE: 480,000 GPT
          NON-ZERO MEDIAN: 260GPT
          NON-ZERO SAMPLED OF 11  PLANT
                  O
                  in
                  i
                  o
0
O
T
6
0
in
0
o
0
m
                                     o
O
0
K>

6
in
CVJ
O
in
10


8
                  WASTEWATER DISCHARGE (gallons/ton)
FIGURE Y-43 DRAWING WITH  EMULSION  OR  SOAP WASTEWATER

-------
A detailed analysis of the wastewater values associated with quenching
operations is presented  in  Section  IX.   In  order  to  select  the
appropriate  wastewater  discharge  rate  for this stream, a number of
factors were examined for their effect  on  the  wastewater  discharge
rates.

The  field  samples  from heat treatment quenching processes have been
identified and compiled according to the  aluminum  forming  operation
that  it  follows,  i.e.,  rolling,  forging,  drawing  and extrusion.
Additional differentiation was made between press  and  solution  heat
treatment of extrusions.
                               172

-------
Plant
                              TABLE V-25

                        HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH
Water Use
 (qpt)
Percent
Recycle
Wastewater
  (qpt)
  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
 41
 42
 39,000
  2,300
  3,200
     200
      16
      18
      19
      27
      28
     300
     120
     100
     130
     200
  10,000
     220
     280
     *
     420
   9,500
   6,400
     600
     620
     630
     640
     710
     680
  10,000
     760
     780
     810
     *
   1,000
   1,200
   1,400
   2,000
   1,700
  100
  100
  100
  100
  100
  100
   91
   95
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
   99
    0
    0
    *
    0
   80
   92
    0
    0
    0
    0
    *
    0
    87
     0
     0
     0
     *
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     0
     4.8
     16
     16
     23
     24
     43
     79
    100
    130
    160
    210
    220
    270
    350
    420
    480
    530
    600
    620
    630
    640
    670
    680
    730
    760
    780
    810
    850
    970
  1,200
  1,400
  1,500
  1,700
                                  173

-------
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
 51
 52
 53
 54
        2,600
        2,900
        3,800
        5,100
        5,200
        6,200
        6,300
        6,900
          *
        7,700
       13,000
       35,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
0
*
2,600
2,900
3,800
5,100
5,200
6,200
6,300
6,900
7,200
7,700
Note:  Water use and wastewater values could not be calculated for
      an additional 30 heat treatment quench operations due to
       insufficient data.
STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MEAN
MEDIAN
SAMPLE

NON-ZERO MINIMUM
NON-ZERO MEAN
NON-ZERO MEDIAN
SAMPLE:
           16
       39,000
        4,100
          910
46 of 84 streams

           16
        4,100
          910
     46 of 84 streams
               0
           7,700
           1,400
             560
     52 of 84 streams

               5
           1,700
             670
     43 of 84 streams
*  Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
Note:  Differences between water use and wastewater values are due
      to recycle evaporation and carryover.

Rolling  Heat  Treatment Quench.  Table V-26 presents the frequency of
occurence of each of  the  priority  pollutants  for  this  wastewater
stream  type.  Table V-27 summarizes the field sampling data for those
priority pollutants detected above analytically  quantifiable  levels.
Data for the non-priority pollutants is also presented in Table V-27.

Forging  Heat  Treatment  Quench  Table V-28 presents the frequency of
occurrence of each of the  priority  pollutants  for  this  wastewater
stream  type.  Table V-29 summarizes the field sampling data for those
priority pollutants detected above analytically  quantifiable  levels.
Data for the non-priority pollutants is also presented in Table V-29.

Drawing  Heat  Treatment Quench.  Table V-30 presents the frequency of
occurrence of each of the  priority  pollutants  for  this  wastewater
stream  type.  Table V-31 summarizes the field sampling data for those
                               174

-------
in
fcT
22
A/%
20
*-. l8
tf)
£
*" 16
• 10
o
z
UJ
=> 8
0
UJ
a:
4.
•?™
2


ii-i-i

*•"•"
|i|:|:
:•:•:•
"X"!
•'•'•!
IvX
Xv!
X'X
X;X
:x-x
ivio

•X-:
"•*»*.
vXj
v'.v
•Xv
jijjii
•;•!•:
•••X
Kv
vX
__
	 1 | 	 1 	 r









7vX
•:•:• •
•:•:• •
CM
0 ±
A









jxj:|:
vlv!
10
(Nl








i^l^l^l
;:•
^
ili










in
	 r

	 r














u>
i i








x: :;
'•** •
N
l
(0









:x:::;
00
tl










0)
oo











	 r


• — i — i — i — i
•^
RANGE! 16-39,000
MEAN: 4,100
MEDIAN: 910
.....
•
~
SAMPLE: 46 OF 84 STREAMS


















•*«*•*»'
O —
o> o


















PI



















(vjio^jo sSi'*'*
— W K) «j O _ Cvl IO
— — — — rotoroio


















;!•:•:;:
^ -



^™





"

—

.
-

-
|:x:::J
r i i i i i
T *? i 7 i T
10 10 tO 10 |0 tO
                       WATER USE (thousand gallons/ton)
          FIGURE Y-44HEAT TREATMENT  QUENCH WATER USE

-------
01
          18



          16




        I'4


        lie
        o
  10
0)
X)

  "
        UJ
        Z)
        O
        UJ
        cr
-

-




-


1





:&:
*•"•*•"
•!•:•:'•
::;::::
:•:•:•:
i









•W^^M
•Xv
•£•:•
*"••*•*»
vX'

:::::::
!•:•:•!
*•*•*•*!
::x:::

v.v
•v'ij:
•:•:<•
vX*

:::::::
«*•*•*•
•*• •*•
•ivi-
:i$
ii >i i i i i i i i
RANGE =
MEAN:
MEDIAN:
SAMPLE:
NON-ZERO

NON-ZERO
NON-ZERO
SAMPLE:





•:•:::: : : : :
* #"• « I I • *.*•".*« * *•
i i ' i i i r i
0-T.700 6PT
1,400 GPT
570 GPT
5Z OF 84 STREAMS
RANGE: 4.8 -7700 GPT

MEAN* 1,700 GPT
MEDIAN; 670 GPT
43 OF 75 STREAMS

*•


-

ii i$;ii$i$ix:
O —'  — N
II  I  I
o n  O in
A c>  — -%
p in  p in
  ea  ro
   i  i
  p  in
  cvj  evi
                                   t
                                       IO  Q IT} O  IO
                                       V  » IO (0  «O
                     s  s
p in  o in. p  *> p  «
roiOTj-^iomtOto
                                                        in
                                                     o «  o ig
                                                       CJ O
                                                   i  i   i  T i
                                                   o  in p  in o
                                                   oo  od o>  o> d
                    WASTEWATER  DISCHARGE (thousand gallons /ton)
           FIGURE Y-45 HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH  WASTEWATER

-------
           3
           2
           I
             t-X-X-lvX-M          t
                                   DRAWING
           7
           6
           5
           4
           3
           2
           I  .........   '••^XTXJXC
                     :&:'.:£:i—i	1—«—i—i	»    .   .   i   i   i
                                   FORGING
           e
       —  7
        u>
        §  6
       S=  5
        2  4
        O  H
        &  3
       M-  9
        O
        u.  I
        O
        E    I        EXTRUSION- SOLUTION HEAT  TREATMENT


       O  II -f
       •^
       __ 10 -
       g  M
       UJ 8 -
       or
       U. 7 4
          6 -
          5 •
          4 -
          3 -
          2 -


                       EXTRUSION - PRESS  HEAT TREATMENT
          3 -
          2
             •"•"•"• •'•"••.••l         |V»"t"|
             -•-•-•• ••-"'          t'X'Xl  .    .   .   .   .
                                   ROLLING
                             ""     *~CM
-------
-4
00
                                                                               TABLE V-26

                                                    FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

                                                                   ROLLING HEAT TREATMENT  QUENCH

                                                                             RAW WASTEWATER




1.
'..
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.



Pollutant
acennphiher.e
IKTUIVMM
berniiHiii".
1,1 ,1-trichloroetliane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluenc
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
oiethylenc chloride
chlorodibromome thane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-n i tropheaol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
t;.j (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
bulyl benzyl phthalate
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
V.)
10
!0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
of
Streams
Ar.alv.ied
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
',
/,
fj
&
2
2
6
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-IO 11-100 101-1000 1000+
2
2
Z
^
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

-------
10
                                                                        TABLE  V-26





                                                                 ROLLING HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH



                                                                           RAW WASTEWATER

68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
SO.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Pollutant
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a) anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
aienaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo (a, h) anthracene
indeno (1 ,2 ,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4'-DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
end IT in
endrin aldehyde
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(Ug/l)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/lj*
HD-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

-------
                                                                         TABLE  V-26
00
O
                                                                 ROLLING HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

                                                                           RAW WASTEWATER

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamraa-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-J242
PCB-1254
FCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
zinc (total)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
1
1
1
1
K«)
Ka)
Ka)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2

2


2


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2

2


2


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
2
2
2
2

2


2


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 1
2
              *Net concentration  (source subtracted)
              tfl-significant; 2-site specific; 3-marglbally significant; 4-insignificant; 5-not detected (ND)
              (a),(b) Reported together

-------
CO
                                                           TABLE V-27
                                                          SAMPLING DATA

                                                  ROLLING HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

                                                         RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code* Type
23.

44.

125.

chloroform

methylene chloride

nickel

D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll
1
1
1
1
6
6
CONVENTIONAL
150.

152.

159.

oil and grease

suspended solids

pH

D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll
1
1
6
6


Source
PRIORITY
20
20
K 10
K 10
K 5
K 5
NON-PRIORITY






Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
K 10 K 10 5
38 10 12
K 10 K 10 K 10
10 10 95
K 5
20
POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
13
12
ND ND ND
3
1*1 6.8 7.4
8.1 8.2 7.5
Average
K 8
20
K 40
38
K 5
20
13
12
ND
3


Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
K 2E-5

K 9E-5

K 1E-5

2.9E-2





NON-CONVENTIONAL
133.

136.

aluminum

calcium

D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll
6
6
6
6
0.2
0.2
38
38
0.4
K 0.2
51
41
,0.4
K 0.2
51
41
9E-4

1.1E-1


-------
       TABLE  V-27





ROLLING HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH



       RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code* Type Source

138.

139.

147.

149.

i— •
00
ro
151.

155.

156.


157.



iron

magnesium

alkalinity

chemical oxygen
demand (COD)


dissolved solids

sulfate

phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)

phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)


D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll

D-10
D-ll

D-10
D-ll
D-10
D-ll

D-10
D-ll

D-10
D-ll
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (continued)
6 K 0.1
6 K 0.1
6 12
6 12
6
6

6
6

6
6
6
6

6
6

6'
6
K 0.1
K 0.1
20
11
130
120 ND

K 5
7

412
334 ND
70
K 10 ND

2
K 1

0.011
0.01
K 0.1
K 0.1
20
11
130
ND 40

K 5
7

412
ND 111
70
ND K 3

2
K 1

0.011
0.01
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)

K 2E-4

4E-2

2.9E-1


1E-2


9.2E-1

2E-1


4E-3


2.5E-5


-------
00
CO
                                                                           TABLE V-28


                                                  FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRI POLLUTANTS


                                                                     HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH


                                                                  Forging Heat Treatment Quench


                                                                        RAW WASTEWATER

1.
4.
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34,
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Pollutant
acenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1,1, 1-trichloroe thane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 , 2- trans -dichloroethylene
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
2 , 4-dimethy 1 phenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
chlo rod ibromome thane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
pllrilOl
bis (2-ethylhcxyl) phthalate
butyl honzvl phthnlato
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
in
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
5
6
6
6
6
5
6
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
(,
Number of Times Observed
In Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
It
4
4
4
2 1 1
4

-------
CO
                                                                           TABLE V-28




                                                                      HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH



                                                                  Forging Heat  Tre'ament Quench



                                                                          RAW WASTEWATER

68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
BO.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Pollutant
di-n-butyl phthalate
dl-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo ( « ) a nthra cene
benzo(a)pyrene
chryaene
acenaphtnylene
anthracene
f luorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a ,h)anthracene
indeno (1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4, 4' -DDT
4, A '-DDE
A,A'-DDD
alpha-endosulf an
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyda
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10(c)
10
10(c)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
A
4
3
3
3
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number of Tine* Observed
in Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
A
4
A
A
4
A
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4

-------
                                                                           TABLE V-28
00
tn
                                                                      HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH


                                                                  Forging Heat Treatment Quench


                                                                         RAW VASTEWATHfi

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
alpha -BUG
beta-BllC
gamma -8HC
delta-BBC
PCB-1242
PCB-U54
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Analytical Number
Quantification of
Level Streams
(ug/1) Analyzed
I
1
1
1
l(a)
l(a)
Ka)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
/,
it
4
It

4


4


1
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
4
4
4
4

4


U


1
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
Number of Times Observed
in Somples (ug/1)*
ND-10
/,
4
4
4

4


4



4
4
3
1

3
2
4
3
1
11-100 101-1000











1


1
1
3 1

1

1
1 1
JOOO-t-















2


1


1
            *Net concentration (source subtracted)


            (a),(b),(c) Reported together

-------
CO
TABLE V-29
SAMPLING DATA
HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH
Forging Heat Treatment Quench
RAW WASTEWATER

Pollutant

66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate


119. cadmium



120. chromium



121. copper



123. lead




Stream
Code

A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4

Sample
Type

1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
1
6

Source

200
ND
K 10
5
K 2
K 10
K 1
K 1
K 5
K 30
4
K 1
10
30
26
10
K 20
K 50
6
K 1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1 Day 2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
890
4 2
10

K 2
K 10 K 10
1

7
50 130
72,000

100
K 20 70
70

60
K 50 K 50
ND


Day 3


5

50

K 10

12

130

46,000

60

380

K 50

17,000

Average

890
4
10
50
K 2
K 10
1
12
7
100
72,000
46,000
100
K 50
70
380
60
K 50
ND
17,000

Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)

2.9E-2
1E-6
1E-5

K6E-4
K3E-6
1E-6

2E-4
2.8E-5
8.8E-2

3E-3
K1E-5
9E-5

2E-3
K1E-5



-------
CO
                                                                    TABLE V-29




                                                             HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH




                                                         Forging Heat  Treatment Quench




                                                               RAW,WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

124. mercury



125. nickel



129. zinc




A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4

1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
1
6
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3
Mass
Loading
Average (kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
0.6
K 0.4
K 0.1
0.7
K 5
K 20
K 1
K 1
60
40
K 10
53
0.5
K 0.4 K 0.2
K 0.1

K 5
K 20 K 20
6

50
30 70
190


K 0.2

K 0.05

K 20

K 8

80

5,200
0.5
K 0.3
K 0.1
K 0.05
K 5
K 20
6
K 8
50
60
190
5,200
2E-5
K8E-8
K1E-7

K2E-4
K6E-6
7E-6

2E-3
2E-5
2.3E-4

NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease


152. suspended solids



A-2
J-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
R-4

1
1
1
1
1,2,2
6


ND

K 1
14


14
4
7 250
4
34 21



5
5

12
240

14
5
87
4
22
240

4.5E-1
1E-3

1E-1
6.1E-3


-------
                                                                  TABLE V-29
00
00
                                                            HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

                                                        Forging Heat Treatment Quench

                                                              RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant

159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
133. aluminum



136. calcium



139. magnesium

• -,

147. alkalinity





Stream Sample
Code Type

J-3
Q-3
R-4

A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4



1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
1
6
1
1,2,2
7 r
1
6
1
1,2,2
* 7
I
6
GROSS
Source
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1 Day 2

Day 3


Mass
Loading
Average (kg/kkg)
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (continued)


K 1
K 0.1
K 1
K 1
39
ND
61
60
9
ND
12
22

117


7.8 7.5
8.2
7.9 7.9

K 1
K 1 1
1.2

38
40 36
77

8
13 12
35

92
130 220
170

7.8
8.2


1

9

37

80

12

31

120

170


K 1
K 1
1.2
9
38
38
77
80
8
12
35
31
92
160
170
170


K3E-2
K3E-4
1.5E-3

1.2
1.1E-2
9.5E-2

3E-1
3.3E-3
4.3E-2

3
4.4E-2
2.1E-1


-------
00
vo
                                                                TABLE V-29


                                                          HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH


                                                      Forging Heat Treatment Quench
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source
149.


151.



155.



156.


157.


chemical oxygen
demand (COD)

dissolved solids



sulfate



Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)

phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)

A-2
J-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
Q-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
R-4
A-2
J-3
R-4
1 8
1,2,2 5
6
1
1,2,2 igo
1
6
1
1,2,2 K 10
1
6
1 9
1,2,2 K 1
6
1
1,2,2 ND
6
Day 1
18
6

190
240
1,400

70
30
330

14
K 1

0.019
1.6

Day 2 Day 3

K 5 K 5
56

240 1,500

720

30 30

190

4 1
3

0.01
0.003


riass
Loading
Average (kg/kkg)
18
K 5
56
190
660
1,400
720
70
30
330
190
14
K 2
3
0.019
0.8
0.003
5.8E-1
K1E-3

6.1
1.8E-1
1.7

2
8E-3
4.1E-1

4.5E-1
K6E-4

6.1E-4
2E-4


-------
                                                      TABLE V-30
                             FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

                                                   HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

                                               Drawing Heat Treatment Quench

                                                      RAW WASTEWATER
10
o
                                     Analytical     Number     Number
                                    Quantification    Of          Of
                                       Level        Streams     Samples
Number of Times Observed
   In Samples (ug/1)*

1.
4.
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Pollutant
acenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
1 , 1 -dichloroethane
2 , 4 , 6- tr ichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2 ,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
chlorodibromomethane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2 , 4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 10
butyl benzyl phthalate
10
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ND-10
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

3
11-100 101-1000 1000+

1





1 1








2 1









2 1


-------
          TABLE V— 3O
    HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH



Drawing Heat Treatment Quench
       RAW WASTEWATER
Analytical
Quantification
Level
Pollutant (ug/1)
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a ) anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4 '-DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
Of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
Of
Samples
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
In Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
2 1
3
2 1
2 1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2 1
2 1
2 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

-------
                                                      TABLE V-30
10
ro
                                                  HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH


                                              Drawing Heat Treatment Quench


                                                     RAW WASTEWATER

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
zinc (total)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
1
1
1
1
Ka)
Ka)
l(a)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number
Of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1

1


1


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
Of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1

1


1


3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of Times Observed
In Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1
1
1
1

1


1


2 1
3
3
3
3
1 2
3
3
2 1
3
3
      * Net concentration (source subtracted)

-------
                                                 TABLE V-31
                                                SAMPLING DATA

                                            HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

                                        Drawing Heat Treatment Quench

                                               RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Samp
Pollutant 	 Code* Type
4. benzene ^"^
23.
44.
66.
68.
70.
71.
86.
87
88
1A7
chloroform
methylene chloride
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
tetrachloroethylene
. toluene
. trichloroethylene
pr.R-1242 (al
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
E-4
le
Source
Day 1
Day 2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
1 ND
1 K 10
1 17
1 K 10
1 K 10
1 K 10
1 K 10
1 ND
1 ND
1 ND
1 1.6
6,300
35,000
92,000
840
990
470
ND
12,000
950
1,300
4.5
7
30
170
36
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND

Day 3
ND
3
120
48
5
ND
50
K 1
ND
1

Mass
Loading
Average (kg/kkg)
2,100
12,000
31,000
310
330
160
20
K 4,000
320
430
4.5
108.  PCB-1254 (a)
109.  PCB-1221 (a)

-------
10
                                                          TABLE V-31





                                                       HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH




                                                   Drawing Heat  Treatment Quench




                                                          RAW WASTEWATER
.- 	 • — • 	 —

Stream Sample
pn11,,t»nt r-0<*e* tr°e Source

110. PCB-1232 (b)
111. PCB-1248 (b)
112. PCB-1260 (b)
113. PCB-1016 (b)
115. antimony

121. copper
122. cyanide
124. mercury

E-4 1 1



E-4 1 K 100
E-4 1 K 9

E-4 1 ND
E-4 1 0
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
.2 3.2



K 200
20

1,300
.4 20

Day 2
(ug/1) (continued)




K 100
K 9

1,400
10

Day 3





K 100
20

1,300
0.3

Average

3.2



K 100
K 16

1,300
10
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)










NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
ten «U
E-4 1
E-4 1 K 1
E-4
17
21
7.9
18
19
8.2
26
17
8.4
20
19





-------
                                                            TABLE  V-31



                                                       HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH


                                                   Drawing Heat Treatment Quench


                                                          RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS M
Mass
Pollutant
Stream Sample
Code" Type Source
Loading
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
                                                  NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)  (continued)


           NON-CONVENTIONAL
         149chemical oxygen
                demand (COD)        E-4    1     K 5         80,000          98,000          98,000          92,000


         156. phenols (total; by
                4-AAP method)       E-4    1       1         20,000          20,000          18,000          19,000


         157. phenols (total; by
                4-AAP method)       E-4     1                      0.005                           0.005           0.005
vo
tn

-------
priority pollutants detected above analytically  quantifiable  levels.
Data for the non-priority pollutants is also presented in Table V-31.

Extrusion  Press  Heat  Treatment  Quench.    Table  V-32  presents the
frequency of occurrence of each of the priority  pollutants  for  this
wastewater stream type.  Table V-34 summarizes the field sampling data
for  those  priority  pollutants  classified  found above quantifiable
levels.  Data for the non-priority pollutants  is  also  presented  in
Table V-32.

Extrusion  Solution  Heat  Treatment  Quench.  Table V-34 presents the
frequency of occurrence of priority  pollutants  for  this  wastewater
stream  type.  Table V-35 summarizes the field sampling data for those
priority  pollutants  detected  above  levels  that  are  analytically
quantifiable.   Data  for  the  non-conventional  pollutants  is  also
presented in Table V-35.

Air Pollution Control for Annealing Furnace.  As described in  Section
III,  annealing  is  used  to  soften work-hardened and solution-heat-
treated alloys, to relieve stress and to stabilize the properties  and
dimensions  of the aluminum product.  In some cases it is necessary to
control the atmosphere within  the  annealing  furnace.   At  elevated
temperatures  the  presence of water vapors can disrupt the oxide film
on the surface of the product, especially if the  atmosphere  is  also
contaminated  with ammonia or sulfur compounds.  Inert gas atmospheres
can be used within the furnace to avoid possible  detrimental  effects
such   as   blistering,   discoloration  and  a  decrease  in  tensile
properties.  At some plants natural gas is burned to generate an inert
atmosphere.  At one of the  aluminum  forming  plants  surveyed,  flue
gases  from the burning of fuel to heat the annealing furnace are used
as the furnace atmosphere.  Due  to  the  sulfur  content  of  furnace
fuels,  however,  the  off-gases  require  treatment  by wet scrubbers
before they can be used as an inert  atmosphere  for  heat  treatment.
The scrubber in use at this plant was reported to require a relatively
large  flow  of  water  which is extensively recycled (more than 99%).
The water use and wastewater values calculated  for  this  stream  are
1,500 gpt and 6.3 gpt, respectively.

Table V-36 presents the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants
for  this  wastewater  stream  type.   Table V-37 summarizes the field
sampling  data  for   those   priority   pollutants   detected   above
analytically   quantifiable   levels.    Data   for  the  non-priority
pollutants is also presented in Table V-37.

Annealing Furnace Seal.  One of the aluminum forming plants responding
to this survey indicated that water is used as a seal for their  inert
gas  annealing furnace.  By passing the aluminum products through this
water seal as they enter and are removed from the furnace, leakage, of
the  inert  atmosphere is avoided.  The water use and wastewater value
calculated for the annealing furnace seal at this plant was 2400  gpt.
                               196

-------
10
                                                                TABLE  V-32
                                                             HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH
                                                         Extrusion Press Heat Treatment


66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.

Pollutant
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo (a , h) anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4'-DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan

Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RAW WASTEWATER
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
3 2
4 1
5
5
5
5
5 '
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

-------
ID
CO
                                                                  TABLE V-32

                                                               HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

                                                           Extrusion Press Heat Treatment


98.
99.
100.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118,
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.

Pollutant
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
end r in aldehyde
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
zinc (total)

Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l(a)
l(a)
Ka)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
RAW WASTEWATER
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5


5


5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5


5


7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5


5


5
5
4
4
4
1 3
3 1
3 1
4
3 1
4
        *Net concentration (source subtracted)

        (a),(b) Reported tORether

-------
         TABLE V-33
         SAMPLING DATA

     HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

Extrusion Press Heat Treatment

        RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

24. 2-chlorophenol




30. 1 ,2-trans-dichloro-
ethylene




44. methylene chloride




66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate




F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6

F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6

2
2
2
6
2

2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
,2
2
2
2
6
2
Source
Day 1 Day 2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
560
560
560
560
25
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
20
ND ND
ND
ND
ND

ND ND
ND ND
2
13
ND
11 110
100 640,000
105
49
800
ND
190 35
K 10
32
K 10
Mass
Loading
Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)

20 1E-3
ND ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND ND
2 5E-7
13
ND
60 3.2E-3
86 210,000 3E-2
100 2E-5
49
800
ND
85 100 1E-5
K 10 K 2E-6
32
K 10

-------
ro
o
o
                                                              TABLE V-33




                                                        HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH



                                                   Extrusion Press  Heat  Treatment



                                                           RAW WASTEWATER
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

67. butyl benzyl
phthalate



121. copper



125. nickel

'


CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease




152. suspended solids





F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6


F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6

2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
2


2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
2

GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2

Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 9
K 9
K 9
K 9
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5












ND
130 26
K 5
K 10
K 10
40 30
K 9
100
40
40 K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)

9
59 36
8
20
17
K 1
41 61
2
28
3
ND
46 67
K 5
K 10
K 10
30 33
K 9
100
40
K 5 K 17
K 5
K 5
K 5


9
280 130
8
20
17
K 1
74 59
2
28
3
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)


8E-6
K 1E-6


4E-6
K 2E-6


K 2.1E-6
K 1E-6




5E-1
1.6E-2
2E-3


K 5E-2
7.2E-3
5E-4



-------
                                                                  TABLE V-33



                                                            HEAT TREATMENT  QUENCH



                                                       Extrusion Press Heat Treatment



                                                               RAW WASTEWATER
ro
o
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

159. pH




NON-CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)




156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)




157. phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)




F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6


F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6

F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6

F-6
G-3
G-4
G-5
Day 1
Mass
Loading
Day 2 Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (continued)
2 7.6
2
2
6
2


2
2
2
6
2

2
2
2
6
2

2
2
2
6
7.1
8.2
7.8
8.6
9.2


K 5
218
K 5
76
74

K 1
110
5
46
27

K 0.001
0.017
0.011
0.015
7.7
6.9 7.3

*



K 5
127 295 213
K 5
76
74

K 1
35 120 88
5
46
27

K 0.001
0.015 0.010 0.014
0.011
0.015







K 3E-1
2.6E-2
K 1E-3



K 5E-2
1.1E-2
1E-3



K 5E-5
1.7E-6
3E-6


-------
ro
o
ro
                                                                                        TABLE V-34


                                                            FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS


                                                                               HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH



                                                                      Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Quench


                                                                                     RAW WASTEWATER

1.
4.
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
Pollutant
acenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2 , 4-dIcKIorophenol
2 , 4-dime thy Iphenol
2 , 4-dini troto luene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
ch Lot ndibromome thane
isophoront!
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2,4-Jinilrophenol
4,6-ditiitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
pluMiol
bis (2-ethylhexyl) ph thai ate
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Sample*
Analyzed
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Tines Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
MD-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

-------
                                                                                       TABLE V-34
PO
O
CO
                                                                                  HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH


                                                                         Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment  Quench


                                                                                        RAW WASTEWATER

67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
Pollutant
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
buizo (a) anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4, A1 -DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4, 4' -ODD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Tines Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

-------
ro
o
                                                                                    TABLE V-34




                                                                             HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH



                                                                    Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Quench



                                                                                   RAW WASTEWATER

100.
103.
104.
10S.
106.
107.
108.
109.
no.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
endrin aldehyde
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BIIC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCS-1260
PCB-1016
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
1
1
1
1
1
Ka)
Ka)
l(a)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2

2


2


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
2
2
2
2
2

2


2


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
2
2
2
2
2

2


2


2
2
2
2
1 1
2
1 1
2
2
1 1
1 1
                       *Net  concentration  (source subtracted)



                       (a),(b)  Reported  together

-------
en
                                                                 TABLE V-35
                                                                SAMPLING DATA

                                                            HEAT TREATMENT  QUENCH

                                                  Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Quench

                                                                RAW WASTEWATER
	 	 	 	 	 • 	 —

Stream Sample
Pollutant Code 	 TZpe___

44. methylene chloride
120. chromium
125. nickel

CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
133. aluminum
136. calcium

N-2 1
R-5 6
N-2 6
R-5 6
N-2 6
R-5 6

N-2 1
N-2 6
R-5 6
N-2
R-5
N-2 6
R-5 6
N-2 6
R-5 6
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2

PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND 5 5
5
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
K 5 68
K 2
7.1 7.3 7.3
7.5 7.2
K 0.1
K 0.5
28
60

Day 3


630
10
18
5,100
K 1
18

14
K 2
2
7.3
7.2
K 0.5
0.54
38
58

Average


210
10
18
5,100
K 1
18

41
K 2
2

K 0.5 '
0.54
38
58
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)


3.1E-4
2.1E-6
2.7E-5
1.1E-3
K 1E-6
3.9E-6

6.1E-2
K 3E-3
4E-4

K 7E-4
1.2E-4
5.7E-2
1.2E-2

-------
                                                                 TABLE V-35
8
en
                                                           HEAT TREATMENT QUENCH

                                                 Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Quench

                                                               RAW WASTEWATER
              Pollutant	



            139. magnesium


            147. alkalinity
             149.  chemical oxygen
                    demand (COD)
151.  dissolved solids


155.  sulfate
             156. Total Organic
                    Carbon  (TOG)
              157. phenols  (total; by
                     4-AAP  method)
	 •'—
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Code Type Source Day 1

N-2
R-5
N-2
R-5
N-2
R-5
N-2
R-5
N-2
R-5
N-2
R-5
by
w J
N-2
R-5
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
6 4.4
6 22
6 ND
6
6 5
6
6 ND
6
6 ND
6
6 2.7
6

6
6

Day 2 Day 3
(mg/1) (continued)
5.3
25
110
34
7
20
160
580
7
120
1.8
2.7

0.014
0.007

Mass
Loading
Average (kg/kkg)

5.3
25
110
34
7
20
160
580
7
120
1.8
2.7

0.014
0.007

7.9E-3
5.4E-3
1.6E-1
7.3E-3
1E-2
4E-3
2.4E-1
1.2E-1
1E-2
2.6E-2
2.7E-3
5.8E-4

2.1E-5
2E-6

-------
PO
o
                                                                                    TABLE V-36


                                                          FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS


                                                                                ANNEALING SCRUBBER



1.
it.
5.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.


Pollutant
acenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
1,1-dichloroe thane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-trans-dichloroetaylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
chlorodibromomethane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis C-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phtlialate

Analytical
Quantification
Level
(UK/!)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
RAW WASTEWATER
Number
of
Streams
Analvzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

-------
                                                                                             TABLE  V-36
                                                                                        AHUVkUW SCRUBBER
ro
o
CO


68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.

Pollutant
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
dtethyl phthnlatc
dimethyl pliUialiile
benzo(a)antliracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroetbylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4 ,4' -DDT
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-cndosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde

Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RAW WASTEWATER
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed





1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed








1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of Times Observed
in Samples (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1600+










1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

-------
ro
o
10
                                                                                        TABLE  V-36
                                                                                   ANNEALING SCRUBBER
RAW WASTEWATER

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
ilflLu-IIIIC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony •
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Analytical
Quantification
Level S
(ufi/D
1
1
1
1
Ka)
Ka)
Ka)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number Number
of of Number of Times Observed
treams Samples in Samples (ug/1)*
Analyzed Analyzed ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 11

1 1 1


1 1 1


1 1 1
1 11
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
                        *Net concentration  (source subtracted)



                        (a),(t>) Reported together

-------
                                                                     TABLE V-37

                                                                   SAMPLING DATA



                                                                 ANNEALING SCRUBBER



                                                             Annealing Scrubber Water



                                                                  RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source Day 1 Day 2
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
44. methylene chloride N-7 10 ND 10
124. mercury N-7 ND 1.1 8.7
Mass
Loading
Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
10
8.7
ro
i—1
c

-------
So  recycle  of  the stream is practiced.  Inert atmosphere  furnaces  are
not uncommon in this industry (seven other operations were  identified
from dcp responses) and this is the only plant indicating  that  a  water
seal is used.

Field samples of the furnace sealant were not collected.

Surface Treatment

Dear easing  Solvents.   Although 32 solvent decreasing  operations have
beenidentified  from  dcp  responses,  no  discharge   is   typically
associated with this process and little flow data was provided.  Vapor
decreasing,  the predominant method of  solvent cleaning  in the aluminum
forming  industry,  is described in Section  III.   A number of priority
pollutants,   including  trichloroethylene,   1,1,1-trichloroethane  and
perch 1oroethylene,  are  commonly  used solvents  for vapor degreasing.
The solvents are frequently reclaimed  by distillation,  either  on-site
or  by  an  outside  recovery  service.   Of  the  32  solvent cleaning
Operations surveyed, only two were found to  discharge   any  wastewater
from  this  process  to  either  surface  waters   or POTWs.  One plant
reported the discharge, after treatment, of  recovery sludge  resulting
from distillation  of cleaning solvents.  In  another case a water rinse
was  used   immediately  following  solvent   cleaning.    Water  use and
wastewater  factors could not be  calculated   for   either  plant.   One
plant   incinerated the  spent solvent and  four plants disposed of the
recovery sludge by having it landfilled.

Field sampling data for  cleaning solvent streams are summarized  along
with other  miscellaneous streams in  Table  V-45.

Cleaning  or  Etch Line  Baths.  As  described in Section III, a variety
of  chemicaT~solutions  are used  for  cleaning purposes or to provide tne
desired finish  for formed aluminum   products.    These  treatments  and
their   associated  rinses   are   usually  combined   in  a single line of
successive  tanks.   Wastewater  discharged from these lines is typically
commingled  prior  to treatment  or  discharge.

The acid, alkaline and detergent solutions used  in  cleaning  and  etch
lines  are usually maintained as stagnant baths into which the  products
are  immersed.    Chemicals  are added as required  to make  up  for  losses
due to evaporation, carryover  and splash-out.  In  this survey  most of
the  plants  with cleaning  or  etch lines did not  indicate discharge of
these chemical dips.   In eight of the 32 Pl^s,  periodic discharge of
cleaning  or  etching  compounds   was   reported—usually   folj;°^^
treatment.    Two  plants  indicated  that  the   chemical  dip is  hauled
periodically by an outside contractor and two plants practiced on-site
disposal.

Field sampling data for cleaning or etch  line   baths  are  summarized
along with  other miscellaneous streams in Table  V-45.
                                    211

-------
Cleaning  or  Etch Line Rinses.  Rinsing is usually required following
successive chemical treatments within cleaning  or  etch  lines.   The
most  common  methods  are spray rinsing or immersion in a continuous-
flow rinse tank.  The number of rinses within a given line varied from
plant to plant depending on the kind of surface treatment applied.

Water use and wastewater values calculated for the  cleaning  or  etch
lines  at  aluminum  forming  plants  are  shown  in  Table V-38.  The
distribution of this data is presented using histograms in Figures  V-
47  and  V-48.  As  can  be seen, cleaning or etch lines with multiple
rinses tend to have higher water use and wastewater discharge  -values.
Direct   correlations   between  these  factors,  however,  cannot  be
established on the basis of this data.  A more detailed discussion  of
factors  which could account for variations in wastewater discharge of
this stream is presented in Section IX.

Table V-39 presents the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants
for this wastewater stream type.   Table  V-40  summarizes  the  field
sampling   data  for  those  pollutants  detected  above  analytically
quantifiable levels.  Data for the  non-priority  pollutants  is  also
presented in Table V-40.

                              TABLE V-38

                    CLEANING AND ETCH LINE RINSES

                           Water Use     Wastewater      I of
Plant                       (qpt)          (qpt)         Rinses

  1                          5,100            0.34         1
  2                          2,000           19         1 or 2
  3                            110           80            1
  4                            130          130            1
  5                            220          220            2
  6                            240          240            1
  7                        100,000          340            1
  8                          1,400          400            1
  9                            630          630            2
 10                          1,100          950       1, 2, or 3
 11                          1,600        1,500            3
 12                          1,800        1,700            4
 13                          2,500        2,500            3
 14                          4,000        4,000          3 or 4
 15                          7,200        5,300            6
 16                          6,200        6,200            4
 17                          7,700        7,700            2
 18                         18,000       17,000            1
 19                         21,000       21,000            1
 20                         36,000       36,000            2
                                 212

-------
    plus  10 additional  plants with insufficient data

 STATISTICAL SUMMARY

 MIRIMUM                        110            0.34
 MAXIMUM                    100,000       36,000
 MEAN                        11,000        5,300
 MEDIAN                       2,200        1,200
 SAMPLE:            20 of 30 plants     20 of 30 plants


 note:   Differences between water use and wastewater values  are  due
      to  recycle, evaporation and carryover.

 Air Pollution  Control  for Cleaning and Etch Line.  Of  the  30 plants
 with cleaning and etch  lines, four indicated that  wet  scrubbers   are
 associated  with  these  operations.  Fumes from caustic  or acid baths
 nay require treatment to control air pollution emissions  and  insure  a
 safe working environment.   Sufficient flow data to calculate  water  use
 and wastewater  values  were available from three of the four  plants.
 This information is  summarized and presented in Table V-41.

 fable  V-42 presents  the frequency of occurrence of priority pollutants
 for this  wastewater  stream type.   Table  V-43  summarizes  the field
 sampling  data  for   those  priority  pollutants  detected  above   the
 analytically  quantifiable  levels.    Data   for   the   non-priority
 pollutants is also presented in Table V-43.

                              TABLE V-41

            AIR POLLUTION CONTROL CLEANING OR ETCH LINE

                         Water Use      Percent       Wastewater
 Plant                      (qpt)         Recycle          (qpt)


  1                          130            0               130
  2                          240            0               240
  3                        1,100            0             1,100

    Sufficient data  not available to calculate values
    for one plant.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM                      130                            130
MAXIMUM                    1,100                          1,100
MEAN                         490                            490
MEDIAN                       240                            240
SAMPLE                  3 of 4 plants                 3 of  4  plants
                                    213

-------
ro
                                                                 TABLE V-39



                                          FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                                                                   ETCH LINE



                                                                Etch Line Rinses


1.
4.
5.
11,
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.
65.
66.
67.

Pollutant
acenaphthene
benzene
benzidine
1,1, 1-trichloroethaae
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2,4, 6-trich.lorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
2 , 4-dinitrotoluene
2, 6-dinitro toluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
chlorodibromomethane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4 , 6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate

Analytical
Quantification
Level
(U8/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
RAW WASTEWATER
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
34
41
34
41
41
34
34
41
34
41
34
34
34
34
41
34
41
41
34
34
34
34
41
34
34
34
34
34

ND-10
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
9
19
18
19
18
19
19
19
19
12
19
18
19
18
19
19
19
19
17
13
18
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
11-100 101-1000 1000+
1
1





10

1

1




3 3 1

1

1




2
5 1
1

-------
ro
i—•
en
                                                               TABLE V-39


                                                                  ETCH LINE



                                                               Etch Line Rinses


                                                                 RAW WASTEWATER

68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Pollutant
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo (a , h) anthra cene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4, 4' -DDT
4, 4' -DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
41
41
41
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
Number of Times Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
18 1
18 1
17 2
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17

-------
ro
                                                                   TABLE V-39
                                                                    ETCH LINE
                                                                 Etch Line Rinses
                                                                   RAW WASTEWATER

103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
Pollutant
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BBC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
ant loony (total)
arsenic (total)
beryllium (total)
cadaium (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
zinc (total)
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
1
1
1
1
Ka)
Ka)
Ka)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
17
17
17
17

17


17


19
19
19
19
19
19
18
19
19
19
19
If umber
of
Samples
Analyzed
21
21
21
21

21


21


32
33
32
32
32
32
33
32
32
32
32

Number of Times
in Streams
Observed
(ug/D*
ND-10 11-JOO 101-1000
17
17
17
17

16


16


19
17
14
14
6
5
14
4
18
12
4





1


1



1
5
4
5
3
4
7
1
5
6












1

1
3
4

5

1
3

1000+















5
7

3

1
6
        *Net  concentration (source subtracted)
        (a),(b) Reported together

-------
 TABLE V-40
  SAMPLING DATA
ETCH LINE RINSES
 RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kfcg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
1 . acenaphthene A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
4 . benzene A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND

17
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
ND







ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND





ND





K 10

ND



ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND





3
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
K 10
17
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND

ND
ND
ND
3
ND
ND
ND
1
K 1E-5
K 1E-5












9E-5

ND



3E-6





-------
                                                                   TABLE V-40


                                                                ETCH LIKE RINSES


                                                                 RAW WASTEWATER
ro
i—•
CO
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
23. chloroform A- 3
A- 4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
23
23
23
K 1
29
29
29
ND
ND
ND
ND
52
52
10
55
55
20
20
K 10
66
66
66
19
45
45
45
ND
ND
4
K 1
33
ND
ND
42
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
19
10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
69
29
71
44
1
4
57
18
ND
43

31
ND
2
K 1
42
51
ND

ND
ND




11
11
110

57
30
3
6
67
37
2
ND



K 1
ND
19
4
ND

ND
ND




7
17
9



11
5
100
43
1
14
4
K 16
17
K 1
K 0.3
34
19
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
19
10
K 10
K 10
K 9
K 13
63
29
64
37
5
5
75
33


8D-6
K 3E-5
3E-5
K 8E-6
K 4E-6
5E-4
8.6E-4




2.6E-5
2.1E-5

K 8E-6
K 8E-6



6E-5
1E-4
7E-5
4E-5
8E-5
1.1E-3
1.5E-3

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-40



                                                                 ETCH LINE RINSES



                                                                  RAW WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample r
Pollutant 	 Qode 	 TjE* 	 	

N-6 1
N-8 1
Q-2 1
R-6 1
30. 1,2-trans-di-
chloroethylene A- 3 *
A-4 1
B-5 1
C-6 1
C-7 1
D-3 1
D-5 1
E-5 1
H-4 1
H-5 1
H-6 1
J-2 1
K-2 1
K-3 1
K-4 1
N-6 1
N-8 1
Q-2 1
R-6 1
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol A-3 1
A-4 1
B-5 1
C-6 1
li U A
C-7 1

Dav 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
Utt
HU
40
ND
11JJ
40

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
nu
ND
NT)
nif
ND
K 1
K 1
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

10
ND
ND
20

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
110
ND
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 10
ND
30



ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND





K 10
5
30



ND
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
ND





K 10
ND
2
30

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.3
ND
110
ND
K 0.5
K 0.3
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
wn



2E-5





2E-4
K 1E-6
K 2E-6
4E-5






-------
                                                                       TABLE  V-40

                                                                      ETCH LINE RINSES

                                                                       RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Strean
Code
Sample
Type Source Day 1
Day 2 Day 3 Average
Mass
Loading
(k*/kkg)
                                                                 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)  (Continued)
ro
ro
o
                      44. methylene chloride
D«3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
-H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
K 10
K 10
13
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
130
130
K 10
220
220
K10
K 10
17
1,100
1,100
1,100
ND
1,300
1,300
  ND
  ND
  19
  ND
  ND

  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND

 150
 510
  20
  18
K 10
K 10
K 10
 150
 120
 328
 873
   6
  40
 940
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                                             ND
                                                                                             ND
                                                                                              10
                                                                                              58
                                                                                           6,100

                                                                                           1,300
                                                                                              17
                                                                                              48
                                                                                              34
                                                                                             840
                                                                                                              ND

                                                                                                              ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
K 1
                ND
                ND
               520
               280
               120
               210
                38
             2,200
   ND
   ND
   ND
   19
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
  K 0.3
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND

  150
  510
   20
   18
 K 10
K 180
K 120
2,100
  120
  809
  445
   88
   37
1,330
                                                                                                                                      4E-5
                                       K 1E-5
                                                                                                                                       1.6E-4
                                                                                                                                       5.6E-4

                                                                                                                                       1.4E-5
                                                                                                                                    K  8E-6
                          2E-4
                          2E-4
                          9E-4
                          7E-4
                          5.6E-4
                          2E-2

-------
ro
ro
                                                                    TABLE  V-40


                                                                  ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                                   RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3

Loading
Average (kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
54. isophorone A- 3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
B-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
58. 4-nitrophenol A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
1,300
ND
ND
K 10
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
11
11
11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
650
ND
ND
5
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

16
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

860
K 5

5
10







ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND






1,400
ND

ND
5





ND

K 10



ND
ND
ND
ND


ND
ND





ND
970 4.4E-2
K 2
ND
3 3E-5
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
16
K 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
ro
ro
                                                                  TABLE V-40


                                                                 ETCH LIME ftlMSES



                                                                  BAH UASTEHAIER

Stren
Pollutant Code

D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
65. phenol A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
K-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6

Simple

6
3






3

1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
KD
HD
KD
KD
KD
HD
KD
HD
HD
HD
KD
HD
HD
K 10
K 10
K 10
HD
KD
HD
ND
K 5
ND
HD
HD
MD
KD
ND
ND
ND
COJKXNTRAT1
Day 1
POLLUTANTS
XD
HD
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
HD
K 10
ND
12
ND

ND
ND
63
ND
HD

ND
K 1
13
ND
[ONS
	 Day 2 	
(u«/l) (Continned)

KD

HD
ND
26
HD
KD
KD


KD
KD







5

HD
KD
ND
ND
ND
HD


Day 3


KD



10
KD
HD
HO


KD
KD





RIO

HD



HD
MD
MD
ND




HD
HD
KD
KD
KD
18
KD
HD
HD
KD
KD
HD
HD
HD
K 10
KD
12
KD
K 10
ND
2
63
HD
KD
KD
HD
K 0.3
4
HD
tfass
Loading
(kjt/kk*)






1E-4








K 1E-5

9.1E-6




1E-4




K 4E-6
2E-4


-------
                                                                  TABLE V-40


                                                                 ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                                  RAW WASTEWATER
no
re
co
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
N-8
Q-2
R-6
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
67. butyl benzyl A-3
phthalate A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
1
3
3

1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
ND
ND
ND

200
200
10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
65
65
65
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
5
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
5

K 10
41
K 10
K 10
K 10

78
88
96
20
K 10

21
4
10
5
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


5
ND







32

K 10
K 10
190
9
7
5


5
5







ND
ND





K 10
NS
19



59
4
6
41


5
5





NT)
ND
3
2

K 10
41
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
78
46
98
K 15
K 10
120
11
6
19
5
ND
5
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT)

3E-5


K 1E-5
4.5E-5

K 8E-6
K 8E-6



2E-4
K 3E-5
K 2E-5
1E-3
1.6E-4
9E-5
8.6E-A


6E-5








-------
                                                                   TABLE V-40



                                                                  ETCH LIKE RINSES



                                                                   RAW WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Saople
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
68. di-n-butyl phthalate A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
NO
K 10
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
76
76
K 10
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
41
ND
ND
ND
NO
11
66
5
NO

ND
ND
2
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
10
K 10
ND

ND
33
68
K 10
K 10

4
5
5

ND

ND
ND
ND
K 1
ND
K 1


ND
ND







ND

K 10
K 10
ND
K 1
K 1
K 1

ND



ND
1
2
K 1


ND
ND





K 10

K 10



ND
K 1
2
2
ND
4
66
2
ND
ND
K 0.7
0.7
K 1
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
10
K 10
ND
K 10
ND
K 14
68
K 10
K 10
ND
K 2
K 0.3
K 3


1E-4
4E-6


K l.E-5
1E-5
K 4E-5




K 1E-5
K 1E-5

K 8E-6




1E-4
K 2E-5
K 2E-5

K 3E-5
K 4E-6
K 1E-4

-------
                                                                         TABLE V-40

                                                                       ETCH LINE RINSES

                                                                        RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream
Code
Sample
Type Source Day 1
Day 2 Day 3 Average
Mass
Load lag
(kg/kkg)
                        69. di-n-octyl phthalate
ro
en
                        70.  diethyl  phthalate
                                                                  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)  (Continued)
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3






3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
K 5
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 38
K 10
 ND

 29
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                               ND

                                                                                               ND
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                              K 1
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                               ND
                                                                                               ND
  ND
   5
  ND

K 10
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
K5
 ND
 ND
  2

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
K 3
 38
K 5
 ND
K 0.:
 10
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
  8E-5
K 1E-5

K 4E-6
  1.5-4

-------
                     Pollutant
                                            Stream  Sample
                                             Code   Type    Source,
ro
                       92.  chlordane
                                                                      TABLE  V-40

                                                                    ETCH LINE RINSES

                                                                      RAW WASTEWATER
                                                                    ——.—•	—

                                                                   GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
                                                                PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)  (Continued)
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
ND
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
  11
  22
K 10
  13

  ND
  ND
   3
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
                                                                               0.03
                                                                               0.02
                                                                              ND
                                                                               0.06

                                                                               0.22
                                                                               0.05
                                                                               1.9
                                                                               0.02
                                                                               0.03
                                                                              NR
                                                                               0.01
                                                                              K 0.01
                                                                              K 0.01
                                                                              ND
                                                                              ND
                                                                                             ND

                                                                                             ND
                                                                                             ND
                                                                                             ND
                                                                                             ND
                                                                                             ND
                                                                                              2
                                                                                             ND
                                                                                             ND

                                                                                             NR
                                                                                                             ND

                                                                                                           K 10
 42
  5
K 1
  2
 ND
 ND
                                    0.09
	 Mass
Load lag
Averaee (kg/kkg)
ND
K 10
K 7
22
K 5
6
21
2
K 0.3
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
NR
0.03
0.02
ND
0.06
0.09
0.22
0.05
1.9
0.02
O.Q3
NR
0.01
K 0.01
K 0.01
ND
ND



4E-5
K 1E-6
1E-5
2E-4
3E-5
K 4E-6
9E-5








5E-8



4E-6
4E-8
6E-8

2E-7
K 2E-7
K 4E-7



-------
                                                                        TABLE V-40

                                                                       ETCH LINE RINSES
                                                                        RAW WASTEWATER
                        Pollutant,
                         107.  PCB-1242  (a)
                         108.  PCB-1254  (a)
                         109.  PCB-1221  (a)
r\s
                           110.  PCB-1232  (b)
                           111.  PCB-1248  (b)
                           112.  PCB-1260  (b)
                           113.  PCB-1016  (b)
. 	 • 	
GROSS
Stream Sample
jv^»_JIVE^ Source

Q-2 3
R-6 3
A-3 1
A-4 1
B-5 1
C-6 1
C-7 1
D-3 6
D-5 6
E-5 3
H-4 1
H-5 1
H-6 1
J-2 1
K-2 1
K-3 1
K-4 3
N-6 6
N-8 1
Q-2 3
R-6 3
A-3 1
A-4 1
B-5 1
C-6 1
C-7 1
D-3 6
D-5 6
E-5 3
H-4 1
H-5 1
PRIORITY
ND
ND
0.15
ND
0.4
0.55
0.55
0.35
0.35
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.13
0.13
0.4
0.61
0.61
0.29
0.29
1.2
1.1
1.1
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND "ND ND
ND ND ND
NR
0.29
0.2
ND
0.55
0.64
2.9
0.58
16
ND
0.42
NR
0.26
0.09
0.31
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
NR
0.16
0.16
ND
0.48
0.63
1.7
0.53
20
ND

Average

ND
ND
NR
0.29
0.2
ND
0.55
0.64
2.9
0.58
16
ND
0.42
NR
0.26
0.09
0.31
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.16
0.16
ND
0.48
0.63
1.7
0.53
20
ND
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkR)




3.2E-7


4.2E-7



3E-5

8E-7

3.9E-6
IE -6
1.4E-5





1.8E-7


3.6E-7



4E-5


-------
ro
ro
00
116.  arsenic
                                                                      TABLE V-40

                                                                    ETCH LINE RINSES

                                                                     RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
u 	
Pollutant
Stream Sample
Code Type Source Day 1
Loading
Day 2 Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
1
1
1
1
2
6
1
3
ND
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1.1
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 20
K 20
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 0.2
K 0.2
2.8
3.7
                                                               PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
                                                                             0.57
                                                                            NR
                                                                             0.68
                                                                             0.06
                                                                             0.64
  ND
  NO
  ND
  ND

K 10
  ND
K 10
K 10
K 10

K 10
  10
  ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
   4
   4
  25
 280
                                                                                            ND
                                                                                            ND
                                                                                          K  10

                                                                                          K  10
                                                                                          K  10
                                                                                          K  10
                                                                                          K  10
                                                                                          K  10
                                                                                             13
                                                                                            190
                                                                                       ND
                                                                                       ND
                                                                                                          K 10
                                                                                     K 10
                                                                                     K 10
                                                                                     K 10
                                                                                     K 10
                                                                                        27
                                                                                       120
0.57
NR
0.68
0.06
0.64
ND
ND
ND
ND
1E-6

1E-5
9E-7
2.9E-5




K 10
  ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
  10
  10
  10
  ND
K 10
  10
  10
  10
K 10
K 10
   4
   4
  22
 200
                                                                                                     K
                                                                                                     K
                                                                                                     K
K
K
K
         K 1E-5
                                                                                                                                   K 8E-6
                                                                                                                                   K 8E-6
K 2E-5
K 2E-5
K 8E-5
X 2E-4
K 2E-4
K 4E-4
                                                                                                                                     2.4E-4

-------
PO
ro
to
                                                                    TABLE V-40



                                                                 ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                                  RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

118. beryllium A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
119. cadmium A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4

1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
K 1
K 1
ND
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 0.5
K 1
K 0.5
1.7
K 2
K 2
ND
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 1
ND
ND
ND
K 1

ND
K 1 K 1
K 20
K 1 K 1
K 1 NR
If 20 K 20
K 20 K 20
K 20 K 20
K 20
K 0.5
K 1
K 0.5 2.5
3.8 6.7
K 2
ND
ND
ND
K 2

ND
10 30
K 40
K 1
ND
ND
ND
K 1
K 1 K 1
ND
K 1
K 20
K 1
K 1
K 20 K 20
K 20 K 20
K 20 K 20
K 20 K 20
K 0.5
K 1
2.9 K 2
8.3 6.3
K 2
ND
ND
ND
K 2
9 9
ND
20
K 40
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)

K 1E-6



K 8E-7



K 4E-5
K 2E-6
K 2E-6
K 2E-4
K 3E-4
K 3E-4
K 9E-4


K 2E-5

K 2E-6



K 2E-6



K 8E-5

-------
ro
CO
o
                     120. chromium
                                                                       TABLE V-40

                                                                      ETCH  LINE RINSES

                                                                       RAW  WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Stream
Code
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Sample
Type Source Day 1 Day 2
Mace
Loading
Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
                                                                 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)  (Continued)
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
K 2
K 2
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 0.5
K 1
K 0.5
K 0.5
K 5
K 5
ND
7
7
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 30
K 30
K 30
K 30
K 1
K 1
4
K 1
      8
      3
    180
   K 10
   K 10
   K 10
    K 0.
    K 1
    K 0.
     27

     ' 7
     ND
     ND
     ND
     20

     ND
     60
  K 100
     50
    200
832,000
  2,300
  2,700
    920
      7
     13
    340
  2,600
                                                                                             30

                                                                                            210
                                                                                           K 10
                                                                                           K 10
                                                                                            K 0.5
                                                                                             24
                                                                                             80

                                                                                             200

                                                                                         857,000
                                                                                           3,200
                                                                                           3,000
                                                                                             310
                                                                                           1,700
    190
   K 10
   K 10
   K 10
      1.1
     30
                                                                                                             40
670,000
  3,700
    190
  1,400
    390
  1,700
19
3
190
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 0.5
K 1
K 0.7
27
7
ND
ND
ND
20
40
ND
70
K 100
120
200
786,000
3,100
2,000
1,200
7
13
350
2,000
4E-5
6E-6
2E-3
K 2E-4
K 2E-4
K 4E-4


K 8E-6

8E-6



2E-5



K 2E-4
2E-4
4E-4
6
4.6E-2
3E-2
5.4E2


3.8E-3


-------
                                                                    TABLE V-40


                                                                  ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                                   RAW WASTEWATER
ro
CO
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

121. copper A-3
A- 4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
123. lead A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5

1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1

Source
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1 Day 2

Day 3 Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
10
10
ND
20
20
K 9
K 9
K 9
10
10
10
30
K 20
K 20
K 20
8
8
26
10
K 20
K 20
ND
30
30
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
60
ND
ND
ND
200

ND
1,000 1,000
4,000
400 1,000
5,000
2,270,000 2,260,000
160 200
20 30
120
11
9
3,500 2,700
38,000 38,000
20
ND
ND
ND
K 20

ND 800
500
K 300
200 800
60
ND
ND
ND
200
3,000 3,000
ND
1,000
4,000
700
5,000
2,510,000 2,350,000
280 210
30 30
90 110
11
9
3,400 3,200
27,000 34,000
20
ND
ND
ND
K 20
200 200
ND
700
K 300
500
7E-5


2E-4



8E-3
1E-3
1E-2
19
3.2E-3
4E-4
5E-3


3.5E-2

2E-5



K 2E-5



K 6E-3
1E-3

-------
ro
CO
INJ
                                                                    TABLE V-40

                                                                   ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                                    RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
124. mercury A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
Source 	 , 	
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Mass
Loading
Average (kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
K 20
K 50
K 50
K 50
K 50
10
10
6
K 1
0.6
0.6
ND
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
K 0.4
K 0.4
K 0.4
K 0.4
9.1
9.1
K 0.1
0.7
400
1,300
K 50
K 50
K 50
20
12
1,600
&,900
0.5
ND
ND
ND
0.5

ND
0.5
K 1
4
0.4
K 0.2
K 0.4
K 0.2
K 0.4
2.1
21
K 0.1
K 0.1
4,700
K 50
K 50

1,100
11,000





1.3
On
.3
0.03
K 0.2
K 0.2

K 0.1
K 0.1
4,300
K 50
K 50
K 50

2,200
11,000



0.8




0.03
K 0.2
K 0.2
K 0.2

K 0.1
K 0.1
400
3,400
K 50
K 50
K 50
ii\
20
12
1,600
10,000
0.5
ND
ND
ND
0.5
0.8
ND
On
.9
K 1
2.2
0.4
K 0.09
K 0.3
K 0.2
K 0.3
2.1
21
K 0.1
K 0.1
8E-4
3E-2
8E-4
8E-4
2E-3

1.8E-2
6E-7

4E-7


K 2E-6
4E-6
8E-7
7E-7
K 4E-6
K 3E-6
K 1E-5

K 1E-6

-------
                                                                TABLE  V-40


                                                              ETCH LINE  RINSES


                                                               RAW WASTEWATER
ro
tO
CO
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
D_ 1 1 tit- ant Code Type

125. nickel A- 3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
129. zinc A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
Source
Day 1
Day 2 Day 3 Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
K 5
K 5
ND
30
30
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
60
60
ND
200
200
K 50
K 50
K 50
100
K 5
ND
ND
ND
K 5
ND
K 5
K 100
K 5
7
2,900
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 1
K 1
11
420
100
ND
ND
ND
70
ND
500
3,000
K 5
ND
ND
ND
K 5
K 5 K 5
ND
K 5 K 5
NS K 100
K5 K5
7
2,700 2,800 2,800
K 20 K 20 K 20
20 K 20 K 20
K 20 K 20
K1
1
K1
1
5 16 11
300 230 320
100
ND
UT\
ND
70
3,000 3,000
urt
ND
500 500
3,000
K 6E-6
K 4E-6

K 2E-4
K 1E-5
1E-5
2E-2
K 3E-4
K 3E-4
K 9E-4

1.2E-.
1E-4

5E-5
6E-3

-------
ro
CJ
                                                               TABLE V-40

                                                              ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                               RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6

CONVENTIONAL
ISO. oil and grease A- 3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
100 6
40 2,100
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 10
K 10
K 10 10
53
NON-PRIORITY












3
3
3
200
,000
,000
80
20
110
68
98
,000
48,000
POLLUTANTS

4
2
NO
16
11


76
16
14
26
10
15
8
400

2,000,000
120
40



6,600
51,000
(»8/l)








22
18
13
22
7
6
8


2,300,000
150
K 20
60


10,000
46,000







5
47
31


26
7
3
3
300
6,000
2,100,000
120
K 30
90
68
98
8,900
48,000


4
2
ND
16
11
5
47
43
17
14
25
8
8
6
6E-4
1E-2
17
1.8E-3
K 4E-4
4E-3


9.8E-2



4E-3
2E-3

1.2E-2
8.4E-3



3E-2
3E-2
2.1E-1
1E-1
1E-1
3E-1

-------
                                                                 TABLE V-40


                                                               ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                                RAW WASTEWATER
r*o
CO
CJ1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
152. suspended solids A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
159. pH A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3







Source
Day 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
K 5
K 5


K 1
K 1
138
K 1
K 1


K 1



13
13
13
K 2
K 2









10
BT
K 5
14
2
310
1
90
K 1


200
363
49
1,240
13
249
150
52
19
352
3,640
8
6
6.9
11.8
2.2
3.5
11.2
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
(mg/1) (Continued)
K 5

K 5
105






300
298
48
668
151
49



188
2,140





4
10.8
17

K 5
6




23
120
170


573
10
1
181


360
2,230





3.3
11.2
K 11
BT
K 5
42
2
310
1
90
K 1
23
120
220
330
49
827
58
100
166
52
19
300
2,670









K 6E-2

2E-3
3.4E-1

7E-2
K 8E-4



7E-1
1E-1
6.9
8.7E-1
1.5
7.5


3.3









-------
                                                                       TABLE  V-40

                                                                     ETCH LIME RINSES

                                                                      RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant 	
Stream
Code
Sample
Type Source Day 1
Day 2 Day 3 Average
Mass
loading
(kg/kkg)
ro
CO
  NON-CONVENTIONAL
133.  aluminum
                                                              NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (Continued)
E-5
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6






1

1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
                                                               7.1
                                                               7.1
                                                             K 0.09
                                                             K 0.09

                                                               2
                                                               2
                                                               0.2
                                                               0.2
                                                             K 0.09
                                                             K 0.09
                                                             K 0.09
                                                             K 0.09
                                                             K 0.
                                                             K 0.
                                                             K 0.
                                                             K 0.
                                                             K 0.
                                                             K 1
                                                             K 0.
                                                             K 0.5
                                                         9.8
                                                         2.5
                                                         2.5
                                                        11.3
                                                         8.6
                                                         9.4
                                                         8.1
                                                         5.7
                                                         9.2
    0.9
  110
1,200
1,200
    1.7
                                                       320
                                                       170
                                                       140
                                                         8.9
                                                      1,000
                                                         9.2
                                                       240
                                                        34
                                                        40
                                                         7
                                                        94
                                                      1,300
                   11.6
                    1.1
                    2.5
                   11.7
                    5.7
                    9.1

                    8.9
                    7.7
                  580

                  350
                   16
                  670
                   13
                  320
                   51
                   64
   10.5
    1.0
    2.2
   10.8
    6.7
    9.4
                                                                                                              7.3
                                                                                       100
                                                                                       100
                                                                                       450
1,200
   17
  267
   57
  100
  640
0.9
110
1,200
1,200
1.7
100
100
450
170
250
12
960
13
275
46
40
7
82
670
1E-3
1.2E-1

9.1E-1
1.3E-3



3E-1
5E-1
2E-2
7.9
2E-1
4.1
2.1


9E-1


-------
                                                                TABLE V-40
                                                              ETCH LINE RINSES



                                                               RAW WASTEWATER
IS3
W
—i
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
11 tant Code Type Source

136. calcium *"^
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
138. iron £-3
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
Day 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
1
1
1
39
39

12
12
38
38
68
52
52
52
ND
ND
ND
ND
28
28
61
60
K 0.1
K 0.1

K 0.1
K 0.1
K 0.1
K 0.1
K 0.1
K 0.1
K 0.1
32
8.1
0.34
K 0.03
29


11
0.6
3.2
56
1,120
38
1.4
ND
24
38
48
54
0.4
ND
ND
ND
1

4
K 2
0.2
0.6
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)
(ng/1) (Continued)






K 0.03

0.2
66
1,360
38
1.5
ND


57
66





5

0.7





49
16
0.08



1,100
38
0.7
ND


62
48




200




32
8.1
0.34
K 0.03
29
49
16
K 4
0.6
1.7
61
1,200
38
1.2
ND
24
38
56
56
0.4
ND
ND
ND
1
200
5
K 2
0.5
0.6
3.5E-2
8.9E-3

K 2E-5
2.2E-2



1E-3
3E-3
1E-1
10
5.7E-1
1.8E-2



6.2E-1

4E-4


8E-4


K 4E-3
1E-3
1E-3

-------
ro
co
oo
                                                                   TABLE  V-40




                                                                  ETCH LINE RINSES



                                                                   RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS I
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
139. magnesium N-8
147. alkalinity A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
K 0.002
K 0.002
K 0.002
K 0.07
K 0.07
K 70
K 0.07
K 0.07
4







107
107
107
117
96
96
96
ND
ND
150
170
2.9
5.5
0.32
1.3
0.1
K 70
0.55
12
10
68
70
6
ND
ND


ND
3,500
110
44
ND
ND
40
118
310
90
60
12 .
Day 2
Dav 3
(mg/1) (Continued)
6.2
7
0.29

0.39
12







ND

ND
25
ND
ND
ND



130
16
12
8.6
0.27
2.5

0.63
11





ND
530
ND



ND
ND
ND
76


130
66
	 Average

7
7
0.29
1.9
01
. 1
K7n
/ \j
0.52
12
10
68
70

ND
ND
ND
530
ND
3,500
60
35
ND
ND
10
97
310
90
110

Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)

6E-2
1E-1
4.4E-3
8.6E-2

5.7E-3

7.5E-2
8E-2






7
1E-1
7E-2


2E-1
4.4


1.2


-------
                                                               TABLE  V-40


                                                              ETCH LINE RINSES


                                                               RAW WASTEWATER
po
CO
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code TyP*

149. chemical oxygen A-3
demand (COD) A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
3-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
151. dissolved solids A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
Mass
Loading
: (kg/kkR)
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (Continued)
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1

3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
8
8
K 5
K 5
K 5


K 5


5
5
5
5
5
5









173
173
173
5
12
230
K 5


184
12
K 5
328
8
23
52
243
36
14
392
162
601
20
5,970
206


2,530
18,700
670
387





357
28
7
275
8
27



127
251






4,430

2,100
414
K 5


35
75
89


249
10
20
61


20
82




2,050
760




5
12
230
K 5
35
75
210
20
K 6
284
9
23
57
243
36
54
242
162
601
20
5,970
206
2,050
760
3,480
18,700
1,400
400
6E-3
1.3E-2
1.7E-1
4E-3



4E-2
K 1E-2
2.4
1E-1
3.4E-1
2.6


5.9E-1

1.8E-1
6.6E-1

4.5
1.6E-1



40
3
8E-1

-------
                                                                      TABLE V-40

                                                                     ETCH LINE RINSES

                                                                      RAW WASTEWATER
                                                                   GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
                     Pollutant
                     155.  sulfate
ro
-P»
O
Strean  Sample
 Code'   Type   Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
                                                              NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (Continued)
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
A-3
A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-4
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
N-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
177
164
164
164

ND
346









K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10

ND
67

                             50,800
                                386
                              1,200
                                674
                                660
                                250
                                650
                              2,430

                                 30
                                 30
                                  1
                               K 25
                                 40
                                                                             39
                                                                            130
                                                                             30
                                                                             30
                                                                           ,868
                                                                             40
                                                                             60
                                                                             15
                                                                             40
                                                                             60
                                                                             35
                                                                            150
                                                                                         47,500
                                                                                            445
                                                                                          1,670
                                                                                            450
                                                                                          3,660
                                               K 25

                                                130
                                                 20
                                              9,560
                                                 50
                                                 39
                                                  9
                                                 48
                             48,000
                                378
                                285
                                742
                                580
                              2,410
                              1,260
                                 70
                                 50
                             10,770
                                 50
                                 70
                                 21
                                 53
                                 17
	    Mass
          Loading
 Average  (kg/kkg)
48,000
403
1,050
708
660
250
560
2,830
30
30
1
K 25
40
1,260
70
K 38
130
80
30
9,400
50
56
18
40
60
32
72
4.1E-2
6
1.6E-1
3.2E-1


6.2

3E-2
3E-2

K 1.9E-2
3E-2



3E-1
2E-1
6E-2
7.8E-1
8E-1
8.4E-1
8.1E-1


3.5E-1


-------
                                                                 TABLE V-40




                                                               ETCH LINE RINSES



                                                                RAW WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (Continued)
156. total organic A-3
carbon £~*
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
H-6
J-2
K-2
K-3
K-4
K-6
N-8
Q-2
R-6
157. phenols (total; by A-3
4-AAP method) A-4
B-5
C-6
C-7
D-3
D-5
E-5
H-5
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
1
1
9
9
35
K 1
K 1


1



6
6
6
2.7
3











3
7
K 1
109
K 1


51
10
K 1
87
8
8
24
184
16
1.5
30
0.008
0.003
0.012
0.039
0.013


0.009
0.004






138
5
7
67
6
14



1.8
53







0.031
0.008




5
45
21


42
K 1
7
20


0.67
13





0.011
0.014
0.012

L
Average (

3
7
K 1
109
K 1 K
5
45
70
8
K 4 K
65
K 5 K
10
22
184
16
1.3
32
0.008
0.003
0.012
0.039
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.017
0.006
Mass
oading
kg/kkK)

3E-3
8E-3
8.3E-2
8E-4



2E-2
8E-3
5.4E-1
8E-2
2E-1
9.9E-1


1.3E-2

9E-6
3E-6

3E-5
9.9E-6



1E-5

-------
                                                                        TABLE V-40
                                                                          *
                                                                       ETCH LINE RINSES

                                                                        RAW WASTEWATER
                                                                     GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream
Code
Sample
Type
Source
Day
1
Day
2
Day
3
Average
Loading
(kg/kkg)
no
*>
ro
                                                  H-6
                                                  J-2
                                                  K-2
                                                  K-3
                                                  K-4
                                                  N-6
                                                  N-8
                                                  Q-2
                                                  R-6
                                                                NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (Continued)
ND
K 0.001
  0.003
  0.007
  0.004
  0.004

  0.008
  0.066
0.008
0.023
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.008

0.009
0.012
                                              K 0.001
                                              K 0.001
                                              K 0.001
                                                0.008
                                                0.012
                                                0.004
K 0.005
K 0.009
K 0.004
K 0.004
  0.006
  0.008
  0.008
  0.029
  0.008
K 1E-5
K 7E-5
K 6E-5
K 6E-5
  3E-4
  3.2E-4
                          BT -  Broken In Transit
                          NR -  Data  Not Received
                          ND -  Not Detected

-------
            Ill   I
ro
-p»
CO
c


s«
o
k.

-------
ro
          10
        c
        o
        C

        ^
        O
        O
        LJ
        o:
        u. 3
                                               RANGE:
                                               MEAN:
                                               MEDIAN:
                                               SAMPLE: 20
                                           0.34-36,000 GPT
                                           5,300 GPT
                                           1,200 GPT
                                           OF 30 PLANTS
              i  i
              o  -
       I  I   I  ' .. I 	 ' ^ '*.•.<— I -.I^T-^-'l .^.1 .*. f » I _ I _^1 -fc^    -.
     iO^finOZ-W"f'^*'U'r»00 wtw^rCM
     .it  .  •   •  '-T^TTTTTTTTVgV

"                 WASTEWATER (thousand gallons /ton)


FIGUREY-48 CLEANING  AND ETCH LINE  RINSE WASTEWATER
in to  h-
10 10  10

-------
Ul
                                                                                      TABU V-42



                                                           FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AKD CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS



                                                                         ETCH LINE AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS




                                                                         Etch Line Air Pollution Controls



                                                                                   RAW WASTEWATER


1.
4.
S.
11.
13.
21.
22.
23.
24.
30.
31.
34.
35.
36.
38.
39.
44.
51.
54.
55.
58.
59.
60.
62.
64.

Pollutant
acenaphthene
tcazene
benzidine
1 , 1 , 1-trichloroethane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
2 , 4 , 6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2 ,4-dichlorophenol
2 ,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2, 6-dinitro toluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
chlorodibromome thane
isophorone
naphthalene
4-n:Ltrophenol
2 ,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ux/1)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
:o
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
';0
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of Number of Times Observed
Samples in Streams (UK/ I}*
Analyzed ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 - 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

-------
ro
                                                                                       TABLE V-42




                                                                             ETCH LINE AIR POLLUTION  CONTROLS



                                                                             Etch Line Air Pollution  Controls



                                                                                        RAW WASTEWATER

65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
76.
77.
78.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
Pollutant
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phttulate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4, 4' -DDT
4,4" -DDE
4,4'-DDD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(u*/l)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1







Number Number
of of Number of Tine* Observed
Streams Samples in Streams (ug/1)*
Analyzed Analyzed ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+













1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1






















1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1

-------
                                                             TABLE  V-42




                                                  ETCH LINE AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS



                                                  Etch Line Air Pollution Controls



                                                             RAW WASTEWATER


98.
99.
100.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.

Pollutant
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BBC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCS- 1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Analytical
Quantification
Level
(ug/1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ka)
l(a)
Ka)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
Kb)
100
10
10
2
5
9
100
20
0.1
5
50
Number
of
Streams
Analyzed






1

1


1


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1


1


1
1








1
Number of Time* Observed
in Streams (ug/1)*
ND-10 11-100 101-1000 1000+
1
1
1
:
i
i
i

i


i


i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
*Net concentration (source subtracted)




(a),(b) Reported together

-------
ro
-t»
oo





Pollutant
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
133. aluminum
136. calcium
139. magnesium
147. alkalinity
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
151. dissolved solids





Stream Sample
Code- Type
C-8 1
C-8 1
C-8
C-8 1
C-8 1
C-8 1
C-8 1
C-8 1
C-8 1
TABLE V-43
SAMPLING DATA
ETCH LINE AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS
Etch Line Air Pollution Controls
RAW WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
13
K 1 . 12
8.1
2 5
12 27
5 5
110
K 5 K 5
160





Mass
Loading
Day 3 Average (kg/kkg)
13
12

5
27
5
110
K 5
160

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-43





                                                      ETCH LIME AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS



                                                      Etch Line Air Pollution Controls



                                                               RAW WASTEWATER
Pollutant

155. sulfate
156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
157. phenols (total;
4-AAP method)
Stream Sample
Code Type

C-8 1

C-8 1
by
C-8 1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (continued)
40

K 1 K 1

0.016

Average

40

K 1

0.016
Mass
Loading
(kg/kkg)






vo

-------
Ancillary Operations

Saw  Oil.   Although  sawing  is  associated  with nearly all aluminum
forming operations, only 11 of the plants surveyed reported the use of
saw oil emulsions.  Because plants frequently failed to mention  minor
streams that are not discharged, the actual number of plants using saw
lubricants  is  probably  much  higher.  The lubricants are frequently
recycled and in most instances discharge from the system is limited to
carryover and disposal  by  contractor  hauling.   Only  three  plants
reported direct or indirect discharge of saw oils.

Water  use and wastewater factors were calculated for plants providing
flow and production data corresponding to the stream.   These  factors
are shown and summarized in Table V-44.

Field samples of saw lubricant were not collected.

                              TABLE V-44

                            SAW LUBRICANTS

                      Water (Oil) Use   Percent       Wastewater (Oil)
Plant                       (qpt)       Recycle            (qpt)


  1    •                    9,400          100              0.0
  2                          *              *              0.10
  3                          *              *              0.16
  4                          0.34           0              0.34
  5                          *              *              0.37
  6                          *              *              1.5

An additional five plants did not provide sufficient data.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

MINIMUM                                                    0.0
MAXIMUM                                                    1.5
MEAN                                                       0.42
MEDIAN                                                     0.25
SAMPLE                                            6 of 11 plants

NON-ZERO MINIMUM                                           0.10
NON-ZERO MAXIMUM                                           1.5
NON-ZERO MEAN                                              0.50
NON-ZERO MEDIAN                                            0.34
SAMPLE                                            5 of 10 plants

*  Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
                               250

-------
Swaging  and Stamping.  Swaging and stamping are frequently associated
with drawing operations and  have  been  included  in  Subcategory  V,
Drawing with Neat Oils.  Swaging is used as an initial step in drawing
tube  or  wire.    By  repeated  blows of one or more pairs of opposing
dies, a solid point is formed.  This can then be inserted through  the
die  and gripped for drawing.  In a few cases, swaging is used in tube
forming without subsequent drawing operation.  Some  lubricants,  such
as  waxes  and  kerosene,  may be used to prevent adhesion of metal or
oxide on the dies.  Stamping is frequently associated with  subsequent
drawing  although  it  may also be used to form a final product, e.g.,
foil containers.  The aluminum sheet or  foil  is  usually  lubricated
prior  to  the  stamping  operation.  Discharge of swaging or stamping
lubricants was not reported, however, by any of the plants surveyed in
this study.  Water use factors are not available due  to  insufficient
flow data.

Miscellaneous Wastewater Samples

Table  V-45  present  the  field  sampling  data for all  the raw waste
samples not previously presented.  Most  of  these  samples  represent
combined  wastewater  streams,  e.g.,  contact  cooling and noncontact
cooling water.

Treated Wastewater Samples

Tables V-46 through V-58 present the field sampling data  for   treated
wastewater.   Discussion  of   this  data  can be found  in Section VII,
Control and Treatment  Technology.
                                    251

-------
                                                    TABLE V-4 5
                                                   SAMPLING DATA

                                             MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
 Pollutant
                                              GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream  Sample
 Code    Type  Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
   1.  acenaphthene
ro
01
ro
   4.  benzene
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
23
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
                                            PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
                                 ND
                                 ND
                                 ND
                                 ND

                                 ND

                                 ND
                                 ND
                                 ND
                                 ND
                                 ND

                                 ND

                                 37
                                   2
                                K  1
                                 ND
                                 ND
                                 ND
                                 ND
                                K  5

                                K  5
                                                                         ND
                                                                         ND
                 ND
                 ND
                                                                         K 1

                                                                          ND
                                                                           1

                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND
                                                                          80
                 ND


                 ND


                 ND
                                   1
                                 K 1

                                  ND
                                  ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND

                 ND
                 K  1
                 37
                   1
                 K  1
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 K  2
                 80
                 K  5

-------
         TABLE  V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

5. benzidine C-5.
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
• U-6
U-7
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane C-5
D-7
G-2
rv> H-3
tn T 0
co L-2
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
13. 1,1-dichloroethane C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
L-2
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 5
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 5
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 5
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 5



ND
ND




ND
ND


K 1

ND



ND
200


ND

ND



ND
ND

ND
Kin
NIJ
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
lTT\
ND
\TT\
ND
ND ND
ND
ND.
ND
K-f
1
1
ND K 0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
200
K 5
ND
\TT*\
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
K 5

-------
      TABLE V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
22. p-chloro-m-cresol C-5
D-7
G-2
r^ H-3
r\j
2 J-4
•^
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
Source
Dav 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
\TT\
NU
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
5 5
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                      TABLE V-45
                                                MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream
Code
Sample
Type Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
   23. chloroform
   24. 2-chlorophenol
en
en
                                               PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
55
20
15
66
ND
100
40
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
520

 29
 23
 ND
 ND
 40
 ND
 ND
 ND

K 5

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
                                                                            28
                                                                            ND

                                                                            30
                                                                            ND
                                                                            ND
17
ND

30
ND
                                                                            ND
                                                                            ND
                                                                            ND
                                                                            ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
520
  5
 29
 23
 ND
 ND
 33
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
K 5

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

-------
                                                   TABLE V-45

                                              MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
                                               GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
 Pollutant
Stream  Sample
 Code    Type   Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
  29.  1,1-dichloroethvlene
  30.  1,2-trans-dichloro-
        ethylene
INJ
01
                                             PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
05
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                  ND

                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND

                                  ND
                                  ND

                                 K 1
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND

                                  ND
                                                                          ND

                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND

                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND
                                  ND
                                  ND

                                  ND
                                  ND
                 ND

                 ND
                 ND

                 ND
                                                                          ND
                                                                          ND
                  ND
                  ND

                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                 K 1
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND

-------
     TABLE V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

31. 2,4-dichlorophenol C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
rs> >4
3 L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND ND
2
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ITI"\
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND ND
ND 1
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND

-------
      TABLE V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER


GROSS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene C-5
F-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene C-5
D-7
G-2
ro H-3
ui _ .
00 J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1

Day 2

Day 3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/D (Continued)
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Wl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT)
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND




ND
ND




ND
ND




ND
ND


ND
ND

ND


ND





ND
ND

ND


ND



Average
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
VTT\
ND
ND
un
Nl)
\TT\
ND
ND
ND
\7T\
ND
ND
NT)
it ij
\TT\
ND
\TT\
ND
ITPk
ND
xrrv
ND
ND
xrr\
ND
irr\
ND
ND
\ir\
ND
\fT\
ND

-------
      TABLE  V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

38. ethylbenzene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
39. fluoranthene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
3 J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
NI)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
18

5


ND
880




ND
ND

ND


ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND 6
ND
5 5
ND
ND
ND ND
880
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                   TABLE V-45

                                               MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
                                                GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
   Pollutant
Stream  Sample
 Code    Type  Source
  Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
    44.- methylene chloride
    51. chlorodibromomethane
ro
&
o
    C-5
    D-7
    G-2
    H-3
    J-4
    L-2
    N-5
    P-l
    P-4
    U-5
    U-6
    U-7

    C-5
    D-7
    G-2
    H-3
    J-4
    L-2
    N-5
    P-l
    P-4
    U-5
    U-6
    U-7
                                              PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
220
K 10
563
1,100
ND
ND
ND
10
10
K 5
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
5
5
ND
ND
K 5
K 5
K 5
2,100

1,100
  205
   50
   ND
   ND
   10
   10
  400

  K 5

   ND

   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND

   ND
                                                                          230

                                                                           31
                                                                           ND

                                                                           ND
                                                                         K 10
                                                                          310
K 1

 ND
  3

 ND
                                                                           ND
                                                                           ND
                 34
                 14

                 ND
                K 5
 ND
  9

 ND
                 ND
2,100
  230
1,100
   90
   21
   ND
   ND
   10
   10
K 138
  310
  K 5

   ND
  K 1
   ND
   ND
    4
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND
   ND

-------
    54. isophorone
ro
£-4   55. naphthalene
                                                       TABLE V-45
                                                 MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream
Code
Sample
Type Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
    58. 4-nitrophenol
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
J-4
L-2
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)  (Continued)
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
 ND
 ND

170
 ND
                                                                             ND

                                                                             ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
170
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

-------
                                                    TABLE  V-45



                                                MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
en
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code- Type Source

N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
60. 4,6^dinitro-o-cresol C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
Day 1
Day 2 Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
\rr\
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND
ND

-------
                                                      TABLE V-45
                                                 MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
                                                  GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
    Pollutant
                      Stream  Sample
                       Code    Type   Source
 Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
      62. N-nitrosodiphenyl-
            amine
ro
o>
CO
64. pentachlorophenol
     65. phenol
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
                                                PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)  (Continued)
                                                        ND
                                                        ND
                                                        ND
                                                        ND
                                                        ND
                                                        ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND

K 10
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND

  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND
  ND

  ND
  ND
  ND
K 10

  ND
                                                                              ND
                                                                              ND
                 ND
                 ND

                 ND


                 ND
                                                                              ND
                                                                              ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                                        ND
                                                                                        ND

                                                                                        ND


                                                                                        ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                             ND
                                                                                        ND
                                                                                         3
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND

              K 10
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                 ND

                 ND
                 ND
                 ND
                K 3.3
                  2
                 ND

-------
     TABLE V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant 	 Code Type

N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
68. di-n-butyl phthalate C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
72. benzo (a) anthracene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
L-2
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
41
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
11 22 K 10
ND ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10 ND K 10
110,000 100,000
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND ND
ND
Average

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 7
100,000
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                     TABLE V-45


                                                 MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
CTl
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant 	 Code Type _

73. benzo(a)pyrene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-A
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
76. chrysene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
77. acenaphthylene C-5
D-7
F-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
NT)
ffl
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND

ND


ND
ND

ND


ND




ND
ND



ND




ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                     TABLE V-45
                                                MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
PO
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
78. anthracene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
80. fluorene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
POLLUTANTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
150,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2 Day 3
(ug/1) (Continued)

ND ND
ND




ND ND
ND 3

5


ND ND
200,000




ND ND
ND ND

ND


ND ND
ND

Average

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
180,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                        TABLE V-45


                                                   MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
Ni

-J


Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

81. phenanthrene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
82. dibenzo(a,h)an-
thracene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
83. indeno (l,2,3-c,d)
pyrene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4

1
2
1
3
1
1

1
1
3
1
1

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1

1
2
1
3
1
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1
POLLUTANTS
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
150,000
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2 Day 3
(ug/1) (Continued)


ND ND
ND 3

10


ND ND
200,000





ND ND
ND ND

ND


ND ND
ND





ND ND
ND ND
Average

ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
180,000
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                         TABLE V-45


                                                    MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
o>
00
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
84. pyrene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
86. tetrachloroethylene C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
K 10
K 10
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.
2
K 1
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND




ND
ND




ND




ND
ND


K 1

K 1
ND

ND


ND
1,400

ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
\tT\
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
K 1
2
K 1 K 1
K 1 K 1
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
1,400
ND

-------
                                                        TABLE V-45

                                                   MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Stream
Code
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Sample
Type Source Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Average
        87. toluene
t\3
CTi
IO
        88. trichloroethylene
        90. aldrin
                                                  PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)  (Continued)
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
K 10
ND
K 1
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 1
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
 ND

K 1
K 1
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND

 ND

K 1
K 1
  3
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND

 ND
 ND
K 0.01
 ND
 ND
 ND
                                                                              K 1

                                                                                ND
                                                                              K 1

                                                                                ND
                                                                                ND
                                                                               510
                                                                                K 1

                                                                               K 1
                                                                                 1

                                                                                ND
                                                                                ND
                                                                                ND
 ND
K 1

 ND


 ND
 ND
  4

 ND
 ND
                                                                                                ND
 ND
K 1
K 1
K 0.3
K 1
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
510
 ND

 ND
 K 1
K 1
K 1
K 3
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
K O.Oi
 ND
 ND
 ND
 ND

-------
TABLE V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
91. dieldrin C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7

92. chlordane C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
93. 4. 4' -DDT C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3

1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.04
0.09
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

0.07
0.04
ND
2 0.4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.1
0.02
ND
1 ND
Day 1 Day 2
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
0.02
ND
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND

0.03
0.08
0.01
0.03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
0.04
K 0.01
ND
Day 3 Average

ND
ND
ND ND
ND
0.
tin
11 U
K 0.
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
\rr\
ND
n





02
01








m
U • \J j
0.08
OA 1

0
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
\m
ND
ND
o
K 0
ITT\
ND

.03







.04
.01


-------
                                                         TABLE V-45
                                                   MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
94. 4, 4' -DDE C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
95. 4, 4 '-ODD C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7

1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.01
ND
ND
JJD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
0.02
ND .
0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
Average

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
ND
0.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
     TABLE V-45
MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

96. alpha-endosulfan C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
97. beta-endosulfan C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
98. endosulfan sulfate C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
0.24
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
0.31
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
ND
K 0.01
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
0.02
Nl)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
UD
Average

ND
ND
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
MD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                          TABLE V-45


                                                     MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
~>i
co
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

99. endrin C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
100. endrin aldehyde C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
103. alpha-BHC C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
0.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.06
ND
ND
0.94
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
0.03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
0.02
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
1.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
K 0.01
0.01
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
Average

0.02
MD
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
MD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.01
0.01
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                        TABLE V-45
                                                    MISCELLANEOUS  WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

104. beta-BHC C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
105. gamma-BHC (lindane) C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
106. delta-BHC C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
PRIORITY
K 0.03
ND
0.05
0.19
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.01
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
ND
0.04
0.01
0.04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
K 0.01
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND ND
ND
Average

ND
0.04
0.01
0.04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.01
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MD
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                        TABLE V-45
                                                    MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
01
Pollutant
•
107. PCB-1242 (a)
108. PCB-1254 (a)
109. PCB-1221 (a)








110. PCB-1232 (b)
111. PCB-1248 (b)
112. PCB-1260 (b)
113. PCB-1016 (b)







116. arsenic











Stream Sa
Code T
mple
'ype
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
I
1
0.55
0.35
0.14
1.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.61
0.29
0.11
1.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 20
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 0.2
K 0.2
1.1
1.1
K 2
K 2
K 2
ND
0.73
0.16
1.1
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
1.4
0.16
1.2
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10 K 10
K 10
K 0.2

1.3
1.1
28 32
K 2 K 2
•6
ND
0.73
0.16
1.1
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
1 .k
0.16
1.2
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10 K 10
K 10 K 10
K 0.2
K 0.2 K 0.2
1.3
1.1
32 31
K 2
8

-------
                                                        TABLE  V-45
                                                   MISCELLANEOUS  WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
• Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
118. beryllium C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
119. cadmium C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
120. chromium C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1

K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 20
K 0.5
K 0.5
3.3
3.3
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 10
K 0.5
K 0.5
K 0.5
K 0.5
2
2
2
7
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 30
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1

K 0.5

K 0.5
K 0.5
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2

K 0.5

K 0.5
1.1
2
290
K 1
K 5
7
K 5
K 5

30



K 1
K 20




K 1
K 1




K 2
K 10




2
440




K 5
140




K 1
K 20

K 0.5


K 1





K 2
K 10

K 0.5


2





K 5
370

K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 20
K 0.5
K 0.5
K 0.5
K 0.5
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 10
K 0.5
K 0.5
K 0.5
1.1
2
370
K 1
K 5
7
K 5
K 5
260
30
K 1

-------
                                                         TABLE V-45


                                                     MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
^j
—i
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
121. copper C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
122. cyanide C-5
D-7
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
U-5
U-6
U-7
123. lead C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3

1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
Source
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (Continued)
2
2
K 1
K 1
K 1
20
K 9
K 9
10
K 30
10
8
9
9
13
13
13






30
K 20
K 20
K 20
2
K 1
59 8 9
2,130 20,000
850
K 9
10
K 70
K 9 K 9 K 9
2,700 15,000
6
5
27
4
160 26 26
5,250 22,000
150
K 1
2
25 5 11
4 2 3
K 20
20
K 0.02 K 0.02 K 0.02
K 0.02 K 0.02
K 0.02
K 20
20
K 20
70 50 30
2
K 1
25
11,100
850
K 9
10
K 70
K 9
8,900

5
f\ T
27
4
71
13,600
150
K 1
2
14
3
K 20
20
K 0.02
K 0.02
K 0.02
K 20
20
K 20
50

-------
                                                             TABLE V-45

                                                         MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
      Pollutant
                                                          GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream  Sample
 Code    Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
      124. mercury
ro
~vl
00
      125. nickel
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
                                                        PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)  (Continued)
K 50
14
10
2
2
10
10
10
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
K 0.4
7.3
K 0.1
K 0.1
5
5
5
30
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 0.02
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
16
16
16

23

K 1
2
380
1,090
6
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3

12
K 0.1
K 0.1
2
3
5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5

K 1

K 1
K 1
6
44
44
                                                                                      50
                                                                                   1,740
                                                                                   7,730
                                                         0.3
                                                       K 0.2
                                                                                       3
                                                                                       3
                                                                                     K  5
                                                                                   K 20
                                                                                      16
                                                                                  18,700
                                                                      1,000

                                                                         5


                                                                         18
                                                   0.3
                                                 K 0.2
                                                                       K 5
                                                                        70
                                                                                                       8.2
                                              K 525
                                                 23
                                                  5
                                                K 1
                                                  2
                                                713
                                              4,410
                                                  6

                                                  0.3
                                                  0.5
                                                  0.5
                                                  0.3
                                                K 0.2
                                                 12
                                                K 0.1
                                                K 0.1
                                                  3
                                                  3
                                                  5

                                                K 5
                                                K 5
                                                K 5
                                                K 5
                                               K 45
                                                K 1
                                                  8.2
                                                K 1
                                                K 1
                                                 10
                                              9,370
                                                 44

-------
                                                             TABUE V-45
                                                        MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

129. zinc C-5
D-7
G-2
H-3
J-4
1-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7
150. oil and grease C-5
D-7
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
U-5
U-6
U-7
152. suspended solids C-5
D-7
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

1
2
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
Source
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
200
K 50
K 50
100
K 40
53
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10









K 1


14
K 2
K 2
5
5



K 50
100
K 50
200

660

K 10
K 10
190
3,200
K 10
137
27
131

12

K 5
793,000
107
8
37
54

55

8
3
37
58
118
Day 2
Day 3
Average
(ug/1) (Continued)



200
620




K 10
20,000



59
21

K 5
K 5
914,000



72
2,670




2
66




100
4,800

38


K 10




168
223

K 5
6




38
1,540

2


4.6


K 50
100
K 50
170
2,700
660
38
K 10
K 10
K 70
11,600
K 10
137
27
119
120
12
K 5
K 5
854,000
107
8
•57
j /
55
2,100
55
2
8
3
15
62
118

-------
                                                              TABLE V-45


                                                         MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER
ro
do
o
Pollutant

159. pH







NON-CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)










156. Total organic
carbon (TOC)










Stream
Code

C-5
D-7
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
U-5
U-7


C-5
D-7
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

C-5
D-7
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
P-l
P-4
U-5
U-6
U-7

Sample
Type











1
2
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1

1
2
3
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS ,(ug/l)
8.2
7.9
7.4

7.7
7.3
8
8 -6


K 5 30
62
222
5
K 5 22
K 5
K 5 5
K 5 K 5
K 5
209,300 208
23

K 1 11
25
47

2.8 5.9
2.7
2 1.7
2 1.1
3.8
11,000 13
2.5

Day 2 Day 3
(Continued)

7.5
7


7.2 7.3
7





179 96
296 1,190

35


11 11
,100




44 25
34 350

16


3.5 3.4
,000


Average











30
62
166
740
22
35
5
K 5
K 9
209,000
23

11
25
39
190
5.9
16
1.7
1.1
3.6
12,000
2.5

-------
                                                            TABLE V-45

                                                       MISCELLANEOUS WASTEWATER


GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Average
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1) (Continued)
157. phenols (total; by C-5
4-AAP method) D-7
H-3
J-4
L-2
N-5
U-5
U-6
U-7
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
0.005
0.001
0.014
0.012
0.012

0.009
2.2
0.007


0.01
0.015


0.006
2.1



0.017
0.006

0.025
0.009


0.005
0.01
0.014
0.011
0.012
0.025
0.008
2.2
0.007
PO
00

-------
                                                                  TABLE V-46
                                                                 SAMPLING DATA

                                                                    PLANT B

                                                              TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Stream Sample
Code Type
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2

Day 3 Average
no
CO
PO
                                                              PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)
1.


4.


21.


23.


2k.


38.


44.


acenaphthene


benzene


2,4,6-trichlorophenol


chloroform


2-chlorophenol


ethylbenzene


methylene chloride


B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
  ND
  ND
  ND

  ND
  ND
  ND

K 10
K 10
K 10

  10
  10
  10

  ND
  ND
  ND

  ND
  ND
  ND

K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
10
ND

20
ND
ND

ND
ND
10

17
97
13

ND
ND
ND

30
52
ND

67
320
 17
  ND
  ND
  ND

   6
  ND
K 10

  ND
  ND
  15
                                                                                          ND
                                                                                          ND
                                                                                          ND
                                                                                        K 10
   ND
   ND
   ND

   96
   ND
   ND

1,500
   ND
   ND
                                                                                                          28
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  21
                  ND
                                                                                                         310
 ND
  3
 ND

 40
 ND
K 3

500
 ND
  8

 17
 62
 13

 ND
 ND
 ND

 30
 36
K  3

 67
320
 17

-------
                                                                      TABLE V-46

                                                                      PLANT B

                                                                 TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream
Code
Sample
Type Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
                                                                 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)  (continued)
ro
oo
CO
                    55.  naphthalene
                    65.  phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
      phthalate
                    67.  butyl  benzyl
                          phthalate
                    68.  di-n-butyl phthalate
                    69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
                    70.  diethyl phthalate
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
2
2
3
2
2
3
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
110
ND
10,000
8,000
36
ND
33
ND
12,000
10,000
K 10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
10
10
10
                                         ND
                                       K 10
                                         ND

                                       K 10
                                       K 10
                                       K 10

                                         ND
                                         ND
                                         ND

                                       K 10
                                       K 10
                                       K 10
1,000
   22
   20
               ND
               ND
               14

              280
               12
             K 10

               ND
               ND
               ND

              330
               11
             K 10
 500
K 10
 390
                   ND
                   ND
                   ND

                   ND
                   12
                 K 10

                   ND
                   ND
                   ND

                   ND
                   15
                   ND
                                                                                        ND
                                                                                        56
                                                                                        ND

                                                                                     1,600
                                                                                    11,000
                                                                                        ND
950
 ND
 44
                  ND
                  ND
                  ND

                  ND
                  15
                  ND

                  ND
                  ND
                  ND

                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                                                               ND
                                                               66
                                                               ND

                                                            7,900
                                                            9,700
                                                             K 15
 820
K 11
 150
                 ND
                 ND
                  5

                 93
                 13
                K 7

                 ND
                 ND
                 ND

                110
                  9
                K 3

-------
TABLE V-46
PLAUt B
TREATED WASTEWATER
1 .«
Stream
Pollutant

76. chrysene


78. anthracene


80. fluorene


81. phenanthrene


84. pyrene


86. tetrachloroethylene


87. toluene


Code

B-7
B-B
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Sample
Type

2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2

Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

Dav 1
POLLUTANTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
52
110
ND
K 5
ND
ND

Day 2
(ug/1) (continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
40


K 9

ND

Day 3

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10,000
300

38
8
ND

Average

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3,000
200
ND
17
4
ND

-------
                                                                    TABLE V-46

                                                                    PLANT B

                                                               TREATED WASTEWATER
                                                               GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
ISi
00
en
                  Pollutant
                        Stream  Sample
                         Code   Type   Source
Day 1
Day 2
                                                                                                         Day 3
                   94.  4,4'-DDE
                   96.  alpha-endosulfan
                  100.  endrin aldehyde
103.  alpha-BHC
                  104.  beta-BHC
                  107.  PCB-1242 (a)
                  108.  PCB-1254 (a)
                  109.  PCB-1221 (a)

                  110.  PCB-1232 (b)
                  111.  PCB-1248 (b)
                  112.  PCB-1260 (b)
                  113.  PCB-1016 (b)
                                                               PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
B-7
B-8
D-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
K 0.01
K 0.01
K 0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.01
K 0.01
K 0.01
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
  6
  0.02
 ND

  0.6
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
 ND

  6
 ND
 ND

 ND
 ND
K 0.06

200
  1
  0.32

250
  1
  0.27
 ND
 ND
 ND

  6
 ND
 ND

  2
 ND
 ND

  4.5
  0.54
  0.08

 14
 ND
  0.09

 85
  0.49
  0.3

160
  0.54
  0.36
  15
  0.04
  0.02

  2
 ND
  0.05

  9
 ND
  1

 24
  0.16
 ND

 ND
  0.21
  0.18

 39
  2
  1

660
  1
  0.59
              Average
 7
 0.02
 0.01

 3
ND
 0.02

 4
ND
 0.3

12
 0.23
 0.03
                                                                                                                             07
                                                                                                       K 0.11

                                                                                                       110
                                                                                                         1
                                                                                                         0.54

                                                                                                       360
                                                                                                         1
                                                                                                         0.41

-------
00
TABLE V-46
PLANT B
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant

116. arsenic



119. cadmium



120. chromium



121. copper



122. cyanide



Stream
Code

B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
Sample
Type

2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
1,2,2
J
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
. Source

K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
K 10
K 10
K 10
400
ND
K 2
K 2
400
ND
100
8
70,000
ND
10
20
50,000
53
47
51
24
Day 2
(ug/1) (continued)
K 10
K 10
K 10

ND
K 2
K 2

ND
100
9

ND
K 9
20

77
61
46

Day 3

K 10
K 10
K 10

ND
K 2
K 2

ND
K 5
7

ND
K 9
20

24
10
31

Average

K 10
K 10
K 10
400
ND
K 2
K 2
400
ND
K 68
8
70,000
ND
K 9
20
50,000
51
39
43
24

-------
ro
                                                                    TABLE V-46



                                                                     PLANT B




                                                                 TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream Sample
Code Type
Source
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
123. lead



124. mercury



125. nickel



129. zinc



150. oil and grease


152. suspended solids


B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND



138
138
138
ND
20
K 20
20,000
ND
3
0.6
ND
ND
K 5
K 5
20,000
ND
K 50
K 50
50,000
95
22
17
1,262
26
16
Day 2
Day 3
Average
(ug/1) (continued)
ND
30
K 20

ND
1
3

ND
20
K 5

ND
K 50
K 50

1,540
52
16
791
19
18
ND
K 20
K 20

ND
0.2
0.6

ND
K 5
K 5

ND
K 50
K 50

38,180
267
25
5,676
13
13
ND
K 23
K 20
20,000
ND
1
1
ND
ND
K 10
K 5
20,000
ND
K 50
K 50
50,000
13,300
114
19
2,580
19
16

-------
                                                                     TABLE V-46


                                                                     PLANT B



                                                                TREATED WASTEWATER
ro
CO
co
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

159.

pH (standard units)


B-7
B-8
B-9
Day 1
Day 2
Day
3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)


8.04
7.85
7.64
7.6
7.6
8.2
8.
8.
7.
1
5
86




NON-CONVENTIONAL
149.

156.

157.

chemical oxygen
demand (COD)

total organic
carbon

phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)

B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-7
B-8
B-9
2 82
2 82
3 82
2 35
2 35
3 35
2
2
2
7,980
2,700
60
4,960
1,250
22
16.7
.108
5,850
2,540
67
4,050
971
23
21.7
17.5
.092
78,320
2,070
73
26,270
83
24
27
13



.9

.1
.5
.142
30,700
2,440
67
11,800
1,020
23
21
15





.8
.5
.114
                   (a),  (b)  Reported together

-------
ro
oo
                                                                    TABLE V-47

                                                                   SAMPLING DATA




                                                                      PLANT C




                                                                 TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

1.


4.

21.


23.

24,

38.

44.

55.

65.


acenaphthene


benzene

2,4,6-trichlorophenol


chloroform

2-chlorophenol

ethylbenzene

methylene chloride

naphthalene

phenol


C-2
C-9

C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9

C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9

1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

55
55
ND
ND
ND
ND
220
220
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 10
ND
1,800
ND

K 10
66
620
ND
5
ND
92
630
ND
ND
ND
820
ND
NT)
nu
K10
1U
ND
1,800
NT)
J*U
Kin
IV
fit*
OD
620
NT)
nu
5
NT)
ni/
92
610
\JJ\J
ND
ND
I»L/
ND
fton
u/U

-------
ro
vo
o
TABLE V-47
PLANT C
TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
76.
78.
80.
81.
bis(2-cthylhexyl)
phthalate
butyl benzyl
phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
chrysene
anthracene
f luorene
phenanthrene
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
Source
Dav 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (iig/1) (continued)
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,500
130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 ,500
130
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
ro
vo
TABLE V-47
PLANT C
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
84.
86.
87.
94.
96.
100.
103.
104.
107.
108.
109.
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
4, 4 '-DDE
alpha-endosiilfan
endrin aldehyde
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source

Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Averag
;e
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 0.
K 0.
ND
ND
0.
0.
0.
0.
K 0.
K 0.
0.
0.



01
01

06
06
02
02
03
03
55
55
ND
ND
51
ND
5
ND
ND
0.14
28
ND
ND
ND
18
0.12
ND
0.39
ND
6
ND
ND
51
ND
5
ND
ND
0.
28
ND
ND
ND
18
0.
ND
0.
ND
6



14


12
39


-------
ro
<£>
                                                                       TABLE V-47


                                                                       PLANT C


                                                                    TREATED WASTEWATER


Pollutant


Stream Sample
Code Tvoe

110.
111.
112.
113.

116.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.
124.

125.

PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016

arsenic

cadmium

chromium

copper

cyanide

lead
mercury

nickel

C-2
C-9



C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
1
1



1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GROSS
Source
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1 ^Dav 2

Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
0.61
0.61



K 20
K 20
K 2
K 2
7
7
20
20
ND
ND
30
30
0.4
0.4
30
30
ND
8



K 10
K 10
K 2
K 2
50
9
300
20
27
30
300
K 20
10
2
K 5
K 5
ND



Kin
lw
Ki n
1U
K 2
K7
m.
50

300
20
4.V/
27
10
JU
300
K 20
10

K 5
Kc
5

-------


s
Pollutant

129. zinc

CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
ro
CO
159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
157. phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)


tream Sample
Code Type

C-2 1
C-9 1


C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9
C-2
C-9

C-2 1
C-9 1

C-2 1
C-9 1
C-2 1
C-9 1
TABLE V-47
PLANT C
TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
. Source Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
2CO 400
2CO K 50
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)

6,060
98
K 1 2,612
K 1 46
6.85

K 5 19,800
K 5 2,520

K 1 9,360
K 1 850
2.77
1.65


Average

400
K 50


6,060
98
2,610
46


19,800
2,520

9,360
850
2.77
1.65

-------
                                                                TABLE V-48
                                                               SAMPLINO DATA

                                                                  PLANT  D

                                                            TREATED WASTEWATER
                                                           GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
              Pollutant
ro
vo
                1. acenaphthene
               4. benzene
Stream Sample
  Code Type	
                                                    Source
              21. 2,4,6-trirhloro-
                    phenol
              23. chloroform
Day 1
                                                           PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (uq/1)
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
3
6
3
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
20
20
20
20
                                  ND
                                  30
                                  ND
                                  48
                                   3

                                  ND
                                  ND
                                K  10
                                  ND
                                  ND

                                  ND
                                  14
                                  10
                                  ND
                                  ND

                                K  10
                                K  10
                                  11
                                  12
                                K  10
                 ND

                 ND

                 ND

                 ND
                 ND
                  5

                 ND

                 ND

               K 10

               K 10

               K 10
                 11
                 37
                 15
                 10
Day 3
 ND

 ND

 ND

  6
K 1
 16
K 1
  2

 ND

  2

 ND

  7
  7
 28
Average
   ND
   30
   ND
   48
    1

    2
  K 0.3
 K 10
  K 0.5
  K 1

   ND
   14
  K 7
   ND
  K 3

  K 9
  K 9
   25
   14
  K 9

-------
                                                                     PLANT  D



                                                               TREATED WASTEWATER
rvj
vo
en
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant code TvpP

24. 2-chlorophenol




38. ethylbenzene




44. methyl ene chloride




55. naphthalene




65. phenol





D-8
0-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16

3
6
3
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
Source
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
K 10
ND
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
150
140
ND
ND
K 10
5
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
40
Day 2
Day 3
(ug/1) (continued)
NO

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
48
780
110
K 10
ND

K 10

ND
ND

K 10

K 10
ND

ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
93
150
1,100

440
ND

ND

ND
K 10

10

15
Average

K 3
ND
K 3
ND
K 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 40
K 70
K 630
130
K 200
ND
ND
K 7
5
ND
K 3
ND
K 10
ND
K 20

-------
                                                    PLANT D

                                              TREATED WASTEWATER
                                              GROSS  CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
 Stream Sample
	Code Type	
 66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
       phthalate
 67.  butyl benzyl
       phthalate
 68.  di-n-biityl phthalate
 69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
 70.  diethyl phthalate
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
Source
Day 1
_Da_y_2_
                                              PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)  (continued)
                 K  10
                 K  10
                 K  10
                 K  10
                 K  10
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND

                  K 10
                  K 10
                  K 10
                  K 10
                  K 10

                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND

                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                    ND
                  17
                  57
                K 10
                 130
                 150
                  ND
                  ND
                K 10
                  49
                 270

                  ND
                  ND
                K 10
                  22
                  12

                  ND
                  ND
                  ND
                  26
                  140

                  ND
                  ND
                 K 10
                    6
                    3
                  4

               K 10

                 10


                 ND

               K 10

                K  1

                   7

               K 10

                   R

                 ND

                 ND

                 ND

                 ND

                 ND

                  ND
                                                                                        Day 3
                  38

                   4

                   8


                  ND

                   3

                 K 1

                  24

                   6

                   8

                  ND

                  ND

                  ND

                  ND

                  ND

                  ND
                                                               Average	
  20
  57
 K 8
 130
  56
  ND
  ND
 K 7.
  49
K 90

  10
  ND
 K 9
  22
 K 9

  ND
  ND
  ND
  26
  50

  ND
  ND
 K  3
    6
    1

-------
                                                                     PLANT  D




                                                               TREATED WASTEWATER
ro
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream Sample
Code Type
Source
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
76. chrysene




78. anthracene




80. fluorene




81. phenanthrene




84. pyrene




D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
ND
ND
Day 2
Day 3
Average
(ug/1) (continued)
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND

ND
K 1

K 10

K 1
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

K 1

ND
ND

ND

ND
ND

ND

K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.3
ND
K 7
ND
K 0.7

-------
                                                                   PLANT  D



                                                              TREATED WASTEWATER
ro
*o
CO
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source


86. tetrachloroethylene




87. toluene



94. 4, 4' -DDE



96. alpha-endosulfan



100. endrin aldehyde






D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
Day 1
Day 2 Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
K 10
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND K 1
ND 2
3 *
K 1
ND 1
ND ND
ND K 1
4 K 1
5
ND K 1













Kn i
u . j
KL
**
K 1
K 0.5
4
ND
K 0.3
K 2
2
K 0.3
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT)
ll \J
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                                    PLANT D

                                                               TREATED WASTEWATER
                                                              GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
                                         Stream Sample
                  Pollutant	Code Type	Source	Day 1	Day 2	Day  3	Average

                                                              PRIORITY POLLUTANTS  (ug/1)  (continued)

                  103. alpha-BHC             D-8    3      0.03          ND                                               ND
                                             D-9    6      0.03          ND                                               ND
                                             D-14   3      0.03          ND                                               ND
                                             D-15   6      0.03          ND                                               ND
                                             D-16   3      0.03          ND                                               ND

                  104. beta-BHC              D-8    3     ND            K 0.06                                           K 0.06
                                             D-9    6     ND              0.59                                             0-59
r>o                                           D-14   3     ND            K 0.11                                           K 0.11
Jg                                           D-15   6     ND            K 0.15                                           K 0.16
                                             D-16   3     ND            K 0.08                                           K 0.08

                  107. PCB-1242              D-8    3      0.35           1.3                                              1-3
                  108. PCB-1254              D-9    6      0.35           1.5                                              !-5
                  109. PCB-1221              D-14   3      0.35           1.4                                              1-4
                                             D-15   6      0.35           1.2                                              1-2
                                             D-16   3      0.35           1.3                                              J-3

                  110. PCB-1232              D-8    3      0.29           1.5                                              1-5
                  111. PCB-1248              D-9    6      0  29           1.3                                              1-3
                  112. PCB-1260              D-14   3      0.29           1.6                                              J-6
                  113. PCB-1016              D-15   6      0.29           1.5                                              *-5
                                             D-16   3      0.29           1                                                l

-------
                                                                     PLANT  D

                                                                TREATED WASTEWATER
                                                               GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
                  Pollutant
                   116. arsenic
                   119.  cadmium
CO
.o
o
                   120. chromium
                   121. copper
Stream Sample
  Code Type
                                                        Source
Day 1
Day 2
D-8
D-9
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
3
6
1
3
6
3
3
6
1
3
6
3
3
6
1
3
6
3
3
6
1
3
6
3
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 9
K 9
K 9
K 9
K 9
K 9
                                                               PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (u^/I) (continued)
                               K 10
                                 40
                                750
                               K 10
                                 ND
                               K 10

                                K 2
                                 ND
                                500

                                 ND
                                K 2

                                K 5
                                 ND
                          1,000,000

                                 ND
                              2,000

                                 10
                                 ND
                              9,000

                                 ND
                                 20
               K 10


               K 10

               K 10




                K 2

                K 2




                 20

                700




                K 9

                 10
Day 3
               K 10


               K 10

               K 10

                K 2


                K 2

                K 2
Average
               K 10
                 40
                750
               K 10
                 ND
               K 10

                K 2
                 ND
                500
                K 2
                 ND
                K 2
K 5


40

2,000
K 9


10

10
K 5
ND
1,000,000
30
ND
1,600
K 10
ND
9,000
K 10
ND
10

-------
00
o
                                                                     PLANT D



                                                                 TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant

122. cyanide




123. lead





124. mercury





125. nickel





Stream Sample
Code Type

D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-13
0-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16

1
6
1
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
3
3
6
1
3
6
3
3
6
1
3
6
3
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 1 K 1
6
15 K 1
2
4 2
K 20
ND
30,000
K 20
ND
30 K 20
0.7
ND
7
K 0.1
ND
0.6 K 0.1
K 5
ND
2,000
K 5
ND
K 5 K 5
2

29

1
K 20


K 20

20
1


0.7

0.5
K 5


K 5

K 5
K 1
6
K 15
2
2
K 20
ND
30,000
K 20
ND
K 20
0.9
ND
7
K 0.4
ND
K 0.4
K 5
ND
2,000
K 5
ND
K 5

-------
                                                                     PLANT  D

                                                                TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
Stream
Code
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Sample
Type Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
                  129. zinc
                    CONVENTIONAL
                  150. oil and grease
ro
                  152. suspended solids
                  159. pH
                                                               PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
D-8
D-9
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
3
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
6
3





K 50
K 50
K 50
K 50
K 50
K 50
NO!














                                                                        K 50
                                                                          ND
                                                                       2,000

                                                                          ND
                                                                         100
               K 50

               K 50
                                                           NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mfi/1)
 36
 16
 14
 36
 66

 17
 13
  3
 93
119
   42

   10

   72

   17

  K 1

1,100
  7.4
  2.1
  7.2
  6.7
  5.9
    8.0
    2.4
    7.8

    7.4
K 50


K 50

  70



  34

   7

  54

  20

  12

 215
   7.6
   2.8
   7.1

   7.8
                                 K 50
                                   ND
                                2,000
                                 K 50
                                   ND
                                 K 70
 37
 16
 10
 36
 64

 18
 13
K 5.
 93
478

-------
                                                                    PLANT  D

                                                               TREATED WASTEWATER
                                                              GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
                  Pollutant
Stream Sample
  Cod eTP e	Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
                  149.  chemical  oxygen
                         demand (COD)
                  156. phenols (total; by
                       4-AAP method)
CO
o
CO
                   157. phenols  (total; by
                          4-AAP  method)
D-8
D-9
U-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-8
D-9
D-14
D-15
D-16
3
6
3
6
3
3
6
3
6
3
1
6
1
6
I
                                                              NON-PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS  (mg/1)  (continued)
                                 71
                                 59
                                 32
                                903
                                 79
                                 24
                                 31
                                 12
                                381
                                 36
                                  0.006
                                K 0.001
                                  0.547
                                 15.6
                                  0.015
                 56

                 22

                 90


                 24

                  3

                 66



                  0.003

                  0.001

                  1.34
                 51

                 28

                 86


                 25

                 17

                 48



                  0.024

                  0.477

                  0.01
Average
                 59
                 59
                 27
                903
                 85
                 24
                 31
                 11
                381
                 50
                  0.011
                K 0.001
                  0.342
                 15.6
                  0.455

-------
CO
o
-p.
                                                            TABLE V-49

                                                            SAMPLING DATA



                                                              PLANT E



                                                        TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

1 . acenaphthene E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
4. benzene E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol E-6
E-7
E-9.
E-10
E-ll
23. chloroform E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll

3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source

K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ND
5,700
6
250
ND
ND
6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13
ND
10
13
20
35
12
Day 2
(ug/1)
ND
ND
ND
11
ND

11
8
K 10
ND

1
K 10
10
26

23
9
Day 3

ND
ND
ND
ND
K 1
5

K 1
ND
ND
ND

K 10
ND
5
8

45
7
Average

ND
IvU
5,700
(.
\j
83
ND
K 4
2
f.
\J
K 4
i\ ^
3
K 3
A\ *J
ND
ND
liAJ
K 8
K 3
g
IP*
16
20
mm \i
34
J™
9

-------
                                                             PLANT E
                                                         TREATED WASTEWATER
CO
o
en
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
24. 2-chlorophenol




38 . ethylberizene



44. methylene chloride




55. naphthalene



65. phenol




E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
li-9
E-10
E-ll
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
V
3
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
17
17
17
17
17
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
330
52
89
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 1
ND
ND
ND

ND
K 10
ND
89

ND
ND
140
1,100

474
76
K 10
ND

ND
ND
ND
270

ND
K 10
K 10
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
130
360

130
100
ND
ND

ND
9
K 10
ND

K 10
ND
Average

K 3
ND
ND
ND
K 3
ND
30
5
ND
K 3
K 90
K 490
330
220
88
K 3
ND
ND
ND
3
K 3
90
ND
K 4
K 3

-------
                                                           PLANT  E
                                                      TREATED WASTEWATER
co
o
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
T, T T. .......•- Code Type
Pollutant 	 . 	 _ " . — «-»- 	
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate



67. butyl benzyl
phthalate



68. di-n-butyl phthalate



69. di-n-octyl phthalate



70. diethyl phthalate



E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
3
2,900
44
56
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
3,100
49
ND
19
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
1,900
65
56
ND
K 10
320

ND
4
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
370

4
5
ND
ND

ND
ND
23
340

ND
'ND
19
520

13
ND
3
ND

K 1
ND
ND
330

ND
5
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
220

ND
ND
K 10
1,200
44
23
3
1
ND
ND
K 0.3
ND
1
1,300
49
1
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
820
65
19
ND

-------
                                                             PLANT K
                                                         TREATED WASTEWATER
CO
o
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

76. chrysene E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
78. anthracene E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
80. fluorene E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
81. phenanthrene E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
84. pyrene E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll

3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source

K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 2
(ug/1) (continued)
K 10
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND

119
4
K 10
220

50
ND
ND
1,000

119
4
K 10
75

ND
K 1
Day 3

ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
2,000

ND
100
ND
760

ND
35
ND
2,000

ND
100
ND
48

ND
4
Average
	 °
K 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
700
ND
40 '
40
K 3
330
ND
20
12
ND
1,000
ND
40
40
K 3
41
ND
ND
K 2

-------
                                                            PLANT  E
                                                         TREATED WASTEWATER
co
o
00


Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
GROSS
Source
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1 Day 2

Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
;6. tetrachloroethylene




87. toluene




94. 4, 4' -DDE




96. alpha-endosulfan




100. endrin aldehyde




E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND K 1
ND 40
14
K 10 K 1
11 K 1
ND ND
ND 89
5
31 1
K 10 ND
0.03
3
K 0.01
0.36
0.02
ND
ND
ND
0.16
0.01
ND
14
ND
ND
ND
ND K 0.3
10 20
14
K 1 K 4
K 1 K 4
ND ND
3 30
5
ND 10
ND K 3
0.03
3
K 0.01
0.36
0.02
ND
ND
ND
0.16
0.01
ND
14
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                           PLANT  E
                                                       TREATED WASTEWATER
                                                      GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
        Pollutant
Stream Sample
  Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
CO
o
         103. alpha-BHC
         104. beta-BHC
         107.  PCB-1242
         108.  PCB-1254
         109.  PCB-1221
         110. PCB-1232
         111. PCB-1248
         112. PCB-1260
         113. PCB-1016
                                                      PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
                                   0.01
                                   4
                                  ND
                                  ND
                                   0.01

                                   0.02
                                   ND
                                   0.08
                                   0.43
                                   0.03

                                   1.8
                                  76
                                   1.4
                                   6.1
                                   0.83

                                   1.2
                                 160
                                   1.1
                                   5.3
                                   0.88
                                                                   0.01
                                                                   4
                                                                  ND
                                                                  ND
                                                                   0.01

                                                                   0.02
                                                                  ND
                                                                   0.08
                                                                   0.43
                                                                   0.03

                                                                   1.8
                                                                  76
                                                                   1.4
                                                                   6.1
                                                                   0.83

                                                                   1.2
                                                                 160
                                                                   1.1
                                                                   5.3
                                                                   0.88

-------
                                                           PLANT  E
                                                      TREATED WASTEWATER
       Pollutant
       116. arsenic
        119.  cadmium
CO
i-»
o
        120. chromium
         121.  copper
         122. cyanide
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Code Type

E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 9
K 9
K 9
K 9
K 9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 2
K 200
5
K 2
K 2
70
1,000
20
90
K 5
K 9
9,000
K 9
200
K 9
2
53
3
34
4
K 10
K 10

K 10
K 10
K 2
K 200

K 2
K 2
60
K 1,000

60
K 5
K 9
3,000

300
100
K 1
16

6
3
K 10
K 10

K 10
K 10
K 2
K 200

K 2
K 2
40
1,000

20
K 5
K 9
9,000

60
K 9
K 1
55

6
3
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 2
K 200
5
K 2
K 2
60
K 1,000
20
60
K 5
K 9
7,000
K 9
200
K 40
K 1
41
3
15
3

-------
                                                    PLANT  E

                                                TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
  .3. lead
 124.  mercury
  125. nickel
  129. zinc
     CONVENTIONAL
   150."oil and grease
	 _. . - — — ••— 	 	 • —-•'—••" 	 - • — — - — 	 -•-'-"- J~:~' " ----.-,.- — <--- 	 , — -
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Code Type

E-6 3
E-7 3
E-9 2
E-10 3
E-ll 3
E-6 3
E-7 3
E-9 2
E-10 3
E-ll 3
E-6 3
E-7 3
E-9 2
E-10 3
E-ll 3
E-6 3
E-7 3
E-9 2
E-10 3
E-ll 3

E-6 1
E-7 1
E-9 1
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
K 20
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 50
K 50
K 50
K 50
K 50




K 20
5,000 K
30
20
K 20
4 0.9
4 K 20
4 0.6
4 0.6
4 0.6
20
K 1,000 K
40
K 5
K 5
K 50
8,000 K
200
200
K 50
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
9
21,300
42
K 20
2,000

K 20
K 20
0.4
K 100

2.2
0.8
6
1,000

K 5
K 5
K 50
5,000

200
K 50
(mg/1)
20
13,000

K 20
3,000

K 20
K 20
1.1
K 100

0.5
0.6
K 5
K 1,000

K 5
K 5
K 50
8,000

100
K 50

18
18,400

K 20
K 3,000
30
K 20
K 20
0.8
K 70
0.6
1
0.7
K 10
K 1,000
40
K 5
K 5
K 50
K 7,000
200
200
K 50

16
17,600
42

-------
                                                             PLANT E


                                                       TREATED WASTEWATER
         152.  suspended solids
CO
»-»
ro
         159. pH
           NON-CONVENTIONAL

          149.  chemical oxygen

                 demand (COD)
          156. phenols (total; by

                 4-AAP method)
__
Stream Sample
Code Type

E-10 1
E-ll 1
E-6 3
E-7 3
E-9 2
E-10 3
E-ll 3
E-6
E-7
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-6 3
E-7 3
E-9 2
E-10 3
E-ll 3
by
E-6 3
E-7 3
E-9 2
E-10 3
E-ll 3

Source



K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1





K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
K5

1
1
1
1
1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
189
35
10
540
12
121
24
6.7

4.8


68
85,800
828
270
84

22
48,600
262
166
27

Day
(mg/D
227
31
1
1,060

140
24
7.


6.
7.
17
75,500

346
103

8
37,000

180
34

2 Day 3
(continued)

15
1
680

89
24
5 7.0


2 6.5
0 7.3
22
78,100

395
93

7
30,300

152
27

Average

208
27
4
760
12
117
24





36
79,800
828
337
93

12
38,630
262
166
29

-------
                                                             PLANT  E


                                                         TREATED WASTEWATER
        Pollutant
         157.  phenols (total; by

                4-AAP method)
	 	 — • 	
Stream Sample
Code Type
' E-6 1
E-7 1
E-9 2
E-10 1
E-ll 1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
0.008
0.249
.213
0.009
0.011

Day 2 Day 3
(mg/1) (continued)
0.007 0.010
0.098 0.284
ND 0.006
0.008

Average
0.008
0.210
.213
0.008
0.0095
CO
I—*
to

-------
                                                            TABLE  V-50
                                                           SAMPLING DATA

                                                            PLANT  H

                                                        TREATED WASTEWATER
) id
Pollutant
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
Stream Sample
Code Type
H-7* 1
H-8 1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Blank Source Day 1 Day 2
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/l)
69
154

Day 3 Average
69
154
     ^Analyzed for Oil and Grease only.
CO
H-*
-P.

-------
co
                                                           TABLE  V-51
                                                           SAMPLING DATA

                                                             PLANT J


                                                        TREATED WASTEWATER


Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
31.
39.
44.
59.
60.
62.
72.
76.
2,4-dichlorophenol
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenyl-
amine
benzo (a) anthracene
chrysene
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
GROSS
Source
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
28
ND
3
9
12
ND
ND
ND
200
ND
ND
ND
30
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
250
21
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
NR
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
260
15
37
ND
ND
ND
67
ND
ND
ND
10
ND

-------
CO
TABLE V-51
PLANT J
TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
78.
81.
84.
106.
108.
109.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
anthracene
phenanthrene
pyrene
delta-BHC
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
Stream Sample
Code Type
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ue/lV (continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 1
K 1
ND
ND
K 30
K 30
30
30
ND
ND
K 50
K 50
K 400
K 400
67
2
K 64
2
48
ND
ND
ND
1,100,000
870,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
69
18
4,000
650
K 1
K 1
K 7
ND
K 7
ND
1
ND
ND
ND
880,000
740,000
2,300,000
2,500,000
27
34
2,800
1,200
K 1
K 1
K 4
ND
K 4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
770,000
770,000
2,300,000
2,200,000
28
23
2,900
1,200
K 1
K 1
Average
K 26
K 1
K 26
K 1
16
ND
ND
ND
900,000
790,000
2,200,000
2,200,000
41
25
3,200
1,000
K 1
K 1

-------
CO
                                                        TABLE V-51
                                                        PLANT J
                                                    TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
125. nickel

129. zinc


CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease

152. suspended solids

159. pH

NON-CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)

156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)

157. phenols (total; by
4-AAP. method)

J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6


J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6
J-5
J-6


J-5
J-6

J-5
J-6

J-5
J-6
3
1
3
1


1
1
3
1




3
1

3
1

1
1
K 20 2
K 20 2
40 2,000
40 1,900
NON-PRIORITY



14
14




5
5

K 1
K 1



,500
,100
,000
,000
POLLUTANTS

182
18
547
354
3.6
3.6


289
297

76
77

0.001
0.001
2,700
2,500
2,000,000
1,200,000
(rag/1)

40
15
422
1,070
1.5
3.5


260
289

71
66


0.004
2,600
2,600
2,000,000
2,200,000


35
13
380
704
3.4
4.1


238
255

79
79

0.005
0.002
Average

2,600
2,400
2,000,000
1,800,000


86
15
450
709




262
280

75
74

0.003
0.002

-------
   TABLE V-52
   SAMPLING DATA

     PLANT K

TREATED WASTEWATER



Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

44. methylene chloride

66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
CO
H- >
00
119. cadmium

120. chromium

121. copper

123. lead

124. mercury

129. zinc


K-4
K-5

K-4
K-5

K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5
K-4
K-5

1
1

3
3,2,2

3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3,2,2
3
2
3
2
GROSS
Source
CONCENTRATIONS
Dav 1

Day 2

Day 3

Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
1,300
1,300

ND
ND

K 10
K 10
K 30
K 30
K 20
K 20
K 50
K 50
K 1
K 1
K 20
K 20
650
970

10
35

K 10

920

120

K 50
K 50
K 1

110

860
1,800

5
6


K 10

120

K 20

K 50

K 0.2

K 20
1,400
360

41
7

K 10
K 10
1,400
50
90
K 20
K 50
K 50
K 1
K 0.4
60
K 20

1,000

19
- f
16

K 10
K 10
1,200
85
100
K 20
K 50
K 50
K 1
K 0.3
85
K 20

-------
   TABLE V-52



    PLANT K




TREATED WASTEWATER
^^^™*^^""^ '" 1-
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant..
~ — • 	 	 	 — 	 ._

CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease

152. suspended solids

159. pH

NON-CONVENTIONAL
Stream Sample
Code Type


K-4 1
K-5 1
K-4 3
K-5 2
K-4
K-5

Source
NON-PRIORITY

3
3
13
13



Day 1
POLLUTANTS

8
18
150

8.6
9.3

Day 2
(mg/1)

8
7

11
5.7
7.0

Day 3


3
8
181
10
6.7
7.3

Average


6
11
166
10



149. chemical oxygen demand
(COD)

156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)

157. phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)

K-4 3
K-5 2

K-4 3
K-5 2

K-4 1
K-5 1
5
5

6
6



52


24
11

0.004
0.012

22


13

0.006
0.016
61
22

20
9

0.008
0.011
56
22

22
r

0.006
0.013

-------
                                                        TABLE V-53
                                                       SAMPLING DATA
                                                          PLANT L

                                                    TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

44. methylene chloride

66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate

CO
ro
o
119. cadmium

120. chromium

121. copper

123. lead

124. mercury

129. zinc


L-5
L-8

L-5
L-7*
L-8

L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8

1
1

7
1
1

7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND

K 0.5
K 0.5
K 1
K 1
10
10
14
14
7.3
7.3
53
53
Day 1 Day 2
POLLUTANTS (ue/1)
30
90 ND

ND
K 5,000
K 5 ND

2.8
K 0.5 K 0.5
104,000
110 90
40
4 4
30
20 10
3.4
2.2 14
110
K 10 K 10
Day 3 Average

30
90 60

ND
K 5,000
ND K 2

2.8
K 0.5 K 0.5
104,000
80 90
40
K 3 K 4
30
5 10
3.4
K 0.1 K 5
110
K 10 K 10
*Stream L-7 analyzed for base neutral fraction only.

-------
CO
ro
TABLE V-53
PLANT L
TREATED WASTEWATER


Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
NON- CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen dema
(COD)
156. phenols (total;
by 4-AAP method)
157. phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
nd
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
L-5
L-8
1
1
7
1

7
1
7
1
6
1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1

Day 2 Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
5
K 5
K 2 K 2
K 2 K 2
2.7
7.9
K 5 20
K 5 37
2.8 13
2.8 6.1
0.003
0.017
5
K 5 276 K 95
K 2
K2 11 K5
2.4 2.8
11.4 10.1
20
28 24 30
13
12 11 9.7
0.003
0.004 0.005 0-009

-------
u>
ro
                                                      TABLE V-54

                                                      SAMPLING DATA



                                                       PLANT  N



                                                  TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
4.
23.
24.
44.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
111.
119.
benzene
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
methylene chloride
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
butyl benzyl
phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
PCB-1248
cadmium
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND
40
ND<
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.5
ND
10
ND
5
10
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.5
ND
10
ND
5
10
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.3
ND
10
ND
ND
10
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.5
ND
10
ND
3
10
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.8

-------
co
ro
TABLE V-54
PLANT N
TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant..
Stream Sample
Code Type
Source
Day 1
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
120. chromium
121. copper
123. lead
124. mercury
129. zinc
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
NON- CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
(COD)
156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOG)
157. phenols (total;
4-AAP method)
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
N-4
demand
N-4
N-4
by
N-4
3
3
3
3
3
1
3

3
3
1
K 1
8
10
9.1
K 10
NON-PRIORITY
K 5
K 2
7.1
5
2.7

10
17
15
9.3
130
Day 2
(ug/1) (continued)
9
18
!5
10
140
Day 3
8
15
34
7
130*
Average
9
17
21
9
130
POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
10
K 2
7.4
17
4.4
0.015
K 5
3
7.1
19
5.7
0.012
9
4
6.95
26
7.6
0.012
K 8
K 3

21
5.9
0.013

-------
CO
ro
                                                   TABLE V-55

                                                   SAMPLING DATA


                                                     PLANT  P


                                                TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source

1.
4.
21.
23.
24.
38.
44.
55.
66.
67.
68.

acenaphthene
benzene
2 , 4 ,6-trichlorophenol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
naphthalene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
butyl benzyl
phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate

P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
5
5
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
10
310
380
100
45,500
ND .
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
10
70
230
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
5
260
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
8
210
210
30
45,500
ND
3

-------
    TABLE V-55
    PLANT  P
TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
69.
70.
76.
78.
81.
80,
CO
ro
84.
86.
87.
94.
96.
100.
103.
104.
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
chrysene
anthracene
phenanthrene*
fluorene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
4, 4' -DDE
alpha-endosulfan
endrin aldehyde
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-8
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
41,000
10
ND
100
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
230
30
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
70
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
3
41,000
3
ND
130
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
ro
en
                                                        TABLE V-55



                                                         PLANT P



                                                    TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
116.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc


Stream Sample
Code Type
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
P-7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
11
K 0.5
2
9
ND
2
K 0.1
K 1
K 10
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1
POLLUTANTS (ug/1
ND
ND
10
3
8
60
0.32
210
K 0.1
82
420

Day 2
) (continued)
ND
ND
15
K 4.1
7
70
1.4
400
K 0.05
105
830

Day 3
ND
ND
8.6
K 0.5
9
66
0.09
71
K 0.1
18
240

Average
ND
ND
11
K 3
8
60
0.6
230
K 0.1
68
500

-------
TABLE V-55
PLANT P
TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream Sample
Pollutant " Code Type
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and gr'ease P-7 1
152. suspended solids P-7 1
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1 Day 2
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
27 52
5 153 187

Day 3 Average
18 32
63 134
        *  Reported together
to
ro

-------
   TABLE V-56
   SAMPLING DATA
   PLANT  Q

TREATED WASTEWATER
Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

31. 2,4-dichlorophenol

39. fluoranthene

w 44. methylene chloride
ro
00
59. 2,4-dinitrophenol

60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
"
62. N-nitrosodiphenyl-
amine
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate

72. benzo (a) anthracene

76 . chrysene .


Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4

Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5

Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5

3
6
3
6
1

3
6
3
6
3
6

3
6
3
6
3
6
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
Day 1 Day 2
POLLUTANTS (u^/1)
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
30 K 5

ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND.
ND

10 10
30
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
Day 3 Average

ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
K 10 K 15

ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND

5 8
30
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND

-------
CO
ro
TABLE V-56
PLANT Q
TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
78.
81.
84.
107.
108.
109.
119.
120.
121.
123.
124.
anthracene
phenanthrene
pyrene
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
mercury
Stream Sample
Code Type
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
Q-4
Q-5
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
Source
Day 1 Day 2
Day 3 Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
K 0.5
K 0.5
4
4
26
26
6
6
K 0.1
K 0.1
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
2.9 1.7
0.8
2,000 1,200
340
17,000 10,000
3,000
8,000 5,200
1,800
2 1.5
0.6
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND ND
2.2 2.3
0.8
2,900 2,000
340
16,000 14,000
3,000
9,500 7,600
1,800
K 0.05 K 1.2
0.6

-------
                                               TABLE V-56
                                                PLANT Q
                                            TREATED WASTEWATER

GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample „ .
Pnllntant' Code Tvoe Source Day 1 __DaY 2 Day 3 	 Average
125. nickel
129. zinc

CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
co 152. suspended solids
159. pH*
NON-CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOG)
157. phenols (total; by
A-AAP mat-hnHl
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
Q-4 3 K 1 54 13 40 36
Q-5 1 K 1 K 1 K l
Q-4 3 K 10 43,000 24,000 40,000 36,000
Q-5 1 K 10 9,800 9»800
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
Q-4 1 g ND ND 3
Q-4 3 2,460 1,010 1,360 1,610

Q-4 3 55 16 25 32
q-4 3 1.4 0.74 1.7 1-3
n.A i 0.024 0.004 0.009 0.0
*Stream Q-4 not analyzed for pH.

-------
CO
CO
                                                       TABLE V-57
                                                       SAMPLING DATA

                                                        PLANT R

                                                    TREATED WASTEWATER


Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type
4.
11.
13.
22.
23.
24.
31.
35.
38.
39.
44.
54.
59.
benzene
1,1, 1-trichloroe thane
1 , 1-dichloroethane
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
2 ,4-dichlorophenol
2 ,4-dinitrotoluene
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
methylene chloride
isophorone
2 ,4-dinitrophenol
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Average
POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
10
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
90
ND
ND
3
3
ND
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
30
ND
ND

-------
TABLE V-57
PLANT R
TREATED WASTEWATER




Stream Sample
Pollutant Code Type

60.
62.
65.
66.
co 67.
CO
ro
68.
69.
70.
72.
76.
78.
81.
84.

4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodiphenyl-
amine
phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
butyl benzyl
phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
anthracene
phenanthrene
pyrene

R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1

Dav 2

Day 3

Average
POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
CO
CO
CO
TABU V-57
PLANT R
TREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant
87.
96.
107.
toluene
alpha-endosulfan
PCB-1242
Stream Sample
Code Type
R-8 1
R-8 3
R-8 3
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1
POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
20
ND
ND

Day 2
(continued)
ND
ND
ND

Day 3
5
ND
ND

Average
8
ND
ND
 108.  PCB-1254
 109.  PCB-1221

 110.  PCB-1232
 111.  PCB-1248
 112.  PCB-1260
 113.  PCB-1016

 116.  arsenic

 119.  cadmium

 120.  chromium

 121.  copper

 123.  lead

124. mercury

125. nickel

129. zinc
                                    R-8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
R-8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.7
K 0.5
K 1
10
K 1
0.7
K 1
53
36
7.5
1,900
4,000
110
K 0.1
39
5,500
28
9.6
2,000
4,700
1,700
K 0.1
30
7,100
24
9.6
1,600
- 3,600
1,500
K 0.1
20
6,800
29
8.9
1,800
4,100
1,100
K 0.1
30
6,500

-------
(A)
                                                           TABLE V-57
                                                           PLANT  R
                                                     TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Pollutaot Code Type Source
Day 1
Day 2
» Day 3 Average
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (mg/1)
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
157. phenols (total; by
4-AAP method)
R-8 1
R-8 3
R-8
R-8 3
R-8 3
R-8 1
43
470
7.5
440
15
0.062
160
410
8.0
274
14
0.034
35 79
360 410
8.4
212 309
9.5 13
0.010 0.035

-------
                                                       TABLE  V-58

                                                      SAMPLING DATA

                                                         PLANT U
                                                   TREATED WASTEWATER
CO
GO
tn
Stream
Pollutant Code

1. acenaphthene



4. benzene


21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol



23. chloroform


24. 2-chlorophenol



38. ethylbenzene



U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
Sample
Type

1
3
1
1
1 K
1 K
1 K
1
3
1
1
1 K
1 K
1 K
1
3
1

1
1
1
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
10
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
10
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1
POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND
ND
60
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 5
K 5

Day 2

ND
ND
140

ND
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
K 10
K 5

Day 3

ND
ND
140

ND
ND
K 5
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
K 10
K 5

Average
	 : 	 0. 	
ND
ND
110
ND
ND
K 2
K 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 8
K 5

-------
                                                           TABLE V-58

                                                           PLANT 0

                                                    TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Stream Sample
Code Type Source
Day 1
Day 2 Day 3 Average
                                                PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
co
CO
        44. methylene chloride
        55. naphthalene
        65. phenol
        66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)
              phthalate
        67. butyl benzyl
              phthalate
        68. di-n-butyl phthalate
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
K 5
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
1
3
1
1
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
                            K 5
                           K 10
                            K 5

                             ND
                             70
                             50
                             ND

                             ND
                             ND
                             ND
                             ND
    K 5
    140
     ND
300,000
                             ND
                             ND
                             ND
                             ND

                             30
                             180
                             20
                          90,000
                                     K 5
                                     K 5
                                     K 5

                                      ND
                                     200
                                      30
                                      ND
                                      50
                                      ND
20
ND
80
                                      ND
                                      ND
                                      ND
                                     K 5
                                      90
                                      80
                                                50
                                               K 5
                                               K 5

                                                ND
                                               120
                                                70
                                                ND
                                                ND
                                                ND
K 5
 ND
 80
                                                ND
                                                ND
                                                ND
                                              K  10
                                                 40
                                               150
                                                  K  20
                                                   K 7
                                                   K 5

                                                     ND
                                                   130
                                                     50
                                                     ND

                                                     ND
                                                     20
                                                     ND
                                                     ND
   K 10
    140
     50
300,000
                                                     ND
                                                     ND
                                                     ND
                                                     ND

                                                   K 20
                                                    100
                                                     80
                                                 90,000

-------
                                                          TABLE V-58


                                                          PLANT  U


                                                      TREATED WASTEWATER
CO
co
___ 	 . 	 	 	 	 	
Stream Sample
Pollutant... Code Type

69. di-n-octyl phthalate U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
70. diethyl phthalate U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
76. chrysene U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
78. anthracene u"3
81. phenanthrene U-8
U-10
80. fluorene U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10

84. pyrene £3
U-9
U-10

1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
GROSS
Source
PRIORITY
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 5
K 5
K 5
K 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CONCENTRATIONS
Day 1
POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
120
ND
53,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
180
120
110,000
ND
30
ND
ND
ND
10
10
ND

Day 2
(continued)
ND
ND
20

K 10
ND
30

ND
ND
ND

K 5
230
140

ND
ND
20

ND
ND
10


Day 3

ND
ND
30

K 10
70
ND

ND
ND
ND

ND
110
170

ND
ND
ND

K 5
20
ND


Average

ND
ND
20
ND
K 10
120
10
53,000
ND
ND
ND
ND
K 2
170
140
110,000
ND
10
7
ND
K 2
10
7
ND

-------
co
CO
00
                                                          TABLE  V-58


                                                          PLANT U



                                                     TREATED WASTEWATER
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant. .

107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
116.

119.


120.

PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1016
PCB-1016
arsenic

cadmium


chromium

Stream Sample
Code Type

U-3
U-8
U-9
U-3
U-8
U-9

U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10

1
3
1
1
3
1

1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
Source
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Average
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS (ug/1) (continued)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
2
2
2
2
K 1
K 1
K 1
K 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 2
K 2
K 2
K 2
2
29
3
440
K 1
42
2
8,600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 2
K 2
K 2

2
30
11

K 1
169
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 2
K 2
K 2

K 1
22
12

K 1
64

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

K 2
K 2
K 2
Ko
L
K 2
27
LLft

K 1
92
A
*f
8,600

-------
co
co
TABLE V-58
TREATED WASTEWATER


Pollutant"

121. copper



122. cyanide



123. lead



124. mercury



125. nickel



129. zinc




Stream
Code

U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10

GROSS
CONCENTRATIONS



Sample
Type

1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1

1
3
1 ,
1
Source
PRIORITY
13
13
13
13




10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
16
16
16
16
K 10
K 10
K 10
K 10
Day 1
POLLUTANTS (ug/1)
11
680
340
13,000
70
K 20
K 20
K 20
6
7,090
4,300 ,
4,940
3
2
3
6
13
88
67
3,520
230
510
11,000
12,000
Day 2
(continued)
11
1,160
430

80
20
K 20

6
20,600
8,400

3
5
3

5
89
32

240
800
680

Day 3

14
640
420

140
K 20
K 20

8
15,200
7,800

3
2
2

K 1
49
47

300
650
540

Average

12
830
400
13,000
100
K 20
K 20
K 20
7
14,300
6,800
4,940
3
3
3
6
K 6
75
49
3,520
260
650
4,000
12,000

-------
                                                        TABLE v-se


                                                         PLANT  U



                                                     TREATED WASTEWATER
CO
-p»
o
Pol 1 ntant
CONVENTIONAL
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
NON-CONVENTIONAL
149. chemical oxygen
demand (COD)
156. Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)


GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Stream Sample
Code Type Source Day 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
*
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-3
U-8
U-9
U-10
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
5
4,000
1,340
938,000
3.8
1,369
490
2,750
11
4,860
1,210
880,000
2.8
470
228
7,200

Day 2

Day 3

Average
(mg/1) (continued)
25
46,700
1,150
11
6,050
498
18
2,940
981
3.3
470
265
4,490
3,120
1,250
139
4,110
392
108
1,700
4,070
5.6
244
129
1,510
17,900
1,250
938,000
51
3,840
460
2,750
46
3,170
2,090
880,000
3.9
395
207
7,200

-------
TABLE V-58
PLANT U
TREATED WASTEWATER
__ 	 	 	 	 	
Stream Sample
Pollutant,. Code Type
157. phenols (total; by
4-AAP method) U-3 1
U-8 1
U-9 1
U-10 4
GROSS CONCENTRATIONS
Source Day 1
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
0.010
0.043
0.054
2.7

Day 2 Day 3
(mg/1) (continued)
0.021 0.020
0.135 0.081
0.070 0.017

Average
0.017
0.086
0.047
2.7
           Streams not analyzed for pH.
CO

-------
                              SECTION VI
                  SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION

In Section  V,   pollutant  parameters  to  be  examined  for  possible
regulation  were  presented  with  data from plant sampling visits and
subsequent chemical analyses.   Pollutants that were not detected above
analytically quantifiable levels in any of the wastewater samples will
be  eliminated   from  further  consideration.    The   72   pollutants
eliminated  from further consideration for these reasons are listed  in
Table VI-1.   Refer to Section V for a  discussion  of  the  analytical
quantification  limits.

Later  in  Section  VI,   the remaining priority, non-conventional  and
conventional pollutants  are  evaluated  in  order  to  identify  the
parameters  to   be  given  further  consideration  in  regulating  the
aluminum  forming  subcategories.   Every  pollutant  detected   above
analytically quantifiable  levels  in  this  category is discussed  in
detail.   The priority pollutant parameters are discussed in  numerical
order,   followed  by non-conventional pollutants and then conventional
pollutant pollutant parameters, each in alphabetical order.

Finally,  the pollutant   parameters  selected  for  consideration  for
specific  regulation  and  those dropped from further consideration  in
each waste stream are set forth.  The rationale for that selection   is
also presented.

DESCRIPTION OF  POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

The  following   discussion addresses the pollutant parameters detected
above analytically quantifiable  levels  in  any  sample  of  aluminum
forming   wastewater.   The description of each pollutant is designed  to
provide  the following  information:   the  source  of  the  pollutant;
whether   it  is  a  naturally  occuring  element,  processed metal,  or
manufactured compound;  general physical properties and the form of the
pollutant;  toxic effects of the pollutant in humans and other animals;
and behavior of the pollutant in POTWs at concentrations that might  be
expected from industrial discharges.

Acenaphthene(l).    Acenaphthene  (1,2-dihydroacenaphthylene,  or  1,8-
ethylene-naphthalene) is a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) with
molecular weight of 154  and a formula of C12H10.
                                 343

-------
The  structure is Acenaphthene occurs in coal tar produced during high
temperature coking of coal.   It has been detected in  cigarette  smoke
and gasoline, exhaust condensates.

The  pure  compound  is  a white crystalline solid at room temperature
with a melting range of 95 to 97°C and a boiling range of 278  to  280
°C.   Its  vapor pressure at room temperature is less than 0.02 mm Hg.
Acenaphthene is slightly soluble in water (100 mg/1),  but  even  more
soluble  in organic solvents such as ethanol, toluene, and chloroform.
Acenaphthene can be oxidized by oxygen or ozone  in  the  presence  of
certain catalysts.  It is stable under laboratory conditions.

Acenaphthene is used as a dye intermediate, in the manufacture of some
plastics, and as an insecticide and fungicide.

So  little  research  has  been  performed  on  acenaphthene  that its
mammalian and human health effects are virtually unknown.   The  water
quality  criterion  of 0.02 mg/1 is recommended to prevent the adverse
effects on humans due to the organoleptic properties  of  acenaphthene
in water.

No  detailed  study  of  acenaphthene  behavior  in POTW is available.
However, it has been demonstrated that none of  the  organic  priority
pollutants  studied  so far can be broken down by biological treatment
processes as readily as fatty acids, carbohydrates, or proteins.  Many
of the  priority  pollutants  have  been  investigated,  at  least  in
laboratory scale studies, at concentrations higher than those expected
to  be  contained by most municipal wastewaters.  General observations
relating  molecular  structure  to  ease  of  degradation  have   been
developed for all of the organic priority pollutants.

The conclusion reached by study of the limited data is that biological
treatment  produces  little  or  no  degradation  of acenaphthene.  No
evidence is available for drawing conclusions about its possible toxic
or inhibitory effect on POTW operation.

Its water solubility would allow acenaphthene present in the  influent
to  pass  through a POTW into the effluent.  The hydrocarbon character
of this compound makes it  sufficiently  hydrophobia  that  adsorption
onto  suspended  solids  and  retention  in  the  sludge may also be  a
significant route for removal of acenaphthene from the POTW.

Acenaphthene has been demonstrated to  affect  the  growth  of  plants
through  improper  nuclear  division and polypoidal chromosome number.
However, it is not expected that land  application  of  sewage  sludge
containing  acenaphthene  at  the  low  concentrations which are to be
expected in a POTW sludge would  result  in  any  adverse  effects  on
animals ingesting plants grown in such soil.
                                  344

-------
Benzene  (4).    Benzene  (C«H«) is a clear, colorless, liquid obtained
mainly from petroleum feedstocks by several different processes.   Some
is recovered from light oil obtained from  coal  carbonization  gases.
It  boils at 80C and has a vapor pressure of 100 mm Hg at 26°C    It  is
slightly soluble in water  (1.8  g/1  at  25°C)  and  it  disolves  in
hydrocarbon solvents.  Annual U.S. production is three to four million
tons.

Most  of  the benzene used in the U.S. .goes into chemical manufacture.
About  half of that is converted to ethylbenzene which is used to   make
styrene.  Some benzene is used in motor fuels.

Benzene  is  harmful  to  human health according to numerous published
studies.  Most studies  relate  effects  of  inhaled  benzene  vapors.
These   effects  include  nausea,  loss  of  muscle  coordination,  and
excitement, followed by depression and coma.   Death  is  usually  the
result   of  respiratory  or  cardiac  failure.   Two  specific  blood
disorders are related  to  benzene  exposure.    One  of  these,  acute
myelogenous  leukemia,  represents  a  carcinogenic effect of benzene.
However, most human exposure data is based on exposure in occupational
settings and benzene carcinogenisis is not  considered  to  be  firmly
established.

Oral   administration   of  benzene  to  laboratory  animals  produced
leukopenia,  a  reduction  in  number  of  leukocytes  in  the  blood.
Subcutaneous   injection   of   benzene-oil   solutions  has  produced
suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence of benzene carcinogenisis.

Benzene demonstrated teratogenic effects in  laboratory  animals,  and
mutagenic effects in humans and other animals.

For maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic
effects  of  exposure  to  benzene  through  ingestion  of  water  and
contaminated aquatic organisms, the  ambient  water  concentration   is
zero.    Concentrations  of  benzene  estimated to result in additional
lifetime cancer risk at levels of 10~7, 10-«7   and  10~s  are  0.00015
mg/1,  0.0015 mg/1,  and 0.015 mg/1, respectively.

Some  studies   have been reported regarding the behavior of benzene  in
POTW.   Biochemical  oxidation of benzene under  laboratory  conditions,
at concentrations of 3 to 10 mg/1, produced 24, 27, 24,  and 29 percent
degradation   in   5,   10,   15,  and  20  days,  respectively,  using
unacclimated seed cultures in fresh water.   Degradation of 58, 67, 76,
and 80 percent was  produced in the same time periods using  acclimated
seed  cultures.    Other  studies  produced  similar results.  Based  on
these  data and general conclusions  relating  molecular  structure   to
biochemical  oxidation,   it  is  expected that  biological treatment  in
POTW will remove  benzene  readily  from  the  water.   Other  reports
indicate  that  most  benzene entering a POTW is removed to the sludge
and that influent concentrations of 1 g/1  inhibit  sludge  digestion.
                                 345

-------
There  is  no  information  about possible effects of benzene on crops
grown in soils amended with sludge containing benzene.

1,1,l-Trichloroethane(ll).  1,1,1-Trichloroethane is one  of  the  two
possible  trichlorethanes.   It  is  manufactured by hydrochlorinating
vinyl chloride to 1,1-dichloroethane which is then chlorinated to  the
desired   product.    1,1,1-Trichloroethane   is   a  liquid  at  room
temperature with a vapor pressure of 96 mm Hg at 20°C  and  a  boiling
point  of  74°C.   Its  formula is CC1,CH?.  It is slightly soluble  in
water {0.48 g/1) and  is  very  soluble  in  organic  solvents.   U.S.
annual production is greater than one-third of a million tons.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane  is used as an industrial solvent and degreasing
agent.

Most  human  toxicity  data  for  1,1,1-trichloroethane   relates    to
inhalation and dermal exposure routes.  Limited data are available for
determining toxicity of ingested 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and those data
are  all  for the compound itself not solutions in water.  No data are
available regarding its toxicity to fish and aquatic  organisms.   For
the  protection  of  human  health from the toxic properties of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane ingested through the consumption of  water  and  fish,
the  ambient  water criterion is 15.7 mg/1.  The criterion is based  on
bioassy for possible carcinogenicity.

No  detailed  study  of  1,1,1-trichloroethane  behavior  in  POTW   is
available.  However, it has been demonstrated that none of the organic
priority  pollutants  of  this  type  can be broken down by biological
treatment processes as  readily  as  fatty  acids,  carbohydrates,   or
proteins.

Biochemical  oxidation  of many of the organic priority pollutants has
been  investigated,  at  least  in  laboratory   scale   studies,    at
concentrations  higher than commonly expected in municipal wastewater.
General  observations  relating  molecular  structure   to   ease    of
degradation  have  been  developed  for  all of these pollutants.  The
conclusion reached by study of the limited  data  is  that  biological
treatment   produces  a  moderate  degree  of  degradation  of  1,1,1-
trichloroethane.  No evidence is  available  for  drawing  conclusions
about  its  possible  toxic  or  inhibitory  effect on POTW operation.
However, for degradation to occur  a  fairly  constant  input  of  the
compound would be necessary.

Its water solubility would allow 1,1,1-trichloroethane, present in the
influent  and  not  biodegradable,  to  pass  through  a POTW into the
effluent.  One factor  which  has  received  some  attention,  but   no
detailed  study,  is  the volatilization of the lower molecular weight
organics from POTW.  If 1,1,1-trichloroethane is not  biodegraded,   it
will volatilize during aeration processes  in the POTW.
                                 346

-------
 1,1-Di chloroethane(13).   1,1-Dichloroethane,  also  called ethylidene
 dichloride and ethylidene chloride  is a colorless liquid  manufactured
 by  reacting  hydrogen  chloride  with vinyl chloride  in  1,1-dichloro-
 ethane solution  in   the  presence   of  a  catalyst.    However,   it   is
 reportedly   not   manufactured   commercially   in    the U.S.   1,1-
 dichloroethane boils at 57°C and has a vapor pressure  of  182 mm  Hg   at
 20°C.   It  is  slightly  soluble   in water  (5.5 g/1 at 20°C) and very
 soluble in organic solvents.

 1,1-Dichloroethane   is  used  as  an  extractant  for   heat-sensitive
 substances and as a  solvent for rubber and silicone grease.

 1,1-Dichloroethane   is less toxic than its isomer (1,2-dichloroethane)
 but its use as an anesthetic has been discontinued because  of   marked
 excitation  of the heart.  It causes central nervous system depression
 in humans.  There  are  insufficient  data  to  derive water  quality
 criteria for 1,1-dichloroethane.

 Data  on the behavior of 1,1-dichloroethane in POTW are not available.
 Many of the organic priority pollutants  have  been  investigated,   at
 least in laboratory scale studies,  at concentrations higher than those
 expected  to  be  contained  by  most  municipal wastewaters.  General
 observations have been developed relating molecular structure to ease
 of  degradation  for  all  of  the  organic  priority  pollutants.  The
 conclusion reached by study of the  limted  data  is   that  biological
 treatment  produces  only  a moderate removal of 1,1-dichloroethane  in
 POTW by degradation.

 The high vapor pressure of 1,1-dichloroethane is expected to result  in
 volatilization of some of the compound from aerobic processes in POTW.
 Its water solubility will result in  some  of  the  1,1-dichloroethane
 which enters the POTW leaving in the effluent from the POTW.

 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol    (21).      2,4,6-Trichlorophenol   (C1,C6H2OH,
 abbreviated here to 2,4,6 TCP) is a  colorless  crystalline  solid   at
 room  temperature.   It  is  prepared  by  the  direct chlorination  of
phenol.  2,4,6-TCP melts at 68°C and is slightly soluble  in water (0.8
 gm/1 at  25°C).   This  phenol  does  not  produce  a  color  with   4-
aminoantipyrene, therefore does not contribute to the  non-conventional
pollutant parameter  "Total Phenols."  No data were found  on production
volumes.

 2,4,6-TCP   is  used  as  a  fungicide,  bactericide,  glue  and wood
preservative,  and for antimildew treatment.  It is also used  for  the
manufacture of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol and pentachlorophenol.

No data were found on human toxicity effects of 2,4,6-TCP.  Reports  of
studies  with  laboratory  animals  indicate  that  2,4,6-TCP produced
convulsions when injected  interperitoneally.   Body   temperature  was
elevated   also.    The  compound  also  produced  inhibition  of  ATP
                                347

-------
production in isolated rat liver mitochondria, increased mutation rate
in one strain of bacteria, and produced a genetic change in rats.   No
studies   on   teratogenicity  were  found.   Results  of  a  test  of
carcinoginicity were inconclusive.

For  the  prevention  of  adverse  effects  due  to  the  organoleptic
properties  of  2,4,6-trichlorophenol  in  water,  the  water  quality
criterion is 0.100 mg/1.

Although no data were found regarding the  behavior  of  2,4,6-TCP  in
POTW,  studies  of the biochemical oxidation of the compound have been
made in  a  laboratory  scale  at  concentrations  higher  than  those
normally  expected in municipal wastewaters.  Biochemical oxidation of
2,4,6-TCP at 100 mg/1 produced 23 percent degradation using a  phenol-
adapted  acclimated  seed culture.  Based on these results, biological
treatment in a POTW is  expected  to  produce  a  moderate  degree  of
degradation.   Another  study indicates that 2,4,6-TCP may be produced
in  POTW  by  chlorination  of  phenol  during   normal   chlorination
treatment.

Chloroform(23).    Chloroform   is  a  colorless  liquid  manufactured
commercially  by  chlorination  of  methane.    Careful   control   of
conditions maximizes chloroform production, but other products must be
separated.   Chloroform  boils  at  61°C  and  has a vapor pressure of
200 mm Hg at 25°C.  It is slightly soluble in water (8.22 g/1 at 20°C)
and readily soluble in organic solvents.

Chloroform is used as  a  solvent  and  to  manufacture  refrigerents,
Pharmaceuticals,  plastics,  and anesthetics.  It is seldom used as an
anesthetic.

Toxic effects of chloroform on humans include central  nervous  system
depression,   gastrointestinal  irritation, liver and kidney damage and
possible cardiac sensitization to adrenalin.  Carcinogenicity has been
demonstrated for chloroform on laboratory animals.

For  the  maximum  protection  of  human  health  from  the  potential
carcinogenic  effects  of  exposure to chloroform through ingestion of
water  and  contaminated  aquatic   organisms,   the   ambient   water
concentration  is  zero.   Concentrations  of  chloroform estimated to
result in additional lifetime cancer risks  at  the  levels  of  10~7,
10-*,  and  10-*  were  0.000021  mg/1, 0.00021 mg/1, and 0.0021 mg/1,
respectively.

No data are available regarding the behavior of chloroform in a  POTW.
However, the biochemical oxidation of this compound was studied in one
laboratory scale study at concentrations higher than these expected to
be  contained by most municipal wastewaters.  After 5, 10, and 20 days
no degradation of chloroform was observed.  The conclusion reached  is
                                  348

-------
that biological treatment  produces little or no removal by degradation
of chloroform  in POTW.

The  high  vapor  pressure  of   chloroform  is  expected  to result  in
volatilization of the  compound  from aerobic treatment steps  in  POTW.
Remaining  chloroform   is   expected  to  pass  through  into  the  POTW
effluent.

2-Chlorophenol (24).   2-Chlorophenpl (C1C6H4OH),  also  called  ortho-
chlorophenol,  is a  colorless liquid at room temperature, manufactured
by direct chlorination of  phenol followed by distillation to  separate
it  from  the  other  principal product,  4-chlorophenol.  2-Chlorophenol
solidifies below 7°C and boils  at 176°C.   It is soluble in water (28.5
gm/1 at 20°C)  and soluble  in several types of organic solvents.    This
phenol  gives  a  strong   color  with  4-aninoantipyrene and therefore
contributes  to  the  non-conventional   pollutant   parameter   "Total
Phenols." Production statistics could not be found.  2-Chlorophenol  is
used  almost   exclusively  as a  chemical intermediate in the production
of pesticdes and dyes.  Production of some  phenolic  resins  uses  2-
chlorophenol.

Very few data  are available on  which to determine the toxic effects  of
2-chlorophenol on   humans.    The compound is more toxic to laboratory
Jtammals when administered  orally than when administered subcataneously
or  intravenously.   This affect  is attributed  to  the  fact  that  the
compound is  almost  completely in the un-ionized state at the low pH  of
the stomach  and hence  is more readily absorbed into the body.  Initial
symptoms  are  restlessness and  increased respiration rate, followed  by
notor weakness and   convulsions  induced  by  noise  or  touch.    Coma
follows.  Following lethal doses, kidney, liver, and intestinal damage
were   observed.     No  studies   were   found  which  addressed  the
teratogenicity or   mutagenicity  of  2-chlorophenol.   Studies  of  2-
chlorophenol   as    a   promoter  of  carcinogenic  activity  of  other
carcinogens  were conducted by dermal application.  Results do not  bear
a determinable relationship to  results of oral administration studies.

For the  prevention  of   adverse  effects  due  to  the  organoleptic
properties of  2-chlorophenol in water,  the criterion is 0.0003 mg/1.

Data  on  the  behavior of  2-chlorophenol in POTW are not available.
However,   laboratory   scale   studies   have   been   conducted    at
 concentrations higher than  those  expected to be found in municipal
wastewaters.   At 1   mg/1   of  2-chlorophenol,  an  acclimated  culture
 produced  100  percent degradation  by biochemical oxidation after  15
 days.  Another study showed 45, 70,  and  79  percent  degradation  by
 biochemical  oxidation after  5,  10,  and 20 days, respectively.  The
 conclusion reached  by  the  study of these  limited  data,  and  general
 observations  on  all   organic   priority pollutants relating molecular
 structure to ease of biochemical oxidation, is that 2-chlorophenol  is
 removed  to  a high  degree  or completely by biological treatment  in
                                  349

-------
POTW.  Undegraded 2-chlorophenol is expected to pass through POTW into
the effluent because of the water solubility.   Some 2-chlorophenol  is
also  expected  to  be  generated  by  chlorination treatments of POTW
effluents containing phenol.


1.2-trans-Dichloroethvlene(30).     1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene    (1,2-
trans-DCE)is  aclear,colorless liquid with the formula CHC1CHC1.
1,2-trans-DCE  is  produced  in  mixture  with   the   cis-isomer   by
chlorination  of  acetylene.   The cis-isomer has distinctly different
physical properties.  Industrially, the mixture is  used  rather  than
the  separate isomers.  Trans-l,2-DCE has a boiling point of 48°C, and
a vapor pressure of 324 nun Hg at 25PC.

The principal  use  of  1,2-dichloroethylene  (mixed  isomers)  is  to
produce  vinyl  chloride.   It is used as a lead scavenger in gasoline,
general solvent, and for synthesis of various other organic chemicals.
When it is used  as  a  solvent  1,2-trans-DCE  can  enter  wastewater
streams.

Although  1,2-trans-DCE  is  thought  to produce fatty degeneration of
mammalian liver, there are  insufficient data  on  which  to  base  any
ambient water criterion.

In  the  one  reported toxicity test of 1,2-trans-DCE on aquatic life,
the compound  appeared  to  be  about  half  as  toxic  as  the  other
dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) on the  priority pollutants list.

The  behavior of trans-l,2-DCE in  POTW has not been studied.  However,
its  high  vapor  pressure  is  expected  to  result  in  release   of
significant  percentage  of  this  compound  to  the atmosphere in any
treatment involving aeration.  Degradation of the dichloroethyl-enes in
air is reported to occur, with a half-life of 8 weeks.

Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority  pollutants  has
been investigated in laboratory scale studies at concentrations higher
than  would  normally  be  expected  in municipal wastewater.  General
observations relating molecular structure to ease of degradation  have
been developed for all of these pollutants.  The conclusion reached by
the  study  of the limited data is that biochemical oxidation produces
little or no degradation of 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene.   No  evidence
is  available  for  drawing  conclusions  about  the possible toxic or
inhibitory effect of 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene on POTW operation.   It
is expected  that  its   low  molecular  weight  and  degree  of  water
solubility  will result  in  1,2-trans-DCE passing through a POTW to the
effluent  if it is not degraded or  volatilized.  Very little 1,2-trans-
DCE  is  expected to be found in sludge from POTW.

2.4-Dichlorophenol   (31).    2,4-Dichlorophenol    (C12C6H3OH)   is    a
colorless,  crystalline  solid  manufactured by chlorination of phenol
                                350

-------
dissolved in liquid sulfur dioxide or by chlorination of molten phenol
(a lower yield method.  2,4-Dichlorophenol (2,4-dcp) melts at 45°C and
has a vapor pressure of less than 1 mm  Hg  at  25°C  (vapor  pressure
equals  1  mm  Hg at 53°C).  2,4-dcp is slightly soluble in water (4.6
g/1 at 20°C) and soluble in many organic solvents.  2,4-dcp reacts  to
give  a  strong color development with 4-aminoantipyrene and therefore
contributes  to  the  non-conventional  pollutant  designated   "Total
Phenols." Annual U.S. production of 2,4-dcp is about 25,000 tons.

The  principal use of 2,4-dcp is for manufacture of the herbicide 2,4-
dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and other pesticides.

Few data exist on which to base an evaluation of the toxic effects  of
2,4-dcp  on humans.  Symptoms exhibited by laboratory animals injected
with fatal doses of 2,4-dcp included loss of muscle tone  followed  by
rapid  then slow breathing.  In vitro experiments reveal inhibition of
oxidative phosphorylation  (a primary metabolic function) by 2,4-dcp in
rat liver mitochandria and rat brain  homogenates.   No  studies  were
found  which  addressed  the  teratogenicity,  or  the mutagenicity in
mammals, of 2,4-dcp.  The only studies of carcinogenic  properties  of
2,4-dcp  used dermal application which has no established relationship
to oral administration results.

For  the  prevention  of  adverse  effects  due   to  the  organoleptic
properties  of  2,4-dichlorophenol   in  water, the criterion  is  0.0005
mg/1.

Data on the behavior  of 2,4-dichlorophenol in POTW are not  available.
However,    laboratory   scale   studies   have    been    conducted  at
concentrations  higher than  those expected to  be  found   in   municipal
wastewaters.    Biochemical  oxidation  produced degradation of  70,  72,
and  72 percent  after  5, 10  and  20  days, respectively,   in  one   study.
In another  study using an  acclimated phenol-adapted  culture 30  percent
degradation   was   measured after   3.5  hours.  Based on these  limited
data, and on  general  observations  relating molecular structure  to ease
of biological oxidation,  it is  concluded  that 2,4-dcp  is removed to  a
high degree or  completely  by biological treatment in POTW.  Undegraded
 2,4-dcp   is  expected to pass  through  POTW to the effluent.   Some 2,4-
dcp  may  be  formed  in POTW   by   chlorination  of   effluents  containing
phenol.

 2,4-Dimethvlphenol(34).    2,4-Dimethylphenol   (2,4-DMP),   also   called
 2,4-xylenol,  is a  colorless, crystalline  solid   at  room  temperature
 (25°C),  but melts  at 27  to 28°C.   2,4-DMP is  slightly  soluble in water
 and,   as  a  weak   acid,   is soluble in alkaline  solutions.   Its vapor
 pressure is less than 1  mm Hg  at room temperature.

 2,4-DMP is a  natural product,  occurring  in  coal  and petroleum sources.
 It  is   used   commercially as  a  intermediate   for  manufacture   of
 pesticides,   dyestuffs,   plastics  and resins,  and surfactants.  It is
                                  351

-------
found in the water runoff from asphalt surfaces.  It can find its  way
into  the  wastewater  of  a  manufacturing  plant from any of several
adventitious sources.

Analytical procedures specific to  this  compound  are  used  for  its
identification  and quantification in wastewaters.  This compound does
not contribute to "Total Phenol" determined by  the  4-aminoantipyrene
method.

Three  methylphenol  isomers  (cresols) and six dimethylphenol isomers
(xylenols) generally occur together in  natural  products,  industrial
processes,  commercial products, and phenolic wastes.  Therefore, data
are not available for human exposure to 2,4-DMP alone.  In addition to
this, most mammalian tests for toxicity of  individual  dimethylphenol
isomers have been conducted with isomers other than 2,4-DMP.

In general, the mixtures of phenol, methylphenols, and dimethylphenols
contain   compounds  which  produced  acute  poisoning  in  laboratory
animals.  Symptoms were difficult breathing,  rapid  muscular  spasms,
disturbance of motor coordination, and assymetrical body position.  In
a  1977  National  Academy  of  Science publication the conclusion was
reached that, "In  view  of  the  relative  paucity  of  data  on  the
mutagenicity,  carcinogenicity,  teratogenicity,  and  long  term oral
toxicity of 2,4 dimethylphenol, estimates of the  effects  of  chronic
oral  exposure  at low levels cannot be made with any confidence."  No
ambient water quality criterion can be set at this time.  In order  to
protect  public  health, exposure to this compound should be minimized
as soon as possible.

Toxicity data for  fish  and  freshwater  aquatic  life  are  limited.
However,  in  reported studies of 2,4-dimethylphenol at concentrations
as high as 2 mg/1 no adverse effects were observed.

The behavior of 2,4-DMP in POTW has not been studied.  As a weak  acid
its  behavior  may  be somewhat dependent on the pH of the influent to
the POTW.  However, over the normal limited range of POTW  pH,  little
effect of pH would be expected.

Biological degradability of 2,4-DMP as determined in one study, showed
94.5  percent  removal  based  on chemical oxygen demand (COD).  Thus,
substantial removal is expected  for  this  compound.   Another  study
determined that persistence of 2,4-DMP in the environment is low, thus
any of the compound which remained in the sludge or passed through the
POTW  into  the  effluent  would be degraded within moderate length of
time (estimated as 2 months in the report).

2,4-Dinitrotoluene (35).  2,4-Dinitrotoluene [(N02)2C6H3CH3], a yellow
crystalline compound, is manufactured as  a  coproduct  with  the  2,6
isomer  by  nitration  of  nitrotoluene.   It  melts  at  71°C.   2,4-
Dinitrotoluene is insoluble in water (0.27 g/1 at 22°C) and soluble in
                                 352

-------
a number of organic solvents.    Production  data  for  the  2,4-isomer
alone  are not available.   The 2,4-and 2,6-isomers are manufactured in
an 80:20 or 65:35 ratio,  depending on the process used.   Annual  U.S.
commercial  production  is about 150 thousand tons of the two isomers.
Unspecified amounts are produced by the U.S.  government  and  further
nitrated to trinitrotoluene (TNT) for military use.

The  major  use  of  the  dinitrotoluene  mixture is for production of
toluene diisocyanate used to make polyurethanes.  Another  use  is  in
production of dyestuffs.

The   toxic  effect  of  2,4-dinitrotoluene  in  humans  is  primarily
methemoglobinemia (a blood condition hindering oxygen transport by the
blood).  Symptoms depend on  severity  of  the  disease,  but  include
cyanosis, dizziness, pain in joints, headache, and loss of appetite in
workers  inhaling  the compound.  Laboratory animals fed oral doses of
2,4-dinitrotoluene exhibited many of the same  symptoms.   Aside  from
the  effects  in  red blood cells, effects are observed in the nervous
system and testes.

Chronic exposure to 2,4-dinitrotoluene may produce  liver  damage  and
reversible  anemia.   No  data  were  found  on teratogenicity of this
compound.  Mutagenic data are limited and are regarded  as  confusing.
Data  resulting  from studies of carcinogenicity of 2,4-dinitrotoluene
point to a need for further testing for this property.

For  the  maximum  protection  of  human  health  from  the  potential
carcinogenic   effects   of  exposure  to  2,4-dinitrotoluene  through
ingestion of water and contaminated  aquatic  organisms,  the  ambient
water  concentration  is  zero.   Concentrations of 2,4-dinitrotoluene
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer risk at risk  levels
of  10-7,  10-«, and 10~* are 0.0074 mg/1, 0.074 mg/1, and 0.740 mg/1,
respectively.

Data on the behavior of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in POTW are not  available.
However,  biochemical  oxidation of 2,4-dinitrophenol was investigated
on  a  laboratory  scale.   At  100  mg/1  of   2,4-dinitrophenol,    a
concentration  considerably  higher  than  that  expected in municipal
wastewaters, biochemical oxidation by an acclimated, phenol -  adapted
seed culture produced 52 percent degradation in three hours.  Based on
this  limited  information and general observations relating molecular
structure  to  ease  of  degradation  for  all  the  organic  priority
pollutants, it was concluded that biological treatment in POTW removes
2,4-dinitrotoluene  to a high degree or completely.  No information is
available regarding possible  interference  by  2,4-dinitrotoluene  in
POTW  treatment  processes,  or  on the possible detrimental effect on
sludge used to amend soils in which food crops are grown.

Ethvlbenzene(38).   Ethylbenzene  is  a  colorless,  flammable  liquid
manufactured  commercially  from  benzene and ethylene.  Approximately
                              353

-------
half of the benzene used in the U.S.  goes into the manufacture of more
than three million tons of ethylbenzene annually.   Ethylbenzene  boils
at  136°C and has a vapor pressure of 7 mm Hg at 20°C.   It is slightly
soluble in water (0.14 g/1 at 15°C) and is  very  soluble  in  organic
solvents.

About  98  percent  of the ethylbenzene produced in the U.S.  goes into
the production of styrene, much of which is used in the  plastics  and
synthetic  rubber industries.  Ethylbenzene is a consitutent of xylene
mixtures  used  as  diluents  in  the  paint  industry,   agricultural
insecticide sprays, and gasoline blends.

Although  humans are exposed to ethylbenzene from a variety of sources
in the environment, little information on effects of  ethylbenzene  in
man or animals is available.  Inhalation can irritate eyes, affect the
respiratory   tract,   or   cause   vertigo.   In  laboratory  animals
ethylbenzene exhibited low toxicity.   There are no data  available  on
teratogenicity, mutagenicity, or carcinogenicity of ethylbenzene.

Criteria  are  based  on data derived from inhalation exposure limits.
For the protection of  human  health  from  the  toxic  properties  of
ethylbenzene   ingested   through   water   and  contaminated  aquatic
organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is 1.1 mg/1.

The behavior of ethylbenzene in POTW has not been studied  in  detail.
Laboratory  scale studies of the biochemical oxidation of ethylbenzene
at concentrations greater than would normally be  found  in  municipal
wastewaters  have demonstrated varying degrees of degradation.  In one
study with phenol-acclimated seed cultures 27 percent degradation  was
observed  in  a  half  day  at 250 mg/1 ethylbezene.  Another study at
unspecified conditions showed 32, 38, and 45 percent degradation after
5, 10, and 20 days, respectively.  Based on these results and  general
observations  relating molecular structure to ease of degradation, the
conclusion is  reached  that  biological  treatment  produces  only  a
moderate removal of ethylbenzene in POTW by degradation.

Other studies suggest that most of the ethylbenzene entering a POTW is
removed  from  the  aqueous  stream  to  the sludge.  The ethylbenzene
contained in the sludge removed from the POTW may volatilize.

Fluoranthene( 39).  Fluoranthene (1,2-benzacenaphthene) is one  of  the
compounds  called  polynuclear  aromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAH).  A pale
yellow solid at  room  temperature,  it  melts  at  111°C  and  has  a
negligible  vapor  pressure  at  25°C.   Water  solubility is low (0.2
mg/1).  Its molecular formula is C16H10.

Fluoranthene, along with many other PAH's,  is  found  throughout  the
environment.   It  is  produced by pyrolytic processing of organic raw
materials, such as coal and petroleum,  at  high  temperature  (coking
processes).   It  occurs naturally as a product of plant biosyntheses.
                                 354

-------
Cigarette smoke contains fluoranthene.  Although it  is not used  as  the
pure compound in industry, it has  been  found  at   relatively   higher
concentrations  (0.002  mg/1)  than  most  other PAH's in at  least  one
industrial effluent.  Furthermore, in a 1977 EPA survey  to   determine
levels of PAH in U.S. drinking water supplies, none  of the 110 samples
analyzed showed any PAH other than fluoranthene.

Experiments   with   laboratory  animals  indicate   that  fluoranthene
presents a  relatively  low  degree  of  toxic  potential  from   acute
exposure,  including  oral  administration.   Where  death occured,  no
information was reported concerning target organs or specific cause of
death.

There is no epidemiological evidence to prove that PAH in general,  and
fluoranthene, in particular, present in drinking water are related   to
the   development   of  cancer.   The  only  studies directed   toward
determining carcinogenicity of fluoranthene have been  skin   tests   on
laboratory animals.  Results of these tests show that fluoranthene  has
no  activity  as  a complete carcinogen (i.e., an agent which produces
cancer   when   applied   by   itself,   but   exhibits    significant
cocarcinogenicity   (i.e.,   in  combination  with   a  carcinogen,   it
increases the carcinogenic activity).

Based on the limited animal study data, and following  an  established
procedure,  the  ambient  water  quality  criterion  for fluoranthene,
alone, (not in combination with other PAH) is  determined  to be  200
mg/1 for the protection of human health from its toxic properties.

There are no data on the chronic effects of fluoranthene on freshwater
organisms.   One  saltwater  invertebrate  shows  chronic  toxicity at
concentrations below 0.016 mg/1.  For some freshwater fish species  the
concentrations producing acute toxicity are substantially higher,  but
data are very limited.

Results  of  studies  of  the behavior of fluoranthene in conventional
sewage treatment processes found  in POTW have been published. Removal
of fluoranthene during primary sedimentation was found to be  62  to   66
percent   (from  an  initial value of 0.00323 to 0.0435 mg/1 to a final
value of 0.00122 to 0.0146 mg/1), and the removal was 91 to 99 percent
 (final  values  of  0.00028  to   0.00026   mg/1)    after   biological
purification with activated sludge processes.

A review  was  made  of  data on biochemical oxidation of many  of  the
organic priority pollutants investigated in laboratory  scale studies
 at  concentrations higher than would normally be expected  in  municipal
[wastewater.  General observations relating molecular structure to ease
^ of degradation have been developed for all of these  pollutants.   The
^conclusion  reached  by  study  of the limited data  is that biological
r treatment produces little or no degradation of fluoranthene.  The same
 study however concludes that fluoranthene would be readily removed   by
                                355

-------
filtration  and  oil  water separation and other methods which rely on
water insolubility, or adsorption on other particulate surfaces.  This
latter conclusion is supported by the previously cited  study  showing
significant removal by primary sedimentation.

No studies were found to give data on either the possible interference
of   fluoranthene   with   POTW   operation,  or  the  persistence  of
fluoranthene in sludges on POTW effluent waters.  Several studies have
documented the ubiquity of fluoranthene  in  the  environment  and  it
cannot  be  readily  determined  if  this  results from persistance of
anthropogenic fluoranthene or the replacement of degraded fluoranthene
by natural processes such as biosynthesis in plants.

Methylene   Chloride(44.).     Methylene    chloride,    also    called
dichloromethane  (CH2C12),  is  a  colorless  liquid  manufactured  by
chlorination of methane or methyl chloride followed by separation from
the higher  chlorinated  methanes  formed  as  coproducts.   Methylene
chloride boils at 40°C, and has a vapor pressure of 362 mm Hg at 20°C.
It  is slightly soluble in water (20 g/1 at 20°C), and very soluble in
organic solvents.  U.S. annual production is about 250,000 tons.

Methylene  chloride  is  a  common   industrial   solvent   found   in
insecticides, metal cleaners, paint, and paint and varnish removers.

Methylene  chloride  is  not  generally  regarded  as  highly toxic to
humans.  Most human toxicity data  are  for  exposure  by  inhalation.
Inhaled   methylene   chloride   acts  as  a  central  nervous  system
depressant.  There is also evidence that  the  compound  causes  heart
failure when large amounts are inhaled.

Methylene chloride does produce mutation in tests for this effect.  In
addition  a  bioassay recognized for its extermely high sensitivity to
strong and weak carcinogens produced  results  which  were  marginally
significant.    Thus   potential  carcinogenic  effects  of  methylene
chloride are not confirmed or denied, but are under continuous  study.
Difficulty in conduting and interpreting the test results from the low
boiling  point  (40°C)  of  methylene  chloride  which  increases  the
difficulty  of  maintaining  the  compound  in  growth  media   during
incubation   at   37°C;  and  from  the  difficulty  of  removing  all
impurities, some of which might themselves be carcinogenic.

For the protection of  human  health  from  the  toxic  properties  of
methylene  chloride  ingested  through  water and contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is 0.002 mg/1.

The behavior of methylene chloride in POTW has not been studied in any
detail.  However, the  biochemical  oxidation  of  this  compound  was
studied  in  one  laboratory scale study at concentrations higher than
those expected to be contained by most municipal  wastewaters.   After
five  days  no  degradation  of  methylene chloride was observed.  The
                               356

-------
conclusion reached is that biological treatment produces litte  or  no
removal  by degradation of methylene chloride in POTW.

The high vapor pressure of methylene chloride is expected to result in
volatilization  of  the compound from aerobic treatment steps in POTW.
It  has   been  reported  that  methylene  chloride  inhibits  anerobic
processes  in POTW.   Methylene chloride that is not volatilized in the
POTW is  expected to pass through into the effluent.

Isophorone(54)»  Isophorone is an industrial chemical  produced  at   a
level of tens of millions of pounds annually in the U.S.  The chemical
name  for  isophorone  is 3,5,5-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-l-one and it is
also  known  as  trimethyl  cyclohexanone  and  isoacetophorone.   The
formula  is C«H5(CH3)30.  Normally, it is produced as the gamma isomer;
technical  grades  contain  about 3 percent of the beta isomer (3,5-5-
trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-l-one).  The pure gamma isomer is a water-white
liquid,  with vapor pressure less than 1 mm Hg at room temperature, and
a boiling point of 215.2°C.  It has a camphor- or peppermint-like odor
and yellows upon standing.  It is slightly soluble (12 mg/1) in  water
and dissolves in fats and oils.

Isophorone  is  synthesized from acetone and is used commercially as  a
solvent   or  cosolvent   for   finishes,   lacquers,   polyvinyl   and
nitrocellulose  resins,  pesticides, herbicides, fats, oils, and gums.
It is also used as a chemical feedstock.

Because  isophorone is an industrially used solvent, most toxicity data
are  for  inhalation  exposure.   Oral  administration  to  laboratory
animals   in two different studies revealed no acute or chronic effects
during 90 days, and no  hematological  or  pathological  abnormalities
were  reported.   Apparently,  no  studies  have been completed on the
carcinogenicity of isophorone.

Isophorone does undergo bioconcentration  in  the  lipids  of  aquatic
organisms and fish.

Based  on  subacute  data,  the  ambient  water  quality criterion for
isophorone ingested through consumption of water and fish  is  set  at
460 mg/1 for the protection of human health from its toxic properties.

Studies  of  the  effects  of  isophorone on fish and aquatic organisms
reveal relatively  low  toxicity,  compared  to  some  other  priority
pollutants.

The behavior of isophorone in  POTW has not been studied.  However, the
biochemical  oxidation  of many of the organic priority pollutants has
been investigated in laboratory-scale studies at concentrations  higher
than would normally be  expected  in  municipal  wastewater.   General
observations  relating molecular structure to ease of degradation  have
 been developed for all of these pollutants.  The conclusion reached  by
                                357

-------
the study of the limited data is that biochemical  treatment  in  POTW
produces   moderate   removal   of  isophorone.    This  conclusion  is
consistant  with  the   findings   of   an   experimental   study   of
microbiological  degradation  of  isophorone  which  showed  about  45
percent biooxidation in 15 to 20 days in domestic wastewater, but only
9 percent in salt water.  No data were found  on  the  persistance  of
isophorone in sewage sludge.

Naphthalene(55).   Naphthalene  is  an  aromatic  hydrocarbon with two
orthocondensed benzene rings and a molecular  formula  of  C10H8.   As
such  it  is  properly  classed  as a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH).  Pure naphthalene is a white crystalline solid melting at 80°C.
For a solid, it has a relatively high vapor pressure (0.05  mm  Hg  at
20°C),  and  moderate water solubility (19 mg/1 at 20°C).  Naphthalene
is the most abundant single component of coal tar.  Production is more
than a third of a million tons  annually  in  the  U.S.   About  three
fourths  of the production  is used as feedstock for phthalic anhydride
manufacture.  Most of the remaining production goes  into  manufacture
of  insecticide, dystuffs, pigments, and Pharmaceuticals.  Chlorinated
and partially hydrogenated  naphthalenes  are  used  in  some  solvent
mixtures.  Naphthalene  is also used as a moth repellent.

Napthalene,  ingested   by  humans,  has  reportedly caused vision loss
(cataracts), hemolytic  anemia, and occasionally, renal disease.  These
effects  of  naphthalene  ingestion  are  confirmed  by   studies   on
laboratory  animals.    No  carcinogenicity studies are available which
can be used to  demonstrate  carcinogenic  activity  for  naphthalene.
Naphthalene does bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms.

For  the  protection  of  human  health  from  the toxic properties of
naphthalene ingested through water and  through  contaminated  aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 143 mg/1.
                                    •
Only  a limited number of studies have been conducted to determine the
effects of naphthalene on aquatic  organisms.   The  data  from  those
studies show only moderate toxicity.

Naphthalene   has   been   detected   in  sewage  plant  effluents  at
concentrations up to 22 »»g/l in studies carried out by the  U.S.  EPA.
Influent  levels  were  not  reported.  The behavior of naphthalene in
POTW has not been studied.  However, recent  studies  have  determined
that  naphthalene  will  accumulate  in  sediments  at  100  times the
concentration  in  overlying  water.   These  results   suggest   that
naphthalene  will be readily removed by primary and secondary settling
in POTW, if it is not biologically degraded.

Biochemical oxidation of many of the organic priority  pollutants  has
been investigated in laboratory-scale studies at concentrations higher
than  would  normally   be  expected  in municipal wastewater.  General
observations relating molecular structure to ease of degradation  have
                                   358

-------
been  developed  for  all  of these pollutants.   The conclusion reached by
study of  the  limited data is that biological treatment produces a high
removal   by   degradation  of  naphthalene.   One recent study has shown
that  microorganisms  can  degrade  naphthalene,  first  to  a  dihydro
compound,  and ultimately to carbon dioxide and water.

Phenol(65).   Phenol,  also called hydroxybenzene and carbolic acid, is
a clear,  colorless, hygroscopic, deliquescent,  crystalline  solid  at
room  temperature.   Its  melting point is 43°C and its vapor pressure at
room   temperature  is 0.35 mm Hg.  It is v^ery soluble in water (67 gm/1
at 16°C)  and  can be dissolved in benzene,  oils, and petroleum  solids.
Its formula  is  C6H5OH.

Although  a small percent of the annual production of phenol is derived
from   coal  tar as  a naturally occuring product, most of the phenol is
synthesized.  Two of the methods are fusion of benzene sulfonate  with
sodium hydroxide,  and oxidation of cumene followed by cleavage with a
catalyst.  Annual production in the U.S. is in excess of  one  million
tons.  Phenol   is   generated  during  distillation  of  wood  and the
microbiological decomposition  of  organic  matter  in  the  mammalian
intestinal tract.

Phenol is  used as  a  disinfectant,  in  the manufacture of resins,
dyestuffs, and  Pharmaceuticals, and in the photo processing  industry.
In this discussion, phenol is the specific compound which is separated
by methylene  chloride extraction of an acidified sample and identified
and  quantified by  GC/MS.   Phenol  also  contributes  to the "Total
Phenols",  discussed  elsewhere  which  are  determined  by  the  4-AAP
colorinmetric method.

Phenol exhibits acute and sub-acute toxicity  in humans and laboratory
animals.   Acute oral doses of phenol in humans cause  sudden  collapse
and  unconsciousness  by  its  action  on  the central nervous system.
Death occurs  by respiratory arrest.  Sub-acute oral doses  in  mammals
are  rapidly  absorbed then quickly distributed to various organs, then
cleared from the body by urinary excretion and metabolism.  Long  term
exposure   by  drinking  phenol  contaminated  water  has  resulted  in
statistically significant increase  in  reported  cases  of  diarrhea,
nouth sores,  and   burning  of the mouth.  In laboratory animals long
term  oral administration at  low  levels  produced  slight  liver  and
kidney damage.   No  reports  were found regarding carcinogenicity of
phenol administered orally - all  carcinogenicity  studies  were  skin
tests.

For  the  protection of human health from phenol ingested through water
and through  contaminated aquatic organisms the concentration in  water
should not exceed  3.4 mg/1.

Fish   and  other  aquatic  organisms  demonstrated  a  wide  range  of
sensitivities to phenol concentration.  However, acute toxicity values
                                   359

-------
were at moderate  levels  when  compared  to  other  organic  priority
pollutants.

Data have been developed on the behavior of phenol in POTW.   Phenol is
biodegradable  by  biota  present  in  POTW.  The ability of a POTW to
treat phenol-bearing influents depends upon acclimation of  the  biota
and  the  constancy  of  the phenol concentration.  It appears that an
induction period is required to build up the population  of  organisms
which  can  degrade  phenol.  Too large a concentration will result in
upset or pass through in the PftTW,  but  the  specific  level  causing
upset  depends  on the immediate past history of phenol concentrations
in the influent.  Phenol levels as high as 200 mg/1 have been  treated
with  95 percent removal in POTW, but more or less continuous presence
of phenol is necessary to maintain the  population  of  microorganisms
that degrade phenol.

Phenol  which   is  not  degraded  is expected to pass thorugh the POTW
because of its  very high water solubility.   However,  in  POTW  where
chlorination  is  practiced  for  disinfection  of  the POTW effluent,
chlorination of phenol may occur.  The products of that  reaction  may
be priority pollutants.

The  EPA has developed data on influent and effluent concentrations of
total phenols in  a  study  of  103  POTW.   However,  the  analytical
procedure  was  the  4-AAP  method mentioned earlier and not the GC/MS
method specifically for phenol.  Discussion of  the  study,  which  of
course  includes  phenol,  is  presented  under  the pollutant heading
"Total Phenols."
    *
Phthalate Esters (66-71).  Phthalic acid,  or  1,2-benzenedicarboxylic
acid,  is one of three isomeric benzenedicarboxylic acids produced  by
the chemical industry.   The  other  two  isomeric  forms  are  called
isophthalic  and terephathalic acids.  The formula for all three acids
is C«H4(COOH)2.  Some  esters  of  phthalic  acid  are  designated  as
priority  pollutants.   They  will  be  discussed as a group here, and
specific properties of individual phthalate esters will  be  discussed
afterwards.

Phthalic acid esters are manufactured in the U.S. at an annual rate in
excess of  1 billion pounds.  They are used as plasticizers - primarily
in the production of polyvinyl chloride  (PVC) resins.  The most widely
used  phthalate plasticizer is bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate  (66) which
accounts for nearly one third of the phthalate esters produced.   This
particular  ester  is  commonly referred to as dioctyl phthalate  (DOP)
and should not  be confused with one of the  less  used  esters,  di-n-
octyl phthalate (69), which is also used as a plastcizer.   In addition
to these two isomeric dioctyl phthalates, four other esters, also used
primarily  as   plasticizers,  are  designated  as priority pollutants.
They are:  butyl benzyl  phthalate  (67),  di-n-butyl  phthalate   (68),
diethyl phthalate  (70), and dimethyl phthalate  (71).
                                  360

-------
Industrially,  phthalate   esters   are prepared from phthalic anhydride
and the  specific  alcohol   to  form  the  ester.    Some  evidence   is
available suggesting  that  phthalic acid esters also may be synthesized
6y certain plant and animal tissues.   The extent  to which this occurs
in nature is not known.

Phthalate esters used as plasticizers can be present in concentrations
up to 60 percent  of  the   total   weight  of  the   PVC  plastic.   The
plasticizer  is not linked by primary chemical bonds to the PVC resin.
Rather, it is  locked  into  the   structure  of  intermeshing  polymer
nolecuies.  and  held  by van der  Waals forces.  The result is that the
plasticizer is easily extracted.   Plasticizers are responsible for the
odor associated with  new plastic  toys or flexible  sheet that has  been
contained in a sealed package.

Although  the  phthalate   esters   are  not  soluble  or  are only very
slightly soluble in water,  they  do  migrate  into  aqueous  solutions
'placed  in  contact with the plastic.   Thus industrial facilities with
tank linings, wire and  cable coverings, tubing, and sheet flooring   of
PVC  are  expected  to  discharge  some  phthalate esters in their raw
waste.  In addition to  their use  as plasticizers,  phthalate esters are
used in lubricating oils   and  pesticide  carriers.   These  also  can
contribute to industrial discharge of phthalate esters.

From  the  accumulated  data on   acute toxicity in animals, phthalate
esters may be considered as having a rather  low  order  of  toxicity.
Human toxicity data are limited.   It is thought that the toxic effects
of the esters is most  likely due to one of the metabolic products,  in
particular the monoester.   Oral acute toxicity in  animals  is  greater
for  the  lower  molecular weight esters than for  the higher molecular
weight esters.

Orally administered phthalate esters generally produced enlargeing   of
liver  and  kidney,   and   atrophy  of  testes  in   laboratory animals.
Specific esters produced enlargement of heart and   brain,  spleenitis,
and degeneration of central nervous system tissue.

Subacute doses administered orally to laboratory animals produced some
decrease in growth and  degeneration of the testes.  Chronic studies  in
animals  showed  similar   effects to those found in acute and subacute
studies, but to a much  lower degree.  The same organs  were  enlarged,
But pathological changes were not usually detected.

A recent study of several phthalic esters produced suggestive but not
Jpnclusive evidence that dimethyl and diethyl phthalates have a cancer
inability.  Only four  of   the   six  priority  pollutant  esters  were
included  in  the  study.    Phthalate esters do biconcentrate in fish.
The factors, weighted for  relative consumption of  various aquatic  and
iarine  food  groups,  are  used   to  calculate  ambient water quality
                                   361

-------
criteria for four phthalate esters.  The values are  included  in  the
discussion of the specific esters.

Studies  of  toxicity of phthalate esters in freshwater and salt water
organisms are scarce.  A chronic toxicity test with  bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate  showed that significant reproductive impairment occurred at
3 mg/1 in the freshwater crustacean, Daphnia maqna.  In acute toxicity
studies, saltwater fish and organisms showed  sensitivity  differences
of up to eight-fold to butyl benzyl, diethyl, and dimethyl phthalates.
This suggests that each ester must be evaluated individually for toxic
effects.

The  behavior  of  phthalate  esters  in  POTW  has  not been studied.
However, the biochemical oxidation of many  of  the  organic  priority
pollutants  has  been  investigated  in  laboratory-scale  studies  at
concentrations higher than would normally  be  expected  in  municipal
wastewater.   Three  of  the  phthalate  esters  were studied.  Bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate was found to be degraded slightly or not at  all
and  its  removal  by biological treatment in a POTW is expected to be
slight or zero.   Di-n-butyl  phthalate  and  diethyl  phthalate  were
degraded  to  a  moderate  degree  and  their  removal  by  biological
treatment in a POTW is expected to occur to a moderate degree.   Using
these data and other observations relating molecular structure to ease
of biochemical degradation of other organic pollutants, the conclusion
was  reached  that butyl benzyl phthalate and dimethyl phthalate would
be removed in a POTW to a moderate degree by biological treatment.  On
the same basis, it was concluded that di-n-octyl  phthalate  would  be
removed to a slight degree or not at all.

No  information was found on possible interference with POTW operation
or the possible effects on sludge by the phthalate esters.  The  water
insoluble  phthalate  esters  - butylbenzyl and di-n-octyl phthalate -
would tend to remain  in  sludge,  whereas  the  other  four  priority
pollutant  phthalate  esters  with  water solubilities ranging from 50
mg/1 to 4.5 mg/1 would probably pass through into the POTW effluent.

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate(66).  In addition to the general  remarks
and  discussion  on  phthalate  esters,  specific information on bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate is provided.  Little  information  is  available
about the physical properties of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.  It is a
liquid  boiling  at  387°C  at  5mm Hg and is insoluble in water.  Its
formula is C6H4(COOCBH17)2.   This priority pollutant constitutes about
one third of the  phthalate  ester  production  in  the  U.S.   It  is
commonly  referred  to  as  dioctyl phthalate, or OOP, in the plastics
industry where it is  the  most  extensively  used  compound  for  the
plasticization   of   polyvinyl   chloride  (PVC).   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate has been approved by the FDA for use in plastics in  contact
with  food.   Therefore,   it  may  be  found  in wastewaters coming in
contact with discarded plastic food wrappers as well as the PVC  films
and  shapes  normally  found  in  industrial  plants.   This  priority
                                362

-------
pollutant  is  also a commonly used organic diffusion pump oil where  its
low vapor  pressure is an advantage.

For the  protection of human health from the toxic properties of bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate ingested through water and through  contaminated
aquatic  organisms,   the ambient water quality criterion is determined
to be  10 mg/1.

Although the  behavior of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in POTW  has  not
been  studied,   biochemical  oxidation  of this priority pollutant has
been studied  on  a laboratory scale at concentrations higher than would
normally be expected in municipal wastewater.   In fresh water  with   a
non-acclimated   seed  culture  no  biochemical  oxidation was observed
after  5, 10,  and 20 days.   However,  with an acclimated  seed  culture,
biological oxidation  occurred  to the extents of 13, 0, 6, and 23 of
theoretical after  5,   10,   15  and  20  days,  respectively.   Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)   phthalate concentrations were 3 to 10 mg/1.  Little or no
removal  of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate by biological treatment in POTW
is expected.

Butyl  benzyl  phthalate(67).  In addition to the  general  remarks  and
discussion on   phthalate esters, specific information on butyl benzyl
phthalate  is  provided.   No  information  was  found  on  the  physical
properties of this compound.

Butyl  benzyl phthalate is used as a plasticizer for PVC.  Two special
applications  differentiate it from  other  phthalate  esters.   It  is
approved  by  the U.S.  FDA for food contact in wrappers and containers;
and it is  the industry standard for plasticization of  vinyl  flooring
because  it provides stain resistance.

No  ambient   water  quality  criterion  is  proposed  for butyl benzyl
phthalate.

Butylbenzylphthalate removal in POTW by biological treatment in a POTW
is expected to occur to a moderate degree.

Di-n-butyl phthalate (68).   In addition to  the  general  remarks  and
discussion on   phthalate  esters,  specific information on di-n-butyl
phthalate  (DBP)  is provided.  DBP is a colorless, oily liquid, boiling
at 340°C.  Its water solubility at room temperature is reported to  be
0,4 g/1 and  4.5g/l  in two different chemistry handbooks.  The formula
for DBP, C«H4(COOC4H9)2 is the same as  for  its  isomer,  di-isobutyl
phthalate.    dcp  production  is  one  to  two  percent  of total U.S.
phthalate  ester  production.

Dibutyl  phthalate is used to a limited extent  as  a  plasticizer  for
poly vinyl chloride  {PVC).    It  is not approved for contact with food.
It is  used in liquid lipsticks and as a diluent for polysulfide dental
-Impression materials.   DBP is used as a plasticizer for nitrocellulose
                                   363

-------
in making gun powder,  and as a fuel in solid propellants for  rockets.
Further  uses  are   insecticides,  safety  glass  manufacture,  textile
lubricating agents,  printing inks, adhesives, paper coatings and resin
solvents.

For protection of human  health from the toxic  properties  of  dibutyl
phthalate  ingested   through  water  and  through contaminated aquatic
organisms, the ambient water quality criterion is determined to  be  5
mg/1.

Although  the  behavior  of  di-n-butyl phthalate in POTW has not been
studied, biochemical oxidation of this  priority  pollutant  has  been
studied  on  a   laboratory  scale  at concentrations higher than would
normally be expected in  municipal wastewater.   Biochemical  oxidation
of 35, 43, and 45 percent of theoretical oxidation were obtained after
5,  10,  and  20 days, respectively, using sewage microorganisms as an
unacclimated seed culture.
Biological   treatment  in   POTW
phthalate to a  moderate degree.
is  expected   to  remove   di-n-butyl
Di-n-octyl  phthalate(69).    In  addition  to  the  general remarks and
discussion  on  phthalate  esters,  specific  information  on  di-n-octyl
phthalate   is   provided.   Di-n-octyl  phthalate is not to be confused
with   the   isomeric  bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate  which  is  commonly
referred  to  in the plastics industry as DOP.  Di-n-octyl phthalate is
a  liquid which boils at  220°C at 5 mm Hg.  It is insoluble  in  water.
Its  molecular formula is C«H4(COOCBH,7)2.  Its production constitutes
about  one percent of all phthalate ester production in the U.S.

Industrially,  di-n-octyl phthalate is  used  to  plasticize  polyvinyl
chloride  (PVC) resins.

No  ambient   water  quality criterion  is  proposed  for  di-n-octyl
phthalate.
Biological  treatment  in POTW is expected
removal of  di-n-octyl phthalate.
         to  lead   to   little  or   no
Diethyl  phthalate   (70).   In  addition  to
discussion  on  phthalate  esters,  specific
phthalate   is  provided.   Diethyl  phthalate,
liquid boiling at 296°C, and is insoluble  in
formula   is   C«H4(COOC2H5)2.    Production
constitutes about  1.5 percent of phthalate
U.S.
             the   general remarks  and
             information  on  diethyl
              or  DEP,  is a colorless
             water.    Its  molecular
             of   diethyl  phthalate
           ester  production   in   the
Diethyl  phthalate  is  approved for use in plastic food containers by
the U.S. FDA.  In addition to its use  as  a  polyvinylchloride  (PVC)
plasticizer,  DEP  is  used  to  plasticize  cellulose nitrate for gun
                                364

-------
powder, to dilute polysulfide dental impression materials, and  as  an
accelerator  for  dying  triacetate  fibers.   An additional use which
would contribute to its wide distribution in the environment is as  an
approved special denaturant for ethyl alcohol.  The alcohol-containing
products  for which DEP is an approved denaturant include a wide range
of personal care items such as bath preparations, bay  rum,  colognes,
hair  preparations,  face  and hand creams, perfumes and toilet soaps.
Additionally,  this  denaturant  is  approved  for  use  in  biocides,
cleaning  solutions, disinfectants, insecticides, fungicides, and room
deodorants which have ethyl alcohol as part of the formulation.  It is
expected, therefore, that people and buildings would have some surface
loading of this priority pollutant which would find its way  into  raw
wastewaters.

For  the  protection  of  human  health  from  the toxic properties of
diethyl phthalate ingested  through  water  and  through  contaminated
aquatic  organisms, the ambient water quality criterion  is determined
to be 60 mg/1.

Although the  behavior  of  diethylphthalate  in  POTW  has  not  been
studied,  biochemical  oxidation  of  this priority pollutant has been
studied on a laboratory scale  at  concentrations  higher  than  would
normally  be  expected in municipal wastewater.  Biochemical oxidation
of 79, 84, and 89 percent of theoretical was observed after 5, 5,  and
20  days,  respectively.   Biological treatment in POTW is expected to
lead to a moderate degree of removal of diethylphthalate.


Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons(72-84).   The  polynuclear  aromatic
hydrocarbons  (PAH)  selected as priority pollutants are a group of 13
compounds  consisting  of  substituted  and  unsubstituted  polycyclic
aromatic  rings.  The general class of PAH  includes heterocyclics, but
none of those were selected as priority pollutants.  PAH are formed as
the result of incomplete combustion when organic compounds are  burned
with  insufficient  oxygen.   PAH  are  found  in coke oven emissions,
vehicular emissions, and volatile products of  oil  and  gas  burning.
The  compounds  chosen  as  priority  pollutants are listed with their
structural formula and melting point (m.p.).   All  are  insoluble  in
water.

    72   Benzo(a)anthrancene (1,2-benzanthracene)         rQ>

                                m.p. 162°C

    73   Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)

                                m.p. 176°C

    74   3,4-Benzof1uoranthene
                                365

-------
                                m.p. 168°C
    75   Benzo(k)fluoranthene (11,12-benzofluoranthene)
                                m.p. 217°C
    76   Chrysene  (1,2-benzphenanthrene)
                                m.p. 255°C
    77   Acenaphthylene
              HOCH
                                m.p. 92°C
    78   Anthracene
                                              [OIOIO]
                                m.p. 216°C
    79   Benzo(ghi)perylene  (1,12-benzoperylene)
                                m.p. not reported
    80   Fluorene  (alpha-diphenylenemethane)
                                m.p. 116°C
    81   Phenanthrene                            ^Q
                                m.p. 101°C   (OTO
    82   Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene  (1,2,5,6-dibenzoanthracene)
                                m.p. 269°C

    83   Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene  (2,3-o-phenyleneperylene)
                                m.p. not available
    84   Pyrene
Some  of these priority pollutants have commercial or industrial uses.
Benzo(a)anthracene,     benzo(a)pyrene/     chrysene,      anthracene,
                                   366

-------
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,  and  pyrene  are  all  used  as antioxidants.
Chrysene,  acenaphthylene,  anthracene,  fluorene,  phenanthrene,   and
pyrene  are  all  used  for  synthesis  of  dyestuffs or other organic
chemicals.         3,4-Benzofluoranthrene,        benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(ghi)perylene,   and   indeno   (1,2,3-cd)pyrene  have   no  known
industrial  uses, according to  the  results  of  a  recent   literature
search.

Several   of  the PAH priority pollutants are found in smoked meats,  in
smoke flavoring mixtures, in vegetable oils, and in coffee.   They   are
found  in  soils  and sediments in river beds.  Consequently, they  are
also found  in many drinking water supplies.  The wide distribution   of
these pollutants  in  complex mixtures with the many other  PAHs which
have not been designated as priority pollutants results  in   exposures
by   humans   that  cannot  be  associated  with  specific   individual
compounds.

The screening  and  verification  analysis  procedures  used  for   the
organic   priority  pollutants  are  based  on gas chromatography (GC).
Three pairs of the PAH have identical  elution  times  on  the  column
specified in the protocol, which means that the parameters of the pair
are  not differentiated.   For  these  three pairs [anthracene (78)  -
phenanthrene (81); 3,4-benzofluoranthene (74)  -  benzo(k)fluoranthene
(75);  and   benzo(a)anthracene  (72)  -  chrysene  (76)]  results   are
obtained and reported as "either-or." Either both are present  in   the
combined   concentration   reported,   or   one   is  present  in   the
concentration reported.  When detections below reportabie  limits   are
recorded no  further  analysis  is  required.   For samples where  the
concentrations of coeluting pairs have a significant value,  additional
analyses are conducted, using different procedures  that  resolve   the
particular  pair.

There are   no  studies to document the possible carcinogenic risks  to
humans by direct ingestion.   Air pollution studies indicate  an  excess
of lung  cancer mortality among workers exposed to large amounts of  PAH
containing   materials such as coal gas,  tars, and coke-oven  emissions.
However,  no definite proof  exists  that  the  PAH  present   in  these
Materials are responsible for the cancers observed.

Animal  studies  have  demonstrated  the  toxicity  of PAH by oral  and
dermal administration.   The carcinogenicity of PAH has been  traced   to
formation  of PAH metabolites which, in turn, lead to tumor  formation.
Because  the levels of PAH which induce cancer  are  very  low,  little
work  has  been  done on other health hazards resulting from exposure.
It has been established in  animal  studies  that  tissue  damage   and
systemic toxicity  can  result  from exposure to non-carcinogenic  PAH
compounds.

Because   there  were  no  studies  available  regarding  chronic  oral
exposures  to  PAH  mixtures,   proposed  water  quality  criteria were
                                   367

-------
derived using data on exposure to a single compound.  Two studies were
selected, one involving benzo(a)pyrene  ingestion  and  one  involving
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ingestion.  Both are known animal carcinogens.

For  the  maximum  protection  of human health from the potential car-
cinogenic effects of exposure  to  polynuclear  aromatic  hydrocarbons
(PAH)  through  ingestion of water and contaminated aquatic organisms,
the ambient  water  concentration  is  zero.   Concentrations  of  PAH
estimated to result in additional risk of 1 in 100,000 were derived by
the  EPA  and the Agency is considering setting criteria at an interim
target  risk  level  in  the  range  of  10-5,  10~*,  or  10~7   with
corresponding   criteria  of  0.0000097  mg/1,  0.00000097  mg/1,  and
0.000000097 mg/1, respectively.

No standard toxicity  tests  have  been  reported  for  freshwater  or
saltwater organisms and any of the 13 PAH discussed here.

The  behavior   of  PAH  in  POTW has received only a limited amount of
study.   It  is reported that up to 90 percent of PAH  entering  a  POTW
will  be  retained  in  the  sludge  generated  by conventional sewage
treatment processes.  Some of the PAH  can  inhibit  bacterial  growth
when  they  are present  at  concentrations  as  low  as  0.018 mg/1.
Biological  treatment  in activated  sludge  units  has  been  shown  to
reduce   the concentration  of   phenanthrene  and  anthracene  to some
extent.   However, a study of biochemcial oxidation of  fluorene  on   a
laboratory  scale  showed no degradation after 5, 10, and 20 days.  On
the basis  of   that   study  and  studies  of  other  organic  priority
pollutants,  some  general  observations  were made relating molecular
structure to ease of  degradation.   Those  observations  lead  to  the
conclusion  that  the 13  PAH   selected  to  represent  that group as
priority pollutants will be removed only slightly or  not  at  all  by
biological   treatment   methods  in  POTW.   Based  on  their  water
insolubility and tendency to attach to sediment particles very  little
pass  through of PAH to POTW effluent is expected.

No  data are   available at this time to support any conclusions about
contamination of land by PAH on  which sewage sludge containing PAH   is
spread.

Tetrachloroethylene(86).   Tetrachloroethylene (CC12CC12), also called
perchloroethylene and PCE, is a  colorless nonflammable liquid produced
mainly  by two methods -  chlorination  and  pyrolysis  of  ethane  and
propane,    and   oxychlorination  of   dichloroethane.   U.S.  annual
production  exceeds 300,000 tons. PCE boils at 121°C and has  a  vapor
pressure of 19  mm Hg  at 20°C.  It is insoluble in water but soluble  in
organic solvents.

Approximately two-thirds of the  U.S. production of  PCE is used for dry
cleaning.   Textile   processing  and metal degreasing, in equal amounts
consume about one-quarter of the U.S. production.
                                368

-------
The principal toxic effect of PCE on humans  is central nervous  system
depression   when   the   compound  is   inhaled.   Headache,  fatigue,
sleepiness,  dizziness and sensations  of   intoxication  are  reported.
Severity   of   effects  increases  with   vapor  concentration.   High
integrated exposure (concentration times duration) produces kidney and
liver damage.  Very limited data on PCE  ingested by  laboratory animals
indicate liver damage occurs when PCE is administered by  that  route.
PCE tends to distribute to fat  in mammalian  bodies.

One  report  found  in the literature suggests, but  does not conclude,
that PCE is teratogenic.  PCE has been   demonstrated to  be  a  liver
carcinogen in B6C3-F1 mice.

For  the  maximum  protection   of  human  health   from  the  potential
carcinogenic  effects  of  exposure  to  tetrachloroethylene   through
ingestion  of  water  and  contaminated  aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration is zero.    Concentrations  of  tetrachloroethylene
estimated to result in additional lifetime cancer  risk levels of 10~7,
10-*,  and  10~5  are  0.000020 mg/1,   0.00020 mg/1, and 0.0020 mg/1,
respectively.

No data were found regarding the behavior  of PCE  in  POTW.  Many of the
organic priority  pollutants  have  been  investigated,  at  least   in
laboratory scale studies, at concentrations  higher than those expected
to  be  contained by most municipal wastewaters.   General observations
have  been  developed  relating molecular  structure   to   ease    of
degradation   for   all  of  the  organic  priority  pollutants.   The
conclusions  reached  by  the   study  of  the   limited  data   is  that
biological  treatment  produces a  moderate removal of PCE  in POTW  by
               No  information  was  found  to    indicate    that   PCE
             in  the  sludge,   but some  PCE  is  expected to be adsorbed
degradation.
accumulates
onto settling particles.   Some  PCE is expected to  be  volatilized   in
aerobic  treatment  processes   and little,  if  any,  is expected  to pass
through into the effluent  from  the POTW.

Polychlorinated  Biphenyls   (107-113).     Polychlorinated   biphenyls
(C,2H10nCln,H10-nCln  where   n   can  range   from  1 to 10),  designated
PCB's, are  chlorinated  derivatives  of  biphenyls.    The  commerical
products  are  complex  mixtures of chlorobiphenyls,  but are no longer
produced  in  the  U.S.    The    mixtures   produced   formerly  were
characterized  by the percentage chlorination.   Direct chlorination  of
biphenyl was used to produce  mixtures containing from 21 to  70  percent
chlorine.  Six of  these   mixtures  have  been  selected  as priority
pollutants:
 Priority Pollutant No.   Name
                              Percent
                              Chlorine
        107
        108
                       Arochlor 1242
                                1254
42
54
Distilation
Range (°C)

      325-366
      365-390
  Pour      25°C
Point (°C)  Solub

      -19
       10
                                  369

-------
        109                     1221  20.5-21.5    275-320         1
        110               "     1232  31.4-32.5    290-325       -35.5
        111               "     1248    48         340-375       -7
        112               "     1260    60         385-420        31
        113               "     1016    41         323-356

The  Arochlors  1221,  1232,  1016,  1242, and 1248 are colorless oily
liquids; 1254 is a viscous liquid; 1260 is  a  sticky  resin  at  room
temperature.   Total  annual  U.S.  production  of PCBs averaged about
20,000 tons in 1972-1974.

Prior to 1971, PCB's  were  used   in  several  applications  including
plasticizers,  heat  transfer  liquids,  hydraulic fluids, lubricants,
vacuum pump and compressor fluids; and capacitor and transformer oils.
After 1970, when PCB use was restricted to closed systems, the  latter
two uses were the only commercial  applications.

The  toxic  effects  of  PCBs ingested by humans have been reported to
range from acne-like skin eruptions and pigmentation of  the  skin  to
numbness   of   limbs,   hearing   and  vision  problems,  and  spasms.
Interpretation of results is complicated by the  fact  that  the  very
highly  toxic  polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) are found in many
commerical PCB  mixtures.   Photochemical  and  thermal  decomposition
appear  to  accelerate   the transformation of PCBs to PCDFs.  Thus the
specific effects of  PCBs may  be   masked  by  the  effects  of  PCDFs.
However,   if  PCDFs  are  frequently present to some extent in any PCB
mixture, then their  effects may be properly included in the effects of
PCB mixtures.

Studies of effects of PCBs in laboratory animals indicate  that  liver
and   kidney   damage,   large  weight  losses,  eye  discharges,  and
interference  with   some   metabolic   processes   occur   frequently.
Teratogenic   effects of PCBs in laboratory animals have been observed,
but are rare.  Growth retardations during gestation, and  reproductive
failure    are   more   common  effects  observed  in  studies  of  PCB
teratogencity.  Carcinogenic effects of  PCBs  have  been  studied  in
laboratory  animals  with  results interpreted as positive.  Specific
reference  has been made  to liver cancer in rats in the  discussion  of
water quality criterion  formulation.

For  the  maximum  protection  of  human  health  from  the  potential
carcinogenic effects of  exposure to PCBs through  ingestion  of  water
and  contaminated  aquatic  organisms, the ambient water concentration
should be  zero.   Concentrations  of  PCBs  estimated  to  result  in
additional lifetime  cancer risk at risk levels of 10~7, 10-', and 10~s
are   0.0000000026   mg/1,  0.000000026  mg/1,  and  0.00000026  mg/1,
respectively.

The behavior of PCBs in POTW has received limited  study.   Most  PCBs
will  be  removed  with sludge.  One study showed removals of 82 to 89
                                  370

-------
percent, depending on suspended solid removal.  The PCBs  adsorb  onto
suspended  sediments  and  other  particulates.    In  laboratory-scale
experiments with PCB 1221, 81 percent was removed .by degradation in an
activated  sludge  system  in  47  hours.   Biodegradation  can   form
polychlorinated dibenzofurans which are more toxic than PCBs (as noted
earlier).   PCBs  at  concentrations  of  0.1  to 1,000 mg/1 inhibit or
enhance bacterial growth rates, depending on the bacterial culture and
the percentage chlorine in the PCB.  Thus,  activated  sludge  may  be
inhibited  by  PCBs.   Based  on studies of bi©accumulation of PCBs in
food crops grown on soils amended with PCB-containing sludge, the U.S.
FDA has recommended a limit of 10 mg PCB/kg dry weight of sludge  used
for application to soils bearing food crops.

Arsenic(116).   Arsenic  (chemical symbol As), is  classified as a non-
metal or metalloid.  Elemental arsenic normally exists in  the  alpha-
crystalline  metallic form which is steel gray and brittle, and in the
beta form which is dark  gray  and  amorphous.   Arsenic  sublimes  at
615°C.   Arsenic is widely distributed throughout  the world in a large
number of minerals.  The most important commercial source  of  arsenic
is  as  a  by-product from treatment of copper, lead, cobalt, and gold
ores.  Arsenic is usually marketed as the  trioxide  (As203).   Annual
U.S. production of the trioxide approaches 40,000  tons.

The principal use of arsenic is in agricultural chemicals  (herbicides)
for  controlling  weeds  in  cotton  fields.   Arsenicals have various
applications in medicinal and veterinary use,  as   wood  preservatives,
and in semiconductors.

The  effects of arsenic in humans were known by the ancient Greeks and
Romans.    The   principal   toxic   effects   are    gastrointestinal
disturbances.  Breakdown of red blood cells occurs.  Symptoms of acute
poisoning  include  vomiting,  diarrhea,  abdominal  pain,  lassitude,
dizziness, and headache.  Longer exposure produced dry, falling  hair,
brittle,  loose  nails,  eczema;  and  exfoliation.   Arsenicals  also
exhibit  teratogenic  and   mutagenic   effects    in   humans.    Oral
administration  of  arsenic  compounds  has been associated clinically
with skin cancer for nearly a  hundred  years.   Since  1888  numerous
studies   have   linked  occupational  exposure  to,  and  therapeutic
administration  of  arsenic  compounds  to  increased   incidence   of
respiratory and skin cancer.

For  the  maximum  protection  of  human  health   from  the  potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to arsenic through ingestion of water
and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration is
zero.  Concentrations of arsenic estimated  to  result  in  additional
lifetime  cancer  risk  levels  of  10~7, 10-*, and 10~5 are 0.0000002
mg/1, 0.000002 mg/1, and 0.00002 mg/1, respectively.

A few studies have been made regarding  the  behavior  of  arsenic  in
POTW,   One  EPA  survey  of  9  POTW reported influent concentrations
                                371

-------
ranging from 0.0005  to  0.693 mg/1;  effluents  from  3  POTW  having
biological  treatment  contained  0.0004  -  0.01 mg/1;  2 POTW showed
arsenic removal efficiencies  of  50  and  71  percent  in  biological
treatment.   Inhibition  of  treatment processes by sodium arsenate is
reported to occur at 0.1 mg/1 in activated  sludge,  and  1.6 mg/1  in
anaerobic digestion processes.  In another study based on data from 60
POTW,  arsenic  in sludge ranged from 1.6 to 65.6 mg/kg and the median
value was 7.8 mg/kg.  Arsenic in sludge  spread  on  cropland  may  be
taken  up  by  plants  grown  on that land.  Edible paints can take up
arsenic, but normally their growth is inhibited before the paints  are
ready for harvest.

BervlliumdlB).   Beryllium is a dark gray metal of the alkaline earth
family.  It  is relatively rare, but because of its  unique  properties
finds  widespread  use as an alloying element especially for hardening
copper which  is used  in  springs, electrical contacts, and non-sparking
tools.  World production is reported to be in the range  of  250  tons
annually.   However,  much  more  reaches the environment as emissions
from coal burning operations.  Analysis of coal indicates  an  average
beryllium   content  of 3 ppm and 0.1 to 1.0 percent in coal ash or fly
ash.

The  principal  ores  are  beryl   (3BeO»Al2Oj«6Si02)  and  bertrandite
 [Be4Si2O7(OH)2].   Only  two industrial facilities produce beryllium in
the  U.S.    because   of   limited  demand  and  the  and  highly  toxic
character.    About  two-thirds  of  the  annual  production  goes into
alloys,  20  percent  into  heat sinks,  and  10  percent  into  beryllium
oxide  (BeO)  ceramic products.

Beryllium has a specific gravity of 1.846 making it the lightest metal
with  a  high melting   point  (1350C).  Beryllium alloys are corrosion
resistant,  but the metal corrodes in aqueous environment.  Most common
beryllium compounds are  soluble in  water,  at  least  to  the  extent
necessary to  produce  a toxic concentration of beryllium ions.

Most  data   on  toxicity of  beryllium is for inhalation of beryllium
oxide  dust.   Some   studies  on  orally  administered  beryllium   in
laboratory   animals   have  been reported.  Despite the large number of
studies  implicating beryllium as a carcinogen, there  is  no  recorded
instance  of   cancer  being produced by ingestion.  However, a recently
convened panel of  uninvolved  experts  concluded  that  epidemiologic
evidence is suggestive that beryllium is a carcinogen in man.

In   the aquatic environment beryllium is acutely toxic to fish at con-
centrations as low as 0.087 mg/1, and chronically toxic to an  aquatic
organism  at  0.003 mg/1.   Water  softness  has  a  large  effect  on
beryllium toxicity to fish.  In soft water,  beryllium  is  reportedly
100  times as  toxic as in hard water.
                               372

-------
For  the  maximum  protection  of  human  health  from  the  potential
carcinogenic effects of exposure to  beryllium  through  ingestion  of
water,  and   contaminated   aquatic  organisms.   The  ambient  water
concentration is  zero.   Concentrations  of  beryllium  estimated  to
result  in  additional  lifetime cancer risk  levels of 10~77 10-*, and
10-s  are  0.00000087  mg/1,  0..0000087  mg/1,  and   0.000087   mg/1,
respectively.

Information  on  the behavior of beryllium  in POTW is scarce.  Because
beryllium hydroxide is insoluble in  water,   most  beryllium  entering
POTW  will  probably  be  in the form of suspended solids.  As a result
most of  the  beryllium   will  settle  and  be  removed  with  sludge.
However,  beryllium  has  been shown to inhibit  several enzyme systems,
to interfere with DNA metabolism in liver,  and  to  induce  chromsomal
and  mitotic  abnormalities.   This interference in cellular processes
may extend to interfere   with  bioloigcal   treatment  processes.   The
concentration  and  effects  of  beryllium  in  sludge  which could be
applied to cropland has not been studied.

Cadmium(119).  Cadmium is a relatively rare metallic element  that  is
seldom  found  in  sufficient  quantities   in  a pure state to warrant
mining or extraction from the earth's surface.  It is found  in  trace
amounts  of  about  1  ppm  throughout the  earth's crust.  Cadmium is,
however, a valuable by-product of  zinc production.

Cadmium is used primarily as an electroplated metal, and is  found  as
an impurity  in the secondary refining of zinc,  lead, and copper.

Cadmium   is  an  extremely  dangerous  cumulative  toxicant,  causing
progressive  chronic poisoning in mammals,   fish,  and  probably  other
organisms.   The metal  is  not excreted.

Toxic effects of cadmium  on man have been reported from throughout the
world.   Cadmium  may  be a  factor   in the  development of such human
pathological  conditions  as  kidney   disease,   testicular   tumors,
hypertension,  arteriosclerosis, growth inhibition, chronic disease of
old age, and cancer.  Cadmium is normally ingested by  humans  through
food  and  water  as  well as by breathing  air  contaminated by cadmium
dust.  Cadmium is cumulative  in   the  liver,  kidney,  pancreas,  and
thyroid  of  humans  and  other  animals.   A  severe  bone and kidney
syndrome known as itai-itai disease has been  documented  in  Japan  as
caused  by   cadmium  ingestion  via  drinking  water  and contaminated
irrigation water.  Ingestion of as little as  0.6 mg/day  has  produced
the  disease.  Cadmium acts synergistically with other metals.  Copper
and zinc substantially increase its toxicity.

Cadmium is concentrated by marine  organisms,  particularly  molluscs,
which  accumulate cadmium in calcareous tissues and in the viscera.   A
concentration factor of 1000 for   cadmium   in  fish  muscle  has  been
reported,  as  have concentration  factors of  3000 in marine plants and
                                373

-------
up to 29,600 in certain marine animals.  The eggs and larvae  of  fish
are apparently more sensitive than adult fish to poisoning by cadmium,
and crustaceans appear to be more sensitive than fish eggs and larvae.

For  the  protection  of  human  health  from  the toxic properties of
cadmium  ingested  through  water  and  through  contaminated  aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.010 mg/1.

Cadmium  is  not destroyed when it is introduced into a POTW, and will
either pass through to the POTW effluent or be incorporated  into  the
POTW  sludge.   In  addition, it can interfere with the POTW treatment
process.

In a study of 189 POTW, 75 percent of the primary plants,  57  percent
of  the  trickling  filter  plants, 66 percent of the activated sludge
plants and 62 percent of the biological plants allowed over 90 percent
of the influent cadmium to pass thorugh to the POTW effluent.  Only   2
of  the  189  POTW allowed less than 20 percent pass-through, and none
less than  10  percent  pass-through.   POTW  effluent  concentrations
ranged  from  0.001  to 1.97 mg/1  (mean 0.028 mg/1, standard deviation
0.167 mg/1).

Cadmium not passed through the POTW will be  retained  in  the  sludge
where   it    is   likely   to  build  up  in  concentration.   Cadmium
contamination of sewage  sludge  limits  its  use  on  land  since   it
increases  the  level  of cadmium  in the soil.  Data show that cadmium
can be incorporated into crops, including vegetables and grains,  from
contaminated  soils.   Since  the  crops  themselves  show  no adverse
effects  from  soils  with  levels  up  to  100 mg/kg  cadmium,  these
contaminated  crops  could  have a significant impact on human health.
Two Federal agencies have already  recognized  the  potential  adverse
human  health effects posed by the use of sludge on cropland.  The FDA
recommends that sludge containing over 30 mg/kg of cadmium should  not
be  used  on  agricultural land.  Sewage sludge contains 3 to 300 mg/kg
(dry basis) of cadmium mean = 10 mg/kg; median - 16 mg/kg.   The  USDA
also  recommends  placing limits on the total cadmium from sludge that
may be applied to land.

Chromium(120).  Chromium is an elemental  metal  usually  found  as   a
chromite(FeO»Cr20,).  The metal  is normally produced by reducing the
oxide with aluminum.  A significant proportion of the chromium used  is
in the form of compounds such  as  sodium  dichromate   (Na2Cr04),  and
chromic acid  (Cr03) - both are hexavalent chromium compounds.

Chromium  is  found  as  an  alloying component of many steels and its
compounds  are  used   in  electroplating  baths,  and   as   corrosion
inhibitors for closed water  circulation systems.

The  two  chromium forms most frequently found in industry wastewaters
are hexavalent and trivalent chromium.   Hexavalent  chromium  is  the
                                374

-------
form  used  for  metal treatments.  Some of it is reduced to trivalent
chromium  as  part  of  the  process  reaction.   The  raw  wastewater
containing  both  valence  states  is  usually treated first to reduce
remaining hexavalent to trivalent chromium, and second to  precipitate
the  trivalent  form  as  the  hydroxide.   The hexavalent form is not
removed by lime treatment.

Chromium, in its various valence states, is hazardous to man.  It  can
produce  lung  tumors  when  inhaled, and  induces skin sensitizations.
Large doses of chromates have  corrosive   effects  on  the  intestinal
tract  and can cause inflammation of the kidneys.  Hexavalent chromium
is a known human carcinogen.  Levels of chromate  ions  that  show  no
effect  in  man  appear  to be so low as to prohibit determination, to
date.

The toxicity of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic  life  varies
widely with the species, temperature, pH,  valence of the chromium, and
synergistic  or  antagonistic  effects, especially the effect of water
hardness.  Studies have shown that trivalent chromium is more toxic to
fish of some types than is hexavalent chromium.   Hexavalent  chromium
retards  growth  of  one  fish  species  at  0.0002 mg/1.   Fish  food
organisms  and  other  lower  forms  of  aquatic  life  are  extremely
sensitive  to  chromium.   Therefore,  both  hexavalent  and trivalent
chromium must be considered harmful  to particular fish or organisms.

For the protection of  human  health  from the  toxic  properties  of
chromium  (except  hexavalent  chromium)   ingested  through  water and
contaminated  aquatic  organisms,  the   recommended   water   qualtiy
criterion is 0.050 mg/1.

For  the  maximum  protection  of  human   health  from   the  potential
carcinogenic  effects  of  exposure  to  hexavalent  chromium  through
ingestion  of  water  and  contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient
water concentration  is zero.

Chromium is not destroyed when treated by  POTW (although the oxidation
state may change), and will either pass through to the   POTW  effluent
or  be   incorporated  into the POTW  sludge.  Both oxidation states can
cause POTW treatment  inhibition and  can also limit the usefuleness  of
municipal sludge.

Influent  concentrations  of  chromium  to POTW  facilities have been
observed by EPA to range  from  0.005  to   14.0 mg/1,  with  a  median
concentration  of  0.1 mg/1.  The  efficiencies for removal of chromium
by the   activated  sludge  process   can  vary   greatly,  depending  on
chromium concentration  in the  influent, and other operating  conditions
at  the  POTW.  Chelation of chromium by organic matter and dissolution
due to the presence   of  carbonates  can   cause  deviations  from  the
predicted behavior in treatment systems.
                                   375

-------
The  systematic presence of chromium compounds will halt nitrification
in a POTW for short periods, and most of the chromium will be retained
in the sludge  solids.   Hexavalent  chromium  has  been  reported  to
severely  affect the nitrification process, but trivalent chromium has
litte  or  no  toxicity  to   activated   sludge,   except   at   high
concentrations.   The  presence  of  iron,  copper,  and  low  pH will
increase the toxicity of chromium in a POTW by releasing the  chromium
into solution to be ingested by microorganisms in the POTW.

The  amount  of  chromium  which  passes  through to the POTW effluent
depends on the type of treatment processes used by  the  POTW.   In  a
study of 240 POTW's 56 percent of the primary plants allowed more than
80  percent  pass  through  to POTW effluent.  More advanced treatment
results in less pass-through.   POTW  effluent  concentrations  ranged
from  0.003  to  3.2 mg/1  total  chromium   (mean  *  0.197,  standard
deviation = 0.48), and from  0.002  to  0.1 mg/1  hexavalent  chromium
(mean = 0.017, standard deviation « 0.020).

Chromium  not  passed through the POTW will be retained in the sludge,
where   it  is  likely  to   build   up    in   concentration.    Sludge
concentrations of total chromium of over  20,000 mg/kg (dry basis) have
been    observed.    Disposal   of   sludges   containing   very   high
concentrations of trivalent chromium can  potentially cause problems in
uncontrolled   landfills.    Incineration,   or   similar   destructive
oxidation processes can produce hexavalent chromium from lower valance
states.   Hexavalent chromium is potentially more toxic than trivalent
chromium.  In  cases where high rates of chrome sludge  application  on
land are used, distinct growth inhibition and plant tissue uptake have
been noted.

Pretreatment   of discharges substantially reduces the concentration of
chromium   in   sludge.   In  Buffalo,   New   York,   pretreatment   of
electroplating waste resulted in a decrease  in chromium concentrations
in  POTW  sludge  from  2,510  to  1,040  mg/kg.   A  similar reduction
occurred   in   Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,   POTW   where   the   chromium
concentration   in  sludge  decreased  from   11,000 to 2,700 mg/kg when
pretreatment was made a requirement.

Copper(121).   Copper  is a metallic element  that  sometimes  is  found
free,   as  the  native  metal,  and  is also found in minerals such as
cuprite (Cu2O), malechite  [CuC03«Cu(OH)2],  azurite  [2CuCO,»Cu(OH)2],
chalcopyrite  (CuFeS2), and bornite (Cu5FeS4).  Copper is obtained from
these ores by  smelting, leaching, and electrolysis.  It is used  in the
plating,  electrical,  plumbing,  and heating equipment industries, as
well as in insecticides and fungicides.

Traces  of copper are found  in all forms of plant and animal life,  and
the  metal is an essential trace element  for nutrition.  Copper  is not
considered to be a cumulative systemic poison  for  humans  as   it   is
readily   excreted   by  the  body,  but   it  can  cause  symptoms  of
                                  376

-------
gastroenteritis, with nausea and  intestinal  irritations, at relatively
low dosages.  The limiting factor  in domestic water supplies is taste.
To prevent this adverse organoleptic effect  of  copper  in  water,  a
criterion of 1 mg/1 has been established.

The  toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms varies significantly, not
only with the  species,  but   also with   the  physical  and  chemical
characteristics   of   the  water,  including  temperature,  hardness,
turbidity, and carbon dioxide  content.  In hard water, the toxicity of
copper salts may be reduced by the precipitation of  copper  carbonate
or other insoluble compounds.   The sulfates  of copper and zinc, and of
copper and calcium are synergistic in  their  toxic effect on fish.

Relatively  high  concentrations   of   copper may be tolerated by adult
fish for short periods of time; the critical effect of copper  appears
to  be  its higher toxicity to young or juvenile fish.  Concentrations
of 0.02 to 0.031 mg/1 have proved fatal to some common  fish  species.
In  general  the  salmonoids   are very sensitive and the sunfishes are
less sensitive to copper.

The  recommended  criterion  to  protect   saltwater  aquatic  life  is
0.00097 mg/1   as   a   24-hour   average,  and   0.018 mg/1  maximum
concentration.

Copper salts cause undesirable color reactions in  the  food  industry
and cause pitting when deposited  on some  other metals such as aluminum
and galvanized steel.

Irrigation  water containing more than minute quantities of copper can
be detrimental to certain crops.   Copper  appears in all soils, and its
concentration ranges from 10 to 80 ppm.   In  soils,  copper  occurs  in
association  with  hydrous  oxides of manganese and  iron, and also as
soluble and  insoluble  complexes with   organic  matter.   Copper  is
essential to the life of plants,  and the  normal range of concentration
in  plant tissue is from 5 to  20  ppm.  Copper concentrations in plants
normally do not build up to high  levels   when  toxicity  occurs.   For
example,  the concentrations of copper in snapbean leaves and pods was
less than 50 and 20 mg/kg, respectively,  under  conditions  of  severe
copper  toxicity.   Even  under conditions of copper  toxicity, most of
the excess copper accumulates  in  the roots;  very little  is  moved  to
the aerial part of the plant.

Copper  is  not destroyed when treated by a  POTW, and will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained  in the  POTW  sludge.   It
can  interfere  with  the  POTW  treatment processes  and can limit the
usefulness of municipal sludge.

The influent concentration of   copper  to POTW  facilities  has  been
observed  by  the  EPA  to range  from  0.01 to 1.97 mg/1, with a median
concentration of 0.12 mg/1.  The   copper   that  is  removed  from  the
                                 377

-------
influent  stream of a POTW is adsorbed on the sludge or appears in the
sludge as the hydroxide of the metal.  Bench scale pilot studies  have
shown  that  from about 25 percent to 75 percent of the copper passing
through the activated sludge process remains in solution in the  final
effluent.   Four-hour slug dosages of copper sulfate in concentrations
exceeding 50 mg/1 were reported to have severe effects on the  removal
efficiency  of  an  unacclimated  system, with the system returning to
normal in about 100 hours.  Slug dosages of  copper  in  the  form  of
copper  cyanide  were observed to have much more severe effects on the
activated sludge system, but the total system returned to normal in 24
hours.

In a recent study of 268 POTW, the median  pass-through  was  over  80
percent  for primary plants and 40 to 50 percent for trickling filter,
activated sludge, and  biological  treatment  plants.   POTW  effluent
concentrations  of  copper  ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1 (mean 0.126,
standard deviation 0.242).

Copper which does not pass through the POTW will be  retained  in  the
sludge  where   it  will  build  up  in concentration.  The presence of
excessive levels of copper in sludge may limit its  use  on  cropland.
Sewage sludge contains up to 16,000 mg/kg of copper, with 730 mg/kg as
the  mean  value.  These concentrations are significantly greater than
those normally  found in soil, which usually range from 18 to 80 mg/kg.
Experimental data indicate that  when  dried  sludge  is  spread  over
tillable  land,  the copper tends to remain in place down to the depth
of tillage, except for copper which is taken up by plants grown in the
soil.  Recent investigation has  shown  that  the  extractable  copper
content  of  sludge-treated soil decreased with time, which suggests a
reversion of copper to less soluble forms was occurring.

Cyanide(122).   Cyanides  are  among  the  most  toxic  of  pollutants
commonly  observed in industrial wastewaters.  Introduction of cyanide
into industrial processes  is  usually  by  dissolution  of  potassium
cyanide  (KCN)  or  sodium cyanide (NaCN) in process waters.  However,
hydrogen cyanide (HCN) formed when the above salts  are  dissolved  in
water, is probably the most acutely lethal compound.

The  relationship  of  pH  to  hydrogen  cyanide  formation  is  very
important.  As pH is lowered to below 7,  more than 99 percent  of  the
cyanide  is  present  as  HCN and less than 1 percent as cyanide ions.
Thus, at neutral pH, that of most living  organisms,  the  more  toxic
form of cyanide prevails.

Cyanide ions combine with numerous heavy metal ions to form complexes.
The complexes are in equilibrium with HCN.  Thus, the stability of the
metal-cyanide  complex  and the pH determine the concentration of HCN.
Stability of the metal-cyanide anion complexes is extremely  variable.
Those  formed  with  zinc,  copper,  and cadmium are not stable - they
rapidly dissociate,  with production of HCN, in near  neutral  or  acid
                              378

-------
waters.   Some  of the complexes are extremely stable.  Cobaltocyanide
is very resistant  to  acid  distillation   in  the  laboratory.   Iron
cyanide  complexes  are also stable, but undergo photodecomposition to
give HCN upon exposure to sunlight.    Synergistic  effects  have  been
demonstrated  for the metal cyanide complexes making zinc, copper, and
cadmiun, cyanides more toxic than  an   equal  concentration  of  sodium
cyanide.

The  toxic mechanism of cyanide  is essentially an inhibition of oxygen
metabolism,  i.e.,  rendering  the tissues  incapable  of  exchanging
oxygen.   The  cyanogen compounds  are  true noncummulative protoplasmic
poisons.  They arrest the  activity  of  all  forms  of  animal   life.
Cyanide  shows  a very specific  type of  toxic action.  It inhibits the
cytochrome oxidase system.  This system  is the one  which  facilitates
electron  transfer  from reduced metabolites to molecular oxygen.  The
human  body  can  convert  cyanide to  a   non-toxic  thiocyanate and
elminiate  it.   However,  if  the quantity of cyanide ingested is too
great at one time, the inhibition  of oxygen utilization  proves   fatal
before the detoxifying reaction  reduces  the cyanide concentration to  a
safe level.

Cyanides  are  more  toxic  to  fish   than to   lower forms of aquatic
organisms such as midge  larvae,  crustaceans, and mussels.  Toxicity to
fish is  a  function  of  chemical form  and   concentration,  and  is
influenced  by  the  rate  of  metabolism   (temperature), the  level of
dissolved  oxygen,  and  pH.    In   laboratory   studies   free   cyanide
concentrations  ranging  from  0.05 to  0.15 mg/1  have  been proven  to be
fatal to sensitive fish  species  including  trout, bluegill, and fathead
minnows.  Levels  above  0.2 mg/1   are  rapidly  fatal   to  most  fish
species.   Long  term  sublethal  concentrations  of  cyanide as low as
0.01 mg/1 have been shown to affect  the  ability  of   fish to   function
normally, e.g., reproduce, grow, and  swim.

For  the  protection  of  human   health   from   the  toxic properties of
cyanide  ingested  through  water   and  through  contaminated  aquatic
organisms,  the  ambient  water   quality criterion  is determined  to be
0.200 mg/1.

Persistance of cyanide  in water  is highly  variable   and   depends  upon
the  chemical  form  of   cyanide  in   the   water,  the concentration of
cyanide, and   the  nature   of   other   constituents.   Cyanide  may  be
destroyed   by  strong   oxidizing   agents   such as  permanganate and
chlorine.   Chlorine   is  commonly  used  to   oxidize strong  cyanide
solutions.   Carbon  dioxide  and nitrogen  are  the  products of  complete
oxidation.  But  if  the   reaction  is   not   complete,  the very   toxic
compound,  cyanogen   chloride,  may remain in  the  treatment system and
subsequently be released to the environment.   Partial chlorination may
occur  as   part  of   a   POTW  treatment,   or  during  the disinfection
treatment  of surface  water  for drinking  water  preparation.
                                   379

-------
Cyanides  can  interfere  with  treatment  processes  in POTW, or pass
through to ambient waters.  At low concentrations and with  acclimated
microflora,  cyanide  may be decomposed by microorganisms in anaerobic
and aerobic environments or waste treatment  systems.   However,  data
indicate  that  much  of  the cyanide introduced passes through to the
POTW effluent.  The mean pass-through of 14 biological plants  was  71
percent.   In  a  recent  study of 41 POTW the effluent concentrations
ranged   from    0.002    to    100 mg/1    (mean - 2.518,    standard
deviation = 15.6).   Cyanide  also  enhances  the  toxicity  of metals
commonly found in POTW effluents, including  the  priority  pollutants
cadmium, zinc, and copper.

Data  for  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  showed  a significant decline in
cyanide concentrations downstream from  the  POTW  after  pretreatment
regulations  were  put   in  force.  Concentrations fell from 0.66 mg/1
before, to 0.01 mg/1 after pretreatment was required.

Lead  (123).  Lead  is a soft, malleable ductile, blueish-gray, metallic
element, usually obtained from the mineral galena (lead sulfide, PbS),
anglesite  (lead sulfate, PbSO«), or cerussite (lead carbonate, PbCO3).
Because it is  usually   associated  with  minerals  of  zinc,  silver,
copper,  gold,  cadmium,  antimony,  and arsenic, special purification
methods are  frequently used before and after extraction of  the  metal
from  the ore concentrate by smelting.

Lead   is widely used for its corrosion resistance, sound and vibration
absorption,   low   melting  point  (solders),   and   relatively   high
imperviousness  to various  forms  of  radiation.   Small  amounts of
copper, antimony and other metals can be alloyed with lead to  achieve
greater  hardness, stiffness, or corrosion resistance than is afforded
by  the pure  metal.  Lead compounds are  used  in  glazes  and  paints.
About one  third of U.S.  lead consumption goes into storage batteries.
About half   of U.S. lead consumption is from secondary lead recovery.
U.S.  consumption of lead is in the range of one million tons annually.

Lead  ingested by humans  produces a variety of toxic effects  including
impaired   reproductive  ability,  disturbances  in  blood  chemistry,
neurological  disorders, kidney  damage,  and  adverse  cardiovascular
effects.   Exposure  to  lead in the diet results in permanent increase
in  lead levels in  the body.   Most  of  the  lead  entering  the  body
eventually   becomes localized in the bones where it accumulates.  Lead
is  a  carcinogen  or  cocarcinogen  in  some  species  of  experimental
animals.   Lead is teratogenic in experimental animals.  Mutangenicity
data  are not available for lead.

For the protection of human health from the toxic properties  of  lead
ingested  through  water  and through contaminated aquatic organisms the
ambient water criterion  is 0.050 mg/1.
                                 380

-------
Lead is not destroyed  in  POTW,  but  is  passed  through to  the  effluent
or  retained  in the POTW sludge;  it can  interfere with POTW treatment
processes and can  limit the  usefulness of POTW sludge for  application
to  agricultural croplands.   Threshold concentration for inhibition of
the activated sludge process is 0.1 mg/1, and  for  the  nitrification
process  is  0.5   mg/1.    In  a study  of  214  POTW, median pass through
values were over 80 percent  for primary plants and over 60 percent for
trickling filter,  activated  sludge,  and   biological  process  plants.
Lead  concentration  in   POTW  effluents  ranged from 0.003 to 1.8 mg/1
(means = 0.106 mg/1, standard deviation « 0.222).

Application of lead-containing sludge  to  cropland should not  lead  to
uptake  by  crops  under   most  conditions because  normally  lead is
strongly bound by  soil.   However,  under the unusual conditions of  low
pH  (less  than 5.5) and  low concentrations of labile phosphorus, lead
solubility is increased and  plants  can accumulate lead.

Mercury (124).  Mercury is an elemental metal rarely found  in  nature
as  the  free  metal.   Mercury is  unique among metals as it remains a
liquid down to about 39 degrees below  zero.   It is  relatively  inert
chemically  and is insoluable in water.   The  principal ore is cinnabar
(HflS).

Mercury is used  industrially  as   the metal  and  as  mercurous  and
mercuric  salts  and   compounds.    Mercury is used in several types of
batteries.  Mercury released to the aqueous environment is subject  to
biomethylation - conversion  to the  extremely  toxic methyl mercury.

Mercury  can  be   introduced  into  the  body through the skin and the
respiratory system as  the elemental vapor.  Mercuric salts are  highly
toxic  to  humans  and can   be absorbed through the gastrointestinal
tract.  Fatal doses can vary from  1 to 30 grams.  Chronic toxicity  of
methyl  mercury is evidenced primarily by neurological symptoms.  Some
mercuric salts cause death by kidney failure.

Mercuric salts are extremely toxic  to  fish and other  aquatic  life.
Mercuric  chloride is more  lethal than copper, hexavalent chromium,
zinc, nickel, and  lead towards fish and aquatic life.   In  the  food
cycle,  algae  containing mercury  up to 100 times the concentration in
the surrounding sea water are eaten by fish which further  concentrate
the  mercury.   Predators that eat   the fish in turn concentrate the
mercury even further.

For the protection of  human  health   from the toxic  properties  of
mercury  ingested  through  water   and through contaminated  aquatic
organisms the ambient  water  criterion  is  determined to be 0.0002 mg/1.

Mercury is not destroyed  when treated  by  a POTW, and will either  pass
through  to the POTW effluent or be incorporated into the POTW sludge.
                                 381

-------
At low concentrations it may reduce POTW removal efficiencies, and  at
high concentrations it may upset the POTW operation.

The  influent  concentrations of mercury to POTW have been observed by
the EPA to range from 0.0002 to 0.24 mg/1, with a median concentration
of 0.001 mg/1.  Mercury has been reported in the  literature  to  have
inhibiting  effects  upon an activated sludge POTW at levels as low as
0.1 mg/1.  At 5 mg/1 of mercury, losses of COD removal  efficiency  of
14  to 40 percent have been reported, while at 10 mg/1 loss of removal
of 59 percent has been reported.  Upset of an activated sludge POTW is
reported in the literature to  occur  near  200 mg/1.   The  anaerobic
digestion  process  is  much less affected by the presence of mercury,
with inhibitory effects being reported at 1365 mg/1.

In a study of 22 POTW having secondary treatment, the range of removal
of mercury from the influent to the POTW ranged from 4 to  99  percent
with  median  removal of 41 percent.  Thus significant pass through of
mercury may occur.

In sludges, mercury content may  be  high  if  industrial  sources  of
mercury  contamination are present.  Little is known about the form in
which mercury  occurs  in  sludge.   Mercury  may  undergo  biological
methylation   in  sediments,  but  no  methylation has been observed in
soils, mud, or sewage sludge.

The mercury content of soils not receiving additions  of  POTW  sewage
sludge   lie   in  the range from 0.01 to 0.5 mg/kg.   In soils receiving
POTW sludges  for protracted periods, the concentration of mercury  has
been observed to approach 1.0 mg/kg.  In the soil, mercury enters into
reactions  with  the  exchange  complex of clay and  organic fractions,
forming  both  ionic and covalent bonds.  Chemical  and  microbiological
degradation of mercurials can take place side by side in the soil, and
the products  -  ionic or molecular - are retained by  organic matter and
clay  or  may be volatilized if gaseous.  Because of the high affinity
between mercury and the  solid soil surfaces, mercury persists in  the
upper layer of soil.

Mercury  can  enter  plants  through the roots, it can readily move to
other parts of the plant, and it has been reported to cause injury  to
plants.    In   many   plants   mercury   concentrations   range  from
0.01 to  0.20 mg/kg, but when plants are supplied with high  levels  of
mercury,  these concentrations  can exceed 0.5 mg/kg.  Bioconcentration
occurs in animals ingesting mercury in food.

Nickel(125).  Nickel is seldom  found in nature as the  pure  elemental
metal.   It is a reltively plentiful element and is  widely distributed
throughout the earth's crust.   It occurs  in marine   organisms  and  is
found  in  the  oceans.   The   chief  commercial  ores  for nickel are
pentlandite f(Fe,Ni)9Sa], and a lateritic ore consisting  of  hydrated
nickel-iron-magnesium silicate.
                                 382

-------
Nickel has many and varied uses.  It is used in alloys and as the pure
metal.  Nickel salts are used for electroplating baths.

The  toxicity of nickel to man  is thought to be very low, and systemic
poisoning of human beings by nickel or nickel salts is almost unknown.
In non-human mammals nickel acts to inhibit insulin  release,  depress
growth,  and  reduce  cholesterol.   A high incidence of cancer of the
lung and nose has been reported in humans engaged in the  refining  of
nickel.

Nickel  salts  can  kill  fish  at  very low concentrations.  However,
nickel has been found to be less toxic to some fish than copper, zinc,
and iron.  Nickel is present in coastal and open ocean water  at  con-
centrations  in  the  range  of 0.0001 to 0.006 mg/1 although the most
common values are 0.002 - 0.003 mg/1.  Marine animals  contain  up  to
0.4 mg/1  and  marine  plants   contain  up  to  3 mg/1.  Higher nickel
concentrations have been reported to cause reduction in photosynthetic
activity of the giant kelp.  A  low concentration  was  found  to  kill
oyster eggs.

For  the  protection  of human  health based on the toxic properties of
nickel  ingested  through  water  and  through  contaminated   aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 0.133 mg/1.

Nickel  is  not destroyed when  treated in a POTW, but will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the  POTW  sludge.   It
can   interfere  with  POTW  treatment processes and can also limit the
usefulness of municipal sludge.

Nickel salts have caused inhibition of the  biochemical  oxidation  of
sewage   in   a  POTW.   In  a  pilot  plant,  slug  doses  of  nickel
significantly reduced normal treatment efficiencies for a  few  hours,
but   the  plant  acclimated  itself  somewhat  to  the slug dosage and
appeared to achieve normal treatment efficiencies within 40 hours.  It
has been reported that the anaerobic digestion  process  is  inhibited
only  by  high  concentrations  of nickel, while a low concentration of
nickel inhibits the nitrification process.

The influent concentration of   nickel  to  POTW  facilities  has  been
observed  by the EPA to range from 0.01 to 3.19 mg/1, with a median of
0.33  mg/1.  In a study of 190 POTW, nickel  pass-through  was  greater
than  90  percent  for 82 percent of the primary plants.  Median pass-
through for trickling filter, activated sludge, and biological process
plants was greater  than  80  percent.   POTW  effuent  concentrations
ranged    from    0.002    to    40 mg/1     (mean = 0.410,    standard
deviation = 3.279).

Nickel not passed through the   POTW  will  be  incorporated  into  the
sludge.   In  a  recent  two-year  study  of eight cities, four of the
cities had median nickel concentrations of  over  350 mg/kg,  and  two
                                  383

-------
were  over 1,000 mg/kg.  The maximum nickel concentration observed was
4,010 mg/kg.

Nickel is found in nearly all soils, plants, and waters.   Nickel  has
no  known essential function in plants.  In soils, nickel typically  is
found in the  range  from  10  to  100 mg/kg.   Various  environmental
exposures  to  nickel  appear to correlate with increased incidence  of
tumors in man.  For example, cancer in the maxillary antrum  of  snuff
users  may  result  from  using  plant  material grown on soil high  in
nickel.

Nickel toxicity may develop  in  plants  from  application  of  sewage
sludge  on  acid  soils.   Nickel has caused reduction of yields for a
variety of crops including oats, mustard, turnips,  and  cabbage.    In
one  study  nickel  decreased  the yields of oats significantly at 100
mg/kg.

Whether nickel exerts a toxic effect on plants depends on several soil
factors, the amount of nickel  applied,  and  the  contents  of  other
metals  in  the  sludge.   Unlike  copper  and  zinc,  which  are more
available from inorganic sources than from sludge,  nickel  uptake   by
plants  seems  to be promoted by the presence of the organic matter  in
sludge.  Soil treatments, such as  liming  reduce  the  solubility   of
nickel.  Toxicity of nickel to plants is enhanced in acidic soils.

Selenium(126).   Selenium  (chemical  symbol  Se)  is  a  non-metallic
element existing in several allotropic forms.   Gray  selenium,  which
has a metallic appearance, is the stable form at ordinary temperatures
and  melts at 220°C.  Selenium is a major component of 38 minerals and
a minor component of 37 others found in various parts  of  the  world.
Most  selenium is obtained as a by-product of precious metals recovery
from electrolytic copper refinery slimes.  U.S. annual  production   at
one time reached one million pounds.

Principal   uses   of   selenium  are  in  semi-conductors,  pigments,
decoloring of glass, zerography, and metallurgy.  It also is  used   to
produce  ruby glass used in signal lights.  Several selenium compounds
are important oxidizing agents in the synthesis of  organic  chemicals
and drug products.

While  results  of  some  studies  suggest  that  selenium  may  be  an
essential element in human nutrition, the toxic effects of selenium  in
humans are well established.  Lassitude, loss of  hair,  discoloration
and  loss  of  fingernails  are  symptoms of selenium poisoning.  In a
fatal case of ingestion of a larger dose of selenium acid,  peripheral
vascular  collapse,  pulumonary  edema,  and  coma occurred.  Selenium
produces mutagenic and  teratogenic  effects,  but  it  has  not  been
established as exhibiting carcinogenic activity.
                                384

-------
For  the  protection  of  human  health  from  the toxic properties of
selenium ingested  through  water  and  through  contaminated  aquatic
organisms, the ambient water criterion is determind to be 0.010 mg/1.

Very  few  data  are  available  regarding the behavior of selenium in
POTW.  One EPA survey of 103 POTW revealed one POTW  using  biological
treatment and haying selenium in the influent.  Influent concentration
was  0.0025 mg/1,  effluent  concentration  was  0.0016 mg/1  giving a
removal of 37 percent.  It is not  known  to  be  inhibitory  to  POTW
processes.   In another study, sludge from POTW in 16 cities was found
to contain from 1.8 to 8.7 mg/kg selenium, compared to 0.01 to 2 mg/kg
in untreated soil.  These concentrations of selenium in sludge present
a potential hazard for humans or other mammuals eating crops grown  on
soil treated with selenium containing sludge.


Zinc(129).   Zinc occurs abundantly in the earth's crust, concentrated
in ores.  It is readily refined into the pure,  stable,  silvery-white
metal.  In addition to its use in alloys, zinc is used as a protective
coating  on  steel.   It  is  applied by hot dipping (i.e. dipping the
steel in molten zinc) or by electroplating.

Zinc can have an adverse effect  on  man  and  animals  at  high  con-
centrations.   Zinc  at  concentrations  in excess of 5 mg/1 causes an
undesirable taste which persists through conventional treatment.   For
the prevention of adverse effects due to these organoleptic properties
of zinc,  5 mg/1 was adopted for the ambient water criterion.

Toxic  concentrations  of  zinc compounds cause adverse changes in the
morphology and physiology of fish.  Lethal concentrations in the range
of 0.1 mg/1 have been reported.  Acutely toxic  concentrations  induce
cellular  breakdown  of  the  gills,  and possibly the clogging of the
gills with mucous.  Chronically toxic concentrations of zinc compounds
cause general enfeeblement and widespread histological changes to many
organs, but  not  to  gills.   Abnormal  swimming  behavior  has  been
reported  at  0.04 mg/1.   Growth and maturation are retarded by zinc.
It has been observed that the effects of zinc poisoning may not become
apparent  immediately, so  that  fish  removed  from  zinc-contaminated
water may die as long as 48 hours after removal.

In  general,  salmonoids  are most sensitive to elemental zinc in soft
water; the rainbow trout is the most  sensitive  in  hard  waters.   A
complex relationship exists between zinc concentration, dissolved zinc
concentration,    pH,   temperature,   and   calcium   and   magnesium
concentration.  Prediction of  harmful  effects  has  been  less  than
reliable  and controlled studies have not been extensively documented.

The  major  concern  with  zinc compounds in marine waters is not with
acute lethal effects, but rather with the long-term sublethal  effects
of  the  metallic  compounds  and complexes.  Zinc accumulates in some
                                   385

-------
marine species, and marine animals contain zinc in the range of  6  to
1500 mg/kg.    From  the  point  of  view  of  acute  lethal  effects,
invertebrate marine animals seem to be  the  most  sensitive  organism
tested.

Toxicities  of zinc in nutrient solutions have been demonstrated for a
number of plants.  A variety of fresh water plants  tested  manifested
harmful  symptoms at concentrations of 10 mg/1.  Zinc sulfate has also
been  found  to  be  lethal  to  many  plants  and  it  could   impair
agricultural uses of the water.

Zinc  is  not  destroyed  when  treated  by POTW, but will either pass
through to the POTW effluent or be retained in the  POTW  sludge.   It
can  interfere with treatment processes in the POTW and can also limit
the usefuleness of municipal sludge.

In slug doses, and particularly in the presence of  copper,  dissolved
zinc  can  interfere  with  or seriously disrupt the operation of POTW
biological processes by reducing overall removal efficiencies, largely
as a result of the toxicity of  the  metal  to  biological  organisms.
However,  zinc  solids  in  the  form of hydroxides or sulfides do not
appear to interfere with biological treatment processes, on the  basis
of available data.  Such solids accumulate in the sludge.

The  influent  concentrations  of  zinc  to  POTW  facilities has been
observed by the EPA to range from 0.017 to 3.91 mg/1,  with  a  median
concentration  of  0.33 mg/1.   Primary  treatment is not efficient in
removing zinc; however, the  microbial  floe  of  secondary  treatment
readily adsorbs zinc.

In  a  study of 258 POTW, the median pass-through values were 70 to 88
percent for primary plants, 50 to 60 percent for trickling filter  and
biological  process  plants,  and  30-40 percent for activated process
plants.  POTW effluent concentrations of zinc  ranged  from  0.003  to
3.6 mg/1 (mean = 0.330, standard deviation = 0.464).

The  zinc  which  does  not  pass  through the POTW is retained in the
sludge.  The presence of zinc in sludge may limit its use on cropland.
Sewage  sludge  contains  72  to  over  30,000 mg/kg  of  zinc,   with
3,366 mg/kg as the mean value.  These concentrations are significantly
greater  than  those  normally  found  in  soil, which range from 0 to
195 mg/kg, with 94 mg/kg being a common level.  Therefore, application
of sewage sludge to soil will generally increase the concentration  of
zinc  in  the  soil.  Zinc can be toxic to plants, depending upon soil
pH.   Lettuce,  tomatoes,  turnips,  mustard,  kale,  and  beets   are
especially sensitive to zinc contamination.

Oil  and  Grease.   Oil and grease are taken together as one pollutant
parameter.   This is a conventional polluant and some of its components
are:
                                   386

-------
1.   Light Hydrocarbons - These include light fuels such  as  gasoline,
    kerosene,  and  jet  fuel,  and  miscellaneous  solvents  used for
    industrial processing,  degreasing,  or  cleaning  purposes.   The
    presence of these light hydrocarbons may make the removal of other
    heavier oil wastes more difficult.

2.   Heavy Hydrocarbons, Fuels, and Tars  -  These  include  the  crude
    oils,  diesel  oils, 16 fuel oil, residual oils, slop oils, and in
    some cases, asphalt and road tar.

3.   Lubricants and Cutting Fluids -  These  generally  fall  into  two
    classes:  non-emulsifiable  oils  such  as  lubricating  oils  and
    greases and emulsifiable oils such as water soluble oils,  rolling
    oils,  cutting oils, and drawing compounds.  Emulsifiable oils may
    contain fat soap or various other additives.

4.   Vegetable and Animal Fats and Oils  -  These  originate  primarily
    from processing of foods and natural products.

These compounds can settle or float and may exist as solids or liquids
depending  upon factors such as method of use, production process, and
temperature of wastewater.

Oil and grease even in small quantities cause  troublesome  taste  and
odor  problems.   Scum  lines  from these agents are produced on water
treatment basin walls and other containers.  Fish and water  fowl  are
adversely affected by oils in their habitat.  Oil emulsions may adhere
to  the  gills  of  fish causing suffocation, and the flesh of fish is
tainted when microorganisms that were exposed to waste oil are  eaten.
Deposition  of  oil  in  the  bottom  sediments  of water can serve to
inhibit normal benthic growth.   Oil  and  grease  exhibit  an  oxygen
demand.

Many  of  the  organic  priority  pollutants will be found distributed
between  the  oily  phase  and  the  aqueous   phase   in   industrial
wastewaters.   The  presence  of  phenols,  PCBs, PAHs, and almost any
other organic pollutant in the oil and grease make characterization of
this  parameter  almost   impossible.   However,  all  of  these  other
organics add to the objectionable nature of the oil and grease.

Levels  of  oil  and  grease which are toxic to aquatic organisms vary
greatly,  depending  on   the  type  and  the  species  susceptibility.
However,  it has been reported that crude oil  in concentrations as low
as 0.3 mg/1  is extremely  toxic  to  fresh-water  fish.   It  has  been
recommended  that public  water supply sources be essentially free from
oil and grease.

Oil and grease in quantities of 100  1/sq km show up as a sheen  on  the
surface  of  a  body of water.  The presence of oil slicks decreases the
aesthetic value of a waterway.
                                  387

-------
Oil and grease is compatible with a POTW activated sludge  process  in
limited  quantity.   However,  slug loadings or high concentrations of
oil and grease interfere with  biological  treatment  processes.   The
oils  coat  surfaces and solid particles, preventing access of oxygen,
and sealing in some microorganisms.  Land  spreading  of  POTW  sludge
containing  oil  and  grease uncontaminated by toxic pollutants is not
expected to affect crops grown on the treated land, or animals  eating
those crops.

pH.   Although  not a specific pollutant, pH is related to the acidity
or alkalinity of a wastewater stream.  It is not, however,  a  measure
of  either.   The  term  pH  is  used  to  describe  the  hydrogen ion
concentration (or activity) present in a given solution.   Values  for
pH  range  from 0 to 14, and these numbers are the negative logarithms
of the hydrogen ion concentrations.  A pH of 7  indicates  neutrality.
Solutions with a pH above 7 are alkaline, while those solutions with a
pH  below  7  are  acidic.   The  relationship  of  pH and acidity and
alkalinity is not necessarily linear  or  direct.   Knowledge  of  the
water  pH  is  useful  in determining necessary measures for corroison
control, sanitation, and disinfection.  Its value is also necessary in
the treatment  of  industrial  wastewaters  to  determine  amounts  of
chemcials   required   to  remove  pollutants  and  to  measure  their
effectiveness.  Removal of pollutants, especially dissolved solids  is
affected by the pH of the wastewater.

Waters  with  a  pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works structures,
distribution  lines, and household plumbing fixtures and can  thus  add
constituents  to  drinking  water such as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium,
and lead.  The hydrogen ion concentration can affect the taste of  the
water  and at a low pH, water tastes sour.  The bactericidal effect of
chlorine is weakened as the pH increases, and it  is  advantageous  to
keep  the  pH  close  to  7.0.   This is significant for providng safe
drinking water.

Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or kill
aquatic life outright.  Even moderate changes from acceptable criteria
limits of pH are deleterious to some species.  The  relative  toxicity
to aquatic life of many materials is increased by changes in the water
pH.   For  example,  metallocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-
fold in toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units.

Because of the universal nature of pH and its effect on water  quality
and  treatment,  it  is  selected  as  a  pollutant parameter for many
industry categories.   A  neutral  pH  range  (approximately  6-9)  is
generally  desired  because  either  extreme  beyond  this range has a
deleterious effect on receiving waters  or  the  pollutant  nature  of
other wastewater constituents.

Pretreatment   for  regulation  of  pH   is  covered  by  the  "General
Pretreatment Regulations for Exisiting and New Sources of  Pollution,"
                                 388

-------
40 CFR 403.5.    This   section  prohibits   the   discharge   to  a  POTW of
"pollutants which  will cause corrosive  structural  damage  to   the  POTW
but   in  no case discharges with pH  lower  than  5.0 unless the works is
specially designed to accommodate  such  discharges."

Total Suspended  Sol ids(TSS).  Suspended solids   include   both  organic
and   inorganic materials.  The inorganic compounds include sand, silt,
and clay.  The organic fraction includes   such   materials as  grease,
oil,  tar,  and  animal and vegetable waste products.  These solids may
settle out rapidly, and bottom deposits are often  a  mixture  of  both
organic  and  inorganic solids.  Solids  may be suspended in water for a
time  and then settle  to the bed of the  stream or lake.    These  solids
discharged  with  man's wastes  may be   inert,   slowly  biodegradable
materials, or rapidly decomposable substances.   While  in suspension,
suspended  solids   increase  the   turbidity of  the water,  reduce light
penetration, and impair the photosynthetic activity of aquatic  plants.

Supended solids  in water interfere with many industrial processes  and
cause  foaming   in boilers and incrustastions  on  equipment exposed to
such  water, especially as the temperature  rises.   They are undesirable
in process water used in the manufacture   of  steel,  in   the  textile
industry, in laundries, in dyeing, and  in  cooling  systems.

Solids  in suspension are aesthetically displeasing.  When they settle
to form sludge deposits on the stream or   lake   bed,  they are often
damaging to the  life  in the water.   Solids, when transformed  to sludge
deposit, may do  a  variety of damaging things, including blanketing the
stream  or lake  bed and thereby destroying the  living spaces  for those
benthic organisms  that would otherwise  occupy the  habitat.  When of an
organic nature,  solids use a portion or all of   the  dissolved  oxygen
available  in the  area.  Organic materials also serve as  a food source
for sludgeworms  and associated organisms.

Disregarding any toxic effect attributable to substances   leached  out
by  water,  suspended  solids  may   kill fish and  shellfish by  causing
abrasive injuries  and by clogging the gills and respiratory  passages
of  various  aquatic  fauna.  Indirectly, suspended solids are inimical
to aquatic life  because they screen  out light,  and they   promote  and
maintain   the   development  of  noxious  conditions  through  oxygen
depletion.  This  results  in  the   killing  of  fish  and fish  food
organisms.  Suspended solids also reduce the recreational  value of the
water.

Total  suspended solids is a traditional pollutant which  is compatible
with a well-run  POTW.   This pollutant   with  the   exception   of  those
components  which  are described elsewhere  in this  section, e.g., heavy
metal components,  does not interfere with  the   operation   of  a POTW.
However,  since  a considerable  portion  of the  innocuous TSS may be
inseparably bound  to  the constituents which  do  interfere with  POTW
operation,  or   produce  unusable  sludge, or subsequently dissolve to
                                389

-------
produce unacceptable POTW effluent, TSS  may  be  considered  a  toxic
waste hazard.

SELECTION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

The  following  method  was  used  to  select  priority pollutants for
consideration   in  establishing   effluent   limitations.    The   raw
wastewater  data  as  presented  in  Section  V  was  considered  on a
subcategory by  subcategory basis.  For a  subcategory,  each  priority
pollutant  was  either selected for consideration or eliminated for one
of the reasons  described below.  Table VI-l summarizes the status thus
given to every  priority pollutant for  each  subcategory.   Individual
lists of pollutant assignments for each subcategory are also presented
below.   Some   pollutants in the phthalate group are not eliminated by
this procedures; however, the group  as  a  whole  has  been  excluded
because  phthalates  are ubiquitous in modern society since the use of
plastic pipe that contains phthalates is common.

Reasons for Elimination from Consideration

Not  Detected   (ND).   Pollutants  never  reported  as  detected  were
eliminated from consideration.

Below  Analytically  Quantifiable  Detection  (LD).   Pollutants never
reported above  a level considered to be the minimum concentration  for
reliable    quantification   were   eliminated   from   consideration.
Pesticides can  be  analytically  quantified  at  concentrations  above
0,005  mg/1,  and  other organic priority pollutants above 0.010 mg/1.
The analytical  quantification levels associated with toxic metals  are
as  follows:  0.100 mg/1 for antimony; 0.010 mg/1 for arsenic; 1 x 107
fibers/1 for asbestos;  0.010  mg/1  for  beryllium;  0.002  mg/1  for
cadmium;  0.005 mg/1  for chromium; 0.009 mg/1 for copper; 0.100 mg/1
for cyanide; 0.02 mg/1 for lead; 0.0001 mg/1 for mercury;  0.005  mg/1
for nickel; 0.010 mg/1 for selenium; 0.020 mg/1 for silver; 0.100 mg/1
for thallium; and 0.050 mg/1 for zinc.

Data  Quality   (SC).  Occassional high results from methylene chloride
analyses were eliminated from consideration because volatile  organics
(VOA) blanks indicated the possibility of sample contamination (SO.

Not  Analyzed   for   (NA).   The  organic  priority  pollutant 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin   (TCDD)  was  not  analyzed  for   because
authentic  samples  were not available to the subcontractor analytical
laboratory.   No  asbestos  samples  were  analyzed  for  in   certain
subcategories,    and   therefore   asbestos   was   eliminated   from
consideration for those subcategories.

Below Treatabilitv  (LS, LP, LF).  Organic priority pollutants  present
in  concentrations  below  the   treatability  levels   (LS) reported by
Strier were eliminated.  Priority pollutant metals were eliminated  if
                                 390

-------
they  were  below  the  concentrations  achievable  by either lime and
settle (LP), or lime, settle, and filtration  (LF) treatments.

Water Quality Criteria  (LQ).   Those  priority  pollutants  that  were
present in concentrations below the water quality criteria proposed by
EPA were also eliminated from consideration.

Site  Specific  (SS).   If  only  one  sample  exceeded the analytical
quantification, treatability limits, or the water quality criteria and
that sample was judged  to be unrepresentative in comparison with other
samples analyzed.

Direct Chill Casting

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.   hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.  1,1-dichloroethane
14.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.  chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.  bis(chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.  2-chloronaphthalene
24.  2-chlorophenol
25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
30.  1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31.  2,4-dichlorophenol
32.  1,2-dichloropropane
33.  1,3-dichloropropylene
35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
39.  fluoranthene
40.  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.  4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
54.  isophorone
55.  naphthalene
56.  nitrobenzene
57.  2-nitrophenol
58.  4-nitrophenol
59.  2,4-dinitrophenol
60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63.  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64..  pentachlorophenol
72.  benzo(a)anthracene
73.  benzo(a)pyrene
74.  benzo(b)fluoranthene
75.  benzo(k)fluoranthene
76.  chrysene
77.  acenaphthylene
78.  anthracene
79.  benzo(ghi)perylene
80.  fluorene
81.  phenanthrene
82.  dibenzo{a,h)anthracene
83.  indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84.  pyrene
85.  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
89.  vinyl chloride
90.  aldrin
91.  dieldrin
96.  alpha-endosulfan
99.  endrin
100.  endrin aldehyde
101.  heptachlor
102.  heptachlor epoxide
103.  alpha-BHC
                                 391

-------
42.  bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.  methyl chloride
46.  methyl bromide
47.  bromoform
48.  dichlorobromomethane
49.  trichlorofluoromethane
50.  dichlorodifluoromethane
52.  hexachlorobutadiene
53.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
105. gamma-BHC
106. delta-BHC
114. toxaphene
115. antimony
116. arsenic
118. beryllium
119. cadmium
125. nickel
126. selenium
127. silver
128. thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:
1.   acenaphthene
4.   benzene
21.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22.  p-chloro-m-cresol
34.  2,4-dimethylphenol
38.  ethylbenzene
51.  ch1orodibromomethane
71.  dimethyl phthalate
86.  tetrachloroethylene
87.  toluene
88.  trichloroethylene
92.  chlordane
92.  chlordane
93.  4,4'-DDT
94.  4/4'-DDE
95.  4/4'-DDD
97.  beta-endosulfan
98.  endosulfan sulfate
104. beta-BHC
108. PCB-1254
120. chromium
121. copper
122. cyanide
123. lead
124. mercury
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Site Specific:
23.  chloroform
65.  phenol
67.  butyl benzyl phthalate
68.  di-n-butyl phthalate
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
70.  diethyl phthalate
111. PCB-1248
129. Zinc
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44.  methylene chloride

Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:

159.     pH
150.     oil and grease
152.     total suspended solids

Rolling Oil Emulsions

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
                                 392

-------
2.   acrolein                          51.
3.   acrylonitrile                     52.
5.   benzidine                         53.
6.   carbon tetrachloride              54.
7.   chlorobenzene                     56.
8.   1/2,4-trichlorobenzene            57.
9.   hexachlorobenzene                 58.
10.   1,2-dichloroethane                59.
11.   I, lf1-trichloroethane             60.
12.   hexachloroethane                  61.
13.   1,1-dichloroethane                62.
14.   1,1,2-trichloroethane             63.
15.   1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane         69.
16.   chloroethane                      71.
17.   bis(chloromethyl)ether            72.
18.   bis(chloroethyl)ether             73.
19.   2-chloroethyl vinyl ether         74.
20.   2-chloronaphthalene               75.
22.   p-chloro-m-cresol                 77.
23.   chloroform                        79.
24.   2-chlorophenol                    82.
25.   1,2-dichlorobenzene               83.
26.   1,3-dichlorobenzene               85.
27.   1,4-dichlorobenzene               88.
28.   3,3'-dichlorobenzidene            89.
29.   1,1-dichloroethylene              90.
31.   2,4-dichlorophenol                91.
32.   1,2-dichloropropane               92.
33.   1,3-dichloropropylene             95.
34.   2,4-dimethylphenol                97.
35.   2,4-dinitrotoluene                98.
36.   2,6-dinitrotoluene                99.
37.   1,2-diphenylhydrazine            101.
39.   fluoranthene                     102.
40.   4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether      105.
41.   4-bromophenyl phenyl ether       106.
42.   bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether     114.
43.   bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane      115.
45.   methyl chloride                  118.
46.   methyl bromide                   124.
47.   bromoform                        126.
48.   dichlorobromomethane             127.
49.   trichlorofluoromethane           128.
50.   dichlorodifluoromethane
chlorodibromomethane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
isophorone
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
di-n-octyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(k)f1uoranthene
acenaphthylene
benzo(ghi)perylene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno (l,2,3-c,d) pyrene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
4,4'-ODD
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
toxaphene
antimony
beryllium
mercury
selenium
silver
thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:
                              393

-------
4.   benzene
30. 1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
64. pentachlorophenol
 93.  4,4'-DDT
 94.  4,4'-DDE
 96.  alpha-endosulfan
103.  alpha-BHC
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Site Specific:
1.  acenaphthene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
 76.  chrysene
 86.  tetrachloroethylene
 100. endrin aldehyde
 104. beta-BHC
 108. PCB-1254
 111. PCB-1248
 122. cyanide
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels:
87.  toluene
116. arsenic
 120. chromium
 125. nickel
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44.  methylene chloride

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Qualify Criteria;

87.  toluene
Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
38.  ethylbenzene
55.  naphthalene
65.  phenol
78.  anthracene
80.  fluorene
81.  phenanthrene
84.  pyrene

Drawing Oil Emulsions and Soaps
 119. cadmium
 121. copper
 123. lead
 129. zinc
 159. pH
 150. oil and grease
 152. total suspended solids
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
1.   acenaphthene
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
 52.  hexachlorobutadiene
 53.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
 56.  ni trobenzene
 57.  2-nitrophenol
 58.  4-nitrophenol
 59.  2,4-dinitrophenol
                               394

-------
8.    1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.    hexachlorobenzene
10.   1,2-dichloroethane
12.   hexachloroethane
14.   1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.   1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.   chloroethane
17.   bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.   bis(chloroethyl)ether
19.   2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.   2-chloronaphthalene
21.   2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23.   chloroform
25.   1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.   1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.   1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.   3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.   1,1-dichloroethylene
30.   1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31.   2,4-dichlorophenol
32.   1,2-dichloropropane
33.   1,3-dichloropropylene
34.   2,4-dimethylphenol
36.   2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.   1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40.   4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.   4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.   bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.   bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.   methyl chloride
46.   methyl bromide
47.   bromoform
48.   dichlorobromomethane
49.   trichlorofluoromethane
50.   dichlorodifluoromethane
51.   ch1orod i bromomethane
60.   4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61.   N-nitrosodimethylamine
62.   N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63.   N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64.   pentachlorophenol
65.   phenol
67.   butyl benzyl phthalate
71.   dimethyl phthalate
73.   benzo(a)pyrene
74.   benzo(b)fluoranthene
75.   benzo(k)fluoranthene
77.   acenaphthylene
78.   anthracene
79.   benzo(ghi)perylene
80.   fluorene
82.   dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83.   indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84.   pyrene
85.   2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
86.   tetrachloroethylene
87.   toluene
88.   trichloroethylene
89.   vinyl chloride
91.   dieldrin
95.   4,4'-DDD
9 7.   beta-endosu1fan
98.   endosulfan sulfate
99.   endrin
100. endrin aldehyde
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
114. toxaphene
115. antimony
122. cyanide
126. selenium
127. silver
128. thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Limit:
4.    benzene
39.  fluoranthene
44.  methylene chloride
55.  naphthalene
70.  diethyl phthalate
72.  benzo(a)anthracene
76.  chrysene
78.  anthracene
81.  phenanthrene
93.  4,4'-DDT
94.  4,4'-DDE
96.  alpha-endosulfan
103. alpha-BHC
104. beta-BHC
105. gamma-BHC
106. delta-BHC
108. PCB-1254
111. PCB-1248
                                 395

-------
90.  aldrin
92.  chlordane
118. beryllium
124. mercury
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Site Specific:

24.  2-chlorophenol                    35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels:
13.  1,1-d i ch1oroethane
22.  p-chloro-m-cresol
38.  ethylbenzene
54.  isophorone
116. arsenic
119. cadmium
123. lead
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria;
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68.  di-n-butyl phthalate
87.  toluene
121. copper
125. nickel
Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
120. chromium
129. zinc
159. pH
150. oil and grease
152. total suspended solids
Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
4.   benzene
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.   hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.  1,1-dichloroethane
14.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.  chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.  bis(chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
57.  2-nitrophenol
58.  4-nitrophenol
59.  2,4-dinitrophenol
60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63.  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64.  pentachlorophenol
65.  phenol
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
70.  diethyl phthalate
71.  dimethyl phthalate
72.  benzo(a)anthracene
73.  benzo(a)pyrene
74.  benzo(b)fluoranthene
75.  benzo(k)fluoranthene
7 6.  chrysene
77.  acenaphthylene
                               396

-------
20.   2-chloronaphthalene
21.   2,4,6-trichlorophenol
24.   2-chlorophenol
25.   1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.   1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.   1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.   3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.   1,1-dichloroethylene
30.   1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31.   2,4-dichlorophenol
32.   1,2-dichloropropane
33.   1,3-dichloropropylene
34.   2,4-dimethylphenol
35.   2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.   2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.   1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.   ethylbenzene
40.   4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.   4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.   bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.   bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.   methyl chloride
46.   methyl bromide
47.   bromoform
48.   dichlorobromomethane
49.   trichlorofluoromethane
50.   dichlorodifluoromethane
51.   ch1orod i bromomethane
52.   hexachlorobutadiene
53.   hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54.   isophorone
56.   nitrobenzene.
78.   anthracene
79.   benzo(ghi)perylene
80.   fluorene
81.   phenanthrene
82.   dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83.   indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
85.   2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
86.   tetrachloroethylene
87.   toluene
88.   trichloroethylene
89.   vinyl chloride
90.   aldrin
93.   4,4'-DDT
94.   4,4'-DDE
95.   4,4'-DDD
96.   alpha-endosulfan
97.   beta-endosulfan
99.   endrin
100. endrin aldehyde
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
103. alpha-BHC
104. beta-BHC
105. gamma-BBC
106. delta-BHC
108. PCB-1254
111. PCB-1248
114. toxaphene
126. selenium
127. silver
128. thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Limit:
1.    acenaphthene
22.   p-chloro-m-cresol
23.   chloroform
39.   fluoranthene
55.   naphthalene
67.   butyl benzyl phthalate
68.   di-n-butyl phthalate
84.   pyrene
91.  dieldrin
92.  chlordane
98.  endosulfan sulfate
115. antimony
116. arsenic
118. beryllium
122. cyanide
125. nickel
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels;
119. cadmium
120. chromium
124. mercury
129. zinc
                                 397

-------
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44.  methylene chloride

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria:

66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate         121. copper

Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
123. lead
159. pH

Air Pollution Control for Forging
150. oil and grease
152. total suspended solids
Pollutants Not Considered Because  They Were Not Detected:
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
4.   benzene
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.   hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.  1,1-dichloroethane
14.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.  chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.  bis(chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl  ether
20.  2-chloronaphthalene
22.  p-chloro-m-cresol
24.  2-chlorophenol
25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
32.  1,2-dichloropropane
33.  1,3-dichloropropylene
35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.  ethylbenzene
40.  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.  4-bromophenyl  phenyl ether
47.   bromoform
48.   dichlorobromomethane
49.   trichlorofluoromethane
50.   dichlorodifluoromethane
52.   hexachlorobutadiene
53.   hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54.   isophorone
56.   nitrobenzene
5 7.   2-n i tropheno1
58.   4-nitrophenol
61.   N-nitrosodimethylamine
63.   N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
67.   butyl benzyl phthalate
69.   di-n-octyl phthalate
71.   dimethyl phthalate
73.   benzo(a)pyrerie
74.   benzo(b)fluoranthene
75.   benzo(k)fluoranthene
77.   acenaphthylene
79.   benzo(ghi)perylene
80.   fluorene
82.   dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83.   indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
85.   2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
87.   toluene
89.   vinyl chloride
96.   alpha-endosulfan
97.   beta-endosulfan
99.   endrin
100. endrin aldehyde
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
103. alpha-BHC
                                398

-------
42.  bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.  methyl chloride
46.  methyl bromide
105.  gamma-BBC
114.  toxaphene
126.  selenium
127.  silver
128.  thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Limit:
1.    acenaphthene
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
21.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
23.  chloroform
30.  1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
34.  2,4-dimethylphenol
51.  chlorodibromomethane
55.  naphthalene
64.  pentachlorophenol
65.  phenol
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68.  di-n-butyl phthalate
70.  diethyl phthalate
86.  tetrachloroethylene
88.  trichloroethylene
90.  aldrin
91.  dieldrin
92.  chlordane
93.   4,4'-DDT
94.   4,4'-DDE
95.   4,4'-ODD
98.   e-ndosulfan sulfate
104. beta-BHC
106. delta-BHC
108. PCB-1254
111. PCB-1248
115. antimony
116. arsenic
118. beryllium
119. cadmium
120. chromium
121. copper
122. cyanide
124. mercury
125. nickel
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels
31.  2,4-dichlorophenol
59.  2,4-dinitrophenol
60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
129. zinc
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44.  methylene chloride

Pollutants Not Considered Because of Insufficient Data:

117. asbestos

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria

39.  fluoranthene

Pollutants to be Further Considered for  Effluent Limitations:
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
72.  benzo(a)anthracene
84.  pyrene
123. lead
                                399

-------
76.  chrysene
78.  anthracene
81.  phenanthrene
159.  pH
150.  oil and grease
152.  total suspended solids
Rolling Heat Treatment Quench

Pollutants Not  Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
1.  acenaphthene
2.  acrolein
3.  acrylonitrile
5.  benzidine
6.  carbon  tetrachloride
7.  chlorobenzene
8.  1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.  hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1/1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis{chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.  2-chloronaphthalene
21.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine

29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
30.  1,2-trans-di ch1oroethy1ene
31.  2,4-dichlorophenol
32.  1,2-dichloropropane
33.  1,3-dichloropropylene
34.  2,4-dimethylphenol
35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.  ethylbenzene
39.  fluoranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis{2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl  chloride
58.  4-nitrophenol
59.  2,4-dinitrophenol
60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63.  N-nitosodi-n-propylamine
64.  pentachlorophenol
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67.  butyl benzyl phthalate
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
71.  dimethyl phthalate
72.  benzo(a)anthracene
73.  benzo(a)pyrene
74.  benzo(b)fluoranthene
75.  benzo(k)fluoranthene
76.  chrysene
78.  anthracene
79.  benzo(ghi)perylene
80.  fluorene
81.  phenanthrene
82.  dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83.  indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
84.  pyrene
85.  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
      (TCDD)
87.  toluene
88.  trichloroethylene
89.  vinyl chloride
90.  aldrin
91.  dieldrin
93.  4,4'-DDT
95.  4,4'-ODD
96.  alpha-endosulfan
97.  beta-endosulfan
99.  endrin
100. endrin aldehyde
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
103. alpha-BHC
105. gamma-BHC
106. delta-BHC
                               400

-------
46. methyl bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
114.  toxaphene
115.  antimony
116.  arsenic
118.  beryllium
119.  cadmium
124.  mercury
126.  selenium
127.  silver
128.  thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Analytical
Quantitative Detection:
4.  benzene
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
24. 2-chlorophenol
51. chlorodibromomethane
65. phenol
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
77. acenaphthylene
86. tetrachloroethylene
92  chlordane
94.   chlordane
     98.   endosulfan
     104.  beta-BHC
     108.  PCB-1254
111. PCB-1248 (b)
     120.  chromium
     121.  copper
     122.  cyanide
     123.  lead
  sulfate
(a)
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44. methylene chloride


Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability:

23. chloroform (trichloromethane)
                                401

-------
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria:

125. nickel
Pollutants to be further considered for effluent limitations:

                                       152. total suspended solids
159.
150.
pH
oil and grease
Forging Heat Treatment Quench

Pollutants Not Considered Because  They Were Not Detected:
1.   acenaphthene
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon  tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.   hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.   1,1-dichloroethane
14.   1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.   1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.   chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.   bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19.   2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.   2-chloronaphthalene
21.   2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22.   p-chloro-m-cresol
25.   1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.   1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.   1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.   3,3-dichlorobenzidine
29.   1,1-dichloroethylene
31.   2,4-dichlorophenol
32.   1,2-dichloropropane
33.   1,3-dichloropropylene
34.   2,4-dimethylphenol
35.   2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.   2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.   1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.  ethylbenzene
                                        48. dichlorobromomethane
                                        49. trichlorofluoromethane
                                        50. dichlorodifluoromethane
                                        52. hexachlorobutadiene
                                        53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
                                        54. isophorone
                                        55. naphthalene
                                        56. nitrobenzene
                                        57. 2-nitrophenol
                                        58. 4-dinitrophenol
                                        59. 2,4-nitrophenol
                                        60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
                                        61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
                                        63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
                                        64. pentachlorophenol
                                        65. phenol
                                        69. di-n-octyl phthalate
                                        70. diethyl phthalate
                                        71. dimethyl phthalate
                                        72. benzo(a)anthracene
                                        73. benzo(a)pyrene
                                        74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
                                        75. benzo(k) fluoranthene
                                        77. acenaphthylene
                                        78. anthracene
                                        79. benzo(ghi)perylene
                                        80. fluorene
                                        81. phenanthrene
                                        82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
                                        83. indeno  (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
                                        85. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
                                        87. toluene
                                        89. vinyl chloride
                                        96. alpha-endosulfan
                                402

-------
39.   fluoranthene
40.   4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.   4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.   bis(2-chloroisopropyl)  ether
43.   bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.   methyl chloride
46.   methyl bromide
47.   bromoform
 98.  endosulfan sulfate
 99.  endrin
101.  heptachlor
102.  heptachlor epoxide
114.  toxaphene
126.  selenium
127.  silver
128.  thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:
4.  benzene
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
30. I/2-trans-dichloroethylene
44. methylene chloride
51. chlorodibromomethane
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
76. chrysene
84. pyrene
86. tetrachloroethylene
88. trichloroethylene
90. aldrin
91. dieldrin
 93. 4,4'-DDT
 94. 4,4'-DDE
 95. 4,4'-ODD
 97. beta-endosulfan
100. endrin aldehyde
103. alpha-BHC
104. beta-BHC
105. gamma-BHC
106. delta-BHC
108. PCB-1254
111. PCB-1248
115. antimony
116. arsenic
118. beryllium
122. cyanide
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels:

119. cadmium                           124. mercury

Pollutants Not Considered Because of  Insufficient Data:

117. asbestos

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria:

66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
121. copper                            125. nickel

Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
120. chromium
123. lead
129. zinc

Drawing Heat Treatment Quench
159. pH
150. oil and grease
152. total suspended solids
                                    403

-------
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
2.  acrolein
3.  acrylonitrile
5.  benzidine
6.  carbon  tetrachloride
7.  chlorobenzene
8.  1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.  hexachlorobenzene
10. 1,2-dichloromethane
12. hexachlorethane
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
18. bis(chloroethyl)ether
19. 2-chloroethyl  vinyl ether
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-cnloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidene
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol

32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. ethylbenzene
39. flouranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl  phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl)  ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45. methyl  chloride
46. methyl  bromide
47. bromoform
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dichlorodifluoromethane
 51.  chlorodibromomethane
 52.  hexachlorobutadiene
 53.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
 54.  isophorone
 55.  naphthalene
 56.  n i trobenzene
 57.  2-nitrophenol
 58.  4-nitrophenol
 59.  2,4-dinitrophenol
 60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
 61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine
 62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
 63.  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
 64.  pentachlorophenol
 65.  phenol
 69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
 72.  benzo(a)anthracene
 73.  benzo(a)pyrene
 74.  benzo(b)fluoranthene
 75.  benzo(k)flouranthene
 76.  chrysene
 7 7.  acenaphthy1ene
 79.  benzo(ghi)perylene
 82.  dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
 83.  indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
 84.  pyrene
 85.  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-diox
      (TCDD)
 89.  vinyl chloride
 90.  aldrin
 91.  dieldrin
 95.  4,4'-ODD
 96.  alpha-endosulfan
 97.  beta-endosulfan
 98.  endosulfan sulfate
 99.  endrin
100.  endrin aldehyde
101.  heptachlor
102.  heptachlor epoxide
106.  delta-BHC
114.  toxaphene
126.  selenium
127.  silver
128.  thallium
                                    404

-------
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Analytical Detection:

1.    acenaphthene
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
67.  butyl benzyl phthalate
78.  anthracene
80.  fluorene
81.  phenanthrene
92.  chlordane
93.  4,4'-DDT
94.  4,4'-DDE
103. alpha-BHC
104. beta-BHC
105. gamma-BBC
108.
111.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
123.
125.
129.
PCB-1234
PCB-1248
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
(a)
(b)









Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:
4.  benzene
23. chloroform (trichloromethane)
44. methylene chloride
 86.  tetrachloroethylene
 87.  toluene
 88.  trichloroethylene
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria:
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
 70.  diethyl phthalate
 71.  dimethyl phthalate
Pollutants to be further considered for effluent limitations:
122.  cyanide
124.  mercury
159.   pH
150.   oil and grease
152.   total suspended solids
Extrusion Press Heat Treatment

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
                                  405

-------
1.    acenaphthene
2.    acrolein
3.    acrylonitrile
5.    benzidine
6.    carbon tetrachloride
7.    chlorobenzene
8.    1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.    hexachlorobenzene
10.   1,2-dichloroethane
12.   hexachloroethane
13.   1,1-dichloroethane
14.   1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.   1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
-16.   chloroethane
17.   bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.   bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19.   2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.   2-chloronaphthalene
21.   2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22.   p-chloro-m-cresol
25.   1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.   1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.   1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.   3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.   1,1-dichloroethylene
31.   2,4-dichlorophenol
32.   1,2-dichloropropane
33.   1,3-dichloropropylene
35.   2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.   2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.   1,2-diphenylhydrazine
39.   fluoranthene
40.   4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.   4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.   bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.   bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.   methyl chloride
46.   methyl bromide
47.   bromoform
 48. dichlorobromomethane
 49. trichlorofluoromethane
 50. dichlorodifluoromethane
 52. hexachlorobutadiene
 53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
 54. isophorone
 55. naphthalene
 56. nitrobenzene
 57. 2-nitrophenol
 59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
 60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
 61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
 62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
 63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
 64. pentachlorophenol
 65. phenol
 72. benzo(a)anthracene
 73. benzo(a)pyrene
 74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
 75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
 76. chrysene
 77. acenaphthylene
 78. anthracene
 79. benzo(ghi)perylene
 80. fluorene
 81. phenanthrene
 82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
 83. indeno {1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
 84. pyrene
 85. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dic
 89. vinyl chloride
 91. dieldrin
 94. 4,4'-DDE
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
114. toxaphene
126. selenium
127. silver
128. thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:
4.  benzene
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
23. chloroform
24. 2-chlorophenol
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
 97.  beta-endosulfan
 98.  endosulfan sulfate
 99.  endrin
100.  endrin aldehyde
103.  alpha-BHC
                                 406

-------
34.  2,4-dimethylphenol
38.  ethylbenzene
51.  chlorodibromomethane
58.  4-nitrophenol
68.  di-n-butyl phthalate
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
70.  diethyl phthalate
71.  dimethyl phthalate
86.  tetrachloroethylene
87.  toluene
88.  trichloroethylene
90.  aldrin
92.  chlordane
93.  4,4'-DDT
95.  4,4'-ODD
96.  alpha-endosulfan

Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44.  methylene chloride

Pollutants Not Considered Because of Insufficient Data:

117. asbestos

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria;

                                       121. copper
104.
105.
106.
108.
111.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1254
PCB-1248
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
cyanide
lead
mercury .
nickel
zinc
66.
67.
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
                                       152. total suspended solids


Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Quench
159. pH
150. oil and grease
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
1.   acenaphthene
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
4.   benzene
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.   hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
11.  1, lf1-trichloroethane
                                        56. nitrobenzene
                                        57. 2-nitrophenol
                                        58. 4-nitrophenol
                                        59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
                                        60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
                                        61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
                                        62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
                                        63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
                                        64. pentachlorophenol
                                        65. phenol
                                        69. di-n-octyl phthalate
                                   407

-------
12.   hexachloroethane
13.   1,1-dichloroethane
14.   1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.   1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.   chloroethane
17.   bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.   bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19.   2-chloroethyl vinyl  ether
20.   2-chloronaphthalene
21.   2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22.   p-chloro-m-cresol
23.   chloroform
24.   2-chlorophenol
25.   1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.   1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.   1,4-d i ch1orobenzene
28.   3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.   1,1-dichloroethylene
30.   1,2-trans-dichloroethvlene
31.   2,4-dichlorophenol
32.   1,2-dichloropropane
33.   1,3-dichloropropylene
34.   2,4-dimethylphenol
35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.  ethy1benzene
39.  fluoranthene
40.  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.  4-bromophenyl phenyl  ether
42.  bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.  methyl chloride
46.  methyl bromide
47.  bromoform
48.  dichlorobromomethane
49.  trichlorofluoromethane
50.  dichlorodifluoromethane
51.  ch1orodibromomethane
52.  hexachlorobutadiene
53.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54.  isophorone
55.  naphthalene
 70. diethyl phthalate
 71. dimethyl phthalate
 72. benzo(a)anthracene
 73. benzo(a)pyrene
 74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
 75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
 76. chrysene
 77. acenaphthylene
 78. anthracene
 79. benzo(ghi)perylene
 80. fluorene
 81. phenanthrene
 82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
 83. indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
 84. pyrene
 85. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
 86. tetrachloroethylene
 87. toluene
 88. trichloroethylene
 89. vinyl chloride
 90. aldrin
 91. dieldrin
 92. chlordane
 93. 4,4'-DDT
 94. 4,4'-DDE
 95. 4,4'-DDD
 96. alpha-endosulfan
 97. beta-endosulfan
 98. endosulfan sulfate
 99. endrin
100. endrin aldehyde
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
103. alpha-BHC
104. beta-BHC
105. gamma-BHC
106. delta-BHC
108. PCB-1254
111. PCB-1248
114. toxaphene
115. antimony
126. selenium
127. silver
128. thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because  They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification  Level:
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
121.  copper
122.  cyanide
                                 408

-------
68.  di-n-octyl phthalate
116. arsenic
118. beryllium
119. cadmium
123.  lead
L24.  mercury
129.  zinc
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Site Specific:

120. chromium

Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44.  methylene chloride

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria;

125. nickel

Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:

159. pH
150. oil and grease
152. total suspended solids

Dummy Block Contact Cooling Water
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
1.   acenaphthene
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
4.   benzene
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.   hexachlorobenzene
10.  I,2-dichloroethane
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.  1,1-dichloroethane
14.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.  1,1/2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.  chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.  bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl  vinyl  ether
20.  2-chloronaphthalene
21.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22.  p-chloro-m-cresol
24.  2-chlorophenol
25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
 59. 2,4-.dinitrophenol
 60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
 61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
 62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
 63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
 64. pentachlorophenol
 65. phenol
 66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
 67. butyl benzyl phthalate
 68. di-n-butyl phthalate
 69. di-n-octyl phthalate
 70. diethyl phthalate
 71. dimethyl phthalate
 72. benzo(a)anthracene
 7 3. benzo(a)pyrene
 74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
 75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
 76. chrysene
 77. acenaphthylene
 78. anthracene
 79. benzo(ghi)perylene
 80. fluorene
 81. phenanthrene
 82. dibenzo(a/h)anthracene
                                  409

-------
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
30.  1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

32.  1,2-dichloropropane
33.  1,3-dichloropropylene
34.  2,4-dimethylphenol
35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.  ethylbenzene
39.  £1uoranthene
40.  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.  4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.  bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.  methyl chloride
46.  methyl bromide
47.  bromoform
48.  dichlorobromomethane
49.  trichlorofluoromethane
50.  d i ch1orod i £1uoromethane
52.  hexachlorobutadiene
53.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54.  isophorone
55.  naphthalene
56.  n i trobenzene
57.  2-nitrophenol
58.  4-n i tropheno1
 83.  indeno (1,2/3-c,d)pyrene
 84.  pyrene
 85.  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
 86.  tetrachloroethylene
 87.  toluene
 88.  trichloroethylene
 89.  vinyl chloride
 90.  aldrin
 91.  dieldrin
 92.  chlordane
 93.  4,4'-DDT
 94.  4,4'-DDE
 95.  4,4'-ODD
 96.  alpha-endosulfan
 97.  beta-endosulfan
 98.  endosulfan sulfate
 99.  endrin
100.  endrin aldehyde
101.  heptachlor
102.  heptachlor epoxide
103.  alpha-BHC
104.  beta-BHC
105.  gamma-BBC
106.  delta-BHC
108.  PCB-1254
111.  PCB-1248
114.  toxaphene
115.  antimony
126.  selenium
127.  silver
128.  thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:
23.  chloroform
44.  methylene chloride
116. arsenic
118. beryllium
119. cadmium
120. chromium
121. copper
122. cyanide
123. lead
124. mercury
125. nickel
129. zinc
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Insufficient Data:

117. asbestos

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels:

4.   benzene                            31. dichlorophenol
                                  410

-------
Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
159. pH
150. oil and grease
152. total suspended solids

Etch Line Rinses

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
 2.  acrolein
 3.  acrylonitrile
 5.  benzidine
 6.  carbon tetrachloride
 7.  chlorobenzene
 8.  l,2f4-trichlorobenzene
 9.  hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.  1,1-dichloroethane
14.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.  1,lf2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.  chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.  bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.  2-chloronaphthalene
25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
 43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy)  methane
 45.  methyl chloride
 46.  methyl bromide
 47.  bromoform
 48.  dichlorobromomethane
 49.  trichlorofluoromethane
 50.  dichlorodifluoromethane
 52.  hexachlorobutadiene
 53.  hexachlorocyclopentadiene
 56.  nitrobenzene
 57.  2-nitrophenol
 59.  2,4-dinitrophenol
 60.  4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
 61.  N-nitrosodimethylamine
 62.  N-nitrosodiphenylamine
 63.  N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
 72.  benzo(a)anthracene
 74.  benzo(b)fluoranthene
 75.  benzo(k)fluoranthene
 79.  benzoCghi)perylene
 82.  dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
 83.  indeno (l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
 85.  2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
 89.  vinyl chloride
 90.  aldrin
101.  heptachlor
102.  heptachlor epoxide
114.  toxaphene
126.  selenium
127.  silver
128.  thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:
1.   acenaphthene
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. p-chloro-m-cresol
24. 2-chlorophenol
 81.  phenanthrene
 84.  pyrene
 86.  tetrachloroethylene
 87.  toluene
 88.  trichloroethylene
                                 411

-------
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
3 8. ethy1benzene
39. fluoranthene
51. chlorodibromomethane
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. 4-nitrophenol
64. pentachlorophenol
71. dimethyl phthalate
73. benzo(a)pyrene
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. anthracene
77. acenaphthylene
78. fluorene
80. fluorene
 91.  dieldrin
 92.  chlordane
 93.  4,4'-DDT
 94.  4,4'-DDE
 95.  4,4'-ODD
 96.  alpha-endosulfan
 97.  beta-endosulfan sulfate
 98.  ensosulfan sulfate
 99.  endrin
100.  endrin aldehyde
103.  alpha-BHC
104.  beta-BHC
105.  gamma-BBC
106.  delta-BHC
111.  PCB-1248
111.  PCB-1248
115.  antimony
122.  cyanide
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels:
 4. benzene
23. chloroform
34. 2,4-dimethylphenol
118. beryllium
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Suspected Sample Contamination:

44. methylene chloride

Pollutants Not Considered Because of Insufficient Data:

117. asbestos

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria:
65. 'phenol
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
68.  di-n-butyl phthalate
70.  diethyl phthalate
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Site Specific:
30.   1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
67.   butyl benzyl phthalate
108.  PCB-1254
111.  PCB-1248
116.  arsenic
119.  cadmium
124.  mercury
125.  nickel
Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
69.  di-n-octyl phthalate
120. chromium
129.
159.
zinc
pH
                                412

-------
121. copper
123. lead

Air Pollution Control for Etch Lines
                                       150.  oil and grease
                                       152.  total suspended solids
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
1.    acenaphthene
2.    acrolein
3.    acrylonitrile
4.    benzene
5.    benzidine
6.    carbon tetrachloride
7.    chlorobenzene
8.    1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.    hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.  1,1-dichloroethane
14.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.  chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.  bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.  2-chloronaphthalene
21.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22.  p-chloro-m-cresol
24.  2-chlorophenol
25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
30.  1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31.  2,4-dichlorophenol
32.  1,2-dichloropropane
33.  1,3-dichloropropylene
34.  2,4-dimethylphenol
35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.  ethylbenzene
39.  fluoranthene
40.  4-chlorophenyl  phenyl  ether
41.  4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.  bis(2-chloroisopropyl)  ether
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.  methyl  chloride
                                        52. hexachlorobutadiene
                                        53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
                                        54. isophorone
                                        55. napththalene
                                        56. nitrobenzene
                                        57. 2-nitrophenol
                                        58. 4-nitrophenol
                                        59. 2,4-dinitrophenol
                                        60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
                                        61. N-nitrosodimethylamine
                                        62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
                                        63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
                                        64. pentachlorophenol
                                        65. phenol
                                        67. butyl benzyl phthalate
                                        68. di-n-butyl phthalate
                                        69. di-n-octyl phthalate
                                        70. diethyl phthalate
                                        71. dimethyl phthalate
                                        72. benzo(a)anthracene
                                        73. benzo(a)pyrene
                                        74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
                                        75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
                                        76. chrysene
                                        77. acenaphthylene
                                        78. anthracene
                                        79. benzo(ghi)perylene
                                        80. fluorene
                                        81. phenanthrene
                                        82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
                                        83. indeno  (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
                                        84. pyrene
                                        85. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
                                        87. toluene
                                        88. trichloroethylene
                                        89. vinyl  chloride
                                        90. aldrin
                                        92. chlordane
                                        96. alpha-endosulfan
                                        97. beta-endosulfan
                                        98. endosulfan  sulfate
                                        99. endrin
                                        101. heptachlor
                                  413

-------
46.  methyl bromide
47.  bromoform
48.  dichlorobromomethane
49.  trichlorofluoromethane
50.  dichlorodifluoromethane
51.  chlorodibromomethane
102. heptachlor epoxide
104. beta-BHC
106. delta-BHC
114. toxaphene
126. selenium
127. silver
128. thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:

23.  chloroform
44.  methylene chloride
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
86.  tetrachloroethylene
91.  dieldrin
93.  4,4'-DDT
94.  4,4'-DDE
95.  4,4'-ODD
100. endrin aldehyde
103. alpha-BHC
105. gamma-BBC
108. PCB-1254
111.
115.
116.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
129.
PCB-1248
antimony
arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Insufficient Data:

117. asbestos
Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:

159. pH
150. oil and grease
152. total suspended solids

Air Pollution Controls for Annealing

Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected:
1.   acenaphthene
2.   acrolein
3.   acrylonitrile
4.   benzene
5.   benzidine
6.   carbon tetrachloride
7.   chlorobenzene
8.   1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9.   hexachlorobenzene
10.  1,2-dichloroethane
     4-nitrophenol
     2,4-dinitrophenol
     4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
     N-nitrosodimethylamine
     N-ni trosod ipheny1ami ne
     N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
     pentachlorophenol
     phenol
     butyl benzyl phthalate
                                 414

-------
11.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
12.  hexachloroethane
13.  1,1-dichloroethane
14.  1,1,2-trichloroethane
15.  1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16.  chloroethane
17.  bis(chloromethyl)ether
18.  bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
19.  2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
20.  2-chloronaphthalene
21.  2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22.  p-chloro-m-cresol
23.  chloroform
24.  2-chlorophenol
25.  1,2-dichlorobenzene
26.  1,3-dichlorobenzene
27.  1,4-dichlorobenzene
28.  3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
29.  1,1-dichloroethylene
30.  1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31.  2,4-dichlorophenol
32.  1,2-dichloropropane
33.  1/3-dichloropropylene
34.  2,4-dimethylphenol
35.  2,4-dinitrotoluene
36.  2,6-dinitrotoluene
37.  1,2-diphenylhydrazine
38.  ethylbenzene
39.  fluoranthene
40.  4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41.  4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42.  bis{2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43.  bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
45.  methyl chloride
46.  methyl bromide
47.  bromoform
48.  dichlorobromomethane
49.  trichlorofluoromethane
50.  dichlorodifluoromethane
51.  ch1orod i bromomethane
52.  hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. naphthalene
56. nitrobenzene
57. 2-nitrophenol
 69. di-n-octyl phthalate
 70. diethyl phthalate
 71. dimethyl phthalate
 72. benzo{a)anthracene
 73. benzo(a)pyrene
 74. benzo(b)fluoranthene
 75. benzo(k)fluoranthene
 76. chrysene
 77. acenaphthylene
 78. anthracene
 79. benzo(ghi)perylene
 80. fluorene
 81. phenanthrene
 82. dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
 83. indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
 84. pyrene
 85. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dio
 86. tetrachloroethylene
 87. toluene
 88. trichloroethylene
 89. vinyl chloride
 90. aldrin
 91. dieldrin
 92. chlordane
 93. 4,4'-DDT
 94. 4,4'-DDE
 95. 4,4'-ODD
 96. alpha-endosulfan
 97. beta-endosulfan
 98. endosulfan sulfate
 99. endrin
100. endrin aldehyde
101. heptachlor
102. heptachlor epoxide
103. alpha-BHC
104. beta-BHC
105. gamma-BHC
106. delta-BHC
108. PCB-1254
111. PCB-1248
114. toxaphene
115. antimony
126. selenium
127. silver
128. thallium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Not Detected Above
the Analytical Quantification Level:
                                  415

-------
44.  methylene chloride                122. cyanide
66.  bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate       123. lead
116. arsenic                           124. mercury
118. beryllium                         125. nickel
119. cadmium
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Treatability Levels:
120. chromium
Pollutants Not Considered Because of Insufficient Data:
117. asbestos
Pollutants Not Considered Because They Were Below Water Quality Criteria:
121. copper                            129. zinc
Pollutants to be Further Considered for Effluent Limitations:
159. pH
150. oil and grease                    152. total suspended solids
                                416

-------
             TABLE VI-1
CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
CASTING
ROLLING
DRAWING
EXTRUSION
FORGING







1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.







acenaphthene
acrolein
acrylonitrile
benzene
benzidine
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
hexachloroethane
1 ,1-dichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2 ,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethanp
bis(chloromethyl)ether
b is (chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-chloronaphtha 1 ene
2 ,4,6-trichlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
chloroform (trichloromethane)
Direct
Chill
Casting

Contact
Cooling
Water
LO
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
SS
Rolling
with
Emulsions


Rolling Oil
Emulsions
SS
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SS
ND
ND
Drawing
with
Emulsions

Oil
Emulsions &
Soaps
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
+
ND
LS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LS
ND


Extrusion
Drawing
Die
Cleaning
Rinse
ID
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD


Forging

Air
Pollution
Controls
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD

-------
-p.
*->
oo
                                                                           TABLE  VI-1  (Continued)

                                                              CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                              CASTING
ROLLING
DRAWING
EXTRUSION
                                                                                                                               FORGING







24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.







2-chlorophenol
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
1 , 1-dichloroethylene
1 ,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2,4-dichlorophenol
1,2-dichloropropane
1 ,3-dichloropropylene
2 , 4-dimethy Iphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1 ,2-diphenylhydrazine
ethylbenzene
fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
methylene chloride
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
Direct
Chill
Casting

Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND
Rolling
with
Emulsions


Rolling Oil
Emulsions
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
+
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND
Drawing
with
Emulsions

Oil
Emulsions&
Soaps
SS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SS
ND
ND
LS
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND


Extrusion
Drawing
Die
Cleaning
Rinse
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND


Forging

Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LS
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
LO
"X
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND

-------
<£>
                                                                            TABLE VI-1  (Continued)
                                                               CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                              CASTING
ROLLING
DRAWING
EXTRUSION
FORGING







47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.







bromoform
dichlorobromometbane
trichlorofluoromethane
dichlorodif luoromethane
ch lo rod ibromorae thane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-ttitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylami ne
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
Direct
Chill
Casting

Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
KD
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Rolling
with
Emulsions


Rolling Oil
Emulsions
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
4
SS
SS
s.s
ND
Drawing
with
Emulsions

Oil
Emulsions &
Soaps
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LS
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LQ
ND
LO
4


Extrusion
Drawing
Die
Cleaning
Rinse
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LQ
LD
LD
ND


Forging

Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
LS
LS
ND
4
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND
LD
ND

-------
4*
ro
o
                                                                         TABLE Vl-1 (Continued)

                                                            CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                            CASTING
ROLLING
DRAWING
                                                                                                             EXTRUSION
                                               FORGING







70.
71.
72.
73.
H.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
86.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.







diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorenc
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a ,h)anthracene
indeno (1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
pyrene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodiben7.o-p-dioxin (TCDD)
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane
Direct
Chill
Casting

Contact
Cooling
Water
SS
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
Rolling
with
Emulsions


Rolling Oil
Emulsions
SS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SS
ND
+
ND
•f
•f
ND
ND
+
ND
SS
LQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Drawing
with
Emulsions

Oil
Emulsionsfi
Soaps
LD
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LQ
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD


Extrusion
Drawing
Die
Cleaning
Rinse
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD


Forging

Air
Pollution
Controls
LD
ND
+
ND
ND
ND
+
ND
+
ND
ND
•i
ND
ND
+
ND
LD
ND
LD
ND
ND
ID
LD

-------
ro
                                                                          TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
                                                             CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                             CASTING
ROLLING
DRAWING
EXTRUSION
FORGING





93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.





4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4, 4' -ODD
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma -BHC
delta-BHC
PCB-1242 (a)
PCB-1254 (a)
PCB-1221 (a)
PCB-1232 (b)
PCB-1248 (b)
PCB-1260 (b)
PCB-1016 (b)
toxaphene
antimony
Direct
Chill
Casting

Contact
Cooling
Water
LD
LD
LD
ND
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND

LD


SS


ND
ND
Rolling
with
Emulsions


Rolling Oil
Emulsions
LD
LD
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
SS
ND
ND
LD
SS
ND
ND

SS


SS


ND
ND
Drawing
with
Emulsions

Oil
EmulsionsSt
Soaps
LD
LD
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
LD

LD


LD


ND
ND
Extrusion
Drawing
Die
Cleaning
Rinse
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


ND


ND
LD
Forging

Air
Pollution
Controls
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD

LD


LD


ND
LD

-------
                                                                  TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
                                                     CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                                     CASTING
ROLLING
DRAWING
EXTRUSION
FORGING







116.
118.
119.
£ 120.
ro 121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.







arsenic
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
Direct
Chill
Casting

Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
SS
Rolling
with
Emulsions


Rolling Oil
Emulsions
LF
ND
•f
LF
•f
SS
•f
ND
LP
ND
ND
ND
4
Drawing
with
Emulsions

Oil
Emulsions &
Soaps
LF
LD
LP
+
LQ
ND
LP
LD
LQ
ND
ND
ND
*


Extrusion
Drawing
Die
Cleaning
Rinse
LD
LD
LP
LF
LQ
LD
+
LF
LD
ND
ND
ND
LF


Forging

Air
Pollution
Controls
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
4
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
LP
(a),  (b),   Reported together.

-------
                                                                   TABLE VI-1
                                                     CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COOLING/HEAT   TREATMENT   QUENCH
ETCH/CLEANING
MISCELLANEOUS
Heat Treatment Quench
Rolling
Heat
Treatment
Quench
1
2
3
4
5
6
. 7
*" B
ro °
co 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ND
ND
ND
ID
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LS
Forging
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
Drawing
Heat
Treatment
Quench
LD
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
Extrusion
Press
Heat
Treatment
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
Extrusion
Solution
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dummy
Block
Cooling
Dummy
Block
Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
Etch Line
Etch
Line
Rinses
LD
ND
ND
LS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LS
Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls
Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
Annealing
Annealing
Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                                    TABLE VI-1  (Continued)
                                                       CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COOLING/MEAT   TREATMENT   QUENCH
ETCH/CLEANING
MISCELLANEOUS


Rolling
Heat
Treatment
Quench
24 LD
25 ND
26 ND
27 ND
28 ND
29 ND
30 ND
31 ND
32 ND
33 ND
34 ND
35 ND
36 ND
37 ND
38 ND
39 ND
40 ND
41 ND
42 ND
43 ND
44 SC
45 ND
46 ND
Heat

Forging
Heat
Treatment
Quench
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
Treatment Quench

Drawing
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND

Extrusion
Press
Heat
Treatment
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
NT)
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
NT)
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND
Extrusion
Solution
Heat
Treatatent
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND
Dummy
Block
Cooling
Dummy
Block
Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
Etch Line


Etch
Line
Rinses
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
LD
ND
ND
LS
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
ND
ND
Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls

Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
Annealing

Annealing
Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND

-------
                                                                   TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
                                                     CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COOLING/HEAT   TREATMENT   QUENCH
ETCH/CLEANING
MISCELLANEOUS




Rolling
Heat
Treatment
Quench
47 ND
48 ND
49 ND
50 ND
51 ID
52 ND
53 ND
54 ND
-t* 55 ND
K 56 ND
57 ND
58 ND
59 ND
60 ND
61 ND
62 ND
63 ND
64 ND
65 LD
66 ND
67 ND
68 LD
69 ND


Heat

Forging
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND






Treatment Quench

Drawing
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LQ
LD
LQ
ND

Extrusion
Press
Heat
Treatment
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LQ
LQ
LD
LD
Extrusion
Solution
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND
Dummy
Block
Cooling
Dummy
Block
Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
LS
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND


Etch Line


Etch
Line
Rinses
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
LD
LD
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
SS
LQ
*
LQ
*
Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls

Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND


Annealing

Annealing
Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
JO)

-------
                                                                  TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
                                                    CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COOLING/HEAT   TREATMENT   QUENCH
ETCH/CLEANING
MISCELLANEOUS






70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92


Rolling
Heat
Treatment
Quench
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
Heat

Forging
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD
ND
LD
ND
LD
LD
LD
Treatment Quench

Drawing
Heat
Treatment
Quench
LQ
LQ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
SC
SC
SC
ND
ND
ND
LD

Extrusion
Press
Heat
Treatment
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND
LD
ND
LD
Extrusion
Solution
Heat
Treatment
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Diuny
Block
Cooling
Duony
Block
Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Etch Line


Etch
Line
Rinses
LQ
LD
ND
LD
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND
LD
LD
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
LD
LD
Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls

Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
Annealing

Annealing
Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                                   TABLE VI-1  (Continued)
                                                      CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COOLING/HEAT   TREATMENT   QUENCH
ETCH/CLEANING
MISCELLANEOUS


Rolling
Heat
Treatment
Quench
93 ND
94 LD
95 ND
96 ND
97 ND
98 ID
99 ND
100 ND
^ 101 ND
ro 102 ND
^ 103 ND
104 LD
105 ND
106 ND
107
108 LD
109
110
111 LD
112
113
1)4 ND
115 ND
Heat

Forging
Heat
Treatment
Quench
LD
LD
LD
ND
LD
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
LD

LD


LD


ND
LD
Treatment Quench

Drawing
Heat
Treatnent
Quench
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
ND

LD


LD


ND
LD

Extrusion
Press
Heat
Treatment
LD
ND
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
LD

LD


LD


ND
LD
Extrusion
Solution
Heat
TreatBent
Quench
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


ND


ND
ND
Duny
Block
Cooling
Dunny
Block
Contact
Cooling
Water
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


ND


ND
ND
Etch Line


Etch
Line
Rinsec
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
11)
LD
LD
ND
ND
LD
LD
LD
LD

SS


ss


ND
LD
Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls

Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
ND
LD
ND
ND
LD
ND
LD
ND

LD


LD


ND
LD
Annealing

Annealing
Air
Pollution
Controls
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND


ND


ND
ND

-------
                                                                TABLE VI-1  (Continued)
                                                   CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
COOLING/HEAT   TREATMENT   QUENCH
ETCH/CLEANING
MISCELLANEOUS




Rolling
Heat
Treatment
Quench
116 ND
118 ND
119 ND
120 LD
121 LD
122 LD
123 LD
124 ND
125 LQ
126 ND
127 ND
128 ND
139 ND


Heat

Forging
Heat
Treatment
Quench
LD
LD
LP
*
LQ
LD
•f
LF
LQ
ND
ND
ND
*






Treatment Quench

Drawing
Heat
TreatJKnt
Quench
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
SS
LD
SS
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD

Extrusion
Press
Heat
Treatment
LD
LD
LD
LD
LQ
LD
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD
Extrusion
Solution
Heat
Treatment
Quench
LD
LD
LD
SS
LD
LD
LD
LD
LQ
ND
ND
ND
LD
Dusny
Block
Cooling
Duamy
Block
Contact
Cooling
Water
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD


Etch Line


Etch
Line
Rinses
SS
LF
SS
+
•»•
LD
+
SS
SS
ND
ND
ND
+
Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls

Etch
Line Air
Pollution
Controls
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
LD


Annealing

Annealing
Air
Pollution
Controls
LD
LD
LD
LF
LQ
LD
LD
LD
LD
ND
ND
ND
LQ

-------
                                                              TABLE VI-2
                                       POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR FURTHER  CONSIDERATION
CASTING

Direct
Chill
Castjinj
                                                     Contact
                                                     Cooling
                                                     Water
ROLLING

Rolling
with
Eaiulsions
DRAWING

Drawing
with
Eaiulsions
                                                                                                      EXTRUSION
                                                                                                      Extrusion
                                                                FORGING
Forging

Rolling Oil
Eaiulsions
Oil
hauls ions &
Soaps
Drawing
Die
Cleaning
Rinse
Air
Pollution
Controls
COHVEHTIOMAL •OLUfTAIfTS

150. oil  tmt (rcaac

152. (u*pe«4e4
159. pN
        rOLLUTAMTS
II.  1,1,1-trichloroethane
38.  ethylbenzenr
55.  naphthalene
62.  N-nitrosodiphenylMine
65.  phenol
69.  di-n-octyl  plilhalatr
72.  benKo(a)anthracene
76.  chrysene
78.  anthracene
HO.  fluorenr
81 .  phenanthrene
84.  pyrene
119. cad«iuai
120. rhroiaiuai
121. copper
122. cyanide
123. lead
124. Mercury
129. zinc

-------
                                                                   TABLE Vl-2  (continued)


                                                POLLUTANTS  SELECTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
                COOLING/ HEAT   TREATMENT   QUENCH
                                                                                              ETCH/CLEANING
CO
o


Rolling
Heat
Treatment
Quench
Heat

Forging
Heat
Treatawnt
Quench
Treatment Quench

Drawing
Heal
Trea latent
Quench

Extrusion
Press
Heat
Treatment
Kxlrusion
Solution
Heat
Treatment
Quench
DuaMy
Block
Cool ing
Duany
Block
Contact
Cooling
Water
                                                                                                      Etch  Line
                                                                                                       ttcli
                                                                                                       Line
                                                                                                       Kinses
                                                                                                                      Etch
                                                                                                                      Line Air
                                                                                                                      Pollution
                                                                                                                      Controls
                                                                                                                      Etch
                                                                                                                      Line Air
                                                                                                                      Pollution
                                                                                                                      Controls
MISCELLANEOUS
                                                                                                                                           Anneal inj
  Annealing
  Air
  Pollution
  Controls
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS

liO.     4              4-

IS2.     +              4
                                             •h

                                             4-
                                                                                                                                               4

                                                                                                                                               4
       PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS

       II.
       3«.
       55.
       62.
       65.
       69.
       72.
       76.
       7ft.
       RO.
       HI.
       ftt.
       119.
       120.
       121.
       122.
       12).
       124.
       li"».
                      4

                      *

-------
                               TABLE VI-3

                         POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR
                         FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Subcategory I - Rolling with Neat Oils

Conventional Pollutants
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
 Priority Pollutants

 120. chromium
 121. copper
 123. lead
 129. zinc
Subcategory II - Rolling with Emulsions

Conventional Pollutants
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
 Priority  Pollutants
 38.  ethyl benzene
 55.  naphthalene
 65.  phenol
 78.  anthracene
 80.  fluorene
 81.  phenathrene
 84.  pyrene
119.  cadmium
120.  chromium
121.  copper
123.  lead
129.  zinc
 Subcategory  III  -  Extrusion
 Conventional  Pollutants
 150.  oil  and grease
 152.  suspended solids
 159.  pH
 Priority Pollutants

 120. chromium
 121. copper
 123. lead
 129. zinc
                                     431

-------
                         TABLE VI-3 (continued)
Subcategory IV - Forging

Conventional Pollutants
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
 Priority Pollutants

 62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
 72. benzo (a)  anthracene
 76. chrysene
 78. anthracene
 81. phenathrene
 84. pyrene
120. chromium
121. copper
123. lead
129. zinc
Subcategory V - Drawing with Neat Oils
Conventional Pollutants

150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
 Priority Pollutants

 120.  chromium
 121.  copper
 122.  cyanide
 123.  lead
 124.  mercury
 129.  zinc
Subcategory VI - Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Conventional Pollutants
150. oil and grease
152. suspended solids
159. pH
 Priority Pollutants

 11.   1,1,1-trichloroethane
 120.  chromium
 121.  copper
 122.  cyanide
 123.  lead
 124.  mercury
 129.  zinc
                                 432

-------
                             SECTION VII

                   CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
This section describes the  treatment  techniques  currently  used  or
available   to   remove  or  recover  wastewater  pollutants  normally
generated by the aluminum forming industrial  point  source  category.
Included   are   discussions   of   individual  end-of-pipe  treatment
technologies and in-plant technologies.

                  END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Individual recovery and treatment technologies are described which are
used or are suitable for use in treating  wastewater  discharges  from
aluminum  forming  facilities.  Each description includes a functional
description and discussions of application and performance, advantages
and limitations, operational  factors  (reliability,  maintainability,
solid   waste  aspects),  and  demonstration  status.   The  treatment
processes described include both technologies  presently  demonstrated
within the aluminum forming category, and technologies demonstrated in
treatment of similar wastes in other industries.

In  general,  these  pollutants  are removed by oil removal (skimming,
emulsion  breaking   and   flotation)   chemical   precipitation   and
sedimentation  or filtration.  Most of them may be effectively removed
by precipitation of  metal  hydroxides  or  carbonates  utilizing  the
reaction  with lime, sodium hydroxide, or sodium carbonate.  For some,
improved removals are provided by the use of sodium sulfide or ferrous
sulfide to precipitate the pollutants as sulfide compounds  with  very
low solubilities.

Discussion of end-of-pipe treatment technologies is divided into three
parts:   the   major   technologies;   the   effectiveness   of  major
technologies; and minor end-of-pipe technologies.

MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES

In Sections IX and X, the rationale for selecting treatment systems is
discussed.   The  individual  technologies  used  in  the  system  are
described  here.   The major end-of-pipe technologies are: skimming of
oil, emulsion chemical  reduction  of  hexavalent  chromium,  chemical
precipitation of dissolved metals, cyanide precipitation, granular bed
filtration, pressure filtration, and settling of suspended solids.  In
practice,  precipitation  of  metals  and  settling  of  the resulting
precipitates is often a unified two-step operation.  Suspended  solids
originally  present in raw wastewaters are not appreciably affected by
the precipitation operation and  are  removed  with  the  precipitated
metals  in  the  settling  operations.   Settling  operations  can  be
                                   433

-------
evaluated independently of hydroxide or other  chemical  precipitation
operations,  but hydroxide and other chemical precipitation operations
can only be evaluated in combination with a solids removal operation.

Chemical Reduction Of Chromium

Description of the Process.  Reduction is a chemical reaction in which
electrons are transferred to  the  chemical  being  reduced  from  the
chemical   initiating  the  transfer  (the  reducing  agent).   Sulfur
dioxide, sodium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and  ferrous  sulfate
form  strong reducing agents in aqueous solution and are often used in
industrial waste treatment facilities for the reduction of  hexavalent
chromium  to  the  trivalent  form.   The  reduction allows removal of
chromium from solution in conjunction with  other  metallic  salts  by
alkaline  precipitation.   Hexavalent  chromium is not precipitated as
the hydroxide.

Gaseous sulfur dioxide is a widely used reducing agent and provides  a
good example of the chemical reduction process.  Reduction using other
reagents   is  chemically  similar.   The  reactions  involved  may  be
illustrated as follows:

         3 SOZ + 3 H20 	>  3 H2SO,

         3 HZS03 + 2H2Cr04	» Cr2(S04)3 + 5 H20

The above  reactions are favored by low pH.  A pH of from  2  to  3  is
normal  for  situations  requiring  complete  reduction.  At pH levels
above 5, the  reduction  rate  is  slow.   Oxidizing  agents  such  as
dissolved  oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the reduction process
by consuming the reducing agent.

A typical  treatment consists of 45 minutes  retention  in  a  reaction
tank.   The reaction tank has an electronic recorder-controller device
to control  process  conditions  with  respect  to  pH  and  oxidation
reduction  potential  (ORP).  Gaseous sulfur dioxide is metered to the
reaction tank to maintain the ORP within  the  range  of  250  to  300
millivolts.  Sulfuric acid is added to maintain a pH level of from 1.8
to  2.0.   The  reaction  tank  is  equipped with a propeller agitator
designed to provide approximately one  turnover  per  minute.   Figure
VII-1 shows a continuous chromium reduction system.

Application  and  Performance.  Chromium reduction is used in aluminum
forming for treating rinses of  chromic  acid  etching  solutions  for
high-magnesium  aluminum  basis materials.  Cooling tower blowdown may
also contain chromium as a biocide in waste  streams.   Electroplating
and  coil  coating  operation,  frequently found on-site with aluminum
forming  operation,  may  also  be  a  source  of   chromium   bearing
wastewaters.   Chromium reduction may also be used in aluminum forming
plants.  A study of an operational waste treatment facility chemically
                               434

-------
  WASTEWATER
CO
en
                                    SULFUR1C ACID

                                       SULFUR  DIOXIDE
              EQUALIZATION
                                  REACTION

                                    TANK
                                                               TO  CHEMICAL

                                                               PRECIPITATION
        OR
TO NEUTRALIZATION
               FIGURE 3ZEL-1   FLOW  DIAGRAM  FOR  HEXAVALENT

                               CHROMIUM  REDUCTION

-------
reducing hexavalent chromium has shown that a 99.7  percent  reduction
efficiency  is easily achieved.  Final concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 are
readily attained, and concentrations of 0.01 mg/1 are considered to be
attainable by properly maintained and operated equipment.

Advantages and Limitations.  The major advantage of chemical reduction
to destroy hexavalent chromium is that it is a fully proven technology
based on many years of experience.  Operation  at  ambient  conditions
results  in  minimal  energy  consumption, and the process, especially
when using sulfur  dioxide,  is  well  suited  to  automatic  control.
Furthermore,  the equipment is readily obtainable from many suppliers,
and operation is straightforward.

One limitation of. chemical reduction of hexavalent  chromium  is  that
for  high  concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment chemicals
may be prohibitive.   When  this  situation  occurs,  other  treatment
techniques are likely to be more economical.  Chemical interference by
oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment of mixed wastes, and the
treatment  itself may introduce pollutants if not properly controlled.
Storage and handling of sulfur dioxide is somewhat hazardous.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Maintenance consists  of  periodic
removal  of  sludge, the frequency of which is a function of the input
concentrations of detrimental constituents.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Pretreatment to eliminate substances which  will
interfere  with  the  process  may  often  be necessary.  This process
produces  trivalent  chromium  which  can  be  controlled  by  further
treatment.   There  may, however, be small amounts of sludge collected
due to minor shifts in  the  solubility  of  the  contaminants.   This
sludge can be processed by the main sludge treatment equipment.

Demonstration  Status.   The  reduction  of  chromium  waste by sulfur
dioxide or sodium bisulfite is  a  classic  process  and  is  used  by
numerous   plants   which   have   hexavalent  chromium  compounds  in
wastewaters from operations  such  as  electroplating  and  noncontact
cooling.

Chemical Precipitation

Dissolved   toxic  metal   ions  and  certain  anions  may be chemically
precipitated  for removal  by  physical  means  such  as  sedimentation,
filtration,   or  centrifugation.  Several reagents are commonly used to
effect this precipitation.

1)  Alkaline  compounds  such as lime or sodium hydroxide may be used to
    precipitate many  toxic metal  ions as metal hydroxides.  Lime  also
    may  precipitate  phosphates  as  insoluble  calcium phosphate and
    fluorides as calcium  fluoride.
                                  436

-------
2)  Both "soluble" sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or sodium sulfide
    and "insoluble" sulfides such as ferrous sulfide may  be  used  to
    precipitate many heavy metal ions as insoluble metal sulfides.

3)  Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate or both (as is required) may be used
    to precipitate cyanide as a ferro or zinc ferricyanide complex.

4)  Carbonate precipitates may be used  to  remove  metals  either  by
    direct  precipitation  using  a  carbonate reagent such as calcium
    carbonate or by converting hydroxides into carbonates using carbon
    dioxide.

These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or  rapid  mix
tank,  to  a  presettling  tank,  or  directly to a clarifier or other
settling device.  Because metal hydroxides tend  to  be  colloidal  in
nature,  coagulating  agents may also be added to facilitate settling.
After the solids  have  been  removed,  final  pH  adjustment  may  be
required  to  reduce  the  high  pH  created by the alkaline treatment
chemicals.

Chemical  precipitation  as  a  mechanism  for  removing  metals  from
wastewater  is a complex process of at least two steps - precipitation
of the unwanted metals and removal of  the  precipitate.   Some  small
amount of metal will remain dissolved in the wastewater after complete
precipitation.   The amount of residual dissolved metal depends on the
treatment chemicals used and related factors.   The  effectiveness  of
this  method of removing any specific metal depends on the fraction of
the specific metal in the raw waste (and hence in the precipitate) and
the effectiveness of suspended solids removal.

Application and Performance.  Chemical precipitation can  be  used  to
remove  metal  ions  such  as  aluminum, antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,  iron,  lead,  manganese,  mercury,
molybdenum,  tin  and  zinc.   The  process  is also applicable to any
substance that can be transformed  into  an  insoluble  form  such  as
fluorides,  phosphates,  soaps,  sulfides  and  others.  Because it is
simple and effective, chemical precipitation is extensively  used  for
industrial waste treatment.

The   performance   of   chemical  precipitation  depends  on  several
variables.   The  most  important  factors   affecting   precipitation
effectiveness are:

    1.   Maintenance of an alkaline pH  throughout  the  precipitation
         reaction and subsequent settling;

    2.   Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment   ions  to  drive
         the precipitation reaction to completion;
                                  437

-------
    3.   Addition of an adequate supply of sacrifical  ions  (such  as
         iron ^or  aluminum)  to  ensure  precipitation and removal of
         specific target ions; and

    4.   Effective removal of  precipitated  solids  (see  appropriate
         technologies discussed under "Solids Removal").

Control   of  pH.   Irrespective  of  the  solids  removal  technology
employed, proper control of pK is absolutely essential  for  favorable
performance  of  precipitation-sedimentation  technologies.   This  is
clearly  illustrated  by  solubility  curves   for   selected   metals
hydroxides  and  sulfides  shown  in  Figure  VI1-2,  and  by plotting
effluent zinc concentrations  against pH as shown in Figure VI1-3.   It
is  partially  illustrated by data obtained from 3 consecutive days of
sampling at one metal processing plant (47432) as displayed  in  Table
VII-1.

                              TABLE VII-1
                 pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL

              Day  1               Day 2               Day 3
         In	Out        In	Out       In	Out

pH Range 2.4-3.4   8.5-8.7    1.0-3.0   5.0-6.0   2.0-5.0   6.5-8.1

(mg/1)

TSS        39        8         16        19        16        7

Copper     312      0.22       120      5.12       107      0.66

Zinc       250      0.31       32.5      25.0      43.8      0.66

This  treatment system uses lime precipitation  (pH adjustment) followed
by  coagulant  addition  and  sedimentation.  Samples were taken before
(in)  and after  (out) the treatment system.   The  best  treatment  for
removal  of  copper  and zinc was achieved on day one, when the pH was
maintained at a  satisfactory  level.  The poorest treatment  was  found
on  the  second  day, when the pH slipped to an unacceptably low level
and intermediate values were  were achieved on the third  day  when  pH
values  were  less than desirable but in between the first and second
days.

Sodium hydroxide is  used  by one  facility  for  pH  adjustment  and
chemical   precipitation,  followed  by  settling  (sedimentation and  a
polishing  lagoon)  of precipitated solids.  Samples were taken prior to
caustic addition and following the polishing lagoon.  Flow through the
system is  approximately 6,000 gal/hr.
                                 438

-------
f
en
o
CO
  0.001
  0.0001
 FIGURE
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOLUBILITIES
OF  METAL IONS  AS A  FUNCTION OF pH
                      439

-------
 Cn
 B
 r
 O
 C
 0)
 u
 C
 O
 u
        i:
      tin
            JlUJ
         ill
m
lii
      111!
    1U t
iili
' i 11

3]
 ,. i
 111

       I
;::
I!
II
           u
                    i
                       .. ll

           !l
                           ii
                           mi
                             t

                        nr
                        M
                            I
                            I
                        h

                        •iii
                        :ili
                        lit:
                         II
                         i rr i
                         til
                     UlUitt:
                                       i

                       1
                                     i

                                          l!
                                                   I
                                               U
                                             1
                                             I
                                          i
                                           I
                                              I
                                                  i
                                                In
                                                 ft
                                                                 .;
                                                           1
                                                      * **•«- -*- * t *
                                                      TTT7 iTTT

                                                      jiiili!
                                                      In- 11 f i
 iii!
  ;
                                                                     !ff
                                                                     di
                                                                             r I

                                                                  m
                                                                     i  I
                                                                     1111
                                                              •;,

                                                              ll-
                                                                     ft!

                                                                         Mr
                                                                         I Ml
            ill Jill
                                                                                   II!
                                                                               I i



                                                                               If
                                                                           jili
                                                                               USJ

                                                                              li
                                                                                     ..
                                                                                   i

                        I tit
                                                                                      OH
                                                                                      U-**
                                                                                   lit;
                                                                                   HIT
                                                                                                    liinini
                                                                                   ilii
                                                                                   rfr
                                                                                   f
                                                                                          rHt
                                                                                  1
I
Mil
1U
                                I  i

                                iiH
                                'ill
rrtt
i:l:
llii
III!
                                                                                           ii
                                                                                                 ill!
                                                                                                ill!
:!i:
iiliii
 rn
1
»-* i-*
nn

ii!
                                                                                                   f«-+-*
                                                                                                   itn
 C

 1>

 9
«~l

«M

«W

U
      1
ill;
r t 1 t

IHi
HI!
Til:
jui
ml
I
 ill
Ui!

 H
 M
              li!
       MI m
       i^n Atti
               I
                        1:
                                                          m

   -
lllll
 ilii
 71
                                                                         n
                                                                       it
                                                                                          .i
                                                                               I
                                                                                   ill

                                                                                   Li
                                                                                                           III!
                                                                                                           11!
     [1
         Illl
   ii
              III
                     I il
                     Wl
                   lill
                          O
                              -^r
                        O
                                        .BLJo
                                                                i
                                                                           -LU
                                                                                   I
                                                                                   III
                                                                                                 u
                                                                                                   IHI
                                                                                         I!
                                                                        -Ll 16-
                                                                                                    li
                                                                                                     \\\
                                              7                           9

                                               Minimum  Effluent  pH
                                                                                               ll
                                                                                                         12
                                             FIGURE  VII-3

-------
                             TABLE VI1-2

         Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide for Metals Removal

              Day 1               Day 2               Day 3
         In	Out       In	Out       In	Out

pH Range 2.1-2.9   9.0-9.3   2.0-2.4   8.7-9.1   2.0-2.4   8.6-9.1
(mg/1)
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Zn
TSS
0.097
0.063
9.24
1.0
0.11
0.077
.054

0.0
0.018
0.76
0.11
0.06
0.011
0.0
13
0.057
0.078
15.5
1.36
0.12
0.036
0.12

0.005
0.014
0.92
0.13
0.044
0.009
0.0
11
0.068
0.053
9.41
1.45
0.11
0.069
0.19

0.005
0.019
0.95
0.11
0.044
0.011
0.037
11
These data indicate that the system  was  operated  efficiently.   Ef-
fluent  pH  was controlled within the range of 8.6-9.3, and, while raw
waste loadings were not unusually high, most toxic metals were removed
to very low concentrations.

Lime and sodium hydroxide are sometimes used  to  precipitate-  metals.
Data  developed  from  a  facility  with  a  metal bearing wastewater,
exemplify efficient operation of a chemical precipitation and settling
system.  Table VII-3 shows sampling data from this system, which  uses
lime  and  sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment, chemical precipitation,
polyelectrolyte flocculant addition, and sedimentation.  Samples  were
taken of the raw waste influent to the system and of the clarifier ef-
fluent.  Flow through the system is approximately 5,000 gal/hr.
                                441

-------
                             TABLE VI1-3
    Effectiveness of Lime and Sodium Hydroxide for Metals Removal

              Day 1               Day 2               Day 3
         In	Out       In	Out       In	Out

pH Range 9.2-9.6   8.3-9.8   9.2       7.6-8.1   9.6       7.8-8.2
(mg/1)
Al
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ni
Se
Ti
Zn
TSS
37.3
0.65
137
175
6.86
28.6
143
18.5
4390
0.35
0.003
0.49
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.027
9
38.1
0.63
110
205
5.84
30.2
125
16.2
3595
0.35
0.003
0.57
0.012
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.044
13
29.9
0.72
208
245
5.63
27.4
115
17.0
2805
0.35
0.003
0.58
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
13
At   this   plant,   effluent  TSS  levels were below 15 mg/1 on  each day,
despite average raw  waste  TSS  concentrations  of  over   3500  mg/1.
Effluent   pH was maintained at approximately  8,  lime addition was suf-
ficient to precipitate  the dissolved metal ions,  and  the  flocculant
addition   and  clarifier  retention  served   to  remove effectively  the
precipitated solids.

Sulfide   precipitation  is  sometimes  used   to   precipitate  metals
resulting  in  improved metals removals.  Most metal sulfides are less
soluble than hydroxides  and  the  precipitates  are  frequently  more
dependably  removed  from water.   Solubilities for  selected  metal
hydroxide,  carbonate  and  sulfide precipitates are shown  in  Table  VII-
4.    Sulfide  precipitation   is  particularly effective in  removing
specific  metals such  as silver and mercury.   Sampling data  from  three
industrial plants using sulfide  precipitation appear in  Table VI1-5.
                                 442

-------
                             TABLE VII-4
         THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
                   OF SELECTED METALS IN PURE WATER
    Metal

Cadmium (Cd++)
Chromium (Cr+++)
Cobalt (Co++)
Copper (CU++)
Iron (Fe++)
Lead (Pb++)
Manganese (Mn++)
Mercury (Hg++)
Nickel (Ni-n-)
Silver (Ag+)
Tin (Sn++)
Zinc (Zn++)
                                  Solubility of metal ion, mq/1
As Hydroxide
2
8
2
2
8
2
1
3
6
13
1
.3
.4
.2
.2
.9
.1
.2
.9
.9
.3
.1
X
X
X
X
X


X
X

X
10-5
10-
10-
10-
10-


10-
10-

4
1
Z
1


4
3

As
1.




7.

3.
1.
2.
Carbonate
0




0

9
9
1
x 10-




x 10-

x 10-
x 10-
x 10-
4




3

2
1
1
10-*
             1.1
          7.0 x 10-*
                         As Sulf

                      6.7 x 10~l
                    No precipita
                      1.0 x 10-«
                      5.8 x 10-i
                      3.4 x 10-s
                      3.8 x 10-»
                      2.1 x 10-3
                      9.0 x 10-2
                      6.9 x 10-"
                      7.4 x 10-1
                      3.8 x 10-»
                      2.3 x 10-7
                         TABLE VI1-5

                 SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE
            PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
Treatment
PH
(mg/1)

Cr+6
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
              In
          Out
5.0-6.8   8-9
25.6
32.3
0.52
39.5
<0.014
<0.04
0.10
<0.07
Lime, FeS, Poly-
electrolyte,
Settle, Filter
In
7.7
Out
7.38
                    0.022  <0.020
                    2.4    <0.1

                    108      0.6
                    0.68     <0.1
                    33.9     <0.1
          NaOH, Ferric
          Chloride, Na2S
          Clarify  (1 stage)
In
                    11.45
                    18.35
                    0.029
                   0.060
Out
                  <.005
                  <.005
                  0.003
                  0.009
 In  all  cases except  iron, effluent  concentrations  are below 0.1 mg/1
 and in many cases below 0.01 mg/1  for the  three plants studied.

 Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic  manufacturing plants using
 sulfide  precipitation demonstrate   effluent   mercury  concentrations
                                  443

-------
varying  between  0.009  and 0.03 mg/1.  As shown in Figure VI1-2, the
solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower  at  alkaline  pH  levels  than
either  the corresponding hydroxides or other sulfide compounds.  This
implies that removal performance for lead and silver  sulfides  should
be  comparable  to  or better than that shown for the metals listed in
Table VII-13. Bench scale tests on several types  of  metal  finishing
and manufacturing wastewater indicate that metals removal to levels of
less  than  0.05 mg/1 and in some cases less than 0.01 mg/1 are common
in systems using  sulfide  precipitation  followed  by  clarification.
Some of the bench scale data, particularly in the case of lead, do not
support   such   low   effluent   concentrations.   However,  lead  is
consistently removed to very low  levels  (less  than  0.02  mg/1)  in
systems using hydroxide and carbonate precipitation and sedimentation.

Of  particular  interest  is  the  ability  of  sulfide to precipitate
hexavalent chromium  (Cr+6) without prior reduction  to  the  trivalent
state  as  is required in the hydroxide process.  When ferrous sulfide
is used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act  as  reducing  agents
for the hexavalent chromium according to the reaction:

    Cr03+ FeS + 3H20 = Fe(OH), + Cr(OH)3 + S

The  sludge  produced  in  this reaction consists mainly of ferric hy-
droxides, chromic hydroxides  and  various  metallic  sulfides.   Some
excess hydroxyl ions are generated in this process, possibly requiring
a downward re-adjustment of pH.

Based  on  the  available data, Table VI1-6 shows the minimum reliably
attainable   effluent  concentrations   for   sulfide   precipitation-
sedimentation systems.  These values are used to calculate performance
predictions  of sulfide precipitation-sedimentation systems.

                         TABLE VII-6

      SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE

           Parameter              Treated Effluent
                                      (mg/1)

              Cd                     0.01
              CrT                    0.05
              Cu                     0.05
              Pb                     0.01
              Hg                     0.03
              Ni                     0.05
              Ag                     0.05
              Zn                     0.01
                                444

-------
Carbonate  precipitation  is  sometimes  used  to  precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be recovered.   The
solubility  of most metal carbonates is intermediate between hydroxide
and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates form easily filtered
precipitates.

Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating   lead
and  antimony.   Sodium  carbonate  has  been  observed being added at
treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in some industrial
plants.  The lead  hydroxide  and  lead  carbonate  solubility  curves
displayed in Figure VII-4 explain this phenomenon.

Advantages and Limitations

Chemical  precipitation  has  proven  to be an effective technique for
removing many pollutants from industrial wastewater.  It  operates at
ambient  conditions  and  is  well  suited  to automatic control.  The
effectiveness of chemical precipitation  may  be  limited  because of
interference   by  chelating  agents,  because  of  possible  chemical
interference when wastewaters and treatment chemicals  are  mixed,  or
because  of  the  potentially  hazardous  situation  involved with the
storage and handling of those chemicals.  Lime is usually added   as   a
slurry  when used in hydroxide precipitation.  The slurry must be kept
well mixed and the addition  lines  periodically  checked  to  prevent
blocking  of  the  lines,  which  may result from a buildup of solids.
Also,  hydroxide  precipitation  usually   makes   recovery   of   the
precipitated  metals difficult, because of the heterogeneous nature of
most hydroxide sludges.

The major advantage of  the sulfide precipitation process  is  that the
extremely  low  solubility  of most metal sulfides, promotes very high
metal  removal efficiencies; the sulfide process also has  the  ability
,to  remove  chromates and dichromates without preliminary reduction of
the chromium  to  its   trivalent  state.   In  addition,  sulfide can
precipitate metals complexed with most complexing agents.  The process
demands  care,  however,  in  maintaining  the  pH  of the solution at
approximately 10 in order to prevent  the generation of toxic  hydrogen
sulfide  gas.  For this reason, ventilation of the treatment tanks may
be a necessary precaution in most installations.  The use  of   ferrous
sulfide  reduces  or  virtually  eliminates  the  problem  of hydrogen
sulfide evolution.  As  with hydroxide precipitation,  excess   sulfide
 ion must be present to  drive the precipitation reaction  to completion.
Since  the  sulfide   ion itself  is   toxic,  sulfide addition  must  be
carefully controlled  to maximize heavy  metals  precipitation   with   a
minimum  of   excess   sulfide to avoid the necessity of post  treatment.
At very high  excess sulfide  levels   and  high  pH,   soluble mercury-
sulfide  compounds  may also  be   formed.   Where  excess   sulfide  is
present, aeration of  the effluent stream can aid  in oxidizing residual
sulfide to  the  less harmful sodium   sulfate   (Na2S04).    The  cost  of
sulfide   precipitants    is   high    in   comparison   with   hydroxide
                                  445

-------
                             Soda ash and
                            caustic  soda
                                10.0
10.5


          FIGURE VII-  4
LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
          446

-------
precipitants,  and  disposal  of  metallic  sulfide  sludges  may  pose
problems.    An essential element in effective sulfide precipitation is
the removal of precipitated solids  from  the  wastewater  and  proper
disposal  in  an  appropriate  site.   Sulfide precipitation will also
generate a higher volume  of  sludge,  than  hydroxide  precipitation,
resulting in higher disposal and dewatering costs.  This is especially
true when ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.

Sulfide  precipitation  may  be  used  as  a polishing treatment after
hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation.  This  treatment  configuration
may   provide   the   better   treatment   effectiveness   of  sulfide
precipitation while minimizing the variability caused  by  changes  in
raw waste and reducing the amount of sulfide precipitant required.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Alkaline chemical precipitation is
highly  reliable, although proper monitoring and control are required.
Sulfide precipitation systems provide similar reliability.

Maintainability:  The major maintenance needs involve periodic  upkeep
of   monitoring   equipment,   automatic   feeding  equipment,  mixing
equipment, and other  hardware.   Removal  of  accumulated  sludge  is
necessary   for  efficient  operation  of  precipitation-sedimentation
systems.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Solids which precipitate out are  removed  in   a
subsequent  treatment  step.   Ultimately,  these  solids which may be
hazardous as defined by RCRA regulations require proper disposal.

Demonstration Status.  Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides is  a
classic waste treatment  technology  used  by  most  industrial  waste
treatment  systems.  Chemical precipitation of metals in the carbonate
form alone has been found to be feasible and is commercially  used  to
permit metals recovery and water reuse.  Full scale commercial sulfide
precipitation  units  are  in operation at numerous installations.  As
noted earlier,  sedimentation  to  remove  precipitates  is  discussed
separately.

Cyanide Precipitation

Cyanide  precipitation,  although  a  method  for  treating cyanide in
wastewaters, does not destroy cyanide.  The cyanide is retained in the
sludge that is formed.   Reports   indicate  that  during  exposure  to
sunlight  the  cyanide complexes can break down and form free cyanide.
For this reason the sludge from this treatment method must be disposed
of carefully.

Cyanide may be precipitated and settled  out  of  wastewaters  by  the
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate.  In  the presence of  iron,
cyanide will form extremely stable cyanide complexes.  The addition of
                                  447

-------
zinc  sulfate  or ferrous sulfate forms zinc ferrocyanide or ferro and
ferricyanide complexes.

Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH must
be kept at 9.0 and an appropriate retention  time  be  maintained.   A
study has shown that the formation of the complex is very dependent on
pH.   At pH's of 8 and 10 the residual cyanide concentrations measured
are twice those of the same  reaction  carried  out  at  a  pH  of  9.
Removal  efficiencies  also  depend  heavily  on  the  retention  time
allowed.  The formation of the complexes takes  place  rather  slowly.
Depending  upon  the  excess amount of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate
added, at least a 30 minute retention time should be allowed  for  the
formation   of  the  cyanide  complex  before  continuing  on  to  the
clarification stage.

One experiment with an initial concentration of  10  mg/1  of  cyanide
showed  that   (98%) of the cyanide was complexed ten minutes after the
addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the theoretical amount necessary.
Interference from other metal ions, such as cadmium, might  result  in
the need for longer retention times.

Table VI1-7 presents data from three coil coating plants.

                             TABLE VII-7

                    CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE
                                 (mg/1)

Plant          Method         In                Out

1057           FeSO4          2.57
                             2.42
                             3 28
33056          FeS04          o!l4
                             0.16
12052          ZnS04          0.46
                             0.12
Mean

The  concentrations  are  those  of the stream entering and leaving the
treatment  system.   Plant  1057 allowed a 27 minute retention  time  for
the formation  of the complex.  The retention time for the other plants
is not known.    The  data  suggest that over a wide range of cyanide
concentration  in the raw waste,  the concentration of  cyanide  can  be
reduced in the effluent stream to under 0.15 mg/1.

Application and  Performance.   Cyanide precipitation can be used when
cyanide destruction  is not feasible because of the presence of cyanide
complexes  which  are difficult to destroy.  Effluent concentrations  of
cyanide well below  0.15 mg/1 are possible.
                                448

-------
Advantages  and  Limitations.  Cyanide precipitation is an inexpensive
method of treating  cyanide.   Problems  may  occur  when  metal   ions
interfere with the formation of the complexes.

Granular Bed Filtration

Filtration is the interstitial straining of suspended solids.  Several
materials  have been used as granular media.  Silica sand, garnet  sand
and crushed anthracite coal are common examples.

Filter backwashing is a  necessary  maintenance  operation  to  ensure
proper  filter  performance.   During  the  service  cycle  of  filter
operation, particulate matter  removed  from  the  applied  wastewater
accumulates  on the surface of the grains of the media and in the  pore
spaces between grains.  Continued filtration reduces the  porosity of
the  bed.   The filter should be removed from service periodically for
cleaning to prevent an excessive head loss and decreased flow rate or
a  possible  breakthrough  of  the suspended particles into the filter
effluent.  Backwashing is the usual cleaning method.   Backwashing is
accomplished  by  a  combination  of  upflow water fluidization of the
filter bed and air scour or  surface  wash  (and  possibly  subsurface
wash).  The dirty backwash water is collected in troughs and is either
re-introduced  at  the  head  of the treatment facility or disposed of
separately.  Granular filtration units usually are  filled  with   fine
sand  and  operate  in  as  down-flow filters.  During backwashing the
finest sand rises to the top of the filter.  Therefore, if a  particle
is  not  retained  in  the top layer, it will probably be found in the
effluent since the porosity of the filter increases in  the  direction
of flow.

Multimedia  down-flow  filters  overcome  the  shortcomings of layered
systems such as the sand filters.  Coarse grains  of  a  low  specific
gravity  will  settle more slowly than heavier but finer grains during
the backwash cycle provided the size ratio between the different media
materials is properly selected.  This multimedia principle will  cause
the  formation  of  stratified  beds with decreasing grain size in the
direction of wastewater flow.  This allows gross particle  removal  in
the  top  layers and polishing near the bottom of the bed which avoids
some of the problems of surface clogging and  high  head  losses.   An
example  of  a  common  dual  media  application is the use of crushed
anthracite coal as the top layer and silica sand as the bottom layer.

The flow pattern is usually  top-to-bottom,  but  other  patterns  are
sometimes   used.   Upflow  filters  are  sometimes  used,  and  in  a
horizontal filter the flow is horizontal.  In  a  biflow  filter,  the
influent  enters both the top and the bottom and exits laterally.  The
advantage of an upflow filter is that  with  an  upflow  backwash  the
particles  of a single filter medium are distributed and maintained in
the   desired   coarse-to-fine   (bottom-to-top)   arrangement.    The
disadvantage  is  that  the bed tends to become fluidized, which ruins
                                 449

-------
                                 •OVERFLOW
                                   TROUGH
   (a)
30-40 in-
INFLUENT
\ ,
FINE/. .V.V;';
V\v SAND /•":.'
.;•"}• -'-C'OARSE'
1
EFFLUENT
(b)
6- 10 ft —
DEPTH
'
i n n n n rrt-
:FI"NE.':- •'.•••••:'
* 4 *"•*••".
• • * ".* • • * • •
••'V,";SAND;.:::
• * " ••• , •. • •. "*
r • • «."••-*•
• * • •
* * * * . ! "
/. :• COARSE'
f

^x-
t 1 EFFLUENT \'rNFLUENT
                                           GRIT TO
                                           RETAIN
                                           SAND
                                               STRAINER
                                                      -y
                      EFFLUENT


                        4-6fr
                        DEPTH
                                                       >
                                                      -*
                                                         .'.•.-FINE"/.':.
                                                        »•••••?  '• >
                              ••/. COARSE.- "•
                              •   • • » . *
UNOERDRAIN
  CHAMBER —
UNDERDRAIN
 CHAMBER-
                                                  UNOERORAIN \
                                                   CHAMBER—»
                 INFLUENT
          (d)
  COARSE MEDIA-

  INTERMIX ZONE-
  FINER MEDIA —

  FINEST MEDIA-
                •ANTHRAcf'fE-
                         (e
 T
 30-
 i
30-4010
COARSE MEDIA
INTERMIX ZONE

FINER  MEDIA-


FINEST MEDIA-

                                 INFLUENT
                                _L~
                               ANTHRACITE
                              •-.•'.'•COAL: ;•-''.
        UNDERDRAIN
         CHAMBER —'
                      EFFLUENT
                                                         T    (U
                                              if  INFLI
                                INFLUENT
T
                                         29-48in
                       UNDERDRAIN
                        CHAMBER-
                                    I  IGARNET SAND
                                    'EFFLUENT
            FIGURE  3ffl[-  5  -FILTER  CONFIGURATIONS

     (o) SINGLE-MEDIA  CONVENTIONAL  FILTER.   (b) SINGLE-MEDIA UPFLOW FILTER.
     (c) SINGLE-MEDIA  BIFLOW FILTER,   (d)  DUAL-MEDIA FILTER.
     (e) MIXED- MEDIA (TRIPLE-MEDIA) FILTER.
                                    450

-------
filtration efficiency.  The biflow design is an  attempt  to  overcome
this problem.

The  classic  granular  bed  filter operates by gravity flow however
pressure filters are fairly widely used.  They  permit  higher  solids
loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when the filter effluent
must  be  pressurized  for further downstream treatment.  In addition
pressure filter systems are often less costly for low to moderate flow
rates.

Figure VII-6  depicts  a  high  rate,  dual  media,  gravity  downflow
granular  bed  filter,  with  self-stored backwash.  Both filtrate and
backwash are piped around the  bed  in  an  arrangement  that  permits
gravity  upflow  of  the backwash, with the stored filtrate serving as
backwash.  Addition of the  indicated  coagulant  and  polyelectrolyte
usually results in a substantial improvement in filter performance.

Auxiliary  filter  cleaning  is  sometimes  employed  in the upper few
inches of filter beds.  This is conventionally referred to as  surface
wash  and  is accomplished by water jets just below the surface of the
expanded bed during  the  backwash  cycle.   These  jets  enhance  the
scouring action in the bed by increasing the agitation.

An  important feature for successful filtration and backwashing is the
underdrain.    This  is  the  support  structure  for  the  bed.    The
underdrain  provides  an  area  for  collection  of the filtered water
without clogging from either the filtered solids or the media  grains.
In addition, the underdrain prevents loss of the media with the water,
and  during the backwash cycle it provides even flow distribution over
the bed.  Failure to dissipate the velocity head during the filter  or
backwash  cycle  will  result  in  bed  upset  and  the need for major
repairs.

Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains.   The
simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded under a layer
of coarse gravel and manifolded to a header pipe for effluent removal.
Other approaches to the underdrain system are known as the Leopold and
Wheeler  filter  bottoms.    Both  of  these incorporate false concrete
bottoms with specific porosity configurations to provide drainage  and
velocity head dissipation.

Filter   system  operation  may  be  manual  or  automatic.   The filter
backwash cycle may be on a timed basis,  a pressure drop basis  with  a
terminal  value  which  triggers backwash, or a solids carryover basis
from turbidity monitoring of the outlet stream.   All of these  schemes
have been used successfully.
                                 451

-------
                                         INFLUENT
                            DRAIN
          FIGURE  VII-6
GRANULAR BED FILTRATION EXAMPLE
              452

-------
Application  and  Performance.    Wastewater treatment plants often use
granular bed filters for polishing after clarification, sedimentation,
or  other  similar  operations.   Granular  bed  filtration  thus  has
potential  application  to  nearly  all  industrial  plants.  Chemical
additives which enhance the upstream treatment equipment  may  or  may
not  be  compatible  with  or  enhance the filtration process.  Normal
operating flow rates for various types of filters are as follows:
    Slow Sand
    Rapid Sand
    High Rate Mixed Media
                 2.04 - 5.30 1/sq m-hr
                40.74 - 51.48 1/sq m-hr
                81.48 - 122.22 1/sq m-hr
Suspended solids are  commonly  removed  from  wastewater  streams  by
filtering  through  a  deep  0.3-0.9 m {1-3 feet) granular filter bed.
The porous bed formed by the granular media can be designed to  remove
practically  all  suspended  particles.   Even  colloidal  suspensions
(roughly 1 to 100 microns) are adsorbed on the surface  of  the  media
grains as they pass in close proximity in the narrow bed passages.

Properly  operated  filters  following  some  pretreatment  to  reduce
suspended solids below 200 mg/1 should produce water with less than 10
mg/1 TSS.  For  example,  multimedia  filters  produced  the  effluent
qualities shown in Table VII-8 below.

                            Table VII-8
Plant ID I

  06097
  13924

  18538
  30172
  36048
    mean
Multimedia Filter Performance

           TSS Effluent Concentration, mq/1
0.
1.
3.
1.
1.
2.
2.
0,
8,
0,
0
4,
1,
61
0.
2.
2.
7.
2.
o,
2,
0,
0,
6,
0
5
5
1
1
.5
.6, 4.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.
.6, 3.6, 2.4, 3.4
.0
.5
                                           2, 2.8
Advantages  and Limitations.  The principal advantages of granular bed
filtration are its low  initial  and  operating  costs,  reduced  land
requirements  over  other  methods to achieve the same level of solids
removal, and  elimination  of  chemical  additions  to  the  discharge
stream.   However,  the  filter may require pretreatment if the solids
level is high (over 100 mg/1).  Operator  training  must  be   somewhat
extensive  due  to the controls and periodic backwashing involved, and
backwash must be stored and dewatered for economical disposal.
                                 453

-------
Operational Factors.  Reliability:  The recent  improvements  in   filter
technology   have   significantly   improved  filtration   reliability.
Control systems, improved designs, and good operating procedures  have
made filtration a highly reliable method of water treatment.

Maintainability:   Deep bed  filters may be operated with either  manual
or automatic backwash.  In either  case,  they  must  be   periodically
inspected  for  media attrition, partial plugging, and  leakage.  Where
backwashing  is  not  used,   collected  solids  must  be   removed    by
shoveling, and filter media  must be at least partially  replaced.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Filter backwash is generally recycled  within the
wastewater  treatment  system,  so that the solids ultimately appear in
the clarifier sludge stream  for subsequent dewatering.  Alternatively,
the backwash stream may be dewatered  directly  or,  if there   is  no
backwash,  the   collected. solids  may  be  disposed  of in  a suitable
landfill.  In either of these situations there  is  a  solids disposal
problem similar  to that of clarifiers.

Demonstration  Status.  Deep granular bed filters are in common  use in
municipal  drinking water treatment plants.   Their  use in   polishing
industrial   clarifier  effluent is  increasing, and the technology is
proven  and conventional.  Granular bed  filtration  is  used in  many
manufacturing  plants.   As   noted previously,  however, little data is
available  characterizing the effectiveness of filters presently  in use
within  the industry.

Pressure Filtration

Pressure filtration works by  pumping  the  liquid  through   a   filter
material  which   is  impenetrable  to  the  solid phase.   The positive
pressure exerted by the feed pumps or other mechanical  means provides
the   pressure  differential   which  is  the  principal  driving  force.
Figure  VII-7 represents the  operation of one type of pressure filter.

A typical  pressure filtration unit consists of  a number of  plates  or
trays  which are held rigidly in a frame to ensure alignment and which
are pressed  together between a fixed end and a  traveling end.  On   the
surface of each  plate is mounted a filter made  of cloth or a synthetic
fiber.   The  feed  stream   is pumped into the  unit and passes through
holes in the trays along the length of the press until  the cavities or
chambers between the trays are completely filled.  The  solids are  then
entrapped, and a cake begins to form on  the  surface   of  the   filter
material.   The   water  passes through the fibers, and the  solids are
retained.

At the  bottom of  the  trays   are  drainage  ports.   The   filtrate  is
collected  and   discharged   to a  common drain.  As the filter  medium
becomes coated with sludge,  the flow of filtrate  through  the   filter
drops   sharply,   indicating   that  the capacity of the  filter has  been
                                454

-------
  PERFORATED
  BACKING PLATE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
END PLATE
                                                     INLET
                                                     SLUDGE
                                                 FABRIC
                                                 FILTER MEDIUM
                                                 ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
                                                  PLATES AND FRAMES ARE PRESSED
                                                  TOGETHER DURING FILTRATION
                                                  CYCLE
                                                  RECTANGULAR
                                                  METAL PLATE
          FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
                                           RECTANGULAR FRAME
                          FIGURE  VII-7
                      PRESSURE FILTRATION
                                 455

-------
exhausted.  The unit must then be cleaned of the  sludge.   After  the
cleaning  or  replacement of the filter media, the unit is again ready
for operation.

Application and Performance.  Pressure filtration is used in  aluminum
forming   for  sludge  dewatering  and  also  for  direct  removal  of
precipitated and other suspended solids from wastewater.

Because dewatering is such a common operation  in  treatment  systems,
pressure  filtration  is  a  technique  which  can  be  found  in many
industries concerned with removing solids from their waste stream.

In  a  typical  pressure  filter,  chemically  preconditioned   sludge
detained  in  the  unit for one to three hours under pressures varying
from 5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited final solids content between 25 and
50 percent.

Advantages and Limitations.  The pressures which may be applied  to  a
sludge  for  removal  of  water  by  filter presses that are currently
available range from  5 to  13  atmospheres.   As  a  result,  pressure
filtration may reduce the amount of chemical pretreatment required for
sludge dewatering.  Sludge retained in the form of the filter cake has
a  higher  percentage of  solids  than that from centrifuge or vacuum
filter.  Thus,  it  can be easily  accommodated  by  materials  handling
systems.

As  a  primary  solids removal technique, pressure filtration requires
less space than clarification and is well suited to streams with  high
solids   loadings.  The sludge produced may be disposed without further
dewatering,  but the amount of sludge is increased by the use of filter
precoat  materials  (usually diatomaceous earth).  Also, cloth  pressure
filters   often    do   not  achieve  as  high  a  degree  of  effluent
clarification as clarifiers or granular media filters.

Two disadvantages  associated with pressure filtration in the past have
been the short  life of the filter cloths and lack of automation.   New
synthetic  fibers  have  largely  offset  the first of these problems.
Also, units  with automatic feeding and pressing cycles are now  avail-
able.

For  larger  operations,  the  relatively  high space requirements, as
compared to  those  of  a  centrifuge,  could  be  prohibitive  in  some
situations.

Operational  Factors.  Reliability:  With proper pretreatment, design,
and control, pressure filtration is a highly dependable system.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  consists  of  periodic   cleaning   or
replacement  of  the  filter  media,  drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the system.  If  the  removal  of  the
                                456

-------
sludge  cake  is  not  automated, additional time is required for this
operation.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Because it is generally drier than  other  types
of  sludges, the filter sludge cake can be handled with relative ease
The accumulated  sludge  may  be  disposed  by  any  of  the  accepted
procedures  depending on its chemical composition.  The levels of toxic
metals  present  in  sludge  from treating aluminum forming wastewater
necessitate proper disposal.

Demonstration  Status.   Pressure  filtration  is  a   commonly   used
technology  in a great many commercial applications.

Settling

Settling  is  a  process  which  removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force.  This is done by reducing the  velocity
of the feed stream in a large effected by reducing the velocity of the
feed  stream  in  a  large volume tank or lagoon so that gravitational
settling can occur.  Figure VI1-8 shows two typical settling devices.

Settling is often preceded by chemical  precipitation  which  converts
dissolved  pollutants  to solid form and by coagulation which enhances
settling by coagulating suspended  precipitates  into  larger,  faster
settling particles.

If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a tank
or lagoon where it loses velocity and the suspended solids are allowed
to   settle   out.   Long  retention  times  are  generally  required.
Accumulated  sludge  can   be   collected   either   periodically   or
continuously  and  either  manually or mechanically.  Simple settling,
however, may require excessively large catchments, and long  retention
times   (days   as  compared  with  hours)  to  achieve  high  removal
efficiencies.   Because of this, addition of settling aids such as alum
or polymeric flocculants is often economically attractive.

In practice,  chemical  precipitation  often  precedes  settling,  and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are usually added
as  well.  Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium aluminate,
ferrous  or   ferric   sulfate,   and   ferric   chloride.    Organic
polyelectrolytes  vary  in structure, but all usually form larger floe
particles than coagulants used alone.

Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can be fed into a  holding
tank  or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into a clarifier
for the same purpose.  A clarifier reduces space requirements, reduces
retention time, and increases solids removal efficiency.  Conventional
clarifiers  generally consist of a circular or rectangular tank with  a
mechanical   sludge  collecting  device or with a sloping funnel-shaped
bottom designed for sludge collection.  In advanced  settling  devices
                                  457

-------
Sedimentation Satin

          Inlet Zpnt,




 Iniit Liquid
  Baffles To Maintain
^Quiescent Conditions
            Particle •Traj*ct<5ry. •.
Outlet Zone
 Senled Particles Collected
  And Periodically Removed
  Circular Clarifier
                                                                                     Outlet Liquid
                         Belt-Type Solids Collection Mechanism
                                                           Circular Baffle
            Settling Zone



I". — *=:L:- •'
!— ' " " « *
• UlefZohe ' *

^Pfclff-Viz
• 1 1 •
-^•^ •
* * '•
/ &
*• • • v •* •*
* • */• "LiouTd •
• ^ • Wow •
• • ' •T' •*[" *T* ^» * •
knnular Overflow
Wei
Outlet Liquid
^— Settling Particle
                 Mechanism
                               Senled Particles              Collected And Periodically Removed
                                                L Sludge Drawof f
                                         FIGURE VII-8

                       REPRESENTATIVE TYPES  OF  SEDIMENTATION
                                           458

-------
inclined  plates,  slanted tubes,  or a lamellar network may be included
within the clarifier tank in order to increase the effective  settling
area,   increasing   capacity.  A fraction of the sludge stream is often
recirculated to the inlet,  promoting formation of a denser sludge.

Application and Performance.  Settling and clarification are  used   in
the aluminum forming category to remove precipitated metals.  Settling
can  be  used  to   remove  most suspended solids in a particular waste
stream; thus it is used extensively by many different industrial waste
treatment facilities.  Because most metal ion pollutants  are  readily
converted  to  solid  metal  hydroxide  precipitates,  settling  is  of
particular use in  those industries associated with  metal  production,
metal  finishing,   metal  working,  and  any  other industry with high
concentrations of  metal ions in their  wastewaters.   In  addition   to
toxic  metals,  suitably precipitated materials effectively removed  by
settling  include   aluminum,  iron,   manganese,   cobalt,   antimony,
beryllium, molybdenum, fluoride,  phosphate, and many others.

A  properly operating settling system can efficiently remove suspended
solids, precipitated  metal  hydroxides,  and  other  impurities  from
wastewater.   The   performance  of the process depends on a variety  of
factors, including the density and particle size of  the  solids,  the
effective  charge   on  the  suspended  particles,  and  the  types   of
chemicals used in  pretreatment.  The site of flocculant  or  coagulant
addition   also may  significantly  influence  the  effectiveness   of
clarification.  If the flocculant is  subjected  to  too  much  mixing
before  entering  the  clarifier, the complexes may be sheared and the
settling effectiveness diminished.  At the same time,  the  flocculant
must  have  sufficient mixing and reaction time in order for effective
set-up and settling to occur.  Plant personnel have observed that  the
line  or trough leading into the clarifier is often the most efficient
site for flocculant addition.  The performance of simple settling is a
function of the retention time, particle size  and  density,  and  the
surface area of the basin.

The  data  displayed  in Table VI1-9 indicate suspended solids removal
efficiencies  in settling systems.
                                   459

-------
                        TABLE VI1-9
        PERFORMANCE OF SAMPLED SETTLING SYSTEMS
PLANT ID
01057
09025
11058
12075

19019

33617

40063
44062
46050
SETTLING
DEVICE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION  (mg/1)
Day 1	     Day 2          Day 3
                        In
                       Out  In
                     Out  In
                         Out
Lagoon         54
Clarifier    1100
Settling
Ponds
Clarifier     451
Settling      284
Pond
Settling      170
Tank
Clarifier &
Lagoon
Clarifier    4390
Clarifier     182
Settling      295
Tank
        6
        9
       17
        6
        9
       13
       10
  56
1900
 242

  50

1662

3595
 118
  42
 6
12
10

 1

16

12
14
10
  50
1620
 502
1298

2805
174
153
 5
 5
14
13
23
 8
The mean effluent TSS concentration obtained by the  plants  shown   in
Table  VII-9  is 10.1 mg/1.  Influent concentrations averaged 838 mg/1.
The maximum effluent TSS value reported is 23 mg/1.  These plants   all
use  alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate metal hydroxides, and most
add a coagulant or flocculant prior to settling.

Advantages and Limitations.  The major advantage of simple settling is
its simplicity as demonstrated by the gravitational settling of  solid
particulate waste in a holding tank or lagoon.  The major problem with
simple  settling  is  the  long  retention  time  necessary to achieve
complete settling, especially if the specific gravity of the suspended
matter  is  close  to  that  of  water.   Some  materials  cannot    be
practically removed by simple settling alone.

Settling  performed  in  a  Clarifier  is  effective in removing slow-
settling suspended matter in a shorter time and in less space  than  a
simple settling system.  Also, effluent quality is often better from a
Clarifier.    The  cost  of  installing  and  maintaining  a Clarifier,
however, is substantially  greater  than  the  costs  associated  with
simple settling.

Inclined  plate,  slant   tube,  and  lamella settlers have even higher
removal  efficiencies  than  conventional  clarifiers,   and   greater
capacities  per  unit  area  are  possible.  Installed costs for these
advanced clarification systems are claimed to be one half the cost   of
conventional  systems of similar capacity.
                               460

-------
Operational  Factors.  Reliability:  Settling can be a highly reliable
technology for removing suspended solids.  Sufficient  retention  time
and  regular  sludge  removal  are  important  factors  affecting  the
reliability of all settling systems.  Proper control of pH adjustment,
chemical precipitation,  and  coagulant  or  flocculant  addition  are
additional   factors   affecting   settling  efficiencies  in  systems
(frequently clarifiers) where these methods are used.

Those advanced settlers using slanted tubes,  inclined  plates,  or  a
lamellar  network  may  require pre-screening of the waste in order to
eliminate any fibrous  materials  which  could  potentially  clog  the
system.    Some  installations  are  especially  vulnerable  to  shock
loadings, as by storm water runoff,  but  proper  system  design  will
prevent this.

Maintainability:   When  clarifiers or other advanced settling devices
are used, the associated system utilized for chemical pretreatment and
sludge dragout  must  be  maintained  on  a  regular  basis.   Routine
maintenance  of  mechanical  parts is also necessary.  Lagoons require
little maintenance other than periodic sludge removal.

Demonstration Status

Settling represents the  typical  method  of  solids  removal  and  is
employed  extensively  in  industrial  waste  treatment.  The advanced
clarifiers are just beginning to  appear  in  significant  numbers  in
commercial applications.

Skimming

Pollutants  with  a  specific gravity less than water will often float
unassisted to the surface of the wastewater.  Skimming  removes  these
floating  wastes.  Skimming normally takes place in a tank designed to
allow the floating debris to rise and remain on the surface, while the
liquid flows to an outlet located below  the floating layer.   Skimming
devices  are  therefore  suited  to the  removal of non-emulsified oils
from raw  waste  streams.   Common  skimming  mechanisms  include  the
rotating  drum  type, which picks up oil from the surface of the water
as it rotates.  A doctor blade scrapes oil from the drum and  collects
it in a trough for disposal or reuse.  The water portion is allowed to
flow  under  the  rotating drum.  Occasionally, an underflow baffle is
installed after the drum; this has  the  advantage  of  retaining  any
floating oil which escapes the drum skimmer.  The belt type skimmer is
pulled  vertically  through the water, collecting oil which is scraped
off from the surface and collected  in  a drum.   Gravity  separators,
such as the API type, utilize overflow and underflow baffles to skim  a
floating  oil  layer from the surface of the wastewater.  An overflow-
underflow baffle allows a small amount of wastewater  (the oil portion)
to flow over into a trough for disposition or reuse while the majority
of the water flows underneath the baffle.   This  is  followed  by  an
                                 461

-------
overflow baffle, which is set at a height relative to the first baffle
such that only the oil bearing portion will flow over the first baffle
during normal plant operation.  A diffusion device, such as a vertical
slot  baffle,  aids  in creating a uniform flow through the system and
increasing oil removal efficiency.

Application and Performance.   Skimming  is  applicable  to  any  waste
stream  containing  pollutants  which  float  to  the  surface.  It is
commonly used to remove free oil,  grease,  and  soaps.   Skimming  is
often used in conjunction with air flotation or clarification in order
to increase its effectiveness.

The  removal  efficiency  of  a  skimmer  is  partly a function of the
retention time of  the  water  in  the  tank.   Larger,  more  buoyant
particles  require  less retention time than smaller particles.  Thus,
the efficiency also depends on the composition of  the  waste  stream.
The  retention  time required to allow phase separation and subsequent
skimming varies from 1 to 15  minutes,  depending  on  the  wastewater
characteristics.

API  or other gravity-type separators tend to be more suitable for use
where the  amount  of  surface  oil  flowing  through  the  system  is
consistently  significant.  Drum and belt type skimmers are applicable
to waste streams which evidence smaller amounts of  floating  oil  and
where  surges  of  floating  oil  are  not  a  problem.   Using an API
separator system in conjunction with a drum type skimmer  would  be  a
very  effective  method  of  removing  floating contaminants from non-
emulsified oily waste streams.  Sampling data shown  below  illustrate
the  capabilities  of  the  technology  with  both  extremely high and
moderate oil influent levels.

                             Table VII-10

                         SKIMMING PERFORMANCE

                             Oil & Grease
                                mg/1

Plant    Skimmer Type        Iri             Out

06058        API         224,669             17.9
06058        Belt             19.4            8.3

Based on data  from  installations in a variety of manufacturing plants,
it is determined that effluent oil  levels  may  be  reliably  reduced
below  10  mg/1  with  moderate  influent  concentrations.   Very high
concentrations of oil such as the 22 percent shown above  may  require
two step treatment  to achieve this level.
                                462

-------
Skimming  which  removes oil may also be used to remove base levels of
organics.   Plant sampling data show that many organic  compounds  tend
to  be  removed  in  standard  wastewater  treatment  equipment.   Oil
separation not only removes  oil  but  also  organics  that  are  more
soluble  in  oil  than in water.  Clarification removes organic solids
directly and probably removes  dissolved  organics  by  adsorption  on
inorganic solids.

The  source  of  these  organic  pollutants  is  not always known with
certainty, although they seem to derive mainly  from  various  process
lubricants.    They  are  also  sometimes  present  in  the plant water
supply, as additives to proprietary formulations of cleaners,  or  due
to leaching from plastic lines and other materials.

A  study  of  priority  organic compounds commonly found in copper and
copper alloy waste streams indicated that incidental removal of  these
compounds  often  occurs  as  a result of oil removal or clarification
processes.   When  all  organics  analyses  from  visited  plants  are
considered,   removal  of  organic  compounds  by other waste treatment
technologies appears to be marginal in many cases.  However, when only
raw waste  concentrations  of  0.05 mg/1  or  greater  are  considered
incidental organics removal becomes much more apparent.  Lower values,
those  less  than  0.05 mg/1,  are  much  more  subject  to analytical
variation, while higher values indicate a significant  presence  of  a
given  compound.   When these factors are taken into account, analysis
data indicate  that  most  clarification  and  oil  removal  treatment
systems remove significant amounts of the organic compounds present in
the  raw  waste.   The API oil-water separation system and the thermal
emulsion breaker performed notably in this regard,  as  shown  in  the
following table (all values in mg/1).
                             TABLE VII-11
                  TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING
                                  API (06058)
                                  Inf.
   Eff.
   TEB (04086)
   Inf.       Eff.
Oil & Grease                225,000
Chloroform                      . 023
Methylene Chloride              .013
Naphthalene                    2.31
N-nitrosodiphenylamine        59.0
Bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate     11.0
Diethyl phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate            .005
Di-n-octyl phthalate            .019
Anthracene - phenanthrene     16.4
Toluene                         .02
   14.6
.007
.012
.004
.182
.027

.002
.002
.014
.012
0
0
1,
 2,590
           10.3
83

55
017
  144
       0
       0
.003

.018
.005
        .002
                                463

-------
                                      SEPARATOR  CHANNEL
-Pk
CTl
        •GATEWAY PIER
              •SLOT FOR
            CHANNEL GATE

       FOREBAY

       SLUDGE  COLLECTING
            HOPPER	
                              DIFFUSION  DEVICE
                            (VERTICAL-SLOT BAFFLE)
     FLIGHT SCRAPER
     CHAIN  SPROCKET
ROTATABLE OIL
SKIMMING PIPE
       FLIGHT SCRAPER
            CHAIN


         WOOD FLIGHTS
                                                            WATER
                                                            LEVEL
                                                          \\  \    I
                                                 FLOW
OIL RETENTION
   BAFFLE
                                EFFLUENT FLUME
SLUDGE-COLLECTING HOPPER
DISCHARGE WITH LEAD PIPE.
                           SLUDGE PUMP
                           SUCTION PIPE
                                •^EFFLUENT
                                  WEIR AND
                                  WALL
                                                                                           •EFFLUENT
                                                                                             SEWER
                     FIGURE  VII- 9    GRAVITY OIL/WATER  SEPARATOR

-------
The  unit  operation  most  applicable  to  removal  of trace priority
organics is adsorption, and chemical oxidation is another possibility.
Biological  degradation  is  not  generally  applicable  because   the
organics  are  not  present  in  sufficient concentration to sustain a
biomass  and  because  most  of  the   organics   are   resistant   to
biodegradation.

Advantages  and  Limitations.  Skimming as a pretreatment is effective
in removing naturally floating waste material.  It also  improves  the
performance of subsequent downstream treatments.

Many  pollutants/  particularly  dispersed or emulsified oil, will not
float  "naturally"  but  require  additional  treatments.   Therefore,
skimming  alone  may  not  remove  all the pollutants capable of being
removed by air flotation or other more sophisticated technologies.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Because  of   its   simplicity,
skimming is a very reliable technique.

Maintainability:     The    skimming   mechanism   requires   periodic
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.

Solid Waste Aspects:  The collected layer of debris must  be  disposed
of   by   contractor  removal,  landfill,  or  incineration.   Because
relatively large quantities of water  are  present  in  the  collected
wastes, incineration is not always a viable disposal method.

Demonstration   Status.   Skimming  is  a  common  operation  utilized
extensively by industrial waste treatment systems.

Chemical Emulsion Breaking.

Chemical treatment is often used to break  stable  oil-in-water  (0-W)
emulsions.   An  0-W  emulsion  consists  of  oil  dispersed in water,
stabilized by electrical charges and  emulsifying  agents.   A  stable
emulsion  will  not  separate  or  break  down  without  some  form of
treatment.

Emulsifiers may be used to aid in stabilizing  or  forming  emulsions.
Emulsifiers  are surface-active agents which alter the characteristics
of the oil and water interface.  These surfactants  have  rather   long
polar  molecules.   One end of the molecule is particularly soluble in
water  (e.g., carboxyl, sulfate, hydroxyl, or sulfonate groups) and the
other end is readily soluble in oils  (an organic  group  which  varies
greatly  with  the  different  surfactant type).  Thus, the surfactant
emulsifies  or  suspends  the  organic  material   (oil)   in   water.
Emulsifiers  also  lower  the surface tension of the O-W emulsion  as a
result of solvation and ionic complexing.   Factors  that  may  affect
emulsion   stability   include   pH,   viscosity,   specific  gravity,
                               465

-------
temperature,  oil  content  in  the  emulsion,  mechanical  shear  and
agitation acting upon the emulsion, and retention time.

Treatment  of  spent  0-W  emulsions  involves the use of chemicals to
break  the  emulsion  followed  by  gravity  differential  separation.
Factors to be considered for breaking emulsions are type of chemicals,
dosage  and  sequence of addition, pH, mechanical shear and agitation,
heat, and retention time.

Chemicals, e.g., polymers, alum, ferric chloride, and organic emulsion
breakers, break emulsions by neutralizing  repulsive  charges  between
particles,   precipitating  or  salting  out  emulsifying  agents,  or
altering the interfacial film between the  oil  and  water  so   it  is
readily  broken.   Reactive  cations, e.g., H(+l), AH+3), Fe(+3), and
cationic polymers, are  particularly effective in breaking  dilute  0-W
emulsions.   Once  the charges have been neutralized or the interfacial
film broken, the small  oil  droplets  and  suspended  solids  will  be
adsorbed  on   the  surface of the floe that is formed, or break out and
float to the top.  Various types of  emulsion-breaking  chemicals  are
used for the various types of oils.

If   more  than  one  chemical is required, the sequence of addition can
make quite  a difference  in  both  breaking  efficiency  and  chemical
dosages.

pH   plays   an   important  role  in  emulsion  breaking,  especially  if
cationic  inorganic chemicals, such as alum, are used as coagulants.   A
depressed pH  in the  range of two to four keeps the aluminum  ion  in  its
most positive  state  where it can function most effectively for   charge
neutralization.    After some  of  the oil is broken free and skimmed,
raising  the pH into  the six to eight range with lime or  caustic will
cause  the aluminum to  hydrolyze and precipitate as aluminum  hydroxide.
This  floe  entraps or  adsorbs destabilized oil droplets which can then
be separated from  the  water  phase.   Cationic  polymers   can   break
emulsions  over a wider pH range and thus avoid acid corrosion and  the
additional   sludge  generated  from   neutralization.    However,    an
 inorganic  flocculant   is  usually  required  to supplement the polymer
emulsion breaker's adsorptive properties.

Mixing is important in breaking 0-W emulsions.  Proper  chemical  feed
 and  dispersion is required  for effective results.   Mixing also  causes
 collisions  which help break  the emulsion, and subsequently   helps   to
 agglomerate droplets.

 In  all   emulsions,   the mix  of  two  immiscible  liquids  has  a specific
 gravity very close to that  of  water.  Heating lowers the viscosity  and
 increases the apparent specific gravity  differential  between  oil   and
water.    Heating  also  increases the frequency  of  droplet  collisions,
which  helps to rupture the  interfacial  film.
                                 466

-------
Once a batch is broken, the difference in  specific  gravities  allows
the  oil  to float to the surface of the water.  Solids usually form a
layer between the oil and water, since some oil  is  retained  in  the
solids.  The longer the retention time, the more complete and distinct
the  separation  between  the  oil,  solids, and water will be.  Often
other  methods  of  gravity  differential  separation,  such  as   air
flotation, or rotational separation (e.g., centrifugation) are used to
enhance and speed separation.  A schematic flow diagram of one type of
application is shown in Figure VII-'IO.

The  major  equipment required for chemical emulsion breaking include:
reaction chambers with agitators,  chemical  storage  tanks,  chemical
feed  systems,  pumps,  and piping.  Maintenance is required on pumps,
motors, and valves as well as periodic cleaning of the treatment  tank
to remove any accumulated solids.  Energy use is limited to mixers and
pumps.

The  surface oil and oily sludge produced are usually hauled away by a
licensed contractor.  If the recovered  oil  has  a  sufficiently  low
percentage  of water, it may be burned for its fuel value or processed
and reused.

Advantages gained from the use of chemicals for breaking 0-W emulsions
are the high removal  efficiency  potential  and  the  possibility  of
reclaiming  the  oily  waste.   Disadvantages  are  corrosion problems
associated with acid-alum systems, skilled operator  requirements  for
batch   treatment,   chemical   sludges   produced,   and  poor  cost-
effectiveness for low oil concentrations.

Sixteen plants  in  the  aluminum  forming  category  currently  break
emulsions  with  chemicals.   Eight  plants  break  spent  rolling oil
emulsions with chemicals.  One plant breaks its  rolling  and  drawing
emulsions.   One plant breaks its rolling oils and degreasing solvent.
One plant sends its  direct  chill  contact  cooling  water,  scrubber
liquor,  and  sawing  oil  through  emulsion breaking.  One plant uses
emulsion breaking with chemicals on its direct chill  contact  cooling
water and extrusion press heat treatment quench.

Reported  oil  and  grease  and suspended solids removals are shown in
Table VII-12. Data  was  obtained  from  sampling  and  reviewing  the
current  literature.   This type of treatment is proven to be reliable
and is considered the current state-of-the-art  for  aluminum  forming
emulsified oily wastewaters.


Flotation

Flotation is the process of causing particles such as metal hydroxides
or  oil  to  float  to  the  surface  of  a  tank  where  they  can be
concentrated and removed.   This  is  accomplished  by  releasing  gas
                                 467

-------
                                ALUM
                                  POLYMER

EMULSIFIED
OIL
                             RAPID MIX
                               TANK
                                                               TO  GRAVITY
                                                               SEPERATION
                                                                   OR
TO AIR FLOTATION
              FIGURE 3ZH - 10  FLOW   DIAGRAM  FOR EMULSION
                              BREAKING  WITH   CHEM.ICALS

-------
                                                         TABLE VII-12
                                          CHEMICAL EMULSION-BREAKING EFFICIENCIES
                            Concentration (mg/1)
en
10
Parameter
O&G
TSS
O&G


TSS


O&G


TSS


O&G
Influent
6,060
2,612
13,000
18,400
21,300
540
680
1,060
2,300
12,500
13,800
1,650
2,200
3,470
7,200
Effluent Reference
98 Sampling data *
46
277 Sampling data +
--
189
121
59
140
52 Sampling data **
27
18
187
153
63
80 Katnick and Pavilcius, 1978 ++
               Oil and grease and total suspended solids were taken as grab samples before and after batch emulsion-
               breaking treatment which used alum and polymer on emulsified rolling oil wastewater.
               Oil and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (grab) samples were taken on three consecutive days
               from emulsified rolling oil wastewater.  A commercial demulsifier was used in this batch treatment.
               Oil and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (composite) samples were taken on three consecutive
               days from emulsified rolling oil wastewater.  A commercial demulsifier  (polymer) was used in this
               batch  treatment.
               This result is from a full-scale batch chemical treatment system for emulsified oils from a steel
               rolling mill.

-------
bubbles which attach  to  the solid particles,  increasing  their  buoyancy
and causing them  to float.  In principle,  this process is  the  opposite
of sedimentation.  Figure VII-11 shows  one type of flotation system.

Flotation  is   used   primarily   in  the  treatment  of wastewater streams
that carry heavy  loads of finely  divided   suspended  solids   or   oil.
Solids having a specific gravity only slightly greater than 1.0,  which
would  require  abnormally  long  sedimentation times, may be removed  in
much less time  by flotation.

This process may  be performed in several ways:  foam,  dispersed   air,
dissolved  air,  gravity,   and   vacuum  flotation  are the most  commonly
used techniques.   Chemical  additives are often  used  to  enhance the
performance of  the flotation  process.

The  principal   difference   among   types of flotation is the method  of
generating  the  minute gas bubbles  (usually air)   in  a   suspension  of
water   and   small  particles.   Chemicals   may  be used  to improve the
efficiency  with any of the  basic methods.    The   following paragraphs
describe  the  different flotation  techniques and the method of bubble
generation  for  each process.

Froth  Flotation - Froth flotation   is  based on  differences   in the
physiochemical   properties   in   various particles.   Wettability and
surface properties affect  the particles' ability  to attach themselves
to gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth flotation,  air  is blown
through  the  solution  containing   flotation reagents.  The particles
with water repellant surfaces stick to  air bubbles as  they  rise and
are  brought  to the surface.  A mineralized froth layer,  with mineral
particles attached to air  bubbles,   is  formed.   Particles  of  other
minerals which are readily  wetted by water do not stick  to air bubbles
 and remain in suspension.

Dispersed  Air Flotation -  In dispersed air flotation, gas bubbles are
 generated by introducing the air by means  of mechanical  agitation with
 impellers or by forcing  air  through  porous media.    Dispersed air
 flotation is used mainly in the metallurgical industry.

Dissolved  Air  Flotation  -  In dissolved air  flotation, bubbles are
produced  by  releasing  air  from   a  supersaturated  solution  under
 relatively  high pressure.   There are two  types  of contact between the
gas bubbles and particles.   The  first  type  is  predominant   in  the
 flotation  of  flocculated  materials  and  involves  the entrapment  of
rising gas bubbles in the flocculated particles  as   they  increase  in
size.    The  bond  between  the bubble  and particle  is one of  physical
capture only.    The  second  type  of  contact   is   one  of  adhesion.
Adhesion  results  from  the  intermolecular attraction  exerted at the
interface between the solid particle and  gaseous bubble.
                                   470

-------
FULL  FLOW  PRESSURIZATION
   OILY
  WASTE
    FLOCCULATING
       AGENT
   (IF REQUIRED)
                 PRESSURE
                RETENTION
                  TANK
                                         SKIMMINGS
                                    FLOTATION
                                    CHAMBER
                                                 CLARIFIED
                                                 EFFLUENT
PARTIAL  PRESSURIZATION
                                         SKIMMINGS
                                            I
OILY
WASTE ^-\
FLOCCULATING
AGENT
(IF REQUIRED)
i
_rx_
FLOCCULAT10N
CHAMBER
(IF REQUIRED)
FLOTATION
CHAMBER
i
MR-i
_*4 1 	 FN^I 	
i

CLARIFIED
EFFLUENT
RECYCLE PRESSURIZATION
                        PRESSURE
                       RETENTION
                         TANK
                                      SKIMMINGS
   OILY
  WASTE
         t
                     FLOCCULATION
                      CHAMBER
                      (IF REQ'D)
                                         i
FLOTATION
CHAMBER
CLARIFIED
EFFLUENT
                                            K
                                      /\
FLOCCULATING
   AGENT
(IF .REQUIRED)                         ,    ,   s  ^	,
                                    —X   2^1 RECYCLE
                                  PRESSURE
                               RETENTION TANK

FIGURE  YH-11   -DISSOLVED  AIR FLOTATION
                    CONFIGURATIONS
                 471

-------
Vacuum Flotation - This process  consists of  saturating  the waste  water
with air either directly  in  an aeration tank,  or  by permitting  air   to
enter  on  the  suction   of   a   wastewater   pump.  A partial  vacuum is
applied, which causes  the dissolved air to come   out  of  solution   as
minute bubbles.  The bubbles attach to solid particles  and rise to  the
surface  to   form  a  scum  blanket,  which   is   normally removed by a
skimming mechanism.  Grit and other heavy solids  that   settle  to  the
bottom  are   generally  raked to a central sludge pump  for removal.  A
typical vacuum flotation unit consists of a  covered  cylindrical   tank
in  which  a  partial  vacuum is maintained.   The  tank  is equipped with
scum and  sludge  removal  mechanisms.   The  floating material   is
continuously  swept  to  the  tank periphery,  automatically  discharged
 into a  scum  trough,  and removed from the  unit by   a  pump  also  under
partial  vacuum.    Auxilliary  equipment  includes an aeration tank  for
 saturating the wastewater with air, a tank with a short retention time
 for removal  of large bubbles, vacuum pumps,  and sludge pumps.

 Application and Performance.   The  primary   variables  for   flotation
 designare pressure, feed solids concentration,  and  retention period.
 The suspended solids  in  the effluent decrease, and  the  concentration
 of  solids   in  the   float increases with increasing  retention period.
 When the flotation process is  used  primarily  for   clarification,  a
 retention  period  of  20 to 30 minutes is  adequate  for separation and
 concentrat ion.

 Advantages and Limitations.  Some advantages of the flotation  process
 are	thehighlevels   of  solids  separation  achieved   in  many
 applications,  the  relatively  low  energy  requirements,    and   the
 adaptability to  meet   the  treatment requirements of different waste
 types.  Limitations of flotation are that it often  requires   addition
 of   chemicals  to   enhance  process  performance and that it generates
 large  quantities of solid waste.

 Operational  Factors.  Reliability:   Flotation  systems  normally  are
 veryreliable  with proper  maintenance  of  the  sludge  collector
 mechanism and the motors and pumps  used for aeration.

 Maintainability:  Routine maintenance is required  on  the   pumps   and
 motors.   The sludge  collector mechanism  is subject  to possible  cor-
 rosion or breakage  and  may  require  periodic replacement.

 Solid  Waste Aspects:  Chemicals are commonly  used to aid the flotation
 process by  creating a surface or  a  structure  that can  easily adsorb or
 entrap air  bubbles.   Inorganic  chemicals, such   as  the  aluminum   and
 ferric salts,   and  activated  silica, can  bind  the particulate  matter
 together  and create a structure that can entrap  air bubbles.   Various
 organic   chemicals   can  change  the nature  of either the air-liquid
 interface or the  solid-liquid interface,  or  both.    These  compounds
 usually   collect   on  the interface to bring about the  desired  changes.
 The added chemicals plus the particles  in solution combine  to   form  a
                                   472

-------
large  volume  of  sludge  which  must  be further treated or properly
disposed.

Demonstration Status.  Flotation is a fully developed process  and  is
readily  available  for  the treatment of a wide variety of industrial
waste streams.


MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS

The performance of individual  treatment  technologies  was  presented
above.   Performance  of  operating  systems  is  discussed here.  Two
different systems are considered:  L&S  (hydroxide  precipitation  and
sedimentation  or  lime and settle) and LS&F (hydroxide precipitation,
sedimentation  and  filtration   or   lime,   settle,   and   filter).
Subsequently,  an analysis of effectiveness of such systems is made to
develop one-day maximum and thirty-day average concentration levels to
be used in regulating pollutants.  Evaluation of the L&S and the  LS&F
systems  is  carried  out on the assumption that chemical reduction of
chromium, cyanide precipitation, and oil skimming  are  installed  and
operating properly where appropriate.

L&S Performance

Sampling data was analyzed from fifty-five industrial plants which use
chemical  precipitation as a waste treatment technology.  These plants
include the electroplating, mechanical products, metal finishing, coil
coating, porcelain enameling, battery  manufacturing,  copper  forming
and  aluminum  forming  categories.   All  of  the  plants  employ  pH
adjustment and hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic, followed
by settling (tank, lagoon or clarifier) for solids removal.  Most also
add a coagulant or flocculant prior  to  solids  removal.   No  sample
analyses  were  included where effluent TSS levels exceeded 50 mg/1 or
where the effluent pH fell below 7.0.  This was done  to  exclude  any
data  which  represented clearly inadequate operation of the treatment
system.   These  data  are  derived  from  a  variety  of   industrial
manufacturing  operations  which have wastewater relatively similar to
aluminum forming wastewaters.  Plots were made of the  available  data
for  eight  metal  pollutants  showing  effluent concentration vs. raw
waste concentration  (Figures VII-13  -  VII-22)  for  each  parameter.
Table  VII-13  summarizes  data shown in Figures VII-13 through VII-22,
tabulating for each pollutant of interest the number  of  data  points
and  average  of  observed  values.   Generally accepted design values
(GADV) for these metals are also shown in Table VII-13.
                                 473

-------
1.0



»•*
•H
I*
<—
c
o
^ n i
c °»1
V

c
o

c
a
»H
vu
U-l
W
(1)
* .01
0)
^

3
•H
B
*n
u
.001


















— 0 	

0 	 ©-
-0 	
o 	



















0 C



w




















)



JC























w
—




















%
>























'*
















































c
























D


























-t«r



























































































































i r>
























0




















t





















P


























































































































































































































































































































.01
       0.1                1.0                10.0               100.0
       Cadmium  Raw Waste  Concentration  (mq/1)
                                              (Number of observations
                   FIGURE  VII- 13
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION &  SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
                     CADMIUM
                                                                                   38)

-------
4 .

VI
"i
        N,
         C
         0
         H
         4J
         |Q
         U
         u

         e
         01
         o



         cS
         e
         0)
         a
U

•O
QJ
u
•1

2
         8

         u
W. V





In
» 0



0.1
.01
1






















(

1






















1

u
















































0

























-














































D
j~
^









0 ®







0
0
0 0




_ (;

C
§


















0 (T




1










































(.'.


w








































-s
































1







































0






(3











fi
5
-4^2





















j





























w















@




:















'-
'




















2





"•) f

7j













0
0


( ^.

7k...
c> 	









0
	




0


















	 '





•)
f

































































































































100. 1000.0
                                    Chromium  Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)


                                                                           (Number of observations  =  64)

                                                FIGURE VII-14


                            HYDROXIDE  PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS


                                                 CHROMIUM

-------
CTl
J.U. U


••*
rH
I1
0
I! i.o

0)
c
5
c
•H
U-l
1*1
.1
0)
M

£
v,
o
u
.01





























— On







rt^mr






















































































3
i.1






^







0


^
2

ft-

( )
G
0 ©
0





O
O


















O
u_


















. ,


O



















0













3


^

p
"
I7)"






	

0
0
0
	 G




7
0







	




0




U













")


















0






















,.

;













-
















O


7

*>-
•f '
^








	



Pig 	

^)










































































































„
» _, .

















              0.1
        1.0                10-0               100.0             1000.0
          Copper Raw Waste Concentration  (mg/1)
                                                (Number of  observations
                   FIGURE VII- 15
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
                                                                                                 74)

-------
           10.0
! .
^-J
 -!
         H

         iv
          t:
          O
          H
          u
          ,T,
          U
          u
          c
          01
          •>
          c
          0
          I >

          u
          c
          & '
          01
          lu
          ,-

          r
          0
          M
1.0
            0.1
           0.01








































(

',






0
















1©

5)
























I:

























(

























I




























































3






































p©

f~\ i
<$•

0
(3> ©
ri]j^\

©

©

0









0






? i
/TV
(g
0






1








$-
*I





°
J

^
(


<•)




















3

9
<^i
























0
$



§




















c
5
I






















•
i

i
'

-




















(


•

















.



(
1

i
















0
0
0



:)

^. ©
•S
i)





















(*)




0










































0








©

























I

























3
























•
t




















!




"




















,














	
CO







£•}

—d
0

0

©
0









	











w


U
O



































—
































0
G

























,














































i






















               0.1
                     1.0                10.0                100.              1000.


                          Iron  Raw Waste Concentration  (mg/1)


                                                                (Number  of  observations


                                   FIGURE VII- 16

                HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS

                                        IKON
                                                                                                      88)

-------
1.0


«-»
H
\
»-•
0
•U o.i
u
c

c
o
u
c
(U
ft
U-l
u-i
u .01
T3
(U
4J

(U
0.001
.




















31































(



















O
3
©

















->
2












—




—

$

7)
£















r
_
"--€&£
£J&
30









0.1








0
J
©
f















0



JT


















P)





















c




















1











I





^













.





0
i i
P ^













.0





0
	













































































._ -




G














1

	



7














0.0





c















P




































































- —







~ ~



























        Lead  Raw Waste  Concentration  (mg/1)
                                                 (Number  of observations  -  85)
                    FIGURE VII-   17



HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS



                       LEAD

-------
.1.
-J
u
l.U



— t

C
0
•~4
Li
U
» 0.1
c
. .
c
0

Jj
c
fll
3
— (
HJ
U-l
U]
T3
2 .01



H

1>
(V
C
c
«J
.001















<
















	 ^







1
















5-p
-U.























































_ h




.
1















-)




















•'J
























1
























r










































	







	




















(
























(•>
\

























f
























)




















































-


































































	

























































—
























--




















































































































	






0
























0







3






































































































































               0.1
 i.o                 10                 100                1000
       Manganese Raw Waste Concentration  (mg/1)
                                             (Number of observations » 2C
                FIGURE VII- 18
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION &  SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
                MANGANESE

-------
  10.0
.2  i.o
*j

u

c
0)

c
o
Jj
c
(U
^  0.1




o









ii
e
r




c








:






o

f















;)
f.


(.
)


















(•

















3


















i


















1
i




*














0
-



©









	










O















O
0



—







'





®













1







g































_







•-
'•

<•



















.













.

-












_




0o
	 O —
b
0
©

-





































































—



























































.





-












                        i-0                10.0               100.0               1000.0


                          Nickel  Raw Waste  Concentration (mg/1)


                                                               (Number of observations


                                     FIGURE VII- 19


                  HYDROXIDE  PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
                                                                                    -  61)
                                        NICKEL

-------
J.VU. U


-1
X
D»
e
«d»
§
4J
jj
^ i n ft

4J
"J in
0) 1* U
^4
9-1

U)

£:
in
0
x:
0.1
1
























0

.0



























E









































J
*





•^1
V


LU


















1


G

,-.,
C















,

























































,








1


























0
	











0



|e

©



~\ /^^



.0



















0







—













0

0



(


ij)























1
C*















f-i



















'•


c
















IS


1






)



















!


























;


























II
	

























).0
—


























—
































































































































































1


























)
.

























no



























—





























"























































































































p











       Phosphorus Raw Waste Concentration  (mg/1)
                                                (Number of observations
                   FIGURE VII-20
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION fi, SEDIMENTATION  EFFECTIVENESS
                     PHOSPHORUS
44)

-------
  10.0

o
•-<
u
IQ
V.
o
1.0
c
(U
3
U

TJ
fl

0)
   0.1
   ,01
      0.1













































































— €
0(T

0

























r
3

























j


























-.


























» )














i

jij

-




1



>















(
t,
0
o
4





©

















D
r
<

~\




\
i













f-



(


























1







































































(


























j

)
3 $>
u)

0

©





















































"\

























































































































                     1.0                10.0               100.0              1000.


                         Zinc Raw Waste Concentration (mq/1)


                                                      (Number of observations » 69)

                                 FIGURE VII-  21


              HYDROXIDE  PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS


                                     ZINC

-------
           100.0
00
CO
          i1
         c  10,
         O
         •H
         U
         in
         U
         »J
         c

         O
         C
         0
         u
C
01
-I
         u

         •0
         01
         M
         H

         1.0
         S/l
             1.0
               1.0



















el 	 1












































"> —




0















(







 f'


















<

)





*


















)























































(





f


















©
®rf>
0 ©
V
'i'




I



















0
3





__















—


QG
G>?
©




_
O

















GJ

0
G
©
~»\

— .
w





/
t.













r-)
(





< ,
i '
i~\
1 <


















G
'-





/->
• #
















;




























(


























)























O

0 0

0

-f\-
@r





O













O


1
/^ jr-l



d
feJ

















O
























— —


7h
©
®C
























-)
v
)

->

























(

























•)
i






























1


















.

1

























39

D ©
^

~~ 	 '
O



_
1

'N
(*) 	














0
0
0

























5
0





























«-i
~ "

























































































I
1









0

i





















                                                                        1000.0
                                                                                  10,000
         10.0               100.0


         TSS Raw Waste Concentration  (tng/1)


                                             (Number of observations - 117)


                    FIGURE VII-22

HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION & SEDIMENTATION  EFFECTIVENESS

              TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS  (TSS)

-------
                        TABLE VI1-13

    Hydroxide Precipitation - Settling  (L&S) Performance

Specific   No. data        Observed
metal       points         Average               GADV

Cd            38             0.013               0.02
Cr            64             0.47                0.2
Cu            74             0.61                0.2
Pb            85             0.034               0.02
Ni            61             0.84                0.2
Zn            69             0.40                0.5
Fe            88             0.57                0.3
Mn            20             0.11                0.3
P             44             4.08

A number of other pollutant parameters were considered with regard   to
the  performance of  hydroxide precipitation-settling treatment systems
in removing them from  industrial wastewater.  Sampling data  for  most
of these parameters  is scarce, so published sources were consulted  for
the  determination   of average  and  24-hour  maximum concentrations.
Sources consulted include  text books, periodicals and EPA publications
as listed  in  Section XV as well as applicable sampling data.

The available data indicate that the  concentrations  shown  in   Table
VII-14  are   reliably   attainable  with  hydroxide  precipitation  and
settling.  The precipitation of silver appears to be  accomplished   by
alkaline   chloride   precipitation  and  adequate chloride ions must be
available  for this reaction to occur.

                             TABLE VII-14
           Hydroxide  Precipitation-Settling (L&S) Performance
                        ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS

Parameter         Average              24-Hour Maximum
(mg/1)

Sb                 0.05                    0.50
As                 0.05                    0.50
Be                 0.3                     1.0
Hg                 0.03                    0.10
Se                 0.01                    0.10
Ag                 0.10                    0.30
Al                 0.2                     0.55
Co                 0.07                    0.50
F                  15                       30
Ti                 0.01                    0.10
                                484

-------
LS&F Performance

Tables VI1-15 and VI1-16 show long term data  from  two  plants  which
have   well  operated  precipitation-settling  treatment  followed  by
filtration.  The wastewaters from both plants contain pollutants  from
metals  processing  and  finishing  operations (multi-category).  Both
plants   reduce   hexavalent   chromium   before   neutralizing    and
precipitating metals with lime.  A clarifier is used to remove much of
the  solids  load and a filter is used to "polish" or complete removal
of suspended solids.  Plant A uses pressure filtration, while Plant  B
uses a rapid sand filter.

Raw  waste  data  was collected only occasionally at each facility and
the raw waste data is presented as an indication of the nature of  the
wastewater  treated.   Data from plant A was received as a statistical
summary and  is  presented  as  received.   Raw  laboratory  data  was
collected   at   plant   B   and  reviewed  for  spurious  points  and
discrepancies.  The method of treating  the  data  base  is  discussed
below under lime, settle, and filter treatment effectiveness.

                             TABLE VI1-15

         PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
                               Plant A
Parameters
No Pts.
  Range mq/1
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
    Cr
    Cu
    Ni
    Zn
    Fe
 47
 12
 47
 47
 0.015
 0.01
 0.08
 0.08
0.13
0.03
0.64
0.53
       Mean +_
       std. dev.
0.045 +0.029
0.019 +.0.006
0.22  +0.13
0.17  +0.09
             Mean + 2
             std. dev
0.10
0.03
0.48
0.35
For 1978-Treated Wastewater
    Cr
    Cu
    Ni
    Zn
    Fe

Raw Waste

    Cr
    Cu
    Ni
    Zn
    Fe
 47
 28
 47
 47
 21
  5
  5
  5
  5
  5
 0.01  -
 0.005 -
 0.10  -
 0.08  -
 0.26  -
32.0
 0.08
 1.65
33.2
10.0
0.07
0.055
0.92
2.35
1.1
72.0
 0.45
20.0
32.0
95.0
0.06  +0.10    0.26
0.016 +0.010   0.04
0.20  +0.14    0.48
0.23  +0.34    0.91
0.49  +0.18    0.85
                                    485

-------
                             TABLE VI1-16

         PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
                               Plant B
Parameters
No Pts.
 Range mg/1
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
    Cr
    Cu
    Ni
    Zn
    Fe
    TSS
175
176
175
175
174
  2
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
- 0.40
- 0.22
- 1.49
- 0.66
- 2.40
1.00  - 1.00
For 1978-Treated Wastewater
    Cr
    Cu
    Ni
    Zn
    Fe
144
143
143
131
144
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
- 0.70
- 0.23
-1.03
-0.24
- 1.76
Total  1974-1979-Treated Wastewater
    Cr        1288
    Cu        1290
    Ni        1287
    Zn        1273
    Fe        1287

Raw Waste

    Cr           3
    Cu           3
    Ni           3
    Zn           2
    Fe           3
    TSS          2
          0.0
          0.0
          0.0
          0.0
          0.0
          2.80
          0.09
          1.61
          2.35
          3.13
      - 0.56
      - 0.23
      - 1.88
      - 0.66
      - 3.15
      - 9.15
      - 0.27
      - 4,
      - 3,
    89
    39
        177
      -35.9
     -446
         Mean +_ '
         std. dev.
 0.068 +0.075
 0.024 +0.021
 0.219 +0.234
 0.054 +0.064
 0.303 +0.398
              Mean + 2
              std. dev.
0.22
0.07
0.69
0.18
1.10
 0.059 +0.088   0.24
 0.017 +.0.020   0.06
 0.147 +0.142   0.43
 0.037 +0.034   0.11
 0.200 +"0.223   0.47
         0.038 +0.055   0.15
         0.011 TO.016   0.04
         0.184 +0.211   0.60
         0.035 +0.045   0.13
         0.402 +0.509   1.42
 5.90
 0.17
 3.33

22.4
These   data    are   presented   to  demonstrate  the  performance   of
precipitation-settling-filtration  (LS&F)  technology   under    actual
operating  conditions and over a long period of time.

It  should be   noted   that  the iron content of the raw waste  of both
plants  is  high.   This  results in coprecipitation of toxic metals with
iron,   a   process  sometimes  called  ferrite  precipitation.   Ferrite
precipitation using high-calcium  lime  for  pH  control   yields   the
results  shown   above.   Plant  operating personnel indicate that this
                               486

-------
chemical  treatment  combination  (sometimes  with  polymer   assisted
coagulation)  generally  produces  better  and  more consistant metals
removal than other combinations of sacrificial metal ions'and alkalis.

Analysis of_ Treatment System Effectiveness

Data  were  presented  in  Tables  VI1-15  and  VI1-16  shoowing   the
effectiveness  of  L&S  and LS&F technologies when applied to aluminum
forming or essentially similar wastewaters.  An analysis of these data
has been made to develop one-day-maximum and 30-day-average values for
use in  establishing  effluent  limitations  and  standards.   Several
approaches  were  investigated  and  considered.  These approaches are
briefly discussed and the average (mean), 30-day average, and  maximum
(1-day) values are tabulated for L&S and LS&F technologies.

L&S  technology data are presented in Figures VI1-3 through VII-11 and
are summarized in Table  VI1-13.   The  data  summary  shows  observed
average   values.    To   develop   the   required   regulatory   base
concentrations from these data, variability factors  were  transferred
from    electroplating   pretreatment   (Electroplating   Pretreatment
Development Document, 440/1-79/003, page 397).   and  applied  to  the
observed  average  values.   One-day-maximum and 30-day-average values
were calculated and are presented in Table VI1-19.

For the pollutants for which no observed  one-day  variability  factor
values   are   available   the   average   variability   factor   from
electroplating one-day values  (i.e. 3.18) was used to  calculate  one-
day  maximum regulatory values from average (mean) values presented in
Tables VII-13 and VII-14.  Likewise, the  average  variability  factor
from  electroplating 30-day-average variability factors  (i.e. 1.3) was
used to calculate 30-day average regulatory values.  These  calculated
one-day  maximums and 30-day averages, to be used for regulations, are
presented in Table VI1-17.


                             Table VII-17

       Variability Factors of Lime and Settle (L&S) Technology

Metal    one-day maximum	      30 day average	

              electro-                      electro-
              plating                       plating

Cd            2.9                           1.3
Cr            3.9                           1.4
Cu            3.2                           1.3
Pb            2.9                           1.3
Ni            2.9                           1.3
Zn            3.0                           1.3
                                  487

-------
Fe            3.81                          1.3
Mean          3.18                          1.3

LS&F technology data are presented in Tables VI1-15 and VI1-16.  These
data represent two operating plants  (A and B) in which the  technology
has  been  installed  and  operated  for some years.  Plant A data was
received as a statistical summary and  is  presented  without  change.
Plant   B   data   was  received  as  raw  laboratory  analysis  data.
Discussions with plant personnel indicated that operating  experiments
and  changes in materials and reagents and occasional operating errors
had  occured  during  the  data  collection   period.    No   specific
information was available on those variables.  To sort out high values
probably  caused  by  methodological  factors  from random statistical
variability, or data noise, the plant B data were analyzed.  For  each
of  four  pollutants  (chromium, nickel, zinc, and iron), the mean and
standard deviation  (sigma) were calculated for the entire data set.  A
data day was removed from the complete data set  when  any  individual
pollutant concentration for that day exceeded the sum of the mean plus
three  sigma  for that pollutant.  Fifty-one data days were eliminated
by this method.

Another approach was also used as a  check  on  the  above  method  of
eliminating certain high values.  The minimum values of raw wastewater
concentrations from Plant B for the same four pollutants were compared
to  the total set of values for the corresponding pollutants.  Any day
on which  the  pollutant  concentration  exceeded  the  minimum  value
selected  from  raw wastewater  concentrations for that pollutant was
discarded.  Forty-five days of data were eliminated by that procedure.
Forty-three days of data were eliminated by  both  procedures.   Since
common  engineering practice  (mean  plus 3 sigma) and logic (treated
waste should be less than raw waste) seem to coincide, the  data  base
with  the  51  spurious data days eliminated will be the basis for all
further analysis.   Range, mean, standard deviation and mean  plus  two
standard  deviations are shown in Tables VI1-15 and VI1-16 for Cr, Cu,
Ni, Zn and Fe.

The Plant B data was separated into 1979, 1978, and  total  data  base
segments.   With  the  statistical  analysis from Plant A for 1978 and
1979 this in effect created five data sets  in  which  there  is  some
overlap between the individual years and total data sets from Plant B.
By  comparing  these  five  parts  it  is apparent that they are quite
similar and all  appear  to  be  from  the  same  family  of  numbers.
Selecting  the  greatest  mean  and  greatest  mean  plus two standard
deviations draws values from four  of  the  five  data  bases.   These
values  are  displayed  in  the  first two columns of Table VI1-18 and
represent one approach to analysis of the LS&F data to obtain  average
(mean) and one-day  maximum values for regulatory purposes.

The other candidates for regulatory values are presented in Table VII-
18  and  were  derived  by  multiplying  the  mean  by the appropriate
                                488

-------
variability factor from electroplating (Table VII-17).   These  values
are  the  ones  used for one-day maximum and 30-day average regulatory
numbers.


                             Table VII-18

                 Analysis of Plant A and Plant B data

                           Compos i te  Compos i te
                              Mean X  Mean X
                         Plant B One Day  30 day
Composite     Mean*     Electpltg.     Electpltg.
  Mean	2 siqma   Var.Fact.	Var.Fact.	

Cr 0.068      0.26        0.27         0.095
Cu 0.02       0.07        0.077        0.026
Ni 0.22       0.69        0.64         0.286
Zn 0.23       0.91        0.69         0.299
Fe 0.49       1.42        1.87         0.637

Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table VI1-19.
Mean values for L&S were taken from Tables  VI1-13,  VI1-14,  and  the
discussions  following  Tables  VI1-9, and VII-10.  Thirty-day average
and one-day maximum  values  for  L&S  were  derived  from  means  and
variability factors as discussed earlier under L&S.

Copper levels achieved at Plants A and B are lower than believed to be
generally  achievable  because  of  the  high  iron content of the raw
wastewaters.  Therefore, the mean concentration value achieved is  not
used; LS&F mean used is derived from the L&S technology.

The  mean  concentration  of  lead  is  not reduced from the L&S value
because of the relatively high solubility of lead carbonate.

L&S cyanide mean levels shown in Table VI1-7 are ratioed  to  one  day
maximum  and  30  day  average  values using mean variability factors.
LS&F mean cyanide is calculated by applying the ratios of removals L&S
and LS&F as discussed previously for LS&F metals limitations.

The filter performance for removing TSS as shown in Table VII-8 yields
a mean effluent concentration of 2.61 mg/1 and calculates to a 30  day
average  of  5.58  mg/1;  a one day maximum of 8.23.  These calculated
values more than amply support  the  classic  values  of  10  and  15,
respectively, which are used for LS&F.

Mean  values for LS&F for pollutants not already discussed are derived
by reducing the L&S mean by one-third.  The  one-third  reduction  was
established  after  examining  the percent reduction in concentrations
going from L&S to LS&F data for Cr, Ni, Zn, and TSS.   The  reductions
                                   489

-------
were 85 percent, 74 percent, 54 percent, and 74 percent, respectively.
The 33 percent reduction is conservative when compared to the smallest
reduction  for  metals  removals of more than 50 percent in going from
L&S to LS&F.

The one-day maximum and 30-day average values for LS&F for  pollutants
for  which  data  were  not  available were derived by multiplying the
means by the average one-day and 30-day variability factors.  Although
iron was reduced in some LS&F operations, some facilities  using  that
treatment  introduce  iron  compounds to aid settling.  Therefore, the
value for iron at LS&F was held at the L&S level so as to  not  unduly
penalize  the  operations  which use the relatively less objectionable
iron compounds to enhance removals of toxic metals.
                             TABLE VI1-19

                   Summary of Treatment Effectiveness
 Pollutant
 Parameter
 114 Sb
 115 As
 117 Be

 118 Cd
 119 Cr
 120 Cu

 121 CN
 122 Pb
 123 Hg
 124 Ni

 125 Se
 126 Ag

 128 Zn
     Al
     Co

     F
     Fe
     Mn
        L&S
     Technology
       System
Mean

 0.05
 0.05
 0.3

 0.02
 0.47
 0.61

 0.07
 0.034
 0.03
 0.84

 0.01
 0.1

 0.5
 0.2
 0.07

15
 0.57
 0.11
 0.16
 0.16
 0.96

 0.06
 1.83
 1.95
 0.22
 0.10
 0.10
 1.44

 0.03
 0.32

 1.5
 0.64
 0.22

47.7
 2.17
 0.35
Thirty
Day
Ave.

 0.07
 0.07
 0.39

 0.03
 0.66
 0.79

 0.09
 0.05
 0.04
 1.09

 0.01
 0.13

 0.65
 0.26
 0.09

19.5
 0.65
 0.14
                            LS&F
                         Technology
                           System
Mean

 0.033
 0.033
 0.20

 0.014
 0.07
 0.41

 0.047
 0.034
 0.02
 0.22

 0.007
 0.007

 0.23
 0.14
 0.047

10.0
 0.49
 0.079
 0.044
 0.27
 1.31

 0.15
 0.10
 0.063
 0.64

 0.021
 0.21

 0.69
 0.42
 0.147

31.5
 1.87
 0.23
Thirty
Day
Ave.

 0.043
 0.043
 0.26

 0.018
 0.10
 0.53

 0.06
 0.044
 0.026
 0.29

 0.009
 0.087

 0.30
 0.18
 0.061

 13.0
 0.64
  0.095
                                490

-------
    P          4.08     13.0       5.30      2.78      8.57       3.54
    Ti         0.01      0.03      0.01      0.007     0.021     0.009

    O&G        -        20.0      10.0                10.0      10.0
    TSS       10.1      35.0      25.0       2.6      15.0      10.0


MINOR TECHNOLOGIES

Several other treatment  technologies  were  considered  for  possible
application in BPT or BAT.  These technologies are presented here with
a  full discussion for most of them.  A few are described only briefly
because of limited technical development.

Carbon Adsorption

The use of activated carbon to remove dissolved  organics  from  water
and  wastewater  is  a long demonstrated technology.  It is one of the
most efficient organic removal  processes  available.   This  sorption
process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to be regenerated for
reuse  by  the  application  of  heat and steam or solvent.  Activated
carbon has also proved to be an effective  adsorbent  for  many  toxic
metals,  including mercury.  Regeneration of carbon which has adsorbed
significant metals, however, may be difficult.

The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon that
has  been  specially  treated  to  give  high  adsorption  capacities.
Typical  raw  materials  include coal, wood, coconut shells, petroleum
base residues and char from  sewage  sludge  pyrolysis.   A  carefully
controlled process of dehydration, carbonization, and oxidation yields
a  product which is called activated carbon.  This material has a high
capacity for adsorption  due  primarily  to  the  large  surface  area
available for adsorption, 500-1500 m2/gm resulting from a large number
of  internal  pores.  Pore sizes generally range from 10-100 angstroms
in radius.

Activated carbon removes contaminants from water  by  the  process  of
adsorption, or the attraction and accumulation of one substance on the
surface  of  another.  Activated carbon preferentially adsorbs organic
compounds and, because of this selectivity, is particularly  effective
in removing organic compounds from aqueous solution.

Carbon  adsorption  requires  pretreatment  to remove excess suspended
solids, oils, and greases.  Suspended solids in the  influent should be
less than 50 mg/1 to minimize backwash requirements; a downflow carbon
bed can handle much higher levels (up  to  2000  mg/1),  but  requires
frequent  backwashing.  Backwashing more than two or three times a day
is not desirable; at  50  mg/1  suspended  solids  one  backwash  will
suffice.   Oil  and  grease should be less than about 10 mg/1.  A high
level of dissolved  inorganic  material  in  the  influent  may  cause
                                491

-------
problems  with  thermal carbon reactivation  (i.e., scaling and loss of
activity) unless appropriate preventive steps are taken.   Such  steps
might include pH control, softening, or the  use of an acid wash on the
carbon prior to reactivation.

Activated  carbon is available in both powdered and granular form.  An
flow diagram of activated carbon treatment and regeneration  is  shown
in  Figure  VI1-23.  Powdered carbon is less expensive per unit weight
and may have slightly higher  adsorption  capacity,  but  it  is  more
difficult to handle and to regenerate.

Application  and  Performance.   Carbon  adsorption  is used to remove
mercury from wastewaters.  The  removal  rate  is  influenced  by  the
mercury  level  in the  influent to the adsorption unit.  Removal levels
found at three  manufacturing facilities are:

                             Table VI1-20

                ACTIVATED CARBON PERFORMANCE (MERCURY)


                        Mercury levels - mg/1
Plant                     In             Out
   A                      28.0           0.9
   B                       0.36          0.015
   C                       0.008         0.0005

 In the  aggregate  these data indicate that  very  low  effluent  levels
 could   be   attained  from  any raw waste by  use of multiple adsorption
 stages.  This  is  characteristic of adsorption processes.

 Isotherm tests  have indicated that activated carbon is very  effective
 in  adsorbing   65  percent  of  the organic  priority pollutants and  is
 reasonably  effective for another 22 percent.   Specifically,  for  the
 organics of  particular interest, activated carbon was very effective
 in removing 2,4-dimethylphenol, fluoranthene, isophorone, naphthalene,
 all phthalates, and phenanthrene.   It  was  reasonably  effective  on
 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, phenol, and toluene.  Table
 VII-18   summarizes  the  treatability  effectiveness  for  most of the
 organic priority  pollutants by activated carbon as  compiled  by  EPA.
 Table   VI1-19   summarizes  classes  of organic compounds together with
 examples of organics that are readily adsorbed on carbon.

Advantages  and  Limitations.  The major benefits  of  carbon  treatment
 include applicability to a wide variety of  organics, and high removal
efficiency.  Inorganics such as cyanide,  chromium,  and  mercury  are
also removed   effectively.  Variations in concentration and flow rate
are well tolerated.  The system is compact,  and recovery  of  adsorbed
materials   is   sometimes  practical.  However, destruction of adsorbed
compounds often occurs during thermal regeneration.  If carbon  cannot
                            492

-------
                                FILTER
                                              ADSORPTION
                                                COLUMN
  INFLUENT
 WASTEWATER
         r
<£>
CO
               REGENERATED  CARBON  SLURRY
 FINES
REMOVAL
SCREEN
                 <\
  11
                                             TERTIARY
                                              TREATED
                                             EFFLUENT
DEWATERING
 SCREEN
                   CARBON
                   STORAGE
           REGENERATION
             FURNACE
                REGENERATED
                  CARBON
                SLURRY TANKS
                           FINES TO
                           WASTE

             FIGURE TEH- 23 FLOW  DIAGRAM  OF ACTIVATED CARBON
                            ADSORPTION  WITH  REGENERATION

-------
be  thermally desorbed, it must be disposed of along with any adsorbed
pollutants.  The capital and operating costs of  thermal  regeneration
are  relatively  high.  Cost surveys show that thermal regeneration is
generally economical when carbon usage  exceeds  about  1,000  Ib/day.
Carbon  cannot remove  low molecular weight or highly soluble organics.
It also has a low  tolerance  for  suspended  solids,  which  must  be
removed to at least 50 mg/1 in the influent water.

Operational   Factors.   Reliability:   This  system  should  be  very
reliable with upstream protection and proper operation and maintenance
procedures.

Maintainability:   This  system  requires  periodic  regeneration   or
replacement  of  spent carbon and is dependent upon raw waste load and
process efficiency.

Solid Waste Aspects:   Solid waste from this  process  is  contaminated
activated   carbon   that   requires   disposal.    Carbon   undergoes
regeneration,  reduces the  solid  waste  problem  by  reducing   the
frequency  of carbon replacement.

Demonstration    Status.    Carbon   adsorption   systems   have   been
demonstrated to  be practical and economical in reducing COD,  BOD  and
related  parameters in secondary municipal and industrial wastewaters;
in  removing toxic  or   refractory  organics  from  isolated  industrial
wastewaters;    in   removing  and  recovering  certain  organics  from
wastewaters; and  in   the  removing  and  some  times  recovering,  of
selected   inorganic   chemicals from aqueous wastes.  Carbon adsorption
is  a viable and  economic process for organic waste streams  containing
up    to  1 to   5  percent  of  refractory  or  toxic  organics.   Its
applicability for  removal of inorganics such as metals has  also  been
demonstrated.

Centrifuqation

Centrifugation   is the  application  of centrifugal force to separate
solids  and   liquids   in  a  liquid-solid   mixture   or   to   effect
concentration  of  the solids.  The application of centrifugal force is
effective  because  of  the density differential normally  found  between
the insoluble solids  and the liquid in which they are contained.  As  a
waste treatment procedure, centrifugation is applied to dewatering of
sludges.   One type of centrifuge is shown in Figure VI1-24.

There are  three  common types of centrifuges:  the  disc,  basket,  and
conveyor   type.    All three  operate  by  removing  solids  under the
influence  of centrifugal force.  The  fundamental  difference  between
the  three types  is the method by which solids are collected in and
discharged from  the bowl.
                               494

-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE
CYCLOGEAR
                 SLUDGE
                 DISCHARGE
                              CONVEYOR
                                            BOWL
                                                     RING
                                                                  IMPELLER
                             FIGURE VI I-24

                             CENTmFJGATION

                                 495

-------
In the disc centrifuge, the sludge feed is distributed between  narrow
channels  that  are  present  as spaces between stacked conical discs.
Suspended particles are collected and discharged continuously  through
small orifices  in the bowl wall.  The clarified effluent  is discharged
through an overflow weir.

A  second  type of centrifuge which is useful in dewatering sludges  is
the basket centrifuge.  In this type of  centrifuge,  sludge  feed   is
introduced at the bottom of the basket, and solids collect at the bowl
wall  while  clarified  effluent  overflows  the  lip ring at the top.
Since the basket centrifuge does not  have  provision  for  continuous
discharge  of   collected  cake, operation requires interruption of the
feed for cake discharge for a minute or two  in  a  10  to  30  minute
overall cycle.

The third type  of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering is the
conveyor  type.   Sludge  is fed through a stationary feed pipe into a
rotating bowl in which the solids are settled  out  against  the  bowl
wall  by  centrifugal  force.  From the bowl wall, they are moved by a
screw to the end of the machine, at which point whey  are  discharged.
The  liquid  effluent  is  discharged  through ports after passing the
length of the bowl under centrifugal force.

Application And Performance.  Virtually all industrial waste treatment
systems  producing  sludge  can  use  centrifugation  to  dewater  it.
Centrifugation  is  currently being used by a wide range of industrial
concerns.

The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on  the
feed  rate,  the  rotational  velocity  of  the  drum,  and the sludge
composition and concentration.  Assuming proper design and  operation,
the solids content of the sludge can be increased to 20-35 percent.

Advantages   And  Limitations.   Sludge  dewatering  centrifuges  have
minimal  space  requirements  and  show  a  high  degree  of  effluent
clarification.    The  operation  is  simple,  clean,  and  relatively
inexpensive.  The area required for a centrifuge  system  installation
is less than that required for a filter system or sludge drying bed  of
equal capacity, and the initial cost is lower.

Centrifuges  have  a  high  power  cost that partially offsets the low
initial cost.   Special consideration must also be given  to  providing
sturdy  foundations  and  soundproofing  because  of the vibration and
noise that result  from  centrifuge  operation.    Adequate  electrical
power  must,  also  be  provided  since large motors are required.  The
major difficulty encountered in the operation of centrifuges has  been
the disposal of the concentrate which is relatively high in suspended,
non-settling solids.
                             496

-------
Operational  Factors.  Reliability:  Centrifugation is highly reliable
with proper control of factors such as sludge feed,  consistency,  and
temperature.  Pretreatment such as grit removal and coagulant addition
may  be  necessary,  depending on the composition of the sludge and on
the type of centrifuge employed.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  consists  of   periodic   lubrication,
cleaning,  and  inspection.   The  frequency  and degree of inspection
required varies depending on the type of sludge solids being dewatered
and the maintenance service conditions.  If the sludge is abrasive, it
is recommended that the first inspection of the rotating  assembly  be
made  after  approximately 1,000 hours of operation.  If the sludge is
not abrasive or  corrosive,  then  the  initial  inspection  might  be
delayed.   Centrifuges not equipped with a continuous sludge discharge
system require periodic shutdowns for manual sludge cake removal.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Sludge dewatered in the  centrifugation  process
may be disposed of by landfill.  The clarified effluent (centrate), if
high  in  dissolved or suspended solids, may require further treatment
prior to discharge.

Demonstration Status.  Centrifugation is currently  used  in  a  great
many  commercial  applications to dewater sludge.  Work is underway to
improve the efficiency, increase the capacity,  and  lower  the  costs
associated with centrifugation.

Coalescing

The  basic  principle of coalescence involves the preferential wetting
of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate on the  medium
and  then  rise to the surface of the solution as they combine to form
larger particles.  The  most  important  requirements  for  coalescing
media  are  wettability  for oil and large surface area.  Monofilament
line is sometimes used as a coalescing medium.

Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of gravity oil
separation  devices,  and  some  systems   may   incorporate   several
coalescing  stages.   In  general  a  preliminary oil skimming step is
desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.

One commercially marketed system for  oily  waste  treatment  combines
coalescing  with  inclined  plate  separation and filtration.  In this
system, the oily wastes flow into an  inclined  plate  settler.   This
unit  consists  of  a stack of inclined baffle plates in a cylindrical
container with an oil collection chamber at the top.  The oil droplets
rise and impinge upon the undersides of the plates.  They then migrate
upward to a guide rib which directs the  oil  to  the  oil  collection
chamber, from which oil is discharged for reuse or disposal.
                                 497

-------
The  oily  water  continues on through another cylinder containing re-
placeable filter cartridges, which remove suspended particles from the
waste.  From there the wastewater enters a final cylinder in which the
coalescing material is housed.  As the oily water passes  through  the
many small, irregular, continuous passages in the coalescing material,
the oil droplets coalesce and rise to an oil collection chamber.

Application  and Performance.  Coalescing is used to treat oily wastes
which do not separate readily in simple gravity  systems.   The  three
stage  system  described above has achieved effluent concentrations of
10-15 mg/1 oil and grease from raw waste concentrations of  1000  mg/1
or more.

Advantages and Limitations.  Coalescing allows removal of oil droplets
too   finely  dispersed  for  conventional  gravity separation-skimming
technology.  It  also  can significantly reduce the residence times  (and
therefore separator volumes) required to  achieve  separation  of  oil
from  some  wastes.   Because  of  its simplicity, coalescing provides
generally high   reliability  and  low  capital  and  operating  costs.
Coalescing   is    not generally  effective  in  removing  soluble  or
chemically stabilized emulsified oils.  To avoid plugging,  coalescers
must  be  protected   by  pretreatment from very high concentrations of
free  oil and grease and suspended  solids.   Frequent  replacement  of
prefilters  may   be   necessary  when  raw waste oil concentrations are
high.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Coalescing  is  inherently  highly
reliable since  there  are no moving parts, and the coalescing substrate
 (monofilament,   etc.)    is  inert  in  the  process  and therefore not
subject  to  frequent regeneration or replacement  requirements.   Large
 loads  or   inadequate pretreatment, however, may result  in plugging or
bypass  of  coalescing  stages.

Maintainability: Maintenance requirements  are  generally  limited  to
replacement of  the coalescing medium on an infrequent basis.

Solid  Waste  Aspects: No appreciable solid waste is generated by  this
process.

Demonstration Status.   Coalescing  has  been  fully  demonstrated   in
 industries  generating  oily wastewater, although none are known to be
 in use  at  any aluminum forming facility.

Cyanide Oxidation By_ Chlorine

Cyanide oxidation using  chlorine  is widely used   in   industrial  waste
treatment   to oxidize cyanide.  Chlorine can be utilized in either  the
elemental or  hypochlorite  forms.   This  classic  procedure   can   be
illustrated by  the following  two  step chemical reaction:
                                  498

-------
    1.   C12 + NaCN + 2NaOH = NaCNO + 2NaCl + H20

    2.   3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NaCNO = 2NaHC03 + N2 + 6NaCl + 2H20

The reaction presented as equation (2) for the oxidation of cyanate is
the final step in the oxidation of cyanide.  A complete system for the
alkaline chlorination of cyanide is shown in Figure VII-25.

The alkaline chlorination process oxidizes cyanides to carbon  dioxide
and  nitrogen.   The  equipment often consists of an equalization tank
followed by two reaction tanks, although the reaction can  be  carried
out in a single tank.  Each tank has an electronic recorder-controller
to  maintain  required  conditions  with  respect  to pH and oxidation
reduction potential (ORP).  In the first reaction tank, conditions are
adjusted to oxidize cyanides to cyanates.   To  effect  the  reaction,
chlorine  is  metered to the reaction tank as required to maintain the
ORP in the range of 350 to 400  millivolts,  and  50  percent  aqueous
caustic  soda  is  added  to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10.  In the
second reaction tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize cyanate  to
carbon  dioxide  and  nitrogen.   The  desirable  ORP  and pH for this
reaction are 600 millivolts and a pH of 8.0.   Each  of  the  reaction
tanks  is  equipped  with  a  propeller  agitator  designed to provide
approximately one turnover per minute.  Treatment by the batch process
is accomplished by using two tanks, one for collection of water over a
specified  time  period,  and  one  tank  for  the  treatment  of   an
accumulated  batch.   If  dumps  of  concentrated wastes are frequent,
another tank may be required to equalize the  flow  to  the  treatment
tank.  When the holding tank is full, the liquid is transferred to the
reaction  tank  for  treatment.   After  treatment, the supernatant is
discharged and the sludges are  collected  for  removal  and  ultimate
disposal.

Application  and  Performance.   The  oxidation  of  cyanide  waste by
chlorine is a classic process and  is found in most  industrial  plants
using  cyanide.   This process  is  capable of achieving effluent levels
that are nondetectable.

Advantages and Limitations.  Some  advantages of chlorine oxidation for
handling process  effluents  are   operation  at  ambient   temperature,
suitability  for  automatic  control,   and   low  cost.   Disadvantages
include  the  need  for  careful   pH    control,   possible   chemical
interference  in  the  treatment   of  mixed  wastes, and the potential
hazard of storing and handling  chlorine  gas.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:    Chlorine  oxidation   is  highly
reliable  with  proper monitoring  and control, and proper  pretreatment
to control  interfering substances.

Maintainability:  Maintenance consists  of periodic removal   of  sludge
and recalibration of  instruments.
                                499

-------
        MAW wA*rr
8
       COMTMOI.I.CM
                                                 FIGURE VII-2 5
                            TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTE BY ALKALINE CHLORINATION

-------
Solid  Waste Aspects:  There is no solid waste problem associated with
chlorine oxidation.

Demonstration Status.  The oxidation of cyanide wastes by chlorine  is
a  widely  used  process in plants using cyanide in cleaning and metal
processing baths.

Cyanide Oxidation By Ozone

Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately  ten
times  more soluble than oxygen on a weight basis in water.  Ozone may
be produced by several methods, but the  silent  electrical  discharge
method  is  predominant in the field.  The silent electrical discharge
process produces ozone by passing oxygen  or  air  between  electrodes
separated  by  an insulating material.  A complete ozonation system is
represented in Figure VI1-26.

Application and Performance.  Ozonation has been applied  commercially
to  oxidize  cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and organo-metal complexes.
Its applicability to photographic wastewaters has been studied in  the
laboratory  with  good  results.   Ozone  is  used in industrial waste
treatment primarily to oxidize  cyanide  to  cyanate  and  to  oxidize
phenols and dyes to a variety of colorless nontoxic products.

Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:

         CN- + O3 = CNO- + 02

Continued  exposure to ozone will convert the cyanate formed to carbon
dioxide and ammonia; however, this is not economically practical.

Ozone oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0 pounds ozone
per pound of CN-; complete oxidation requires 4.6 to 5.0 pounds  ozone
per  pound  of  CN-.   Zinc,  copper,  and  nickel cyanides are easily
destroyed to a nondetectable level, but cobalt and iron  cyanides  are
more resistant to ozone treatment.

Advantages  and  Limitations.   Some advantages of ozone oxidation for
handling process effluents are its suitability  to  automatic  control
and  on-site  generation  and  the fact that reaction products are not
chlorinated  organics  and  no  dissolved  solids  .are  added  in  the
treatment   step.    Ozone   in  the  presence  of  activated  carbon,
ultraviolet, and other promoters shows promise  of  reducing  reaction
time  and  improving  ozone utilization, but the process at present is
limited by high capital expense, possible chemical interference in the
treatment of mixed wastes, and an energy requirement of 25  kwh/kg  of
ozone  generated.   Cyanide  is  not  economically oxidized beyond the
cyanate form.
                                      501

-------
     CONTROLS
                   OZONE
      DRV AIR
RAW WASTE <
               ^   "   '
                              OZONC
                              CACTION
                              TANK
                                                TREATED
                                                 WASTE
               FIGURE vn-26
 TYPICAL OZONE  PLANT FOR  WASTE  TREATMENT
                      502

-------
Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Ozone oxidation is highly reliable
with proper monitoring and control, and proper pretreatment to control
interfering substances.

Maintainability:   Maintenance  periodic  renewal   of   filters   and
desiccators  required for the input of clean dry air; filter life is a
function of input concentrations of detrimental constituents.

Solid Waste Aspects:  Pretreatment to eliminate substances which  will
interfere  with  the  process  may be necessary.  Dewatering of sludge
generated  in the ozone oxidation process or in an   "in   line"  process
may be desirable prior to disposal.

Cyanide Oxidation By_ Ozone With UV Radiation

One  of the modifications of the ozonation process  is the simultaneous
application of  ultraviolet   light  and  ozone  for   the  treatment  of
wastewater, including  treatment of halogenated organics.  The  combined
action   of   these   two  forms   produces  reactions  by  photolysis,
photosensitization, hydroxylation,  oxygenation   and oxidation.   The
process  is  unique because  several reactions and reaction species are
active simultaneously.

Ozonation  is facilitated by  ultraviolet absorption   because   both  the
ozone  and the reactant molecules are  raised to  a  higher  energy state
so that they react  more rapidly.   In  addition,  free radicals  for  use
 in  the  reaction  are  readily  hydrolyzed  by  the  water present.  The
energy and reaction intermediates created by  the  introduction of   both
ultraviolet and  ozone  greatly   reduce   the amount of  ozone required
 compared with  a system using  ozone   alone.   Figure  VII-27  shows   a
 three-stage UV-ozone  system.    A  system  to   treat  mixed  cyanides
 requires    pretreatment   that    involves    chemical     coagulation,
 sedimentation,  clarification,  equalization,  and pH adjustment.

 Application  and  Performance.    The  ozone-UV  radiation  process was
 developed  primarily for cyanide treatment in  the  electroplating  and
 color  photo-processing  areas.   It  has been successfully applied to
 mixed cyanides  and  organics  from  organic  chemicals  manufacturing
 processes.   The  process  is  particularly  useful  for  treatment of
 complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide,   copper  cyanide  and  nickel
 cyanide,  which are resistant to ozone alone.

 Ozone combined with UV radiation is a relatively new technology.  Four
 units  are  currently  in operation and all four treat  cyanide bearing
 waste.

 Cyanide Oxidation By_ Hydrogen Peroxide

 Hydrogen  peroxide oxidation removes both cyanide and metals  in cyanide
 containing wastewaters.  In this process, cyanide  bearing  waters  are
                                    503

-------
  MIXER

WASTEWATER
PEED
TANK

\
n
r
sc
rr


T
S
1
TREAT
1

RST g
AGE J
>

• If
:ONO §||
HGE jlj
9Jj

KIRD o
TAGE j
9
KD
PUMP
ED WATEf

||



C


C
u
' _ tXHAUST


C
3



C
3


C
ITl

t

GAS


	 TEMPERATURE
	 CONTROL
	 PH MONITORING



	 TEMPERATURE
	 CONTROL
— PH MONITORING


	 TEMPERATURE
— CONTROL
	 PH MONITORING

r
OZONE |
1 OZONE
GENERATOR
FIGURE vii-17




UV/OZONATION
      504

-------
heated  to  49  -  54°C (120 - 130°F) and the pH is adjusted to 10.5 -
11.8.  Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde) is added while the  tank  is
vigorously  agitated.   After  2-5  minutes,  a  proprietary peroxygen
compound (41 percent hydrogen peroxide with a catalyst and  additives)
is  added.   After  an  hour of mixing, the reaction is complete.  The
cyanide is converted to cyanate and the  metals  are  precipitated  as
oxides  or  hydroxides.   The metals are then removed' from solution by
either settling or filtration.

The main equipment required for this  process  is  two  holding  tanks
equipped  with heaters and air spargers or mechanical stirrers.  These
tanks may be used in a batch or  continuous  fashion,  with  one  tank
being  used for treatment while the other is being filled.  A settling
tank or a filter is needed to concentrate the precipitate.

Application and Performance.  The hydrogen peroxide oxidation  process
is   applicable  to  cyanide  bearing  wastewaters,  especially  those
containing metal-cyanide  complexes.   In  terms  of  waste  reduction
performance,  this  process  can reduce total cyanide to less than 0.1
mg/1 and the zinc or cadmium to less than 1.0 mg/1.

Advantages and Limitations.  Chemical costs are similar to  those  for
alkaline   chlorination  using  chlorine  and  lower  than  those  for
treatment  with  hypochlorite.   All  free  cyanide  reacts   and   is
completely oxidized to the less toxic cyanate state.  In addition, the
metals  precipitate and settle quickly, and they may be recoverable in
many instances. • However, the process requires energy expenditures  to
heat the wastewater prior to treatment.

Demonstration  Status.   This treatment process was introduced in 1971
and is used in several facilities.

Evaporation

Evaporation is a concentration process.  Water is  evaporated  from  a
solution,  increasing  the  concentration  of  solute in the remaining
solution.  If the resulting water vapor is condensed  back  to  liquid
water,  the  evaporation-condensation  process is  called distillation.
However, to be consistent with industry  terminology,  evaporation  is
used  in this report to describe both processes.  Both atmospheric and
vacuum evaporation are commonly  used  in  industry  today.   Specific
evaporation techniques are shown in Figure VI1-28  and discussed below.

Atmospheric  evaporation  could  be accomplished simply by boiling the
liquid.  However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid is sprayed  on  an
evaporation  surface,  and  air  is  blown over the surface and subse-
quently released to  the  atmosphere.   Thus,  evaporation  occurs  by
humidification of the air stream, similar to a drying process.  Equip-
ment  for  carrying  out  atmospheric evaporation  is quite similar for
most applications.  The major element is  generally  a  packed  column
                                   505

-------
                                     CXHAUST
ACKID
 VAPGRA10R
                                tXOIANUER
                                             STI:AM
                                           COHDtNSATE

                                           CONCEHTIIATE
 tn
 o
 LNSATE
 CMATCR
 MCENTRATK
tTMflSPIIEPlC EVAPORATOR
                                       COOLING

                                         HATtR
                                             VACUUM
                                              PUMP
                                                                     EVAPORATOR-
                                                                         STEAM-
                                                       STEAM
                                                     CONUEN5ATC
                                      •—STUAM
                            STKMI
                          COriUI.H.SATE
                                                                     WA6TEHATER-
                                                                          MOT VAPOR
                                                       STCAM
                                        WASTE
                                        WATI.M
                                        rtru
                                                                                                                 COIIULHSER
                                                                       ;c\      /
                                                             STEAM
                                                           COHDCIISATE
                                                                       wltm
                                                                                                          WATtR VAPOR
                                                                                            LlUUtD RETURN
                                                                                                                COOLING
                                                                                                                 MATER
                                                                                            r-n
                                                                                                             VACUUM PUMP
                                                                                                                         .COIIDENSATE
                                                                                                                         •l-ONCtNTRATE
                                                                                          CL1HUINC ritM EVAPORATOR
                                                                                                       VAPOR
                                                                             COHCLIITHAIK
                                                                                                         CONDENSER
                                                                                                          CONDENSATE
                                                                                                      COOLINO
                                                                                                       HATRR
                                                                                                       VACUUM PUMP


                                                                                                              »• EXHAUST
                                                                                                                      ACCUMULATOR
 COHDCfir.ATE
H~  FOR
   RKUSE
                                                                                                            CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE
                SUl'MLIT.I U 1UC.E  tVAI'ORATOR
                                                                                       muini.r-rrrrcT EVAPORATOR.
                                                           FIGURE VI I-28

-------
with an accumulator bottom.  Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the
base of the column, through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of
the  column,  where it is sprayed into the packing.  At the same time,
air drawn upward through the packing by a fan is heated as it contacts
the hot liquid.  The liquid partially vaporizes and humidifies the air
stream.  The fan  then  blows  the  hot,  humid  air  to  the  outside
atmosphere.  A scrubber is often unnecessary because the packed column
itself acts as a scrubber.

Another  form  of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air humidi-
fication principle, but the evaporated water is recovered for reuse by
condensation.  These air humidification techniques operate well  below
the  boiling  point  of  water  and  can utilize waste process heat to
supply tfie energy required.

In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is  lowered  to  cause
the  liquid to boil at reduced temperature.  All of the water vapor is
condensed and, to maintain the vacuum condition, noncondensible  gases
(air   in particular) are removed by a vacuum pump.  Vacuum evaporation
may be either single or double effect.  In double effect  evaporation,
two  evaporators  are  used,  and  the  water  vapor  from  the  first
evaporator  (which may be heated by steam) is used to  supply  heat  to
the  second evaporator.  As it supplies heat, the water vapor from the
first  evaporator  condenses.   Approximately  equal   quantities   of
wastewater are evaporated  in each unit; thus, the double effect system
evaporates twice the amount of water that a single effect system does,
at  nearly  the  same  cost  in energy but with added capital cost and
complexity.  The double effect technique is thermodynamically possible
because the second evaporator is maintained at lower pressure   (higher
vacuum)  and, therefore,  lower evaporation temperature.  Another means
of increasing energy efficiency is  vapor  recompression  (thermal  or
mechanical),  which enables heat to be transferred from the condensing
water  vapor  to  the  evaporating  wastewater.   Vacuum   evaporation
equipment  may  be  classified  as  submerged  tube  or  climbing film
evaporation units.

In the most commonly used  submerged tube evaporator, the  heating  and
condensing  coil  are  contained  in a single vessel to reduce  capital
cost.  The vacuum  in the  vessel is maintained by an eductor-type pump,
which  creates the required vacuum by the flow of the condenser  cooling
water  through a venturi.   Waste water accumulates  in the bottom of the
vessel, and it is evaporated by means of submerged steam  coils.   The
resulting water vapor condenses as it contacts the condensing coils in
the  top  of the vessel.   The condensate then drips off the condensing
coils  into  a collection trough that carries  it  out  of  the   vessel.
Concentrate is removed from the bottom of the vessel.

The major elements of the climbing film evaporator are the evaporator,
separator,  condenser,  and  vacuum pump.  Waste water is "drawn"  into
the system  by the vacuum  so that a constant  liquid level is maintained
                                   507

-------
in the separator.   Liquid enters the steam-jacketed evaporator  tubes,
and part of it evaporates so that a mixture of vapor and liquid enters
the separator.  The design of the separator is such that the liquid is
continuously  circulated  from  the  separator to the evaporator.  The
vapor entering the separator flows  out  through  a  mesh  entrainment
separator  to  the  condenser,  where it is condensed as it flows down
through the condenser tubes.  The condensate, along with any entrained
air, is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser  by  a  liquid  ring
vacuum  pump.   The  liquid  seal provided by the condensate keeps the
vacuum in the system from being broken.

Application and Performance.  Both atmospheric and vacuum  evaporation
are  used  in many industrial plants, mainly for the concentration and
recovery of process solutions.  Many of these evaporators also recover
water for rinsing.  Evaporation has also been applied to  recovery  of
phosphate metal cleaning solutions.

In  theory,   evaporation  should  yield  a concentrate and a deionized
condensate.   Actually, carry-over has  resulted  in  condensate  metal
concentrations  as  high  as 10 mg/1, although the usual level is less
than  3 mg/1,  pure enough for most final rinses.   The  condensate  may
also  contain  organic brighteners and antifearning agents.  These can be
removed  with an  activated  carbon bed, if necessary.  Samples from one
plant showed  1,900  mg/1  zinc  in  the  feed,  4,570  mg/1  in  the
concentrate,  and 0.4  mg/1 in the condensate.  Another plant had 416
mg/1  copper  in  the feed and 21,800 mg/1 in the concentrate.   Chromium
analysis  for  that  plant  indicated 5,060 mg/1 in the feed and 27,500
mg/1  in  the  concentrate.  Evaporators are  available  in  a  range  of
capacities,   typically  from 15 to 75 gph, and may be used in parallel
arrangements  for  processing of higher flow rates.

Advantages and  Limitations.  Advantages of the evaporation process are
that  it  permits recovery of a wide variety of process  chemicals,  and
it   is often  applicable to  concentration or removal of compounds which
cannot be  accomplished by any other means.  The major disadvantage  is
that  the  evaporation  process  consumes  relatively large amounts of
energy for the  evaporation  of water.  However, the recovery  of  waste
heat   from   many   industrial  processes  (e.g.,  diesel  generators,
incinerators, boilers and furnaces) should be considered as  a  source
of   this  heat  for a totally integrated evaporation system.  Also, in
some  cases  solar heating  could  be  inexpensively  and  effectively
applied  to evaporation units.  For some applications, pretreatment may
be  required  to  remove solids or bacteria which tend to cause fouling
in  the  condenser  or  evaporator.   The  buildup  of  scale  on  the
evaporator surfaces  reduces  the  heat  transfer  efficiency and may
present  a  maintenance problem or  increase operating cost.  However, it
has been demonstrated that  fouling of the heat transfer  surfaces  can
be  avoided or  minimized for certain dissolved solids by maintaining  a
seed  slurry  which  provides  preferential  sites   for   precipitate
deposition.     In  addition,    low  temperature  differences  in  the
                                508

-------
evaporator  will  eliminate  nucleate  boiling   and   supersaturation
effects.   Steam  distiliable  impurities  in  the  process stream are
carried over with the product water and must be handled by pre or post
treatment.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Proper maintenance will  ensure  a
high  degree  of  reliability for the system.  Without such attention,
rapid fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may  occur,  especially
when handling corrosive liquids.

Maintainability:     Operating   parameters   can   be   automatically
controlled.   Pretreatment  may  be  required,  as  well  as  periodic
cleaning of the system.  Regular replacement of seals, especially in a
corrosive environment, may be necessary.

Solid Waste Aspects:  With only a few exceptions, the process does not
generate appreciable quantities of solid waste.

Demonstration  Status.  Evaporation is a fully developed, commercially
available wastewater treatment system.   It  is  used  extensively  to
recover  plating  chemicals in the electroplating industry and a pilot
scale unit has been used in connection with phosphating  of  aluminum.
Proven performance in silver recovery indicates that evaporation could
be a useful treatment operation for the photographic industry, as well
as for metal finishing.

Gravity Sludge Thickening

In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a primary
settling  tank  or clarifier to a thickening tank where rakes stir the
sludge gently to densify it and to push it  to  a  central  collection
well.   The supernatant is returned to the primary settling tank.  The
thickened sludge that collects on the bottom of the tank is pumped  to
dewatering   equipment  or  hauled  away.   Figure  VI1-29  shows  the
construction of a gravity thickener.

Application  and  Performance.   Thickeners  are  generally  used   in
facilities  where  the  sludge is to be further dewatered by a compact
mechanical device such as a vacuum filter or centrifuge.  Doubling the
solids content in the  thickener  substantially  reduces  capital  and
operating  cost  of  the subsequent dewatering device and also reduces
cost for hauling.  The process is potentially applicable to almost any
industrial plant.

Organic sludges from sedimentation units of one to two percent  solids
concentration  can usually be gravity thickened to six to ten percent;
chemical sludges can be thickened to four to six percent.
                                509

-------
   CONDUIT
   TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
 CONDUIT TO
 OVERLOAD
 ALARM
COUNTERFLOW
INFLUENT WELL
                      DIRECTION OF ROTATION
     EFFLUENT PIPE
                                          EFFLUENT CHANNEL
                            PLAN
            HANDRAIL
INFLUENT-
                      TURNTABLE
                      BASE   ^.
                   t—\—PB
•DRIVE
              WEIR
             STILTS
              CENTER SCRAPER
                                               SQUEEGEE
                                         PIPE
                     FIGURE  VI1-29

                   GRAVITY THICKENING
                           510

-------
Advantages and Limitations.  The  principal  advantage  of  a  gravity
sludge  thickening  process  is  that  it  facilitates  further sludge
dewatering.   Other  advantages  are  high  reliability  and   minimum
maintenance requirements.

Limitations  of  the  sludge thickening process are its sensitivity to
the flow rate through the  thickener  and  the  sludge  removal  rate
These rates must be low enough not to disturb the thickened sludge.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:   Reliability is high with proper
design and operation.  A gravity thickener is designed on the basis of
square feet per pound of solids per day, in which the required surface
area  is  related  to  the  solids  entering  and  leaving  the  unit.
Thickener  area  requirements  are  also  expressed  in  terms of mass
loading, grams of solids per square meter per day (Ibs/sq ft/day).

Maintainability:  Twice a year, a thickener  must  be  shut  down  for
lubrication  of  the  drive  mechanisms.   Occasionally, water must be
pumped back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.

Solid Waste Aspects:   Thickened  sludge  from  a  gravity  thickening
process  will  usually  require  further dewatering prior to disposal,
incineration, or drying.  The clear effluent may  be  recirculated  in
part, or it may be subjected to further treatment prior to discharge.

Demonstration  Status.   Gravity sludge thickeners are used throughout
industry to reduce water content to a level where the  sludge  may  be
efficiently  handled.   Further  dewatering  is  usually  practiced to
minimize costs of hauling the sludge to approved landfill areas.

Ion Exchange

Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic  forces
to charged functional groups on the surface of the ion exchange resin,
are  exchanged  for  ions of similar charge from the solution in which
the resin is immersed.  This is classified as a sorption  process  be-
cause  the  exchange  occurs  on the surface of the resin, and the ex-
changing ion must undergo a phase  transfer  from  solution  phase  to
solid  phase.   Thus,  ionic contaminants in a waste stream can be ex-
changed for the harmless ions of the resin.

Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the  ap-
plication  involved,  a  generalized process description follows.  The
wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to remove  any
solids,  then  flows through a cation exchanger which contains the ion
exchange resin.  Here, metallic impurities such as copper,  iron,  and
trivalent  chromium  are retained.  The stream then passes through the
anion exchanger and its associated resin.   Hexavalent  chromium,  for
example,  is  retained in this stage.  If one pass does not reduce the
contaminant levels sufficiently, the stream  may  then  enter  another
                                511

-------
series  of  exchangers.   Many  ion exchange systems are equipped with
more than one set of exchangers for this reason.

The other major portion of the ion exchange process concerns  the  re-
generation  of  the  resin,  which now holds those impurities retained
from the waste stream.  An ion  exchange  unit  with  in-place  regen-
eration  is  shown  in  Figure  VII-30.  Metal ions such as nickel are
removed by an acid, cation exchange resin, which is  regenerated  with
hydrochloric  or  sulfuric  acid,  replacing the metal ion with one or
more hydrogen ions.  Anions such as dichromate are removed by a basic,
anion exchange resin, which  is  regenerated  with  sodium  hydroxide,
replacing  the  anion  with  one  or  more  hydroxyl  ions.  The three
principal methods employed by  industry  for  regenerating  the  spent
resin are:

A)  Replacement Service:  A regeneration service  replaces  the  spent
    resin  with  regenerated resin, and regenerates the spent resin at
    its own facility.  The service then has the  problem  of  treating
    and disposing of the  spent regenerant.

B)  In-Place Regeneration:   Some  establishments  may  find  it  less
    expensive to do their own regeneration.  The spent resin column is
    shut down for perhaps an hour, and the spent resin is regenerated.
    This results in one or more waste streams which must be treated in
    an  appropriate manner.   Regeneration is performed as the resins
    require  it, usually every few months.

C)  Cyclic Regeneration:  In this process,  the  regeneration  of  the
    spent  resins   takes  place within the ion exchange unit itself in
    alternating cycles with the ion removal process.   A  regeneration
    frequency of twice an hour is typical.  This very short cycle time
    permits  operation  with  a  very small quantity of resin and with
    fairly concentrated solutions, resulting in a very compact system.
    Again, this process   varies  according  to  application,  but  the
    regeneration  cycle   generally  begins  with  caustic being pumped
    through the anion exchanger, carrying out hexavalent chromium, for
    example, as sodium dichromate.  The sodium dichromate stream  then
    passes   through   a   cation  exchanger,  converting  the  sodium
    dichromate to chromic acid.  After concentration by evaporation or
    other means, the chromic acid can be returned to the process line.
    Meanwhile, the  cation exchanger is regenerated with sulfuric acid,
    resulting  in   a  waste  acid  stream  containing   the   metallic
    impurities  removed   earlier.   Flushing the exchangers with water
    completes the cycle.  Thus, the wastewater  is  purified  and,  in
    this example, chromic acid is recovered.  The ion exchangers, with
    newly regenerated resin, then enter the ion removal cycle again.
                                  512

-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
   DISSOLVED METALS
     OA OTHER IONS
                                               OIVERTER VALVE
    REGENERANT TO REUSE,

   TREATMENT. OR DISPOSAL
        REGENERANT
        SOLUTION
                                            OIVERTER VALVE
  METAL-FREE WATER

FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
                             FIGURE VII-30
                  ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
                                   513

-------
Application and Performance.  The list of pollutants for which the  ion
exchange  system  has  proven  effective  includes  aluminum, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,  cyanide,  gold,
iron,  lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, zinc, and more.
Thus, it can be applied to a  wide  variety  of  industrial  concerns.
Because of the heavy concentrations of metals in their wastewater,  the
metal  finishing  industries utilize ion exchange in several ways.  As
an end-of-pipe treatment, ion exchange is certainly feasible, but   its
greatest value is in recovery applications.  It is commonly used as an
integrated  treatment  to  recover  rinse water and process chemicals.
Some electroplating facilities use ion  exchange  to  concentrate   and
purify  plating  baths.   Also,  many industrial concerns, including a
number of aluminum forming plants, use ion  exchange  to  reduce  salt
concentrations in incoming water sources.

Ion  exchange  is  highly  efficient at recovering metal bearing solu-
tions.  Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and sulfuric
acid from anodizing is commercial.  A chromic acid recovery efficiency
of 99.5 percent has been demonstrated.  Typical data for  purification
of  rinse  water have been reported.  Sampling at one aluminum forming
plant characterized influent and effluent streams for an ion  exchange
unit  on  a  silver bearing waste.  This system was in start-up at  the
time  of  sampling,  however,  and  was  not  found  to  be  operating
effectively.
                             Table VI1-21

                        Ion Exchange Performance
Parameter


All Values mg/1
Al
Cd
Cr+3
Cr+6
Cu
CN
Au
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Ag
SO4
Sn
Zn
Plant
Prior To
Purifi-
cation
5.6
5.7
3.1
7.1
4.5
9.8
-
7.4
-
4.4
6.2
1.5
-
1.7
14.8
A
After
Purifi-
cation
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.04
—
0.01
—
0.00
0.00
0.00
—
0.00
0.40
Plant
Prior To
Purifi-
cation
_
_
-
_
43.0
3.40
2.30
—
1.70
—
1.60
9.10
210.00
1.10
—
B
After
Purifi-
cation
^
_
_
_
0.10
0.09
0.10
—
0.01
—
0.01
0.01
2.00
0.10
—
                                514

-------
Advantages  and  Limitations.   Ion exchange  is a versatile technology
applicable to a great many situations.  This  flexibility,  along  with
its  compact  nature  and  performance,  makes  ion  exchange  a  very
effective method of waste water treatment.    However,  the  resins  in
these  systems  can prove to be a limiting factor.  The thermal limits
of the anion resins, generally in the vicinity of 60°C, could  prevent
its  use in certain situations.  Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid,
and hydrogen peroxide  can  all  damage  the  resins,  as  will  iron,
manganese,  and  copper when present with sufficient concentrations of
dissolved oxygen.  Removal of a particular trace  contaminant  may  be
uneconomical  because  of the presence of other ionic species that are
preferentially removed.  The regeneration of  the resins  presents  its
own problems.  The cost of the regenerative chemicals can be high.  In
addition,  the waste streams originating from the regeneration process
are extremely  high  in  pollutant  concentrations,  although  low  in
volume.  These must be further processed for  proper disposal.

Operational  Factors.   Reliability:  With the exception of occasional
clogging or fouling of the resins, ion exchange has  proved  to  be  a
highly dependable technology.

Maintainability:  Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves, piping
and other hardware used in the regeneration process is required.

Solid  Waste  Aspects:   Few, if any, solids  accumulate within the ion
exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the  regeneration
process.   Proper  prior  treatment  and  planning can eliminate solid
buildup problems altogether.  The brine resulting from regeneration of
the ion exchange resin most usually must be treated to  remove  metals
before discharge.  This can generate solid waste.

Demonstration  Status.   All  of  the  applications  mentioned in this
document are  available  for  commercial  use,  and  industry  sources
estimate  the number of units currently in the field at well over 120.
The research and development in ion exchange  is focusing on  improving
the   quality   and   efficiency   of  the  resins,  rather  than  new
applications.  Work is also being done on  a  continuous  regeneration
process whereby the resins are contained on a fluid-transfusible belt.
The  belt  passes  through  a  compartmented  tank  with ion exchange,
washing,  and  regeneration  sections.   The  resins   are   therefore
continually  used  and-regenerated.  No such  system, however, has been
reported beyond the pilot stage.

Membrane Filtration

Membrane filtration is a treatment system  for  removing  precipitated
metals  from  a  wastewater  stream.  It must therefore be preceded by
those treatment techniques which will properly prepare the  wastewater
for solids removal.  Typically, a membrane filtration unit is preceded
by  pH adjustment or sulfide addition for precipitation of the metals.
                                 515

-------
These steps are followed by the addition  of  a  proprietary   chemical
reagent  which  causes  the  precipitate  to be non-gelatinous, easily
dewatered, and highly stable.  The   resulting  mixture  of  pretreated
wastewater  and  reagent is continuously recirculated through  a filter
module and back into a recirculation tank.  The filter module  contains
tubular membranes.   While  the   reagent-metal  hydroxide  precipitate
mixture  flows  through  the   inside of  the tubes, the water and  any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane.  When the recirculating slurry
reaches  a  concentration of 10 to  15 percent solids, it is pumped  out
of the system as sludge.

Application  and   Performance.    Membrane  filtration  appears to   be
applicable  to  any wastewater or  process water containing metal ions
which can  be  precipitated  using   hydroxide,  sulfide  or  carbonate
precipitation.  It could function as the primary treatment system,  but
also   might   find   application  as a  polishing  treatment  (after
precipitation and  settling) to ensure continued compliance with metals
limitations.  Membrane filtration systems are being used in  a number
of   industrial applications, particularly in the metal finishing area.
They  have also been  used  for heavy metals  removal  in  the  metal
fabrication  industry and the paper  industry.

The  permeate   is  claimed by one  manufacturer to contain less  than  the
effluent concentrations shown  in  the following  table,  regardless   of
the   influent    concentrations.     These  claims  have  been  largely
substantiated  by  the analysis  of  water samples at  various  plants   in
various  industries.

 In   the   performance predictions  for  this  technology,  pollutant
concentrations  are reduced to  the  levels  shown   below  unless  lower
 levels are present in the influent  stream.

                                  Table VI1-22

                   MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEM EFFLUENT

Specific      Manufacturers       Plant 19066       Plant 31022
Metal         Guarantee         In     Out         In     Out     Predicted
                                                                 Performance

Al                 0.5        	    	        	    	
Cr,  (+6)           0.02       0.46  0.01       5.25  <0.005
Cr  (T)             0.03       4.13  0.018     98.4    0.057       0.05
Cu                 0.1        18.8    0.043      8.00   0.222       0.20
Fe                 0.1       288      0.3       21.1    0.263       0.30
Pb                 0.05       0.652 0.01       0.288  0.01        0.05
CN •                0.02       <0.005 <0.005     <0.005 <0.005       0.02
Ni                  0.1        9.56  0.017     194     0.352       0.40
Zn                  0.1        2.09  0.046      5.00   0.051       0.10
TSS                 	       632      0.1       13.0    8.0        10.0
                                516

-------
Advantages  and  Limitations.   A  major  advantage  of  the  membrane
filtration  system  is  that  installations  can  use  most   of   the
conventional  end-of-pipe  systems  that  may  already  be  in  place.
Removal efficiencies are claimed to be  excellent,  even  with  sudden
variation  of pollutant input rates; however, the effectiveness of the
membrane filtration system can be limited by clogging of the  filters.
Because  pH  changes  in  the  waste stream greatly intensify clogging
problems, the pH must be carefully monitored and controlled.  Clogging
can  force  the  shutdown  of  the  system  and  may  interfere   with
production.   In addition, relatively high capital cost of this system
may limit its use.

Operational Factors.  Reliability:  Membrane filtration has been shown
to be a very  reliable  system,  provided  that  the  pH  is  strictly
controlled.   Improper  pH can result in the clogging of the membrane.
Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste stream must  be  controlled
in  order  to  prevent solids from passing through the filter and  into
the effluent.

Maintainability:   The membrane filters  must  be  regularly  monitored,
and cleaned or replaced as necessary.   Depending on the composition  of
the  waste  stream and  its flow rate, frequent cleaning of  the  filters
may be required.   Flushing with hydrochloric acid  for  6-24  hours   will
usually   suffice.    In  addition,   the   routine  maintenance  of pumps,
valves,  and other  plumbing is required.

Solid  Waste  Aspects:   When  the   recirculating   reagent-precipitate
slurry   reaches   10   to  15  percent solids,   it  is  pumped out of the
system.   It can  then be disposed  of   directly  or   it  can   undergo  a
dewatering  process.    Because   this  sludge contains toxic metals,  it
requires proper  disposal.

Demonstration  Status.   There are  more  than  25  membrane   filtration
systemspresently  in use on  metal finishing and similar wastewaters.
Bench  scale and  pilot studies  are being run in an  attempt   to  expand
the  list of pollutants for which this system is  known to be effective.
Although  there   are  no   data  on  the  use of  membrane filtration in
aluminum  forming  plants,    the   concept   has   been   successfully
demonstrated  using aluminum forming plant wastewater.

Reverse  Osmosis

The   process   of  osmosis  involves  the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated  solution.
Reverse   osmosis  (RO) is an operation in which pressure is applied to
 the  more  concentrated  solution,  forcing  the  permeate  to  diffuse
 through   the  membrane  and  into  the  more  dilute  solution.   This
 filtering action produces a concentrate and  a  permeate  on  opposite
 sides of the membrane.  The concentrate can then be further treated or
 returned  to  the  original  operation  for  continued  use, while the
                                  517

-------
permeate water can be recycled for use as clean water.  Figure  VI1-31
depicts a reverse osmosis system.

As  illustrated in Figure VII-32, there are three basic configurations
used in commercially available RO modules:  tubular, spiral-wound, and
hollow fiber.  All of these operate on the principle described  above,
the  major  difference  being  their  mechanical and structural design
characteristics.

The tubular membrane module  uses  a  porous  tube  with  a  cellulose
acetate membrane-lining.  A common tubular module consists of a length
of  2.5  cm   (1  inch)  diameter  tube wound on a supporting spool and
encased in a plastic shroud.  Feed water is driven into the tube under
pressures varying from  40 - 55 atm (600-800 psi).  The permeate passes
through the walls of the tube and is collected in a manifold while the
concentrate is drained  off at the end of the tube.  A less widely used
tubular RO module uses  a straight tube contained in a  housing,  under
the same operating conditions.

Spiral-wound  membranes consist of a porous backing sandwiched between
two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and bonded  along  three  edges.
The fourth edge of the  composite sheet is attached to a large permeate
collector tube.  A spacer screen is then placed on top of the membrane
sandwich  and  the entire stack is rolled around the centrally located
tubular permeate collector.  The rolled up package is inserted into   a
pipe   able   to  withstand the high operating pressures employed in this
process, up  to  55 atm  (800 psi) with the  spiral-wound  module.   When
the  system   is operating, the pressurized product water permeates the
membrane and  flows  through  the  backing  material  to  the  central
collector  tube.   The  concentrate  is  drained off at the end of the
container pipe  and can  be reprocessed or  sent  to  further  treatment
facilities.

The  hollow   fiber  membrane  configuration  is made up of a bundle  of
polyamide fibers of approximately 0.0075 cm (0.003 in.) OD and  0.0043
cm  (0.0017   in.)  ID.   A  commonly used hollow fiber module contains
several hundred thousand of the fibers placed in a long tube,  wrapped
around a  flow screen, and rolled into a spiral.  The fibers are bent
in a U-shape  and their  ends are  supported  by  an  epoxy  bond.   The
hollow fiber  unit is  operated under 27 atm (400 psi), the feed water
being  dispersed from   the  center  of  the  module  through  a  porous
distributor   tube.   Permeate flows through the membrane to the hollow
interiors of  the fibers and is collected at the ends of the fibers.

The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have  a  distinct  advantage
over   the  tubular  system  in that they are able to load a very  large
membrane surface area  into a relatively small volume.  However,   these
two  membrane  types   are  much  more  susceptible to fouling than the
tubular system, which  has a larger flow channel.  This  characteristic
also   makes   the  tubular membrane much easier to clean and regenerate
                                518

-------
                                      MACROMOLECULES
                                            AND
                                           SOLIDS
MEMBRANE
                                                           P = 450 PS I
                                     WATER
            PERMEATE (WATER)
                                           MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION.
                                           IN TUBULAR. HOLLOW FIBER.
                                           OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONT IGURATlOr-
                                                4
   FEED
            SALTS OR SOLIDS
            WATER MOLECULES
CONTPNTRAT
  (SALTS)
                          FIGURE  VII-31
             SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
                              519

-------
                                                              |*C«mtt H«Tf>«u»
                                                          »UM IMCU
                                                        SttRAL MEMBRANE MODULE
    PD>e>m Suooort Tut*
      •xth M
«.••-     t-el""1
=:*•—  *«•<
7?^°    Fwdficw,/
                       fxxluci W«i»i

                      ...-I...... 1..
                                   ~* • •
                       •   ' ^ • I  ^ 't JT  T

                            Product Wior
^'
                                                         •nn*
                                                         Conuntrni
                                                         Flo-
                         TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
                 CONCENTRATE
        SNAP RJNG     OUTLET
                                                             OPEN ENDS
                                                             OF FIBERS

                                                                           TIJBC
                                                                           TUK
tr RING SOL
  FEED
                                                                                BACK UP WSC

                                                                                      SNAP RING
                                                                                         PERMEATE
   '   £NO PLATE
                            FIBER
                                                                     RING SEAL    /
                                                             FEED            END PUTE
                                                     DISTRIBUTOR TUBE
                              HOLLO** FIBER MODULE
                                              FIGURE  VI1-32

                            REVERSE  OSMOSIS MEMBRANE  CONFIGURATIONS

                                                   520

-------
than  either  the  spiral-wound  or   hollow   fiber   modules.    One
manufacturer   claims   that  their  helical  tubular  module  can  be
physically wiped clean by passing  a  soft  porous  polyurethane  plug
under pressure through the module.

Application  and Performance.  In a number of metal processing plants,
the overflow from  the  first  rinse  in  a  countercurrent  setup  is
directed  to  a  reverse  osmosis unit, where it is separated into two
streams.  The concentrated stream contains dragged out  chemicals  and
is  returned  to  the  bath  to  replace  the  loss of solution due to
evaporation and dragout.  The dilute stream (the permeate)  is  routed
to  the  last  rinse  tank to provide water for the rinsing operation.
The rinse flows from the last tank to the first tank and the cycle  is
complete.

The  closed-loop  system,  described  above  may be supplemented by the
addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in order to  further
reduce  the  volume  of  reverse  osmosis concentrate.  The evaporated
vapor can be condensed and returned to the last rinse tank or sent  on
for further treatment.

The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solutions.
It  has been shown that RO can generally be applied to most acid metal
baths with a high degree of performance, providing that  the  membrane
unit  is  not  overtaxed.   The limitations most critical here are the
allowable pH range and maximum operating pressure for each  particular
configuration.   Adequate prefiltration is also essential.  Only three
membrane types are readily available in commercial RO units, and their
overwhelming use has been for  the  recovery  of  various  acid  metal
baths.  For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of this
technology,  a  rejection ratio of 98 percent is assumed for dissolved
salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.

Advantages and Limitations.  The major advantage  of  reverse  osmosis
for  handling  process  effluents is its ability to concentrate dilute
solutions  for  recovery  of  salts  and  chemicals  with  low   power
requirements.   No  latent  heat of vaporization or fusion is required
for effecting separations; the main energy requirement is for  a  high
pressure pump.  It requires relatively little floor space for compact,
high capacity units, and it exhibits good recovery and rejection rates
for  a  number  of  typical  process  solutions.   A limitation of the
reverse osmosis process for treatment  of  process  effluents  is  its
limited  temperature  range for satisfactory operation.  For cellulose
acetate systems, the preferred limits are 18° to 30°C (65°  to  85°F);
higher  temperatures will increase the rate of membrane hydrolysis and
reduce system life, while lower temperatures will result in  decreased
fluxes  with  no  damage  to  the  membrane.   Another  limitation  is
inability to  handle  certain  solutions.   Strong  oxidizing  agents,
strongly  acidic  or  basic  solutions,  solvents,  and  other organic
compounds can cause dissolution of the membrane.   Poor  rejection  of
                                521

-------
some  compounds  such  as borates and  low molecular weight organics  is
another problem.  Fouling of membranes by slightly soluble  components
in  solution or colloids has caused  failures, and fouling of membranes
by feed waters with  high levels of suspended solids can be a  problem.
A final limitation is  inability to treat or achieve high concentration
with some solutions.   Some  concentrated solutions may have initial os-
motic  pressures  which  are so high that they either exceed available
operating pressures  or are  uneconomical to treat.

Operational Factors.   Reliability:   Very good reliability is  achieved
so long as the proper  precautions are  taken to minimize the chances  of
fouling  or  degrading  the membrane.  Sufficient testing of the waste
stream  prior  to   application of   an RO  system  will  provide  the
information needed  to  insure a successful application.

Maintainability:    Membrane life  is  estimated to range from six months
to three years,  depending  on the  use of the  system.   Down  time  for
flushing   or  cleaning  is on the order  of 2 hours as often as once each
week;  a substantial  portion of maintenance  time  must  be  spent   on
cleaning any  prefilters  installed ahead of the reverse osmosis unit.

Solid Waste  Aspects:   In  a closed loop system utilizing RO there is a
constant recycle of permeate and  a   minimal  amount  of  solid  waste.
Prefiltration  eliminates  many solids  before they reach the module and
helps keep the buildup to  a minimum.   These  solids  require  proper
disposal.

Demonstration  Status.  There are  presently  at  least  one hundred
 reverse osmosis waste water applications in a variety  of  industries.
 In  addition   to  these, there are thirty to forty units being used  to
provide pure  process water for several industries.  Despite  the  many
 types and  configurations of membranes, only the spiral-wound cellulose
 acetate   membrane   has   had  widespread   success   in  commercial
 applications.

 Sludge Bed Drying

As a waste treatment procedure,   sludge  bed  drying   is  employed   to
 reduce  the  water  content of a  variety of sludges to the point where
 they are amenable to mechanical collection and  removal  to  landfill.
These beds usually consist of  15  to  45 cm  (6 to 18  in.) of sand over a
30  cm  (12 in.) deep gravel drain system made up of 3 to 6 mm  (1/8  to
1/4  in.) graded gravel overlying  drain tiles.  Figure VII-33 shows the
construction  of a drying bed.

Drying beds are usually  divided  into sectional areas approximately 7.5
meters (25 ft)  wide x  30 to 60 meters   (100  to   200   ft)  long.   The
partitions may  be earth  embankments, but more often are made of planks
and supporting  grooved posts.
                                  522

-------










c







K
w—cJ===tj— i
IT
il

•i
p >t 1
h
ii
H
II
II
» !!
II
6-IN VITRIFI
-d Lr-
H
il
ii




1
it |
>'
ED PIPE LAID ^
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
1 « \
II
II
II
II
I jj
SPLASH BOX
n P

-j^^-i-W
I II
II
1
"1
1
1
1
1
1
T,"
1,
Q jl
J i|
W i|
a. m 1 '
— L? 1
ol'
U O 1 1
- z M
, >!'«
Z K 1 1
**H
•~1f 	
I
M
1
I


1
1
1
jj /6-'i«- FLANGEDjJ
i— •/ SHEAR GATE, r— i
0 ii S
-_-_-^Jt -- ^---^-~4J4-- = -
-d U
1 |
II
II
1 (
!|

ii
l|
!! •
M
-~-^p
•i
M {
ii
i
i
Ji
it i

i!
Q
r-.r-.r-.Jill

















A
J
                                                               \
6-IN. Cl PIPE
PLAN

6-IN. FINE SAND
3-1N. COARSE-SAND
3-1N. FINE GRAVEL
3-1 N. MEDIUM CRAV^EL
3 TO 6 IN. COARSE GRAVEL
                                                                  2-IN PLANK
                                                                  WALK
                                                             PIPE COLUMN FOR
                                                             GLASS-OVER
  3-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
                           6-IN. UNDERDRAIN LAID
                           WITH OPEN JOINTS
                             SECTION A-A
                          FIGURE  VII-33
                        SLUDGc DRYING BED
                                 523

-------
To apply liquid  sludge to the sand bed,  a closed  conduit or a pressure
pipeline  with   valved  outlets  at  each  sand   bed   section is often
employed.  Another method of   application  is  by means  of  an  open
channel  with  appropriately  placed side openings which are controlled
by slide gates.   With .either   type  of   delivery  system,  a  concrete
splash  slab should  be  provided  to   receive the falling sludge  and
prevent erosion  of the sand surface.

Where it  is  necessary to dewater sludge   continuously  throughout   the
year   regardless  of  the  weather,  sludge beds  may be covered with  a
fiberglass reinforced plastic or  other   roof.    Covered  drying  beds
permit a  greater  volume of sludge drying per  year  in most climates
because of the protection afforded from  rain or snow   and  because  of
more   efficient   control  of  temperature.   Depending on the climate,  a
combination  of open and enclosed beds will  provide maximum utilization
of  the sludge bed drying facilities.

Application  and  Performance.    Sludge drying  beds  are  a  means  of
dewater ing  sludge  from  clarifiers and thickeners.  They are widely
used  both in municipal and industrial treatment facilities.

Dewater ing of sludge on sand  beds occurs by two mechanisms: filtration
of  water  through the bed and  evaporation  of  water  as  a  result  of
radiation  and convection. Filtration is generally complete  in one to
 two days  and may result in solids concentrations  as high as 15  to  20
percent.    The  rate  of filtration depends on the drainability of  the
sludge.

 The rate of air drying of sludge is related to  temperature,  relative
 humidity,   and  air  velocity.  Evaporation will  proceed at a constant
 rate to a critical moisture content,  then at  a   falling  rate  to  an
equilibrium  moisture  content.   The average  evaporation rate for  a
sludge is about 75 percent of that from  a free water surface.

Advantages and Limitations.  The main advantage of sludge drying  beds
over   other  types  of sludge dewatering is the relatively low cost of
construction,  operation, and  maintenance.

Its disadvantages are the large area of  land required  and long  drying
times that depend, to a great extent, on climate  and weather.

Operational  Factors.  Reliability:  Reliability is high with  favorable
climactic  conditions, proper  bed design  and care  to avoid excessive or
unequal   sludge   application.   If climatic conditions in a given area
are not favorable for adequate drying, a cover may be  necessary.

Maintainability:  Maintenance consists basically  of  periodic  removal
of the dried sludge.  Sand removed from  the drying bed with the sludge
must  be replaced and the sand layer resurfaced.
                                   524

-------
The resurfacing of sludge beds is the major expense item in sludge bed
maintenance,  but  there  are other areas which may require attention.
Underdrains occasionally  become  clogged  and  have  to  be  cleaned.
Valves  or  sludge  gates  that control the flow of sludge to the beds
must be kept watertight.  Provision for drainage of  lines  in  winter
should  be  provided  to prevent damage from freezing.  The partitions
between beds should be tight so that sludge will  not  flow  from  one
compartment  to  another.   The  outer  walls or banks around the beds
should also be watertight.

Solid Waste Aspects:  The  full  sludge  drying  bed  must  either  be
abandoned  or  the  collected  solids  must  be removed to a landfill.
These solids contain whatever metals or other materials  were  settled
in  the  clarifier.   Metals  will  be  present as hydroxides, oxides,
sulfides, or other salts.  They have the potential  for  leaching  and
contaminating  ground  water,  whatever  the location of the semidried
solids.  Thus the abandoned bed or landfill should  include  provision
for runoff control and leachate monitoring.

Demonstration  Status.   Sludge  beds  have been in common use in both
municipal  and  industrial  facilities  for  many   years.    However,
protection of ground water from contamination is not always adequate.

Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration   (UF)  is a process which uses semipermeable polymeric
membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal materials suspended in  a
liquid phase by pressurizing the  liquid  so  that  it  permeates  the
membrane.   The  membrane  of  an ultrafilter forms a molecular screen
which retains molecular particles based on their differences  in  size,
shape,  and  chemical  structure.   The  membrane  permits  passage of
solvents  and  lower  molecular  weight  molecules.   At  present,  an
ultrafilter is capable of removing materials with molecular weights in
the  range  of  1,000 to  100,000 and particles of comparable or larger
sizes.

In an ultrafiltration process, the feed solution is pumped  through   a
tubular  membrane unit.   Water and some low molecular weight materials
pass through the membrane under the applied  pressure  of   10  to  100
psig.   Emulsified  oil  droplets and suspended particles are retained,
concentrated, and  removed   continuously.   In  contrast  to  ordinary
filtration,  retained  materials  are  washed  off the membrane filter
rather  than  held  by   it.   Figures  VI1-34  &  35  represents   the
ultrafiltration process.

Application    and   Performance.    Ultrafiltration   has   potential
application to aluminum  forming plants  for  separation  of  oils  and
residual    solids   from a  variety  of  waste  streams.   Successful
commercial  use,  however,   has  been  primarily  for  separation   of
emulsified  oils  from   wastewater.   Over  one hundred such  units now
                                    525

-------
                                                   CONCENTRATE
                                                 CIRCULATION LOOP
SPENT FREE
AND

EMULSIFIED
OIL
CJl
r\5
en
                FREE OIL

                SEPARATION
                                               i
                    PROCESS

                     TANK
                                                                   PERMEATE
                                                            MEMBRANE

                                                             MODULES
                                      CONCENTRATE (WITHDRAWN

                                       AFTER  EACH BATCH)
             FIGURE TZH-
34   FLOW  DIAGRAM FOR  A BATCH  TREATMENT

    ULTRAFILTRATION  SYSTEM

-------
operate in the United States, treating emulsified oils from a  variety
of  industrial  processes.   Capacities  of  currently operating units
range from a few hundred gallons a week to  50,000  gallons  per  day.
Concentration  of  oily  emulsions  to  60  percent  oil  or  more are
possible.  Oil concentrates  of  40  percent  or  more  are  generally
suitable for incineration, and the permeate can be treated further and
in  some  cases  recycled  back  to  the  process.  In this way, it is
possible to eliminate contractor removal costs for oil from some  oily
waste streams.

The  following  test  data  indicate ultrafiltration performance (note
that UF is not intended to remove dissolved solids):

                             Table VII-23

                     ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE


Parameter                  Feed (mq/1)        Permeate (mq/1)

Oil (freon extractable)       1230                   4
COD                           8920                 148
TSS                           1380                  13
Total Solids                  2900                 296

The removal percentages shown are typical, but they can be  influenced
by pH and other conditions.

The  permeate or effluent from the ultrafiltration unit is normally of
a quality that can be reused in industrial applications or  discharged
directly.   The  concentrate  from  the  ultrafiltration  unit  can be
disposed of as any oily or solid waste.

Advantages  and  Limitations.    Ultrafiltration   is   sometimes   an
attractive  alternative to chemical treatment because of lower capital
equipment, installation,  and  operating  costs,  very  high  oil  and
suspended solids removal, and little required pretreatment.  It places
a  positive  barrier between pollutants and effluent which reduces the
possibility of extensive pollutant discharge due to operator error  or
upset  in  settling and skimming systems.  Alkaline values in alkaline
cleaning solutions can be recovered and reused in process.

A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process effluents  is
its narrow temperature range (18° to 30°C) for satisfactory operation.
Membrane  life  decreases with higher temperatures, but flux increases
at elevated temperatures.  Therefore, surface area requirements are  a
function  of  temperature  and become a tradeoff between initial costs
and replacement costs for the membrane.  In addition,  ultrafiltration
cannot  handle  certain solutions.  Strong oxidizing agents, solvents,
and other organic compounds can dissolve  the  membrane.   Fouling  is
                                 527

-------
sometimes  a  problem,  although   the   high velocity of  the wastewater
normally creates enough turbulence  to   keep  fouling  at  a  minimum.
Large solids particles can sometimes puncture the membrane and must  be
removed by gravity settling  or  filtration prior to the ultrafiltration
unit.

Operational    Factors.    Reliability:    The   reliability   of    an
ultrafiltration system is dependent  on  the proper filtration, settling
or other treatment of incoming  waste streams to prevent  damage to  the
membrane.   Careful   pilot   studies  should be done in each instance  to
determine necessary  pretreatment  steps  and the exact membrane type   to
be used.

Maintainabilityt   A limited amount  of  regular maintenance is required
for  the pumping system.   In  addition, membranes must  be periodically
changed.  Maintenance associated  with membrane plugging  can be reduced
by   selection of  a  membrane with optimum physical characteristics and
sufficient  velocity  of  the waste  stream.  It  is  often  necessary   to
occasionally  pass  a  detergent solution  through the system to remove  an
oil   and   grease   film  which accumulates on the membrane.  With  proper
maintenance membrane life can be  greater than twelve months.

Solid Waste Aspects; Ultraf iltration is used  primarily  to  recover
solids and liquids.   It therefore eliminates solid waste problems when
the  solids  (e.g.,   paint   solids)  can be  recycled to the process.
Otherwise,  the stream containing  solids must be treated  by end-of-pipe
equipment.   In the most  probable applications  within  the  aluminum
 forming  category,  the  ultrafilter would remove hydroxides or sulfides
of metals which  have recovery value.

Demonstration Status.  The ultrafiltration process is  well  developed
 and  commercially available  for treatment of wastewater  or recovery  of
 certain high  molecular  weight liquid and solid  contaminants.    It   is
presently  in operation at ne aluminum  forming plant and in a start-up
phase at another.

Vacuum Filtration

 In wastewater treatment plants, sludge  dewatering by vacuum filtration
 generally uses cylindrical drum filters.  These drums  have  a   filter
medium  which  may  be   cloth made of natural or synthetic fibers or a
wire-mesh fabric.   The  drum  is suspended above and dips  into a vat   of
sludge.    As   the  drum  rotates   slowly, part of its circumference  is
subject to an internal  vacuum that draws sludge to the filter  medium.
Water is  drawn through  the porous filter cake to a discharge port, and
the  dewatered sludge,  loosened by compressed air, is scraped from the
filter mesh.   Because the dewatering of sludge on  vacuum  filters   is
relatively expensive per kilogram of water removed, the liquid  sludge
is  frequently thickened prior to  processing.  A vacuum filter is shown
in  Figure  VII-36.
                                 528

-------
                FABRIC OR WIRE
                FILTER MEDIA
                STRETCHED OVER
                REVOLVING DRUM
                            DIRECTION OF ROTATION
           ROLLER
                                                                     VACUUM
                                                                     SOURCE
                                                                    6	•
STEEL
CYLINDRICAL
FRAME
                                               LIQUID FORCE
                                               THROUGH   •"
                                               MEDIA SY
                                               MEANS OF
                                               VACUUM
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
SOLIDS COLLECTION
HOPPER
                    \
                                                                   INLET LIQUID
                                                                   TO BE
                                                                   FILTERED
                              TROUGH
                                         FILTERED LIQUID
                              FIGURE VII-36
                            VACUUM FILTRATION
                                   529

-------
Application  and  Performance.  Vacuum filters  are frequently  used  both
in  municipal  treatment  plants   and in a wide variety of  industries.
They are  most  commonly used  in  larger facilities,  which  may   have  a
thickener to  double  the  solids  content of clarifier  sludge before
vacuum  filtering.

The function of  vacuum filtration is to reduce the  water  content  of
sludge,  so  that  the solids content increases from about 5  percent to
about  30  percent.

Advantages and  Limitations.   Although  the  initial  cost  and  area
requirement  of the vacuum filtration system are higher than  those of a
centrifuge,  the operating cost  is lower,  and  no special provisions for
sound   and  vibration  protection  need be made.  The dewatered sludge
from  this process  is  in  the   form  of a   moist  cake  and   can  be
conveniently handled.

Operational   Factors.  Reliability:   Vacuum filter systems  have proven
reliable at many industrial and municipal treatment  facilities.   At
present,   the  largest municipal  installation is at the West Southwest
waste water treatment plant  of  Chicago, Illinois,  where 96  large
 filters were installed in 1925, functioned approximately  25  years, and
 then  were  replaced  with  larger  units.  Original vacuum filters at
 Minneapolis-St.  Paul, Minnesota now have over 28 years  of   continuous
 service,   and  Chicago  has some units with similar or greater service
 life.

 Maintainability:  Maintenance consists of the cleaning or  replacement
 of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping, filter pans, and
 other parts of the equipment.  Experience in  a number of  vacuum filter
 plants   indicates  that  maintenance  consumes  approximately   5 to 15
 percent  of the total time.  If  carbonate buildup or other problems are
 unusually severe, maintenance time may be as  high as 20 percent.   For
 this reason, it is desirable to maintain one  or more spare  units.

 If  intermittent  operation  is  used,  the filter equipment should be
 drained  and washed each time it is taken out  of service.  An allowance
 for this wash time must be made in filtering  schedules.

 Solid Waste Aspects:  Vacuum filters generate a solid   cake which  is
 usually  trucked  directly  to  landfill. All of the metals extracted
 from the plant wastewater are  concentrated   in  the   filter  cake  as
 hydroxides,  oxides, sulfides, or other salts.

 Demonstration Status.  Vacuum filtration has  been widely  used  for many
 years.   It  is  a  fully  proven,  conventional technology for sludge
 dewatering.
                                      530

-------
IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY

Process Water Recycle

Recycling of process water is the practice of recirculating  water  to
be  used  again for the same purpose.  An example of recycling process
water is the return of casting contact cooling water  to  the  casting
process  after  the water passes through a cooling tower.  The recycle
of process water is currently practiced where it  is  cost  effective,
where  it  is  necessary  due  to  water  shortage, or where the local
permitting authority has required it.  Recycle,  as  compared  to  the
once-through   use  of  process  water,  is  an  effective  method  of
conserving water.

Recycle offers economic as well as  environmental  advantages.   Water
consumption  is  reduced  and  wastewater  handling facilities (pumps,
pipes,  clarifiers,  etc.)  can  be  sized  for  smaller  flows.    By
concentrating  the  pollutants  in  a  much  smaller volume (the bleed
stream), greater removal efficiencies can be attained by  any  applied
treatment  technologies.   However, recycle may require some treatment
of water before it is reused.  This may entail only  sedimentation  or
cooling.

Two  types  of  recycle  are  possible—recycle  with  a  bleed stream
(blowdown) and total recycle.  Total recycle may be prohibited by  the
presence  of  dissolved  solids.  Dissolved solids  (e.g., sulfates and
chlorides) entering a totally recycled waste stream  may  precipitate,
forming  scale  if  the  solubility limits of the dissolved solids are
exceeded.  A bleed stream may  be  necessary  to  prevent  maintenance
problems (pipe plugging or scaling, etc.) that would be created by the
precipitation of dissolved solids.  While the volume of bleed required
is  a  function of the amount of dissolved solids in the waste stream,
four or five percent bleed is a common value for a  variety of  process
waste streams in the aluminum forming category.

The  ultimate  benefit  of recycling process water  is the reduction in
total wastewater discharge and the associated advantages of lower flow
streams.  A potential problem is the  build  up  of  dissolved  solids
which  could  result  in  scaling  and  possible  contamination of the
aluminum product.  However,  scaling  can  usually  be  controlled  by
depressing the pH and increasing the bleed flow.

Required  hardware  necessary  for  recycle  is  highly site-specific.
Basic items  include  pumps  and  piping.   Additional  materials  are
necessary  if  water  treatment  occurs  before the water is recycled.
These items will be  discussed  separately  with  each  unit  process.
Chemicals  may  be  necessary  to  control  scale build-up, slime, and
corrosion  problems,   especially   with   recycled   cooling   water.
Maintenance  and energy use are limited to that required by the pumps,
                                  531

-------
and solid waste  generation  is   dependent  on  the  type  of   treatment
system  in place.

Recyling through cooling towers is  the most common practice.  One  type
of  application   is  shown   in  Figure  VI1-37.   Direct chill  casting
cooling water is recycled through a  cooling  tower  with  a  blowdown
discharge.

A   cooling   tower  is a device which  cools water by bringing  the water
into  contact with air.   The water and air flows are directed  in such  a
way as  to provide maximum heat transfer.  The heat is  transferred to
air  primarily  by evaporation (about 75 percent), while the  remainder
is  removed  by sensible heat transfer.

Factors influencing the rate of heat  transfer  and,   ultimately,   the
temperature  range  of  the  tower  include  water surface area, tower
packing,  air flow, and packing height.  A  large  water  surface   area
promotes   evaporation,   and  sensible heat  transfer  rates  are lower
proportionate  to  the  water  surface  area  provided.   Packing   (an
 internal   latticework  contact  area)  is  often used  to produce small
droplets  of water which evaporate more  easily,  thus  increasing   the
 total  surface  area  per  unit of  throughput.  For a  given water  flow
 increasing the air flow  increases  the  amount  of  heat  removed by
maintaining  higher  thermodynamic  potentials.  The packing  height in
 the tower should be high enough so  that the air leaving the   tower  is
 close to saturation.

 A  mechanical-draft  cooling  tower  consists  of  the following major
 components:

 1)   Inlet-water distributor
 2)   Packing
 3)   Air fans
 4)   Inlet-air louvers
 5)   Drift or carryover eliminators
 6)   Cooled water storage basin.

 Although   the  principal  construction  material   in   mechanical-draft
 towers  is  wood, other materials are used extensively.  For  long  life
 and minimum maintenance, wood is generally  pressure-treated  with  a
preservative.  Although the tower structure is usually made of  treated
 redwood,   a  reasonable  amount of  treated fir has been used  in recent
years.   Sheathing and louvers are generally made of  asbestos  cement,
and  the   fan  stacks  of  fiberglass.   There is  a trend to  use fire-
resistant  extracted PVC as  fill which, at little   or   no  increase  in
cost, offers the advantage  of permanent  fire-resistant properties.

The  major   disadvantages  of wood  are  its susceptibility to  decay and
fire.   Steel construction is occasionally used, but not to  any great
                                   532

-------
                        EVAPORATION
 CONTACT COOLING
 WATER
          COOLING

          TOWER
SLOWDOWN
DISCHARGE
     RECYCLED FLOW
                              MAKE-UP WATER
FIGURE
- 37  FLOW DIAGRAM FOR  RECYCLING
      WITH  A  COOLING TOWER
                     533

-------
extent.   Concrete   may   be  used but has relatively high construction
labor costs,  although  it  does offer the advantage of fire protection.

Various  chemical  additives   are  used  in  cooling  water  systems  to
control   scale,   slime,   and corrosion.  The chemical additives needed
depend on the character of the  make-up  water.   All  additives  have
definite limitations and  cannot eliminate the need for blowdown.  Care
should   be   taken  in  selecting additives.  Since toxics may be used,
treatment may be  required for the blowdown stream.

Many different types of streams in the aluminum forming  category  are
currently  recycled.  The degree of recycle of those streams listed  is
50 percent  or more, most  commonly in the  96  to  100  percent  range.
Recycling  process waters is a viable option for many aluminum forming-
process  wastewaters as shown by the current practices in the category.
One plant recycles all of its continuous rod casting  contact  cooling
water without treatment.   For plants with direct chill contact cooling
water, one plant recycles 50 percent of this stream without treatment;
six  plants  recycle  in  the   90  to  95 percent range  (three utilize
cooling   towers,   while  the other  three  use  no  treatment  before
recycle); and 20 plants recycle  in the 96 to 100 percent range with  10
utilizing  cooling  towers  only, three using oil skimming devices and
cooling  towers, one using a cooling  lagoon,  two  using  oil  skimming
devices  only, and four plants  recycling with no treatment.  Two plants
currently  recycle  extrusion  press  heat treatment quench water in the
90  to  100 percent range without   intermediate  treatment.   One  plant
recycles  97  percent  of   its   neat-oil rolling heat treatment quench
water  through a cooling tower.   One  plant recycles  100 percent  of  its
emulsion  rolling  heat  treatment quench without treatment before its
return to the process.  One plant currently recycles 95  percent of its
drawing heat treatment quench water  without treatment.   Two plants   in
the  80  to  89 percent recycle range  and  four plants  in the  90 to 100
percent recycle  range  currently  recycle  extrusion  heat   treatment
quench  water.   Two  plants  recycle   through  a   cooling  tower, one
recycles through an oil skimming  device,  and  one recycles  without
treatment.   Four  plants   with  etch   lines   currently  recycle in the
percentage range of 89 to 100.   One plant  recycles  over  99 percent   of
its  etch  line acid  dip and acid rinse waters without treatment.  One
plant recycles 89  and 93 percent of  its acid  rinse  and   caustic  rinse
waters,   respectively,  without  treatment.    One  plant  recycles  100
percent of its caustic rinse without treatment.   One  plant   recycles
100 percent of its  caustic  dip without any intermediate  treatment.

Other  aluminum  forming  wastewaters  may also  be  recycled  to varying
degrees, depending  on the required quality of water  necessary  for   a
specific  operation.   Scrubber  waters  from  casting,   forging,  etch
lines, and annealing  operations can be recycled   because  of   the  low
water  quality  necessary   as  make-up  water.  Forging  heat  treatment
quench waters can  be  recycled in a manner  similar   to  that   used  in
drawing,  emulsion  and  neat-oil rolling, and extrusion  heat  treatment
                                      534

-------
quenches.  Extrusion die cleaning rinses can be recycled with  minimal
difficulty in a similar manner to etch line practices.

Process Water Reuse

Reuse  of process water is the practice of recirculating water used in
one production process for subsequent use in  a  different  production
process.   An  example  is  the reuse of the rinse water which follows
caustic extrusion die  cleaning  as  make-up  water  for  the  caustic
cleaning solution.

Advantages  of  reuse are similar to the advantages of recycle.  Water
consumption is reduced and  wastewater  treatment  facilities  can  be
sized  for smaller flows.  Also, in areas where water shortages occur,
reuse is an effective means of conserving water.

The hardware  necessary  for  reuse  of  process  wastewaters  varies,
depending  on  the  specific  application.  The basic elements include
pumps and piping.  Chemical addition is not usually warranted,  unless
treatment  is required prior to reuse.  Maintenance and energy use are
limited to that required by the  pumps.   Solid  waste  generation  is
dependent  upon  the  type  of  treatment  used  and will be discussed
separately with each unit process.

Reuse applications in the aluminum forming category are varied.   Some
plants  reuse  extrusion die cleaning rinse water as make-up water for
the extrusion die cleaning bath.  One  plant  reuses  extrusion  press
heat  treatment  quench water and direct chill casting contact cooling
water as noncontact cooling water following passage through a  cooling
tower  and  an  oil  skimming device.  One plant reuses extrusion heat
treatment quench as noncontact cooling water without any treatment.

Neat  oil  rolling,  emulsion  rolling,  drawing,  and  forging   heat
treatment  quench  waters  may  have  potential  as reuse streams in a
manner similar to that used for extrusion heat treatment quench water.
It may be possible to reuse etch line  rinses  following  caustic  and
acidic baths as cooling water, heat treatment quenches or die  cleaning
rinses.

Process Water Use Reduction

Process  water  use reduction is the decrease in the amount of process
water used as  an  influent  to  a  production  process  per   unit  of
production.  Section V discusses water use in detail for each  aluminum
forming  operation.   A  range of water use values taken from  the data
collection portfolios is presented for each operation.  The  range  of
values   indicates  that some plants use process water more efficiently
than others for the same operation.  Therefore, some plants  can  curb
their  water use.  In some cases it may be as simple as turning down a
few valves.
                                  535

-------
CANS	
PREWASH
ACID

WASH
RINSE
 SURFACE

TREATMENT
RINSE
                                             t   1
DEIONIZED

  RINSE
                                                         t   1
   in
   oo
   CM
        TO  TREATMENT
                                          MAKE-UP WATER
          STAGE I     STAGE 2    STAGE  3     STAGE 4    STAGE  5    STAGE  6
                 FIGURE3ZH-38   CAN  WASH LINE - COUNTERCURRENT

                                CONFIGURATION.

-------
Process  variations  may  cause  a  decrease  in  process  water  use.
Noncontact  cooling  water  may  replace contact cooling water in some
applications; air cooling  may  also  be  an  alternative  to  contact
cooling  water.   Conversion  to  dry  air pollution control equipment
(discussed later) is another way to reduce water use.

Wastewater Segregation

The segregation  of  process  waste  streams  is  a  valuable  control
technology  and  may reduce treatment costs.  Individual process waste
streams may  exhibit  very  different  chemical  characteristics,  and
separating  the  streams may permit applying the most effective method
of treatment or disposal  to  each  stream.   Clean  waters,  such  as
annealing  scrubber  water  and  hot  rolling heat treatment quenches/
should be  kept  segregated  from  contaminated  streams.   Dissimilar
streams  should  not be combined, e.g., an oily stream, such as direct
chill contact cooling water should not be  combined  with  a  non-oily
stream  such  as  neat oil rolling heat treatment quench.  Segregation
should be based on the type of treatment to be performed for  a  given
pollutant,   avoiding  oversizing  of  equipment  for  treating  flows
unnecessarily.

Consider two waste streams, one high in chromium and  other  dissolved
solids;  the  other,  a  noncontact  cooling  water  without chromium.
Significant advantages exist in segregating these two  waste  streams.
If  the  combined  waste streams are being treated to reduce chromium,
the resulting high treatment  cost  will  be  impractical.   Also,  if
chromium  removal  by  lime  precipitation is being practiced, reduced
removal efficiencies will result from combining the waste streams  due
to  dilution  of  chromium concentration.  In addition, recycle of the
noncontact  cooling  water  will  be  made  difficult  by  mixing  the
relatively  pure  noncontact  cooling  water  with the high-dissolved-
solids stream.  Many combinations of waste  streams  exist  throughout
the aluminum forming industry where segregation affords advantages.

The  segregation of stormwater runoff from process-related streams can
eliminate overloading of sewer and treatment facilities.  Some  plants
located  lower  than  the surrounding terrain have built flood control
dams at higher elevations to minimize the passage of stormwater runoff
onto plant property.  The use  of  curbing  is  an  excellent  control
practice  for  minimizing  the  commingling  of  runoff  with  process
wastewaters.  Also,  retention  ponds  should  be  lined  to  minimize
infiltration  of  spring  water  during  periods of local flooding and
exfiltration of the wastewaters to a nearby aquifer.

Equipment necessary for wastewater  segregation  may  include  piping,
curbing,   and   possibly  pumping.   Chemicals  are  not  needed  and
maintenance and energy use is limited to the pumps.

Forming Oil and Deoilinq Solvent Recovery
                                   537

-------
Recycling of forming oils is a common practice in the  industry.   The
degree   of  recycling  is  dependent upon  any in-line treatment, e.g.,
filtration to remove aluminum fines and other  contaminants,  and  the
useul   life  of  the  specific  oil in its application.  Usually, this
involves continuous recirculation of  the   oil,  with  losses  in  the
recycle  loop  from  evaporation, oil carried off by the aluminum, and
minor  losses from in-line treatment.  Some plants periodically replace
the  entire batch of oil once its required  properties are depleted.  In
other  cases, a continuous bleed or blowdown stream of oil is withdrawn
from the recycle loop to maintain a constant level  of  oil  quality.
Fresh   make-up  oil  is added to compensate for  the blowdown and other
losses, and in-line filtration is used between cycles.

Some plants collect and recycle rolling oils via mist eliminators.  In
the  rolling process, oils are sprayed as a fine  mist  on  the   rollers
for   cooling  and  lubricating  purposes,  and some of this  oil  becomes
airborne and may be lost via exhaust fans or volatilization.  With the
rising price of oils,  it is becoming a more common practice to  prevent
these losses.  Another reason for using hood and mist  eliminator  is
the  improvement in the working environment.

Reuse of oil from spent  emulsions used  in aluminum rolling  and  drawing
 is  practiced  at  some  plants.  The free oil skimmed  from  gravity oil
and  water separation,  following emulsion breaking,  is  valuable.   This
free  oil   contains some solids  and water which  must be removed before
the oil  can be reused.   The traditional treatment  involves  acidifying
 the  oil   in  a heated cooker, using steam coils or  live  steam  to heat
 the oil  to  a rolling  boil.   When the oil  is sufficiently   heated,   the
 steam   is   shut  off   and  the oil  and water are permitted to  separate.
 The collected floating oil  layer is suitable for use  as   supplemental
 boiler   fuel  or   for some other type of  in-house  reuse.   Other plants
 choose  to  sell their   oily  wastes  to  oil  scavengers,   rather  than
 reclaiming  the oil  themselves.   The water phase from this operation is
 either  sent to treatment or,  if  of a high enough quality, discharged.

 Using   organic   solvents  to  deoil  or  degrease  aluminum is usually
 performed prior  to sale or  subsequent  operations  such  as  coating.
 Recycling  the spent solvent can be economically attractive along with
 its environmental  advantages.  Some plants  (7 out of 30)  are known  to
 use  distillation   units  to  reclaim  spent  solvent  for  recycling.
 Sludaes are normally disposed of by contractor  hauling,  although  some
 plants  may  incinerate  this  waste.   Of  the 30  plants  currently
 performing aluminum degreasing with organic solvents,  two  plants  are
 known   to  discharge  part  of their spent solvent and oil mixtures to
 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).

 Dry Air Pollution Control Devices

 The  use  of  dry  air  pollution  control devices  would allow  the
 elimination of waste streams with high pollution potentials.   However,
                                     538

-------
the  choice  of  air  pollution  control equipment is complicated, and
sometimes a wet system is the necessary choice.

Equipment for dry control of  air  emissions  includes  cyclones,  dry
electrostatic  pecipitators,  fabric filters, and afterburners.  These
devices remove particulate matter, the first three by  entrapment  and
the afterburners by combustion.

Afterburner  use  is  limited  to  air  emissions consisting mostly of
combustible particles.  Characteristics of the  particulate-laden  gas
which  affect  the  design  and  use  of  a  device  are  gas density,
temperature,   viscosity,   flammability,   corrosiveness,   toxicity,
humidity, and dew point.  Particulate characteristics which affect the
design  and  use  of  a  device  are  particle  size,  shape, density,
resistivity, concentration, and physiochemical properties.

Proper application of a dry control device can result  in  particulate
removal  efficiencies  greater  than  99  percent by weight for fabric
filters, electrostatic precipitators, and afterburners, and up  to  95
percent for cyclones.

The  important  difference  between  wet  and  dry devices is that wet
devices control gaseous pollutants as well  as  particulates.   Common
wet air pollution control devices are wet electrostatic precipitators,
venturi  scrubbers, and packed tower scrubbers.  Collection efficiency
for gases will depend on the solubility  of  the  contaminant  -in  the
scrubbing  liquid.   Depending  on the contaminant removed, collection
efficiencies usually approach 99 percent for particles and gases.

Wet devices may be chosen over dry devices when any of  the  following
factors  are  found:    (1) the particle size is predominantly under 20
microns, (2) flammable particles or gases are to be treated at minimal
combustion risk,  (3) both vapors and particles are to be  removed  from
the carrier medium, and  (4) the gases are corrosive and may damage dry
air pollution control devices.

The  aluminum  forming   industry  reports the use of wet  air pollution
control in the following areas:  forging,  caustic  etching,  and  die
cleaning.

Melting  prior to casting requires wet air pollution control only when
chlorine gas is present  due to the corrosiveness of the offgases.  Dry
air pollution control methods with inert gas or salt  furnace  fluxing
have been demonstrated  in the  industry.  It  is possible to perform all
the   metal   treatment   tasks  of  removing  hydrogen,  non-metallic
inclusions, and undesirable trace elements and meet the most stringent
quality requirements without furnace fluxing, using only  in-line metal
treatment units.  This  is achieved by treating the molten aluminum  in
the  transfer  system between the furnace and casting units by flowing
the metal through a region  of  very  fine,dense,  mixed-gas  bubbles,
                                   539

-------
generated  by   a   spinning  rotor or nozzle.  No process wastewater is
generated  in   this operation.   A  schematic  diagram  depicting  the
spinning nozzle refining principle is shown in Figure VI1-39.

Scrubbers  must be used  in forging because of the potential fire hazard
of  baghouses   used in  this capacity.  The oily mist generated in this
operation  is highly flammable and also tends to plug and blind  fabric
filters, reducing their efficiency.

Caustic  etch   and extrusion die cleaning wet air pollution control is
necessary  due  to  the  corrosive nature of the gases.

Good Housekeeping

Good housekeeping and  proper  equipment  maintenance  are  necessary
factors in reducing wastewater loads to treatment systems.  Control of
accidental spills of  oils;, pprocess chemicals, and wastewater from
washdown and   filter  cleaning  or  removal  can  aid  in  abating  or
maintaining  the   segregation  of  wastewater  streams.   Curbed areas
should be  used to contain or control these wastes.

Leaks in pump  casings,  process piping, etc., should  be  minimized  to
maintain   efficient   water  use.  One particular type of leakage which
may cause  a water pollution problem is the contamination of noncontact
cooling water  by  hydraulic oils, especially if this type of  water  is
discharged.

Good  housekeeping is  also  important  in chemical, solvent, and oil
storage areas  to  preclude a catastrophic failure  situation.   Storage
areas  should   be isolated from high-fire-hazard areas and arranged so
that if a  fire or explosion occurs, treatment facilities will  not  be
overwhelmed  nor   excessive  groundwater  pollution  caused  by  large
quantities of  chemical-laden fire-protection water.

Bath or rinse  waters  that drip off the  aluminum  while  it  is  being
transferred from  one  tank to another  (dragout) should be collected and
returned   to   their   originating  tanks.  This can be done with simple
drain boards.

A conscientiously applied program of water use reduction can be a very
effective  method of  curtailing   unnecessary   wastewater   flows.
Judicious  use of washdown water and avoidance of unattended running
hoses can  significantly reduce water use.
                              540

-------
           GAS
         DROSS
MOLTEN  ALUMINUM
en
                                 INERT
                             SPARGING GAS
                            IN           IN
r-i
^
— *»
1




»— —
*• III..








N







/
t












^
Jy
\




ji"™ •






N
[
/











I
j













V
\






>> —





/
s



/





— ^ M
I



                                  METAL (TO  CASTING)
                                       SPINNING NOZZLES
         FIGURE 2H- 39
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF SPINNING NOZZLE
ALUMINUM  .REFINING  PROCESS
                                   Ref: (Szekely, 1976)

-------
                             SECTION VIII

             COSTS, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS


Cost  information  for  the  suggested  end-of-pipe  treatment  models
(selected  in  Sections  IX  and  X)  is  presented  in  the following
discussion.  Several levels of effluent reduction  are  presented  for
each waste stream in every subcategory.

Capital and annual costs corresponding to alternative treatment levels
have  been  determined for each plant in the aluminum forming category
that reported wastewater discharge.  Nonwater quality aspects are also
discussed.   A  separate  analysis  of  the  economic  impact  of  the
possibilities  for effluent limitations and guidelines on the industry
will be prepared and the results  will  be  published  in  a  separate
document.


BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATION

Sources of_ Cost Data

Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes were
collected  from  four  sources:    (1)  literature, (2) data collection
portfolios, (3)  equipment  manufacturers,  and   (4)  in-house  design
projects.    The  majority  of  the  cost information was obtained from
literature sources.  Many of the   literature  sources  cited  obtained
their  costs  from  surveys  of  actual design projects.  For example,
Black  &  Veatch  prepared  a  cost  manual  that  used   design   and
construction  cost  data  from  76  separate  projects  as a basis for
establishing average construction  costs.  Data  collection  portfolios
completed  by  companies  in the aluminum forming category contained a
limited amount of chemical and unit process  cost  information.   Most
companies  did  not  report  treatment  plant  capital and annual cost
information and reported information  was  for  the  entire  treatment
plant.  Therefore, little data from the data collection portfolios was
applicable  for  the  determination  of individual unit process costs.
Additional data was obtained from  equipment manufacturers  and  design
projects performed by Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates.

Determination of_ Costs

To  determine  capital  and  annual  costs  for the selected treatment
technologies, cost data from all sources were plotted on  a  graph  of
capital or annual costs versus a design parameter (usually flow).  The
data  were  usually  spread  over  a range of costs.  Unit process cost
data  gathered  from  all  sources  include  a  variety  of  auxiliary
equipment,  basic  construction materials, and geographical locations.
A single line was fitted to the data points thus arriving at  a  final
                                543

-------
cost  curve  closely representing an average of all  the cost references
for a unit process.   Since  the  cost  estimates  presented  in  this
section must be applicable to treatment needs in varying circumstances
and  geographical  locations,  this approach was felt to be the best for
determining  national treatment costs.  For consistency in  determining
costs,  accuracy  in  reading  the  final cost curves,  and in order to
present all  cost relationships concisely, equations were developed  to
represent  the  final  cost curves.  Capital and annual cost equations
are  listed in Table VIII-1.

Capital.   All capital cost equations include:

     o  major and auxiliary equipment
     o  piping and pumping
     o  shipping
     o  sitework
     o  installation
     o  contractors' fees
     o  electrical  and instrumentation
     o  enclosure
     o  contingencies
     o  engineering
     o  yard piping.

 Contingencies and  engineering are assumed to be  15  and  10  percent,
 respectively,  of  the  installed  equipment  cost.    Yard  piping  is
 estimated at 10 percent of the installed equipment  cost.

 All cost information was standardized by backdating  or  updating  the
 costs  to  first   quarter  1978.   Two  indices  were used:  (1) EPA -
 Standard Treatment Plant index and  (2)  EPA  -  Large  City  Advanced
 Treatment   (LCAT)  index.   The national average, rather than an index
 value for a particular city,  was used for the EPA-LCAT index.

 Annual.  All annual cost equations include: '

     o  operation and maintenance labor
     o  operation and maintenance materials
     o  energy
     o  chemicals.

 Operation and maintenance labor requirements  for  each  unit  process
 were  recorded from all data sources in terms of manhours per year.  A
 labor rate of 20 dollars per manhour, including  fringe  benefits  and
 plant  overhead,  was used to convert the manhour requirements into an
 annual cost.

 Operation and maintenance material costs account for the  replacement,
 repair,   and routine maintenance of all equipment associated with each
                                 544

-------
unit process.  Material costs were developed solely from data recorded
in the literature.

Energy requirements for process equipment were tabulated in  terms  of
kilowatt-hours  per  year.   The cost of electricity used is 4.0 cents
per kilowatt-hour, based on the average value of electricity costs  as
reported  in the aluminum forming category data collection portfolios.
Fuel oil and natural-gas costs  were  also  tabulated  from  the  data
collection  portfolios.   The  average  fuel oil cost was 26 cents per
therm and the average natural gas cost was 22 cents per therm.

Chemicals used in the treatment alternatives presented in this chapter
are sulfuric acid and caustic for pH  adjustment,  hydrated  lime  for
heavy  metals  precipitation,  sulfur  dioxide for hexavalent chromium
reduction, and alum and polymer for emulsion breaking.

Although not included in  the  annual  cost  equations,  amortization,
depreciation, and sludge disposal are considered in the piant-by-plant
cost analysis.  See the example which follows in this section.

Capital  costs are amortized at 10 years and 12 percent interest.  The
capital recovery factor for this interest and payback period is 0.177.
The annual cost of depreciation was  calculated  on  a  straight  line
basis over a 10-year period.

Many  of the unit processes chosen as treatment technologies produce  a
residue or sludge that  must  be  discarded.   Sludge  disposal  costs
presented  in  this  section  are  based  on  charges  made by private
contractors for sludge hauling services.  Costs for hauling vary  with
a  number  of  factors  including  quantity  of  sludge  to be hauled,
distance to disposal site, disposal method used by the contractor  and
variation   in  landfill  policy  from  state  to  state.   Costs  for
contractor hauling of sludges are  based  on  data  collected  for  an
effluent  guidelines  study  being  conducted on the paint industry in
which 511 plants reported contractor hauling information.

A  cost of 30 cents per gallon was used  in the paint study as a  sludge
hauling  and  landfilling cost and is used  in this report.  This value
is conservative since many sludges hauled in the  paint  industry  are
considered  hazardous  wastes  and  require more expensive landfilling
facilities relative to landfill facilities required for  non-hazardous
wastes.

Cost Data Reliability

To check  the  validity  of  the capital cost data, the capital costs
developed for this study  were compared  to capital  costs  reported  in
the   data   collection   portfolios.    As  stated  earlier,   the  cost
information  reported   in the  data  collection  portfolios  was  for
treatment  systems rather than  individual unit processes and  therefore
                                545

-------
was not used to develop  costs  to  existing treatment  facilities  in  the
aluminum forming  category.

Nineteen  plants   reported   treatment system capital  cost  information.
The total reported capital  cost for all   19  facilities   is   equal  to
$3,600,000.    The  sum  of   the  costs  developed for   this study as
determined  for the nineteen treatment systems is equal to  $4,300,000.
Therefore,  although variations at individual plants  were  occasionally
much  greater,  the overall difference of  capital  costs was  19 percent,
with   these cost  estimates being on the conservative side. Detailed
design parameters (i.e., detention times, chemical dosages,  etc.)  for
the   data  collection portfolio treatment systems were seldom reported.
Therefore,  the costs developed in Section VIII are based on  one set of
design parameters which may differ from  the design parameters actually
used at the 19 plants which reported  cost  information.  This  could
result  in  large variances at individual facilities but the effect of
 the possible design differences is dampened when a   large  number  of
 facilities are considered as is indicated by the 19  percent  difference
 in costs for the  19 treatment systems studied.

 TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES  AND RELATED COSTS

 Costs  have been  determined for the following wastewater treatment and
 sludge disposal  technologies to  be  used  in  the   various   treatment
 alternatives:

      o  gravity oil-in-water separation
      o  pH  adjustment
      o  dissolved air  flotation
      o  multimedia filtration
      o  chemical  precipitation
      o  hexavalent chromium reduction
      o  emulsion  breaking with chemicals
      o  activated carbon adsorption
      o  vacuum filtration
      o  contractor hauling.


 Costs  have   also been  determined for the following  items which  relate
 to the operation of a treatment plant:

      o  flow equalization
      o  pumping
      o  piping
      o  holding tank
      o  recycle
      o  enclosures.
                                    546

-------
A discussion of the design parameters used  and  major  and  auxiliary
equipment  associated with each treatment technology and related items
is contained below.

The cost of land has not been considered in the cost estimates.  Based
on engineering visits, it was assumed that most  wastewater  treatment
and  supporting facilities can be constructed in existing buildings or
on land currently owned by the plants.   Also,  the  plant  wastewater
flows  in  the  aluminum  forming category are low (majority of plants
less than 50,000 gpd); thus, land  requirements  are  small  for  most
plants.

Where extensive retrofitting is required, older plants may not be able
to install technology at the same cost and with the same ease as newer
plants.   No  allowance  for  retrofitting  is considered in the costs
since retrofitting needs are very  site  specific.   A  retrofit  cost
analysis   reported   in  a  recent  EPA  publication  indicated  that
retrofitting  costs  for  plants  in  the  scope  of  its  study  were
negligible.

Flow Equalization

To   minimize   wide   fluctuations   in   raw   wastewater  flow  and
characteristics, the cost of equalization  has  been  determined.   An
equalization tank with a four-hour detention  time and mixing equipment
is considered in equalization capital and annual costs.

Gravity Oil and Water Separation

Free oils are commonly removed in the aluminum forming category  by oil
skimming.  Costs for oil skimming were developed assuming that the oil
to  be  removed  has  a  specific gravity of  0.85 and a  temperature of
70°F.  Equipment included in the capital cost of gravity separation is
the separation basin, oil skimmer, and bottom sludge scraper.    Sludge
quantities,  in  terms  of  gallons  of  sludge  per  1,000 gallons of
wastewater, generated by skimming oil containing  waste  streams were
tabulated  from  wastewater  sampling  data and are presented  in Table
VII1-2.  References used for the development  of  capital  and   annual
costs  are  Richardson,  1979; Montroy, 1979;  Koon, e_t al., 1973; USD!,
1967; Tabakin, et  al_.,  1978; USEPA,  1974a;  Thompson,  1972;  National
Commission  on  Water Quality,  1976;  USEPA, 1973a; USEPA,  1971;  USEPA,
1975a; USDI, 1968a; and  Goad, Larry,  and Company,  1979.

Chemical Emulsion  Breaking

Alum and polymer addition to wastewater aids  in the separation of  oil
from  water  as  discussed   in   Section VII.  To determine capital and
annual costs, 400  mg/1  of alum  and  10 mg/1 of polymer are  assumed  to
be  added  to  waste  streams containing emulsified oils, such  as spent
rolling emulsions.  Polymer  and  alum costs were obtained from  chemical
                                 547

-------
companies; dry alum at $0.15 per pound and polymer at $3.00 per pound.
The chemical feed systems necessary to add desired dosages of alum and
polymer to a waste stream  include  storage  units,  ini'tial  chemical
dilution  tanks,  conveyors  and  feed lines, and chemical feed pumps.
Rapid mix tanks are used to assure that the alum and polymer added  to
an  oily  waste stream react completely and uniformly with the oil.  A
detention time  of  5  minutes  was  used  to  size  the  mixing  unit
components.   Equipment  for rapid mix includes tank structure, mixer,
and motor drive unit.

Dissolved Air Flotation

Dissolved air flotation can be used by itself or in  conjunction  with
gravity  separation  for  the  removal  of  free  oil.  Coagulants and
flocculants are often used with dissolved air  flotation  to  increase
oil  removal efficiencies.  A recycle rate of 30 percent is associated
with the dissolved air flotation costs.  An overflow rate of 2 gallons
per minute per  square  foot  was  used  to  size  the  dissolved  air
flotation  unit.   The  flotation unit, surface skimmer, recycle pump,
bottom  sludge  scraper,  and  pressurization  unit  are  included  in
dissolved  air flotation capital costs.

Granular  Media  Filtration

Multimedia  filtration  is used to remove suspended solids not removed
 in previous  treatment processes.  The filter beds  consist  of  graded
 layers  of  gravel,  coarse anthracite coal,, and fine sand.  Filters were
sized   using an   hydraulic  loading  rate of 4 gallons per minute per
square  foot.  Equipment used with multimedia filtration are the filter
 tanks,  filter media, and surface and backwash systems.

pH Adjustment

 Sulfuric  acid  and caustic are used for  pH  adjustment  of  etch  line
 streams.    Sulfuric  acid  and  caustic  costs  were obtained from the
 Chemical  Marketing Reporter.  A cost of $41.00  per  ton  of  sulfuric
 acid  (83  percent)  was  used.   The  cost of caustic  (50 percent) is
 $175.00 per ton.   The   investment  costs  include  storage  tanks,   a
 chemical  feed  system, and a rapid mix tank.

 Chemical  Precipitation

Quicklime  (CaO)   or hydrated  lime  (Ca(OH)2) can be used to adjust the
pH of wastewater   to precipitate  heavy  metals.   Hydrated   lime   is
 commonly   used   at  low  lime   requirements  since the  use of slakers,
 required  for quicklime  usage,   is  practical  only  for  large  volume
application of  lime.  Due to  the  low  lime requirements  in the aluminum
forming  category,   hydrated   lime   is used  in this study.  Wastewater
sampling  data were analyzed to  determine  lime dosage requirements  and
sludge  production  for  those  waste  streams in  the aluminum  forming
                            548

-------
category that  contain  heavy  metals  selected  as  pollutants.   The
results of this analysis are tabulated in Table VIII-2.

The  pH  of  waste  streams  treated  with  lime precipitation must be
readjusted before discharge.  Sulfuric acid is used to adjust  the  pH
to  an  acceptable  discharge value (pH 6 to 9).  The reported cost of
hydrated lime in the Chemical Marketing Reporter is $35.75 per ton for
first quarter 1978.  Hydrated lime and sulfuric acid storage and  feed
systems,  and  a  clarifier  are  included  in  the lime precipitation
capital and annual costs.  An overflow rate of 0.5 gallons per  minute
per square foot was used to size the clarifiers.

Hexavalent Chromium Reduction

Chromium  present  in aluminum forming wastewaters is considered to be
in  the  hexavalent  state.   Hexavalent  chromium  does  not  form  a
precipitate  in lime precipitation.  The addition of sulfur dioxide at
low pH values reduces hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium  which
does  form  a  precipitate.   Equipment  for  adding  sulfuric dioxide
includes a reaction vessel  (45 minute detention time),  sulfuric  acid
storage and feed system, sulfonator, and associated pressure regulator
and appurtenances.

Cyanide Oxidation

In  this  technology,  cyanide  is  destroyed  by reaction with sodium
hypochlorite under alkaline conditions.  A complete  system  for  this
operation  includes  reactors, sensors, controls, mixers, and chemical
feed  equipment.   Control  of  both  pH  and  chlorine  concentration
(through  oxidation-reduction  potential)  is  important for effective
treatment.

Capital costs for cyanide oxidation as shown in Figure VIII-1   include
reaction   tanks,   reagent  storage,  mixers,  sensors  and  controls
necessary for operation.  Costs  are  estimated  for  both  batch  and
continuous  systems  with   the operating mode selected on a least cost
basis.   Specific costing assumptions are as follows:

For both continuous and batch treatment, the cyanide oxidation  tank is
sized as an above ground cylindrical tank with a retention time  of  4
hours  based  on the process flow.  Cyanide oxidation  is normally done
on a  batch  basis;  therefore,  two  identical  tanks  are  employed.
Cyanide  is removed by the  addition of sodium hypochlorite with sodium
hydroxide added to maintain the proper pH level.  A 60-day  supply  of
sodium  hypochlorite  is stored in an in-ground covered concrete tank,
0.3 m (1 ft) thick.  A 90-day  supply  of  sodium  hydroxide  also  is
stored in an in-ground covered concrete tank, 0.3 m (1 ft) thick.

Mixer  power  requirements  for both continuous and batch treatment are
based on 2 horsepower for every 11,355  liters  (3,000  gal)  of  tank
                                549

-------
volume.  The mixer is assumed to be operational 25 percent of the time
that the treatment system is operating.

A  continuous  control  system  is costed for the continuous treatment
alternative.  This system includes:

    2    immersion pH probes and transmitters
    2    immersion ORP probes and transmitters
    2    pH and ORP monitors
    2    2-pen recorders
    2    slow process controller
    2    proportional sodium hypochlorite pumps
    2    proportional sodium hydroxide pumps
    2    mixers
    3    transfer pumps
    1    maintenance kit
    2    liquid  level controllers and alarms, and miscellaneous
         electrical equipment and piping

A  complete  manual control system is costed  for  the  batch  treatment
alternative.   This system includes:

    2    pH probes and monitors
    1    mixer
    1    liquid  level controller and horn
    1    proportional sodium hypochlorite pump
    1    on-off  sodium hydroxide pump and PVC piping from the
         chemical storage tanks

Operation   and  maintenance  costs for cyanide oxidation include  labor
requirements  to  operate and maintain the system;  electric  power   for
mixers,   pumps   and   controls,   and  treatment  chemicals.   Labor
requirements  for operation and maintenance are shown in Figure VII1-2.
As can be seen operating  labor  is  substantially  higher  for  batch
treatment   than  for   continuous   operation.    Maintenance   labor
requirements  for continuous treatment are fixed at  150  manhours   per
year  for flow rates below 23,000 gph and thereafter increase according
to:

    Labor « .00273 x  (Flow - 23000) + 150

Maintenance  labor  requirements for batch treatment are assumed  to be
negligible.

Annual  costs for  treatment  chemicals  and  electrical  power    are
presented   in Figure  VIII-3.  Chemical additions are determined  from
cyanide, acidity, and flow rates of the raw waste stream according to:

    Ibs  sodium hypochlorite  =  62.96 x  Ibs CN-
                                550

-------
Activated Carbon Adsorption

Granular activated carbon is used primarily for the removal of organic
compounds from wastewater.  The investment and annual costs are  based
on  a  system  using granular activated carbon in a series of downflow
contacting column.

Two methods of replacing spent carbon were  considered:    (1)  thermal
regeneration of spent carbon; and (2) replacement of spent carbon with
new  carbon  and  disposal  of  spent carbon.  Thermal regeneration of
spent activated carbon is economically practical  only  at  relatively
large carbon exhaustion rates.  Simply replacing spent carbon with new
carbon is more practical than thermal regeneration for plants with low
carbon usage.

An  economic analysis was performed to determine the carbon usage rate
at which thermal regeneration of spent carbon becomes  practical.   It
was  determined  that  thermal  regenerating  facilities are practical
above a carbon usage of 400,000 Ibs per year.  Carbon exhaustion rates
for all waste streams are presented in Table VII1-2.  Data from  Hager
was analyzed to determine a relationship between TOC concentration and
carbon  exhaustion  rate.  These data were applied to sampling data to
obtain the carbon exhaustion rates shown in Table VII1-2.

A 30-minute empty-bed contact time  was  used  to  size  the  downflow
contacting  units.   The  activated  carbon  used  in  the columns was
assumed to have an apparent density of 26 pounds per  cubic  foot  and
cost  53  cents  per  pound.   Included  in  the  capital  for a carbon
contacting system are carbon contacting columns,  initial carbon  fill,
carbon inventory and storage backwash system, and wastewater pumping.

Thermal  regeneration  is  assumed  to  be   accomplished with multiple
hearth furnaces at a loading rate of 40 pounds of  carbon  per  square
foot  of  hearth  area per day.  Activated carbon thermal  regeneration
facilities include a multiple hearth furnace, spent  carbon storage and
dewatering equipment, quench tank, screw  conveyors,  and  regenerated
carbon defining and storage  tanks.

Vacuum Filtration

The  annual  costs  for   sludge  dewatering  by vacuum filtration were
developed  in terms of  the amount of sludge to  be  dewatered;   capital
costs are  based on area  of  filter required in square feet.   The filter
area was calculated by using a dry solids loading rate of  4  pounds per
hour  per  square  foot   and an  operating  period of  6 hours per day.
Equipment  includes filter,  motor and drive,  and vacuum system.

Contractor Hauling
                                    551

-------
As stated previously, information obtained from 511 plants in  an  EPA
Effluent  Guidelines  Division study of the paint industry was used to
determine contractor hauling costs.  Costs in the paint  study  ranged
from  1  cent  to  over  50 cents per gallon.  A value of 30 cents per
gallon, used in the paint study, was used in this study  to  determine
the disposal cost of sludge and wastewater by contractor hauling.

Pumping

The   cost  of  pumping  raw  wastewater  to  a  treatment  plant  was
considered, as was the cost for a dry well enclosure  of  the  pumping
facility.   Costs  for  wet  wells  have not been considered since the
equalization basin for treatment plant operation or the cooling  tower
for  recycle  operations can function as a wet well.  The pump station
and electrical requirements are based on a total dynamic  head  of  30
feet and a pumping efficiency of 65 percent.

Holding Tank

The  cost  of  holding  tanks  has  been considered for the storage of
sludges removed  from skimming,  dissolved  air  flotation,  and  lime
precipitation  operations.   Allowances  are  made  for storage of two
weeks  of sludge  production to a minimum of 150 gallons.

Recycle of Cooling Water

As discussed  in  Section VII, direct chill  casting  cooling  water  is
commonly recycled at rates of 96 percent or greater.  For those plants
that   do   not  recycle direct chill casting cooling water, the cost of
recycle has been determined.  Recycle capital costs include a  cooling
tower, a pump  station, and piping.

The   investment  costs  for  a  cooling  tower  assume  the  use  of  a
mechanical draft tower  and  include  the  tower,  piping,  fans,  and
packing.   The  sizing  of  the  tower is based on a range of 25°F, an
approach of 10°F, and a wet bulb temperature of 70°F.

Pump station  costs are discussed above.

To account for recycle piping requirements, costs have been determined
for 1,000  feet of installed force main.  Costs are  for  ductile  iron
pipe and include excavation and backfill.

Enclosures

The  cost  of  protecting  unit  processes  from inclement weather was
assumed to be  30 dollars per square foot based on  Robert  Snow  Means
Company,   Inc.,  equipment manufacturers and design projects.  The cost
of an  enclosure  is included in the  capital  equations  for  all  unit
processes   except   skimming,  equalization,  the  lime  precipitation
                                552

-------
clarifier (lime and sulfuric acid storage and  chemical  feed  systems
are enclosed), and the cooling tower associated with recycle since the
performance  of  these  unit  processes  is  not typically affected by
inclement  weather.   The  cost   of   enclosure   includes   roofing,
insulation, HVAC, and plumbing.

TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

The  selection  of  treatment  alternatives  for which costs have been
determined is discussed in Sections IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII.

A plant-by-plant cost analysis has been  performed  to  determine  the
capital  and  annual  costs  for installing and operating the selected
treatment alternatives at all plants in the aluminum forming  category
that  reported wastewater discharge.  The results of the analysis have
been  presented  to  an  economic  contractor  for  the   purpose   of
determining  the  economic impact of the treatment alternatives on the
industry.  The results of the economic study will be  presented  in  a
separate report.

The  data  used  to  determine  the treatment costs at all plants were
obtained from the data collection portfolios and sampling  data.   All
data collection portfolio responses were reviewed to compile a list of
plants  in  the  aluminum  forming category that discharge wastewater.
After a complete list was compiled, the  treatment  required  at  each
plant  was  determined,  based on the selected treatment alternatives.
If the required treatment was already in place at a plant, no cost for
installation of the technology was assumed for that plant.

To utilize all data as efficiently as possible for  the  determination
of  costs,  the  .wastewater sampling data was also used.  Lime dosages
and sludge productions, supplemented by reported lime requirements  in
the  data  collection  portfolios,  were determined stoichiometrically
from sampling data.  Carbon exhaustion rates were estimated  based  on
average  TOC  concentrations for each waste stream.  Also, an estimate
of the amount of oily sludge resulting from skimming  was  made.   The
results of the wastewater evaluation are shown in Table VII1-2.  These
values  were  used  to  determine  sludge  hauling,  activated  carbon
replacement, and holding tank  and vacuum filter costs.

An  example   is  presented  to  illustrate  the  methodology  used  in
determining capital and annual costs.

Cost Calculation Example

For this example costs will be determined for a forging plant with the
following  characteristics:  (Please note, although activated carbon is
not a proposed treatment for this stream, it has been  included  in  the
example to demonstrate the calculation of its cost.)
                                  553

-------
                                                        TABLE VIII-1
                                             CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST EQUATIONS
CJl
Unit Process
Gravity oil and water
separation

Dissolved air
flotation


Caustic pH adjustment

C =
A =

C =
C =
A =

C =
C =
A =
Equation
~ 2
1.35 antilog [0.0415 (log x)J - 0.00829 (log x)
+ 0.051 (log x) + 4.03]
antilog [0.00478 (log x)3 + 0.0766 (log x)2 + 0.0125
(log x) + 3.52]
1.35 (antilog [0.0369 (log x)3 - 0.0461 (log x)2
- 0.00537 (log x) + 4.64] + 1200)
1.35 (antilog [0.0369 (log x)3 - 0.0461 (log x)2
- 0.00537 (log x) + 4.64] + 30x)
antilog [0.0711 (log x)3 - 0.329 (log x)2 + 0.551 (log x)
+ 4.05]
33,900 x °'245 + 3,600
33,900 x°'245+ 527 x °'662
antilog [0.0755 (log x)3 - 0.375 (log x)2 + 1.20 (log x)
Applicability
1< x <1,000
Kx
-------
                 TABLE  VIII-1  (Continued)
     CAPITAL AND ANNUAL  COST  EQUATIONS
Unit Process
Acid pH adjustment C
C
A
gj Alum and polymer C
01 coagulation

A

Multimedia filtration C
C
A
Equation
= 1.35 (antilog [0.034 (log x)3 - 0.167 (log x)2 + 0.461
(log x) + 3.24] + 2700)
= 1.35 (antilog [0.034 (log x)3 - 0.167 (log x)2 + 0.461
(log x) + 3.94] + 390 x °'662)
= antilog [-0.0345 (log x)3 + 0.167 (log x)2 + 0.194 (log x)
+ 3.65]
= 1.35 (antilog [0.0373 (log x)3 - 0.181 (log x)2 + 0.323
(log x) + 4.47] + antilog [-0.00854 (log x)3 + 0.125
(log x)2 + 0.0403 (log x) + 3.49])
= antilog [0.0272 (log x)3 + 0.0321 (log x)2 + 0.180 (log x)
+ 4.04]
= 6,800 x °'598 + 1,620
= 6,800 x °'598 H- 182 x °'89
= antilog [-0.0157 (log x)3 + 0.183 (log x)2 - 0.0297
Applicability
5< x< 20
20< x < 1,000
5< x< 1,000
7< x< 1,000


7< x <1,000

1< x< 12
12< x< 1,000
1< x< 1,000
(log x)  + 3.38]

-------

-------
                                                       TABLE VIII-1  (Continued)
                                            CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST  EQUATIONS
        Unit  Process
                                                         Equation
                                                                                          Applicability
en
en
         GAC  contacting
GAC replacement
  throwaway
                         C =
                                 C =
1.35 (antilog [-0.0255 (log x)3 + 0.211 (log x)2- 0.00279
(log x) + 4.52]  + 1,950)
1.35 (antilog [-0.0255 (log x)3+ 0.211 (log x)2 - 0.00279
(log x) + 4.52]  + 300 x °'808)
                                 A = 7,000
                                 A
                             antilog [-0.00286 (log x)3+ 0.0996 (log x)2 + 0.0834
                                      (log x) + 3.37]
                                 A = 580p
  4< x< 10

 10< x< 1,000

  4< x< 70
 70< x
-------
                                                     TABLE VIII-1 (Continued)
                                          CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST EQUATIONS
       Unit Process
                       Equation
                                                             Applicability
       Vacuum filtration
en
en
00
       Recycle
C =
                                C =
                                A =
C =
                                C =
                                C =
                                A =
                                A =
                               o                o
1.35 (antilog [-0.05707 (log v)J + 0.595 (log v)  - 1.15
(log v) + 5.44]  + 3,300)
1.35 (antilog [-0.05707 (log v)3 + 0.595 (log v)2 - 1.15
(log v) + 5.44]  + 105 x °'76)
antilog [0.0203 (log v)3 - 0.0736 (log v)2 + 0.215 (log v)
+ 4.25]
10< v< 90

90< v< 1,000

10< v< 1,000
1.35 (antilog [0.00780 (log x)3 + 0.00444 (log x)2 +          10< x< 200
0.0425 (log x) + 4.83] + 750)
1.35 (antilog [0.00780 (log x)3 + 0.00444 (log x)2 + 0.0425  200
-------
                                                      TABLE VIII-1 (Continued)
                                           CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST EQUATIONS
        Unit Process
                       Equation
                                                             Applicability
        Holding tank
C = 1.35 (antilog [0.135 (log g)J - 1.12 (log g)2 + 3.67          150< g<20,000
    (log g) - 1.34] + 19 x °'654)
C = 1.35 (antilog [0.150 (log g)3 - 2.32 (log g)2 + 12.44     20,000< g< 1,000,000
    (log g) - 18.1] + 19 x °'654)
        Pumping
en
tn
C =

C =

C =

A =

A =
1.35 (antilog [-0.0135 (log x)3 + 0.119 (log x)2 +             1< x< 200
0.0654 (log x) + 3.73] + 750)
1.35 (antilog [-0.0135 (log x)3 + 0.119 (log x)2 + 0.0654    200< x< 1,000
(log x) + 3.73]  + 42 x °'561)
1.35 (antilog [-0.0111 (log x)3 + 0.280 (log x)2 - 0.977   1,000< x<5,000
(log x) + 5.34]  + 42 x °'561)
                                     antilog [0.00589 (log x)3 + 0.00446 (log x)2 +
                                     0.0528 (log x) + 3.94]
                                     antilog [0.0347 (log x)3 - 0.185 (log x)2 +
                                     0.489 (log x)  + 3.56]
                                                               1< x< 1,000

                                                           1,000 
-------
                                             TABLE VIII-1 (Continued)
                                       CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST EQUATIONS
Unit Process
               Equation
                                                        Applicability
Cyanide Oxidation
C


C


A
antilog [0.00323(log x)3 + 0.0220(log x)2 +
0.0672 (log x) + 4.61]

antilog [-0.131 (log x)3 + 0.964 (log x)2 -
1.69 (log x) + 5.60]

antilog [0.0145 (log x)3 + 0.0805 (log x)2 +
0.0363 (log x) + 3.54]
0.1 < x < 10


10 < x < 300


15 < x < 200
Monitoring
C = 8,000

A = 5,000
                                                        1  < x < 2,000

                                                        1  < x < 2,000
C = total capital cost (dollars).
A = annual cost, amortization and depreciation not included (dollars/year),
p = 1,000 pounds of carbon exhausted per year.
V = sq ft of vacuum filter area.
g * holding tank capacity (gallons).
x = flow in gallons per minute.

-------
                                                     TABLE VIII-2
en
Operation
Direct chill casting
Continuous casting
Extrusion
- contact cooling
- heat treatment quench
- dummy block cooling
- die cleaning
Hot rolling oil
Etch line
- acid rinse
- deoxidant dip
- deoxidant rinse
- caustic rinse
- water rinse
- leveler rinse
- scrubber
- detergent rinse
Forging heat treatment quench
Forging scrubber
Drawing oil
Drawing heat treatment quench
Cold rolling oil
Cold rolling heat treatment quench
Foil rolling oil
Oily Sludge
Production
(gal/1,000 gal)
0.2
0.2

0.07
0.08
O.U
--
Site Specific

--
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
0.07
0.32
Site specific

Site specific
--
Site specific
Lime Lime Sludge
Dosage Production
(mg/1) (gal/1,000 gal)
« •*
--

—
--
--
2,000
2,000

2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
200
200
2,000
--
2,000
—
2,000
_ ••
--

--
--
—
46
38

63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
6
6
38
--
38
--
38
Carbon
Exhaustion Rate
(Ibs carbon/1,000 gal)
2
2

2

0.5
—
10

0.5
0.5
0.5
2
1
1
1
1
--
5
10
0.5
10
0.3
10

-------
Wastewater:  forging heat treatment quench
Operating time:  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year
Flow:  200 gallons per minute
Treatmentaaternatives (from Table X-l):   (1) gravity oil and water
separation (2) chromium reduction (3)  lime precipitation
(4) filtration (5) granular activated  carbon*
Oil fcimming sludge production (from Table VIII-2):  0.07 gallons of
skimmings per 1,000 gallons of forging heat treatment quench
wastewater
Lime dosage (from Table VIII-2):  200  mg/1
Limes§udge production (from Table VIII-2):  6 gallons of sludge per
1,000 gallons of forging heat treatment quench wastewater
Activatedcarbon exhaustion rate  (assumed, values for other waste streams
in Table VIII-2):  2 pounds of carbon  per 1,000 gallons of forging
heat treatment quench wastewater

*Note: Although granular  activated  carbon  is  not  suggested  as  a
treatment  alternative  for this waste stream, activated carbon use  is
hypothesized to illustrate the activated carbon costing procedure.

By using the information shown above and the equations given in  Table
VIII-1,  capital   and   annual costs can be determined for forging heat
treatment quench wastewater treatment  alternatives with the  following
steps:

1.   Determine  daily  volume of oil skimmings collected  and  associated
annual  contractor  hauling and holding  tank costs.

2.   Determine  daily  volume of  lime  sludge  produced  and  associated
vacuum  filter,  annual  contractor hauling and holding tank costs.

3.   Calculate  daily  activated carbon usage  to  determine  if  thermal
regeneration   of   activated  carbon  is  cost  effective relative to a
throwaway  carbon  system.

4.   Determine  treatment plant preliminary costs  (i.e.,  equalization,
pumping, and monitoring).

5.   Determine   base   capital  and  annual  costs  for  each  treatment
alternative by using Table VIII-1.

6.   Determine  total  capital and  annual  costs  for  each  alternative
utilizing  all  cost data obtained in Steps 1-5.

Step 1:

Oil  skimmings  =

0.07 gallons of skimmings x 0.2  (1,000 gallons) x 1,440 minutes = 20 gallons
     (1,000 gallons)                 minute            day               day
                                  562

-------
Contractor hauling cost =

    20 gallons x 7 days x 52 weeks x $0.3 = $2,200
        day      week      year     gallon   year

As discussed previously, holding tanks are sized for two weeks' sludge
production,  or  a  minimum  of  150  gallons  holding  tank capacity.
Required holding tank capacity is calculated as follows:


    20 gallons x 7 days x 2 weeks = 280 gallons
       day       week

The base capital cost of a 280-gallon holding tank as determined  from
the holding tank equation in Table VIII-1 is $3,200.

Step 2:

Lime sludge =

6 gallons of sludge x 0.2 (1,000 gallons) x 1,440 minutes = 1,700 gallons
   (1,000 gallons)           minute             day             day

It  must now be determined whether vacuum filtration should be used to
dewater the sludge or if contractor hauling of the undewatered  sludge
is  cost  effective.   For sludge production less than 140,000 gallons
per year, contractor hauling is less expensive than vacuum filtration.
However, since 620,000 gallons of lime sludge are produced annually in
this example, vacuum filtration will be used.  Lime  sludge  from  the
clarifier  and  vacuum  filter cake are assumed to be 7 and 30 percent
solids, respectively.

Annual vacuum filter cake hauling costs are calculated as follows:

1,700 gallons x 7 days x 52 weeks x 7% solids x $0.3 = $43,000
      day        week      year     30% solids  gallon    year

Two storage tanks for vacuum filtration are required, one to store the
daily clarifier underflow to facilitate a  controlled  flow  into  the
vacuum   filter,   and  the  other  to  store  the  dewatered  sludge.
Therefore, a 1,700-gallon storage tank costing $4,900 is  required  to
store  daily  clarifier  underflow.   The  filter cake storage tank is
sized as follows:

1,700 gallons x 7 days x 2 weeks x 7% solids = 5,6000 gallons
    day         week              30% solids

The 5,600-gallon storage tank costs $11,500.
                                  563

-------
Vacuum filter area required must be determined before the capital cost
equation for vacuum filtration in Table VIII-1  can  be  used.   At   7
percent  solids,  6  hours of operation per day and a 4 Ibs/hour/sq ft
loading rate, one square foot of vacuum filter  area  can  dewater  40
gallons  of  sludge  per  day.  The vacuum filter area requirement for
this example is presented below:

    1,700 gallons x 	1	 = 43 sq ft
                    40 gallons day/sq  ft

The base capital cost for 43 sq ft of  vacuum filter area is  equal  to
$112,000,  including  the vacuum filter enclosure.  The annual  cost of
vacuum filtration is a function of flow; therefore, at  six  hours  of
operation  per  day,   (1700/360), or 4.7 gpm, is the design flow to be
used in the vacuum filtration annual cost equation  in  Table   VIII-1.
The annual cost is $32,000.

Step 3:

The daily amount of  carbon exhausted is determined as follows:

2  Ibs  carbon  x  0.2  (1,000 gallons) x 1,440 minutes » 576 Ibs carbon
1,000  gallons       minute                day             day

Therefore,   210,000  pounds of activated carbon are exhausted annually.
As discussed previously, a minimum exhaustion rate of  400,000  pounds
of  carbon   annually  is  required  to make thermal regeneration cost
effective  relative   to  a   throwaway  carbon  system.   Therefore,   a
throwaway carbon  system  is employed for this example.

Step 4:

Capital   and annual  costs can now be calculated for flow equalization,
pumping,  and monitoring.  By using the appropriate equations  in Tables
VIII-1 the following costs are  obtained  for  flow  equalization  and
pumping.    Monitoring costs are constant at a capital cost of $8,000
and an annual cost of $5,000.
                        Capital  ($)    Annual ($/yr)
Flow equalization       103,000        10,000
Pumping                  31,000        14,000
Monitoring                8,000         5,000
   Total                  142,000        29,000

Step 5:

The capital  and annual costs calculated from the appropriate  equations
in Table VIII-1 for  the selected  treatment  alternatives  are   listed
below:

                                  Capital  ($)   Annual  ($/vr)
                                564

-------
Gravity oil and water separation   55,000
Lime precipitation (200 mg/1)     221,000
Hexavalent chromium reduction      86,000
Multimedia filtration             182,000
Granular activated carbon         311,000

Step 6:
                    10,000
                    63,000
                    10,000
                    12,000
                   133,000
Using  the data from Steps 1-4, the total capital and annual costs for
each treatment alternative  can  be  calculated.   Total  capital  and
annual  costs  for  treatment  alternative  one, gravity oil and water
separation, are calculated as follows:

                             Total Capital Cost  ($)
Preliminary                       142,000 (Step  4)
Gravity oil and water separation   55,000 (Step  5)
Holding tank                       31,200 (Step  1)
                                  200,200
Preliminary
Gravity oil  and water  separation
Contractor hauling
Subtotal
Amortization

Depreciation

   Total Annual Cost
   Annual Cost  ($)
     29,000  (Step  4)
     10,000  (Step  5)
      2.200  (Steps 1  and  2)
     41,200
     35,000  (total capital  x  capital  recovery
              factor  =  200,200  x  0.177)
     20,000  (total capital  x  10 percent  =
                  200,200 x 0.1)
     96,200
 Capital   and  annual  costs   for   the   second   alternative,
 precipitation and skimming, are calculated as follows:

                              Total Capital Cost ($)
 Alternative 1 total capital cost  197,820
 Lime precipitation (200 mg/1)     221,000 (Step 5)
 Vacuum filtration                 112,000 (Step 2
 Holding tanks                      16,400 (Step 2)
   Total                           547,220
                                     lime
 Alternative 1 subtotal
 Lime precipitation (200 mg/1)
 Vacuum filtration
 Contractor hauling cost
   Subtotal
 Amortization
 Depreciation
   Total Annual Cost
Annual Cost ($)
     41,200
     63,000 (Step 5)
     32,000 (Step 2)
     43,000 (Step 2)
    179,200
     97,000 (547,220 x 0.177)
     55,000 (547,220 x 0
    331,200
,1  )
                                  565

-------
Capital  and  annual costs for alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are calculated
by adding the capital and annual costs for each alternative  presented
in Step 5 as was done in alternative 2 cost calculations.

Nonwater Quality Aspects

It  is  important  to consider the impact of each treatment process on
air, noise, and radiation pollution of the environment to preclude the
development of a more  adverse  environmental  impact.   None  of  the
wastewater  treatment  processes causes air pollution or objectionable
noise.  Neither do they.cause any radioactive radiation hazards.

The solid  waste  impact  of  each  wastewater  treatment  process  is
indicated  in  Table  VIII-2.   Significant  quantities  of sludge are
produced by lime precipitation.  To ensure long-term protection of the
environment from harmful sludge constituents, disposal sites should be
chosen carefully.
                              566

-------
                              SECTION IX
      EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OFTHE
       BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
This section defines the effluent characteristics  attainable  through
the  application  of  best  practicable  control  technology currently
available (BPT).  BPT reflects the existing performance by  plants  of
various  sizes,  ages,  and  manufacturing  processes within the three
basis material subcategories as well as the established performance of
the recommended BPT systems.  Particular consideration is given to the
treatment already in-place at plants within the data base.

The factors considered in defining  BPT  include  the  total  cost  of
applying the technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits
from  such  application, the age of equipment and facilities involved,
the  process  employed,  non-water   quality   environmental   impacts
(including  energy  requirements)  and other factors the Administrator
considers appropriate.  In  general,  the  BPT  level  represents  the
average  of  the best existing performances of plants of various ages,
sizes, processes or  other  common  characteristics.   Where  existing
performance  is  uniformly  inadequate,  BPT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or  category.   Limitations  based  on  transfer
technology  must  be supported by a conclusion that the technology is,
indeed, transferrable and a reasonable  prediction  that  it  will  be
capable  of  achieving  the  prescribed effluent limits.  See Tanner's
Council of America v. Train.  BPT  focuses  on  end-of-pipe  treatment
rather  than  process  changes or internal controls, except where such
are common industry practice.

TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT

BPT effluent loadings for the aluminum forming category are not listed
in the draft development document.  They will be included in the final
document, to be published concurrently with the proposed  regulations.

The aluminum forming category  will   be  regulated  on  the  basis  of
subcategories  outlined   in  Section   IV.   The  conventional and non-
conventional  pollutants  designated   in   Section  Vl-total  suspended
solids, oil and grease, and pH,  will  be considered for BPT regulation.
Table  VI-3  presents   the  conventional and priority pollutants which
will  be  further  considered  for  regulating  the  aluminum  forming
category.   Appropriate   technology and discharge rates are  identified
in this section.  Raw wastewater characteristics,  effluent  data  and
treatability   information   were   obtained  from sampling analyses, data
collection   portfolios   and     technology    transfer.     Treatment
effectiveness  and applicability  are discussed  in Section  VII.
                             569

-------
We have already discussed some of the factors which must be considered
in  establishing  effluent  limitations  based  on  BPT.   The  age of
equipment and facilities and the processes employed  were  taken   into
account   in  subcategorization  and  are  discussed  in  Section  IV.
Nonwater quality impacts and energy  requirements  are  considered in
Section VIII.

Aluminum forming encompasses four basic processes; rolling, extruding,
forging,  and  drawing.   Certain  unit  operations tend to be closely
linked to one specific process while  others  are  less  specific  and
could be found in conjunction with any one of the above processes.

In  general  three  types  of  wastewaters  are  generated by aluminum
forming: water with high concentrations of free oil and grease,  water
with  emulsified  oils  and  water  with  toxic  metals  in  treatable
concentrations.  Two  subcategories contain all three wastewater  types
and the others contain two wastewater types.

Each subcategory consists of a core and additional allocation streams.
The  core   consists   of  the wastewater streams from operations always
associated  with the subcategory.   Additional  allocations  operations
are  those   wastewater  discharging operations which may or may not be
present at  any given  facility.   If such operations  are  present,  the
additional  allocation is added to the core allocation to determine the
total pollutant discharge allocation.

The  technical approach to BPT in this category is common treatment for
all  wastewater  from the subcategory core and to treat the additional
allocation   streams   as  appropriate  to  the  nature  of  the  waste.
Wastewater  discharge  quantities would be limited to the median flow of
each subcategory core or additional allocation stream.

Treatment   for  the   core streams consist of emulsion breaking oil and
water separation and  chemical  precipitation.   These  same  treatment
technologies would   be applied to the add-on streams according to the
type of waste which  is generated by the streams.   For  free  oil  and
grease  such as   found  in direct chill casting cooling water or  heat
treatment   quench  waters,  gravity  oil  and  water   separation   is
suggested,   and  for   the  etch  line  rinses  treatment with chemical
precipitation  preceded  by  chromium  reduction  where  necessary is
recommended.   To  remove  the  cyanide  found  in  the  drawing   heat
treatment quench stream cyanide oxidation is suggested.

Two  of the  suggested  BPT treatment technologies are currently used on
aluminum  forming  wastewaters;  emulsion  breaking with chemicals and
gravity oil and water separation.  However, chemical precipitation and
cyanide removal are not known to  be  used  at  any  aluminum  forming
plants.  Therefore, the Agency finds the BPT treatment in the aluminum
forming  category  universally   inadequate  and suggests a transfer of
chemical precipitation, chromium reduction and cyanide oxidation   from
                                   570

-------
the   aluminum  subcategory  of  coil  coating.   There  is  a  strong
similarity between the cleaning process of aluminum coil  coating  and
the  cleaning  or  etch  lines of aluminum forming.  Both use alkaline
solutions to remove soils and  oxide  and  oil  and  grease  from  the
surface  of  aluminum.   The  treatment  applied to coil coating waste
streams  is  pretreatment  where  applicable  with  cyanide   removal,
chromium  reduction,  then  combined  treatment  through oil and water
separation and followed with chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
This approach is transferred to aluminum forming with the inclusion of
emulsion breaking prior to oil and  water  separation  for  emulsified
waste streams.
                                  571

------