&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
-------
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST
AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements) and the
costs of application of such technology (Section 304(b)(2)(B). BAT
technology represents the best existing economically achievable
performance of plants of various ages, sizes, processes or other
shared characteristics. As with BPT, those categories whose existing
performance is uniformly inadequate may require a transfer of BAT from
a different subcategory or category. BAT may include process changes
or internal controls, even when these are not common industry
practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
Alternative BAT effluent loadings for the aluminum forming category
are not listed in this draft development document. They will be
included in the final document, to be published concurrently with the
proposed regulations.
In developing the array of possible technology options to achieve BAT,
the Agency looked at a variety of alternatives applicable to the
wastewaters generated from aluminum forming. Three options are being
considered. We are examining various ways to recycle, reuse and
otherwise reduce the volume of water discharged from aluminum forming
operations. These considerations are not now reflected in the draft.
The approach to BAT outlined is to build upon the BPT treatment with
each option achieving a progressively lower concentration of
pollutants in the effluent. Further reduction of pollutants from flow
reduction may appear in a future document.
BAT Option !_
BAT option 1 achieves an equivalent level of treatment for the waste
streams in a subcategory. Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is applied to
emulsified waste streams for better removal of oil and grease. While
it is not presented on Figures X-l thru X-6, total recycle where
applicable will be considered.
BAT Option 2
BAT option 2 applies multimedia filtration to all waste streams for
removal of suspended solids and metals and also additional removal of
oil and grease.
573
-------
BAT Option 3
BAT option 3 applies activated carbon or an alternative organics
removal technology to those waste streams with high concentrations of
toxic organic compounds.
574
-------
TABLE X-l
Subcategory I - Rolling with Heat Oils
en
•-j
en
Core Stream - No Discharge
Add-On Streams
1. Solution Heat Treatment
Quench
2. Cleaning or Etch Line
Rinse
3. Annealing Atmosphere
Scrubber
9e
nt
j
BPT ami
Hex Chrome
Reduction
BA
1
—a
f Option
Chemical
Precipitation
*1
»
Oil and
Water
SeudraHnn
^
1
[
1
1
*
1
i
1
1
1AT Option
2
Multimedia
f 1 1 1 r>jt inn
!
BAT Optlo
3
^ Activated
-------
TABLE X-2
Subcategory II - Rolling with Emulsions
Ol
Core §tr««««
Add-on strew*»
1. Direct chill
casting
2. Solution heat
treatment quench"
J. Cleaning or etch
line rinse ——
BPT .ml BAT Option
1
Emu 1 clon
breaking
| BPT
*Lr
Dm up b iuii
1
D
A
F
BAT Option
2
BAT Option
Oil and
Water
Separation
I
1*
^
^ Ilex Chroiiifl £.
""" Kfduction J
I ,
r
^
fhl1MK<
-------
TABLE X-3
Subcategory III - Extrusions
en
Core •treasti
Add-on stream*»
1. Direct chill
casting
2. Solution or prea«
heat treatment
quench
3. Cleaning or etch
line rinse
4. Cleaning or etch
line or die
cleaning scrubber
BPT and BAT Option
1
Hex Chrome
Reduction
Chemical
Precipitation
Sedimentation
I BAT Option
1 2
BAT Option
3
-------
TABLE X-4
Subcategory IV - Forgings
BPT and BAT Option 1
OAT Option 2
BPT Option 3
in
CO
Core Stream i No Discharge
Add-On Streamsi
1. Forging Scrubber Liquor
2. Solution Heat Treat-
ment Quench
3. Cleaning or Etch
Line Rinse
4. Cleaning or Etch
Line Scrubber
BPT
iat-~"~
1,
L
f
BAT Option
Hex Chrome
Reduction
1
\
wm
»
Chemical
Precipitation
"— 1
1
1
I
1
1
Jy
Sedimentation
Oil &
Water
Separation
1
1
-»
Multimedia
Filtration
]
1
Activated
9 Carbon
-------
TABLE X-5
Subcategory V - Drawing with Neat Oils
VO
Core Stream • No Discharge
1. Continuous rod
casting
2. Solution heat
treatment
3. Cleaning or etch
line rinse
harge
h
,1
'I
BPT an
Cyanide
Oxidation
Hex throw
Reduction
id BJ
1
•"T
\1 Option
Chemical
Precipitation
Sedimentation
>,
f }
f .
"-*
Oil and
W«t«r
Separation
I
m*m
1
1
1
BAT Option BAT Opt1»
2 3
Hultliwdla Activated
* Filtration •"*•> Carbon
-------
Subcategory VI - Drawing with Emulsions
TABLE X-6
BPT and BAT Option 1
00
o
Cote Stream
X. Continuous Rod
Casting
3. Solution Heat Treat
ment Quench
4. Cleaning or Etch
tine Kinae
BAT Option 2 | BAT Option 3
I
-------
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE BY BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 301(b)(2) (E)
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Biological oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD5J, total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH are
considered by EPA to be conventional pollutants (44 Fed. Reg. 50732).
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. BCT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a new "cost
reasonableness" test, described below. The cost test methodology was
promulgated by EPA on August 29, 1979.
APPLICATION OF BCT METHODOLOGY
The BCT cost-reasonableness test compares the cost for industry to
remove a pound of conventional pollutants to the cost incurred by a
POTW for removing a pound of conventional pollutants. If the industry
cost for a specific technology is lower than the POTW cost, the test
is passed and the level of control of conventional pollutants is
considered reasonable. If the industry costs of removal are higher
than the POTW costs, the technology fails, and BCT cannot be set at
that level. The cost to remove a pound of conventional pollutants for
a POTW is $1.27 per pound for first quarter 1978 (44 Fed. Reg. 50755).
The analysis of best conventional pollutant control technology will be
included in the development document accompanying the proposed
regulation.
581
-------
SECTION XII
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
This section presents effluent characteristics attainable by new
sources through the application of the best available demonstrated
control technology (BDT), processes/ operating methods, or other
alternatives, including where practicable, a standard permitting no
discharge of pollutants. Three levels of technology are discussed,
costs, performance, and environmental benefits are presented, and the
rationale for selecting one of the three is outlined. The selection
of pollutant parameters for specific regulation is discussed, and
discharge limitations for the regulated pollutants are presented for
each subcategory.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BDT
NSPS
The options to achieve new source performance standards are not fully
prepared at this time. Best demonstrated technology (BDT) to achieve
new source standards will be published in the proposed rule and may
parallel the BAT options.
583
-------
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
The effluent limitations applicable to existing and new sources that
discharge into a publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are termed
pretreatment standards. Section 307 (b) of the Clean Water Act, as
amended by Public Law 95-217, requires pretreatment standards to
prevent discharge into treatment works of any pollutant that may: (1)
interfere with; (2) passthrough; (3) prevent sludge disposal; or (4)
otherwise be incompatible with such works.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 adds a new dimension by requiring
pretreatment for pollutants, such as heavy metals, that limit POTW
sludge management alternatives, including the beneficial use of
sludges on agricultural lands. The legislative history of the 1977
Act indicates that pretreatment standards are to be technology-based,
analogous to the best available technology for removal of toxic
pollutants.
Pretreatment standards will be presented in the proposed rule.
585
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgement and appreciation is given to Sverdrup and Parcel and
Associates, for collecting and organizing data into the report from
which this document was developed. In particular, Dr. Donald
Washington, Mr. Garry Aronberg and Ms. Claudia O'Leary for their
contributions and efforts.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is given to Mr. Carl Kassebaum for
his help and contributions as Project Officer during part of this
study and to Ms. Patricia E. Williams of the Effluent Guidelines
Division for her guidance and insights throughout this study.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Mrs. Ginny Caruthers
and Ms. Diana Blunder of Sverdrup and Parcel for their effort
preparing tables and text for this manuscript, and to Mrs. Kaye
Storey, Ms. Nancy Zrubek, Ms. Carol Swann and Mrs. Pearl Smith of
Effluent Guidelines Division word processing staff for their tireless
effort on the document.
Finally, appreciation is given to Mr. Seymour Epstein of the Aluminum
Association, and to the Aluminum Extruders Counsel for providing
technical guidance during the program, and to all the plants and
companies for their cooperation and contributions throughout this
study.
587
-------
SECTION XV
REFERENCES
Adirv A., Baumann, E. R., Cleasby, J. L., 1979, "The Application of
Filtration Theory to Pilot-Plant Design," Journal of the American
Water Works Association, January.
Alloid Colloids, Inc. brochure.
Aluminum Company of Canada, LTD, 1961, Handbook of Aluminum, 2nd ed.,
Montreal.
American Cyanamid Company brochure.
American Society for Metals, 1964, Heat Treating. Cleaning, and
Finishing. MetalsHandbook, 8th Edition, Vol. 2, OH.
American Society for Metals, 1967, Aluminum, Volume III, Fabrication
and Finishing, ed. Van Horn, K. R., Metals Park, OH.
American Society for Metals, 1970, Forging and Casting, Metals
Handbook, 8th Edition, Vol. 5, OH.
Amstead, B. H., Ostwald, P. F., Begeman, M. L., 1977, Manufacturing
Processes, 7th ed., John Wiley & Sons, NY.
API, 1969, Manual ori Disposal of_ Refinery Wastes; Volume on Liquid
Wastes, 1st ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Argo and Wesner, 1976, "AWT Energy Needs a Prime Concern," Water and
Wastes Engineering, 13:5:24.
Banerji and 0'Conner, 1977, "Designing More Energy Efficient
Wastewater Treatment Plants," Civil Engineering ASCE, 47:7:76.
Bansal, I. K., 1977, "Reverse Osmosis and Ultrafiltration of Oily and
Pulping Effluents," Industrial Wastes. May/June.
Barnard, J. L., Eckenfelder, W. W. Jr., 1971, Treatment Cost
Relationships for Industrial Waste Treatment, Technical Report 123,
Vanderbilt University.
Bauer, D., 1976, "Treatment of Oily Wastes—Oil Recovery Programs,"
Presented at 31st Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Besselievre, E. B., Schwartz, M., 1976, The Treatment of_ Industrial
Wastes, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Betz Labs brochure.
589
-------
Brody, M. A., Lumpkins, R. J., 1977, "Performance of Dual Media
Filters," Chemical Engineering Progress, April.
Burns and Roe, 1979, Draft Technical Report for the Paint Industry.
Carborundum, 1977, "Dissolved Air Flotation Systems," December.
Catalytic, Inc., 1979, Treatment Catalogue for the Catalytic Computer
Model.
Chemical Engineering, 1979, "Love Canal Aftermath: Learning from a
Tragedy," Chemical Engineering, October 22.
Chemical Marketing Reporter, March 17, 1978.
Cheremisinoff, P. N., Ellerbusch, F., 1978, Carbon Adsorption
Handbook, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chieu, J. N., Gloyna, E. F., Schechter, R. S., 1975, "Coalescence of
Emulsified Oily Wastewater by Fibrous Beds," Presented at the 30th
Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Clark, J. W., Viessman, W., Hammer, M. S., 1977, Water Supply and
Pollution Control, IEP-A Dun-Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
Gulp and Culp, 1974, New Concepts iri Water Purification, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Culp, R. L., Wesner, G. M., Culp, G. L., 1978, Handbook of Advanced
Wastewater Treatment, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Davies, B. T., Vose, R. W., 1977, "Custom Designs Cut Effluent
Treatment Costs, Case Histories at Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.," Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, p. 1035.
Dearborn Chemical Division brochure.
Denyo, D. J., ed, 1978, Unit Operations for Treatment of_ Hazardous
Wastes.
Dickey, 1970, "Managing Waste Heat with the Water Cooling Tower,"
Marley Co.
Dugas, R. S., Reed, P. E., 1977, "Successful Pretreatment and Deep
Well Injection of Chemical Plant Wastewater," Presented at 32nd Annual
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Dynatech RID Company, 1969, A Survey of Alternate Methods for Cooling
Condenser Discharge Water, Large-Scale Heat Rejection Equipment, EPA
Project No. 16130DH3.
590
-------
Eckenfelder, W. W. Jr., O'Connor, D. J., 1961, Biological Waste
Treatment. Pergamon Press, NY.
Envirodyne, Dissolved Air Flotation & Solids Settling - Model Jupitor
- 7,000."
Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., 1973, Technical and Economic
Review of Advanced Waste Treatment Processes.
Federal Register, 43FR2150gff.
Federal Register, 44FR15926ff.
Federal Register, 44FR28716ff.
Federal Register, 44FR43660ff.
Federal Register, 44FR56628££.
Ford, D. L., Elton, R. L., 1977, "Removal of Oil and Grease from
Industrial Wastewaters," Chemical Engineering, October 17, p. 49.
Gloyna, E. F., Ford, D. L., 1974, Cited by Osamor, F. A., Ahlert, R.
C., 1978, in Oil Water Separation; State-of-the-Art, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, PB-280 755.
Gross, A. C., 1979, "The Market for Water Management Chemicals,"
Environmental Science & Technology, 13:9:1050.
Guthrie, K. M., 1969, "Capital Cost Estimating," Chemical Engineering,
March 24.
Hagan and Roberts, 1976, "Energy Requirements for Wastewater Treatment
Plants, Part 2," Water and Sewage Works, 124:12:52.
Hager, D. G., 1974, "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by GAC,"
Industrial Water Engineering, 11:1:18.
Hammer, M. J., 1975, Water and Wastewater Technology, John Wiley £
Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Hawley, Gessner G., rev., The Condnesed Chemical Dictionary, Ninth
Edition.
Hercules brochure.
Hockenbury, M. R., Loven, A. W., 1977, "Treating Metal Forging and
Processing Wastewater," Industrial Wastes, 23:3:45.
591
-------
Howes, Robert and Kent, Robert, 1970, Hazardous Chemicals Handling and
Disposal, Moyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ.
Hsiung, K. Y., Mueller, H. M., Conley, W. R., 1974, "PhysicalChemical
Treatment for Oily Waste," Presented at WWEMA Industrial Water and
Pollution Conference and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Cited by Osamor, F.
A., Ahlert, R. C., 1978, Oil/Water Separation; State-of-the-Art, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, PB-280 755.
Hutchins, R. A., 1975, "Thermal Regeneration Costs," Chemical
Engineering Prog., 71:5:80.
Industrial Water Engineering, 1970, "Cooling Towers - Special Report,"
May.
Infilco Degremont, Inc., 1974, "Sediflotor Clarifier," Company
Brochure DBS30, September.
Jones, H.R., 1971, Environmental Control in the Organic and
Petrochemical Industries, Moyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ
Journal of Metal Finishing; "Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment,"
September and October, 1977.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 1954, "Kaiser Aluminum Rod,
Bar, and Wire," Chicago, IL.
Katnick, K. E., Pavilcius, A. M., 1978, "A Novel Chemical Approach for
the Treatment of Oily Wastewaters," Presented at 33rd Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference.
Kirk-Othner, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology , Second Edition,
1963, Interscience Publishers, New York, N.Y.
Koon, J. H., Adams, C. E. Jr., Eckenfelder, W. W., 1973, "Analysis of
National Industrial Water Pollution Control Costs," Associated Water
and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.
Krockta, H., Lucas, R. L., 1972, "Information Required for the
Selection and Performance Evaluation of Wet Scrubbers," Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association. June.
Kumar, J. I., Clesceri, N. L., 1973, "Phosphorus Removal from
Wastewaters: A Cost Analysis," Water & Sewage Works, 120:3:82.
Lacey, R. E., 1972, "Membrane Separation Processes," Chemical
Engineering, Sept. 4.
Lange, Norbert, Adolph, 1973, Handbook of_ Chemistry, McGraw Hill, New
York, NY
592
-------
Lee, E. L., Schwab, R. E., 1978, "Treatment of Oily Machinery Waste "
Presented at 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Light Metal Age, 1976, "A New Russian Water-Based Emulsion for Cold-
Rolling Aluminum," October.
Light Metal Age, 1978, "SCAL's 'Jumbo 3C' - A Big Step Forward in
Continuous Casting of Aluminum Sheet," April, pp. 6-12.
"Lime for Water and Wastewater Treatment: Engineering Data," BIF
Providence, Ref. No. 1.21-24.
Lin, Y. H., Lawson, J. R., 1973, "Treatment of Oily and Metal
Containing Wastewater," Pollution Engineering. November.
Lopez, C. X., Johnston, R., 1977, "Industrial Wastewater Recycling
with Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis," Presented at the 32nd
Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Lund, H. F., ed., 1971, Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Luthy, R. G., Selleck, R. E., Galloway, 1978, "Removal of Emulsified
Oil with Organic Coagulants and Dissolved Air Flotation," Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation. 50:2:331.
Maeder, E. G., 1975, "The D&I Can: How & Why It Does More with Less
Metal," Modern Metals, August, pp. 55-62.
Mastrovich, I. D., 1975, "Aluminum Can Manufacture," Lubrication, Vol.
61, Texaco, Inc., April-June, pp. 17-36.
McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H. W., ed, 1963, Water Quality Criteria, Second
Edition, The Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality
Control Board, Publication No. 3-A.
McKinney, R. E., 1962, Microbiology for Sanitary Engineers. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., NY.
Met-Pro brochure.
Mono-Scour brochure.
Myansnikov, I. N., Butseva, L. N., Gandurina, L. B., 1979, "The
Effectiveness of Flotation Treatments with Flocculants Applied to Oil
Wastewaters," Presented at USEPA Treatment of Oil Containing
Wastewaters, April 18 to 19, 1979, Cincinnati, OH.
National Commission on Water Quality, 1976, Water Pollution Abatement
Technology; Capabilities and Cost, PB-250 690-03.
593
-------
Nebolsine, R., 1970, "New Methods for Treatment of Wastewater
Streams," Presented at 25th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
NTIS, 1974, Cost of_ Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening of_ Waste
Activated Sludge at Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants, PB-226-582.
Osamor, F. A., Ahlert, R. C., 1978, Oily Water Separation; State-of-
the-Art, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, EPA-
600/2-78-069.
Patterson, James W., Wastewater Treatment Technology.
Patterson, J. W., 1976, "Technology and Economics of Industrial
Pollution Abatement," Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality,
Document No. 76/22.
Peoples, R. F., Krishnan, P., Simonsen, R. N., 1972, "Nonbiological
Treatment of Refinery Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, November.
Personal communication with Dave Baldwin of Tenco Hydro, Inc.
Personal communication with Jeff Busse of Envirex.
Personal communication with Envirodyne sales representative.
Personal communication with Goad, Larry and Company.
Personal communication with Kerry Kovacs of Komiine-Sanderson.
Personal communciation with Don Montroy of the Brenco Corporation
representing AFL Industries.
Personal communication with Jack Walters of Infilco-Degremont, Inc.
Personal communication with Leon Zeigler of Air-o-flow.
Pielkenroad Separator Company brochure.
Quinn, R., Bendershaw, W. K., 1976, "A Comparison of Current Membrane
Systems Used in Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis," Industrial Water
Engineering.
Raiford, P. K., 1975, "The Properzi Process for Continuous Cast and
Rolled Rod," Light Metal Age, December, pp. 16-22.
Redhair, M. L., 1977, "Degassing and Filtering Methods," Light Metal
Age, December, p. 22.
594
-------
Regan, P. C., 1971, "Recent Developments in the Hazelett Process for
Continuous Casting of Aluminum Sheet and Rod," Light Metal Age, April,
pp. 10-15.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc., 1980, General Construction
Estimating Standards, Solana Beach, CA.
Rizzo, J. L., Shephard, A. R., 1977a, "Treating Industrial Wastewater
with Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering, January 3, p. 95.
Rizzo, J. L., Shephard, A. R., 1977b, "Treating Industrial Wastewater
with Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering, September 3.
Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., 1979, Building Construction Cost Data
1979, Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Duxbury, MA.
Roberts, K. L., Weeter, D. W., Ball, R. 0., 1978, "Dissolved Air
Flotation Performance," 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, p. 194.
Sabadell, J. E., ed., 1973, Traces of Heavy Metals in. Water Removal
Processes and Monitoring, USEPA, 902/9-74-001.
Sawyer, C. N., MCCCarty, P. L., 1967, Chemistry for Sanitary
Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY.
Sax, N. Irving, , Dangerous Properties of. Industrial Materials,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Sax, N. Irving, 1974, Industrial Pollution, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York, NY
Sebastian, F. P., Lachtman, D. S., Kominek, E., Lash, L., 1979,
"Treatment of Oil Wastes Through Chemical, Mechanical, and Thermal
Methods," Symposium; Treatment of Oil-Containing Wastewater, April 18-
19, Cincinnati, OH.
Seiden and Patel, Mathematical Model of Tertiary Treatment by_ Lime
Addition, TWRC-14.
Smith, J. E., 1977, "Inventory of Energy Use in Wastewater Sludge
Treatment and Disposal," Industrial Water Engineering, 14:4:20.
Smith, R., 1968, "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of
Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 40:9:1546.
Sonksen, M. K., Sittig, M. F., Maziarz, E. F., 1978, "Treatment of
Oily Wastes by Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis - A Case History,
Presented at 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
595
-------
Spatz, D. D., 1974, "Methods of Water Purification," Presented to the
American Association of Nephrology Nurses and Technicians of the
NSAIO-AANNT Joint Conference, Seattle, Washington, April 1972, Revised
July 1974.
Steel, E. W., 1960, Water Supply and Sewerage, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, NY.
Stephens, W. E., Vassily, G., 1971, "The Hunter Process of Strip
Casting," Light Metal Age, April, pp. 6-8.
Strier, M. P., 1978, "Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants -
Part C - Their Estimated (30-day average) Treated Effluent
Concentration-A Molecular Engineering Approach," Report to Robert B.
Schaffer, Director, EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, July 11; and
"Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants - Part D - The Pesticides
- Their Estimated (30-day average) Treated Effluent Concentration,"
December 26.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., 1977, Study of. Selected
Pollutant Parameters in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Draft report
submitted to EPA-Effluent Guidelines Division, February.
Symons, J. M., 1978, Interim Treatment Guide for Controlling Organic
Contaminants in Drinking Water Using Granular Activated Carbon, Water
Supply Research Division, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Szekely, A. G., 1976, "The Removal of Solid Particles from Molten
Aluminum in the Spinning Nozzle Inert Flotation Process,"
Metallurgical Transactions B, Volume 7B, June.
Tabakin, R. B., Trattner, R., Cheremisinoff, P. N., 1978a, "Oil/Water
Separation Technology: The Options Available - Part 1," Water and
Sewage Works, 125:7:74.
Tabakin, R. B., Trattner, R., Cheremisinoff, P. N., 1978b, "Oil/Water
Separation Technology: The Options Available - Part 2," Water and
Sewage Works. Vol. 125, No. 8, August.
Thompson, C. S., 1972, "Cost and Operating Factors for Treatment of
Oily Waste Water," Oil and Gas Journal. 70:47:53.
Throup, W. M., 1976, "Why Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment?"
Industrial Wastes, July/August, p. 32.
U.S. Department of Interior, FWPCA, 1967, Industrial Waste Profile No.
5 Petroleum Refining. Vol. III.
596
-------
U.S. Department of Interior, 1968a, Cost of Wastewater Treatment
Processes, TWRC-6.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1968b, Preliminary Design and Simulation
of Conventional Wastewater Renovation Systems Using theDigital
Computer, USDI-WP-20-9. —
U.S. Department of Interior, 1969, Appraisal of Granular Carbon
Contacting. Report No. TWRC-12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971a, Estimating Costs and
Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. Water Pollution Control Research Series, 17090 DAN.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971b, Experimental Evaluation
of Fibrous Bed Coalescers for Separating Oil-Water Emulsions, 12050
DRC, November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973a, Capital and Operating
Costs of Pollution Control Equipment Module - Vol. I_I^, EPA-R5-73-023b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973b, Electrical Power
Consumption for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, EPA-R2-73-281.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973c, Estimating Staffing for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EPA-68-01-0328.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973d, Process Design Manual for
Carbon Adsorption, EPA-625/l-71-002a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974a, Development Document fog-
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category, EPA-440/l-74-014a,
Apr i1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b, Development Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, EPA-440/1-73/029, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974c, Flow Equalization, EPA-
625/4-74-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974d, Policy Statement on
Acceptable Methods of Utilization or Disposal of Sludges, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974e, Process Design Manual for
Sludge Treatment and Disposal, EPA-625/1-74-006.
597
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974f, Supplemental for
Pretreatment to the Interim Final Development Document for the
Secondary Aluminum Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Point Source Category, EPA-440/l-74-019e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974g, "Wastewater Filtration—
Design Considerations," EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication,
July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975a, A Guide to_ the Selection
of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment System, EPA-430/9-75-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975b, Costs of_ Wastewater
Treatment by Land Application. EPA-430/9-75-003, June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975c, Evaluation of_ Land
Application Systems, EPA-430/9-75-001, March.
U.S. Environmental .Protection Agency, 1975d, Lime Use in Wastewater
Treatment Design and Cost Data, EPA-600/2-75-038.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975e, Process Design Manual for
Suspended Solids Removal, EPA-625/l-75-003a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a, Cost Estimating Manual—
Combined Sewer Overflow Storage and Treatment, EPA-600/2-76-286.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b, Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Design Factors - !_/ EPA Technology
Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976c, Land Treatment of_
Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Design Factors - II, EPA Technology
Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976d, Land Treatment of_
Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Case Histories, EPA Technology
Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976e, Supplement for
Pretreatment to the Interim Final Development Document for the
Secondary Aluminum Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Point Source Category, EPA-440/l-76-081c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977a, Controlling Pollution
from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal Products - Vol. 2, Solvent
Metal Cleaning Air Pollution Control, Environmental Research
Information Center, Technology Transfer, May.
598
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b, Controlling Pollution
from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal Products; Water Pollution
Control, Technology Transfer, May, EPA-625/3-77-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977c, Draft Development
Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Nonferrous HSetaTs
Segment, EPA-440/1-76/067.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977d, State of_ the Art of_ Small
Water Treatment Systems, Office of Water Supply.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977e, Supplement for
Pretreatment to the Development Document for the Petroleum Refining
Industry Existing Point Source Category, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978a, Analysis of_ Operation and
Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems, EPA-
430/9-77-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978b, Construction Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Conveyance System; 1973-1977, EPA-430/9-77-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978c, Construction Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants; 1973-1977, EPA-430/9-77-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978d, Development Document for
Proposed Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating
Point Source Category, EPA-440/1-78/085, February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978e, Estimating Costs for
Water Treatment as a Function of Size and Treatment Plant Efficiency,
EPA-600/2-78-182.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978f, Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, EPA-430/9-78-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978g, Process Design Manual for
Municipal Sludge Landfills, USEPA Technology Transfer, EPA-625/1-78-
010, SW-705, October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978h, Revised Economic Impact
Analysis of Proposed Regulations on Organic Contamination Drinking
Water, Office of Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978, Development Document for
Proposed Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating
Point Source Category, Document No. EPA 440/1-78/085, February.
599
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979a, Dissolved Air Flotation
of Gulf Shrimp Cannery Wastewater, EPA-600/2-79-061.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979b, Draft Development
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, Vol. Ill,
EPA-440/l-79-024a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979c, Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category, EPA-440/1-
79/019a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979d, Process Design Manual for
Sludge Treatment and Disposal, EPA-625/1-79-011, September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979e, Technical Study Report
BATEA - NSPS - PSES - PSNS, Major Nonferrous Metals, Contract Nos. 68-
01-3289, 68-01-4906.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, Process Design Manual for Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, EPA-625/1-77-008, October.
Verschueren and Karel, 1972, Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic
Chemicals, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Wahl, J. R., Hayes, T. C., Kleper, M. H., Pinto, S. D., 1979,
"Ultrafiltration for Today's Oily Wastewaters: A Survey of Current
Ultrafiltration Systems," Presented at 34th Annual Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference.
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1977, MOP/8; Wastewater Treatment
Plant Design, WPCF, Washington, D.C.
Wyatt, M. J., White, P. E. Jr., 1975, Sludge Processing,
Transportation, and Disposal/Resource Recovery; A Planning
Perspective, Report No. EPA-WA-75-RO24, December.
Zievers, J. F., Grain, R. A., Barclay, F. G., 1968, "Waste Treatment
in Metal Finishing: U.S. and European Practices," Cited by Technology
and Economics of Industrial Pollution Abatement, Illinois Institute
for Environmental Quality, Document No. 76/22. as well as other
pollutants including halogenated organics.
600
-------
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY
Adsorption is the condensation of molecules in a fluid onto the
surface of a solid.
Alum is an inorganic coagulant, AL2 (S04)3. 14H20.
Coagulants are chemicals that reduct repulsive forces between
colloids.
Cold Rolling produces aluminum sheet with a thickness between 6.25 cm
to .015 cm (.249 to .006 inches) thick by passing the aluminum through
a set of rolls. The process is an exothermic process and causes
strain-hardening of the product.
Contact cooling water is any water or oil which comes into direct
contact with the aluminum, whether it is raw material, intermediate
product, waste product or finished product.
Continuous casting produces a sheet, rod or other long shape by
solidifying the metal while it is being poured through an open ended
mold using little or no contact cooling water. Thus, no restrictions
are placed on the length of the product and it is not necessary to
stop the process to remove the cast product.
Counter current rinsing is a process in which the wastewater from one
rinse is reused in another rinse without treatment.
Deoxidizing is the removal of any oxide file (such as aluminum oxide)
from a metal.
Desmutting is a process that removes a residual silt (smut) by
immersing the product in an acid solution, usually nitric acid.
Direct chill casting is a method of casting where the molten aluminum
is poured into a water cooled mold. The base of this mold is the top
of a hydraulic cylinder which lowers the aluminum first through the
mold and then through a water spray and bath to cause solidification.
The vertical distance of the drop limits the length of the ingot.
This process is also known as semi-continuous casting.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is a separation process in which gas
bubbles are caused to collide with and attach to particles dispersed
in water and cause the particles to rise to the surface where they can
be removed by skimming.
Drawing refers to pulling the metal through a die or sucssession of
dies to reduce the metal's diameter or alter its shape.
601
-------
Emulsions are stable dispersions of two immiscible liquids.
Etching is the removal of surface imperfections, oxides, and scratches
by chemical action. Etching can also provide surface roughness.
Extrusion is a process in which high pressures area applied to a
billet of aluminum forcing the aluminum to flow through a die orifice.
Ferric chloride is an inorganic coagulant, FeCl3.
Finishing is the coating or polishing of a metal surface.
Fluxes are substances added to molten metal to help remove impurities
and prevent excessive oxidation, or promote the fusing of the metals.
Foil rolling is a process which produces aluminum foil less than 0.006
inches thick. Foil is usually produced by cold rolling.
Forging is a process that exerts pressure on dies or rolls surrounding
heated aluminum stock forcing the stock to take the shape of the dies.
*
Granular media filtration is the removal of suspended particles from
water by straining the mixture through a bed of sand or other granular
porous media.
Gravity oil and water separation is a wastewater treatment process in
which oily wastewater remains quiescent to permit free oil to float to
the surface and be removed by skimming.
Heat treatment is a process that changes the physical properties of
the metal, such as strength, ductility and malleability by controlling
the rate of cooling.
Hot rolling is a process where aluminum ingot is heated to 400°C to
495°C and passed through a set of rolls which reduce the thickness of
the metal to a plate 0.25 inches thick or more. Hot rolling does not
strain-harden the aluminum.
Neat oil is pure oil.
Polymers are organic chemicals that act as coagulants.
Process water is water used in a production process that contacts the
product, raw materials, or reagents.
Recycle is returning treated or untreated wastewater to the production
process from which it originated for use as process water.
Reuse is the use of treated or untreated process wastewater in a
different production process.
602
-------
Reverberatory furnaces are rectangular furnaces in which the fuel is
burned above the metal and the heat reflects off the walls and into
the metal.
Reverse osmosis is a high-pressure separation process in which
semipermeable membranes allow passage of water but not of salts and
other small molecules.
Rinsing is a process in which water is used to wash etching and
cleaning chemicals from the surface of metal.
Semi-fabricated products are intermediate products, being the final
product of one process and the raw material for a second process.
Stationary casting is a process in which the molten aluminum is poured
into molds and allowed to air cool. It is often used to recycle in-
house scrap.
Subcategorization is the devision of a segment of an industry (in this
case, the forming segment of the aluminum industry) into groups of
plants for which uniform effluent limitations can be established.
Swaging is a process in which a solid point is formed at the end of a
tube, rod, or bar by the repeated blows of one or more pairs of
opposing dies. It is often the initial step in the drawing process.
Wastewater discharge factor is the ratio between water discharged from
a production process and the mass of product of that production
process. Recycled water is not included.
Water use factor is the total amount of contact water or oil entering
a process divided by the amount of aluminum product produced by this
process. The amount of water involved includes the recycle and make-
up water.
Wet scrubbers are air pollution control devices used for removing
particulates and fumes from gas by entraining the pollutants in a
water spray as the gas passes through the spray. 1
e
603
-------
TABLE A
METRIC TABLE
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS) by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
acre ac
acre - feet ac ft
British Thermal
Unit BTU
British Thermal
Unit/pound BTU/lb
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit [F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpm
horsepower hp
inches in
inches of mercury in Hg
pounds 1b
million gallons/day mgd
mi 1e mi
pound/square
inch (gauge) psig
square feet sq ft
square inches sq in
ton (short) ton
yard yd
0.405
1233.5
0.252
ha
cu m
kg cal
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555([F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
kg cal /kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
EC
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
(0.06805 psig +1)* atm
0.0929 sq m
6.452 sq cm
0.907 kkg
0.9144 m
hectares
cubic mpters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogrc
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
killowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric ton (1000 kilogra
meter
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
604
------- |