DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
GUIDELINES AND
NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR THE
IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
Contract No: 68-01-1507
Prepared for
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
JULY 1975
-------
NOTICE
The attached document is a DRAFT CONTRACTOR’S REPORT. It
includes technical information and recommendations submitted
by the Contractor to the United States Envirnnmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”) regarding the subject industry.. it i being
distributed for review and comment only. The repoirt is not
an official EPA publication and it has not been reviewed by
the Agency.
The report, including the recommendations, will be undergoing
extensive review by EPA, Federal and State agencies, public
interest organizations and other interes ed groups and
persons during the, coming weeks. The report and in particular
the contractor’s recommended effluent limitations guidelines
and standards of performance is subject to change in any and
all respects.
The tegulations to be published by EPA under Sections 304(b)
and 306 of-the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
a’nended will be based to a large ext tit on the report and
the comments received on it. However, pursuan t to Secti ris 304(b)
and 306 of the Act, EPA will also consider additional pertinent
technical and economic information’which is developed in the
course of review of, this report by the public and wi thin
PPA. E PA is currently performing an economic impact analysis
reqarding the subject industry, which will be taken i.nto
account as part of the review of the report. Upon completion
of the review process, and pricr to final prozaulgation of
regulations, an EPA repozt will be issued setting forth
EPA’S conclusions concerning the subject industry’, effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance applicable
to such industry. Judgments necessary to promulgation of
regulations under Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act, of
course, remain the responsibility of EPA. Subject to these
limitations, EPA is making this draft contractor’s report
available in order to encourage the widest possible participation
of interested persons in the decision making process at the
earliest possible time.
The report shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or
court proceeding only to the extent that it represents the
views-of the Contractor who studied the subject industry and
prt’pared the information and recommendations. I t cannot b’
( i1ed, referenced, or represented in any respect in any such
proceedings as a statement of I 1’A’s views rcqarding the
subJcct industry.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water ’&Ha ’zardous Materials
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
GUIDELINES AND
NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR THE
IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
This is a Draft Contractor's
Report prepared for EPA under
Contract Number 68-01-1507
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JULY 1975
-------
ABSTRACT
This docum nt presents the findings of an extensive study of
the iron and steei foundry industry for the purpose of
developing effluent limitations guidelin es, Federal standards
of performance, and pretreatment standards of the industry
to implement Sections 304, 306, and 307 of the “Act.
Effluent limitations guidelines contained herein set forth
the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best practicable control technology
currently available and the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best available
technology economically achievable which must be achieved by
existing point sources by July 1, 1977, and July 1, 1983,
respectively. The standards of performance for new sources
contained herein set forth the degree of effluent reduction
which is achievable through the application of the best
available demOnstrated control technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives.
Supporting data and rationale for development of the proposed
effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
are contained in this report.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract #68-01 - -
1507 under the sponsorship of the Effluent Guidelines Division,
Environmental Protection Agency.
NOTICE : THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON
INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED
UPON COMMENTS RECEIVED AND FURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA.
iii
-------
DRP¼Ff
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 7
IV Industry Categorization 17
V Water Use and Waste Characterization 73
VI Selection of Pollutant Parameters 85
VII Control and Treatment Technology 97
VIII Cost, Energy, and Non-Water Quality Aspects 133
IX BPCTCA Effluent Limitations Guidelines 181
X BATEA Effluent• Limitations Guidelines 203
XI New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 245
XII Acknowledgements 247
XIII References 249
XIV Glossary 251
iv
-------
TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Product Classification By SIC Code 11
(3321, 3322, and 3323)
2 Plant Age and Size 37
3 Range of Production Capacity 38
4 Subcategorization of Foundry Operations 39
5 Rationale for Plant Selections 41
6 Industrial Categorization and Survey 72
Requirements for Foundry Operations
7 Characteristics of Foundry Operations 80
Wastes
8 Water Application and Discharge Rates 82
9 Melting Operation Parameters 86
10 Molding and Cleaning - Sand Washing 87
Parameters
11 Wastewater Treatment Practices of Plants 98
Visited in Study
12 Water Effluent Treatment Costs for 135
Foundries - Melting Operations
13 Water Effluent Treatment Costs for 137
Foundries - Molding and Cleaning
Dust Collection Operations
14 Water Effluent Treatment Costs for 138
Foundries - Sand Washing Operations
15 Water Ef fluent Treatment Costs for 139
Foundries - Multiple Operations
16 Control and Treatment Technology for 149
Related Categories and Subcategories
of Foundry Operations - Melting Operations
V
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Title Page
17 Control and Treatment Technology for 154
Related Categories and Subcategories
of Foundry Operations - Molding and
Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
18 Control and Treatment Technology for 157
Related Categories and Subcategories
of Foundry Operations - Sand Washing
Operations
19 Control and Treatment Technology for 160
Related Categories and Subcategories
of Foundry Operations — Multiple Operations -
Melting and Molding and Cleaning Dust
Collection
20 Control and Treatment Technology for 166
Related Categories and Subcategories
of Foundry Operations - Multiple Operations -
Melting and Sand Washing
21 Control and Treatment Technology for 172
Related Categories and Subcategories
of Foundry Operations — Multiple Operations
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
and Sand Washing
22 Control and Treatment Technology for 176
Related Categories and Subcategories
of Foundry Operations - Multiple Operations -
All Subcategories
23 Effluent Limitations Guidelines — BPCTCA 190
Melting Operations
24 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BPCTCA 193
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
Operations
25 Effluent Limitations Gidelines - BPCTCA 197
Sand Washing Operations
26 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BPCTCA 201
Multiple Operations
vi
-------
DRAFI
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Title Page
27 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BATEA 215
Melting Operations
28 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BATEA 220
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
Operations
29 Effluent Lirnitations’Guidelines - BATEA 225
Sand Washing Operations
30 Effluent Limitations Guidelines - BATEA - 237
Multiple Operations
31 Iron and Steel Foundry Operations — Project 244
Total Costs for Related Subcategories
32 Conversion Table 254
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Title Page
1 Iron and Steel Foundry Product Flow 13
Diagram
2 Iron and Steel Foundry - Process Flow 15.
Diagram
Iron Foundry Cupola - Type I - Process 20
Flow Diagram
4 Iron Foundry Cupola - Type II — Process 21
Flow Diagram
5 Iron Foundry Cupola - Type III - Process 22
Flow Diagram
6 Iron Foundry Electric Arc Furnace - 25
Type I — Process Flow Diagram
‘ -4
7 Iron Foundry Electric Arc Furnace 26
Type II - Process Flow Diagram
8 Iron Foundry Electric Arc Furnace - 27
Type III - Process Flow Diagram
9 Wastewater Treatment System 105
Water Flow. Diagram - Plant VV—2
10 Wastewater Treatment System 107
Water Flow Diagram - Plant WW-2
11 Wastewater Treatment System 108
Water Flow Diagram - Plant XX-2
12 Wastewater Treatment System 110
Water Flow Diagram - Plant XX-2A
13 Wastewater Treatment System 111
Water Flow Diagram - Plant XX-2B
14 Wastewater Treatment System 112
Water Flow Diagram - Plant YY-2
15 Wastewater Treatment System 114
Water Flow Diagram - Plant ZZ—2
viii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Title Page
16 Wastewater Treatment System 116
Water Flow Diagram - Plant AAA-2
17 Wastewater Treatment System 117
Water Flow Diagram - Plant AAA-2A
18 Wastewater Treatment System 119
Water Flow Diagram — Plant AAA-2B
19 Wastewater Treatment System 120
Water Flow Diagram - Plant BBB-2
20 Wastewater Treatment System 121
Water Flow Diagram - Plant HHH-2
21 Wastewater Treatment System 123
Water Flow Diagram - Plant HHH-2A
22 Wastewater Treatment System 124
Water Flow Diagram - Plant HHH-2B
23 Wastewater Treatment System 125
Water Flow Diagram - Plant GGG-2
24 Wastewater Treatment System 126
Water Flow Diagram - Plant CCC-2
25 Wastewater Treatment System 127
Water Flow Diagram - Plant EEE-2
26 Wastewater Treatment System 129
Water Flow Diagram - Plant FFF-2
27 Wastewater Treatment System 130
Water Flow Diagram - Plant DDD—2
28 BPCTCA Model - Melting Operations 191
29 BPCTCA Model - Molding and Cleaning 194
Dust Collection Operations
30 BPCTCA Model - Sand Washing Operations 198
3lA BATEA Model - Melting Operations 216
ix
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Title Page
31B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - 217
Melting Operations
32A BATEA Model - Molding and Cleaning: 221
Dust Collection Operations
32B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - 222
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collecjion
Operations
33A BATEA Model - Sand Washing Operations 226
338 Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - 227
Sand Washing Operations
34A BATEA Model - Multiple Operations 238
34B Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram — 239
Multiple OperatiOns Melting .and
Molding and CleanIng Dust Col1 ction
Operations
34C Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram -• 240
Multiple Operations - Melting and Sand
Washing Operations
34D Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - 241
Multiple Operations- Molding and Cleaning
Dust Collection and Sand Washing Operations
34E Model Cost Effectiveness Diagram - 242
Multiple Operations - All. Sthcategories
x
-------
DRAFT
SECTION I
CONCLUS IONS
For the purpose of establishing effluent guidelines and
standards of performance for foundry operations, the industry
was divided into subcategories as follows:
I. Melting Operations
II. Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
III. Sand Washing Operations
IV. Multiple Operations
The selection of these subcategories was based upon distinct
differences in production processes, raw materials used,
wastewaters generated and control and treatment technologies
employed. Subsequent waste characterizations of individual
plants substantiated the validity of this subáategorization.
The waste characterizations of individual plants visited
during this study, and the guidelines developed as a result
of the data collected, relate only to the aqueous discharges
from the facilities, excluding noncontact cooling waters.
The effluent guidelines established in this study are not
dependent upon the raw water intake quality. The limitations
were derived by determining the minimum flows, in volume per
unit weight of product, that can be achieved by good water
conservation techniques and by determining the effluent
concentrations of the pollutant parameters that can be
achieved by treatment technology. The product of these is
the effluent limitations proposed.
The plant raw wasteloads however, are, out of necessity, a
net number that reflects the pickup of contaminants across a
production process in a single pass. It was necessary to
establish the raw waste load in this manner in order to
obtain a meaningful comparison of wastes generated during
production from a range of plants surveyed. Some plants
utilized once—through water systems, while many others used
varying degrees of reuse and/or recycle. Since the gross
waste load to be treated generally varied depending upon the
extent of recycle used in the system, the only way a meaningful
raw waste load for a production process could be determined
was on a net basis.
As presented in Table 31, an initial capital investment of
approximately $210 million with annual capital and operating
1
-------
DRAFT
costs of $50 million would be required by the industry to
comply with the 1977 guidelines. An additional capital
investment of approximately $187 million with added annual
capital and operating costs of about $44 million would be
needed to comply with the 1983 guidelines. Costs may vary
depending upon such factors as location, availability of
land and chemicals, flow to be treated, treatment technology
selected where competing alternatives exist, and the extent
of preliminary modifications required to accept the necessary
control and treatment devices.
2
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT
The proposed effluent limitation guidelines for the iron and
steel foundry industry representing the effluent quality
obtainable by existing point sources through the application
of the best practicable control technology currently available
(BPCTCA or Level I) for each industry subcategory are as
follows:
I. MELTING OPERATIONS
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant perl,000 lb of product
Pollutant
Parameter
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Zinc
pH
0.750
0.282
0.375
0.0939
0.0300
0. 0939
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
_______ Consecutive Days
0.250
0. 0940
0.125
0.0313
0.0100
0.0313
6.0 to 9.0
II. MOLDING AND CLEANING DUST COLLECTION OPERATIONS
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant per 1,000 lb of product
Pollutant
Parameter
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.150
0.0564
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
0. 0500
0.0188
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
6.0 to 9.0
3
-------
III. SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
DRAFT
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant per 1,000 lb of product
Pollutant
Parameter
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH
0.501
0.188
IV. MULTIPLE OPERATIONS
0.167
0.0625
BPCTCA Effluent Limitations
Units kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant per 1,000 lb of product
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Zinc
pH
3 times the sum
of the lbs/l,000
lbs for each
subcategory
0.375
0.0939
0. 0300
0. 0939
6.0
The sum of the
lbs/l,000 lbs
for each
subcategory
0.125
0. 0313
0.0100
0. 0313
to 9.0
The proposed effluent guid 1ines representing the effluent
quality obtainable by existing point sources through the
application of the best available technology economically
achievable (BATEA or Level II) for each industry subcategory
are as follows:
6.0 to 9.0
Pollutant
Parameter
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maxjmum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
4
-------
I. MELTING OPERATIONS
DRAFT
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant per 1,000 lb of product
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed ____________
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Sulfide
Zinc
pH
0. 0939
0.0375
0. 0471
0.0113
0.00375
0. 00471
0.0113
6.0 to 9.0
0. 0313
0. 0125
0. 0157
0. 00375
0.00125
0. 00157
0. 00375
II. MOLDING AND CLEANING DUST COLLECTION OPERATIONS
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant per 1,000 lb of product
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
0.0312
0.0125
0.0104
0.00417
III. SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant per 1,000 lb of product
Pollutant
Parameter
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH
0. 09J9
0. 0375
0.0313
0.0125
Pollutant
Parameter
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
Pollutant
Parameter
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
6.0 to 9.0
6.0 to 9.0
5
-------
IV. MULTIPLE OPERATIONS
DRAFT
BATEA Effluent Limitations
Units: kg pollutant per kkg of product
or: lb pollutant per 1,000 lb of product
Pollutant
Parameter
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Sulfide
Zinc
pH
Maximum for any
One Day Period
Shall Not Exceed
3 times 75% of
the sum of the
lbs/ton for each
subcategory
0.0351
0.00843
0.00281
0.00351
0.00843
Maximum Average of
Daily Values for any
Period of 30
Consecutive Days
75% of the sum
sum of the lbs/
ton for each
subcategory
0.0117
0.00281
0.000938
0.00117
0.00281
The proposed effluent güide1ine representing the effluent
quality attainable by new sources (NSPS or Level III) through
the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology (BADCT), processes, operating methods or other
alternatives for each industry subcategory are as follows:
Same as BATEA for all categories.
6.0 to 9.0
6
-------
DRAFT
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Section 301(b) of the Act requires the achievement by not
later than July, 1, 1977, of effluent limitations for point
sources, .other than publicly bwned treatment works, which
are based on the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available as defined by the Administrator
pursuant to Section 304 b) of ‘the Act. Section 301(b) also
requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1983, of
effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly
owned treatment works, which are based on 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, as
determined in accordance with regulations issued by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 304(b) to the Act. Section 306
of the Act requires the achievement by new sources of a
Federal standard of performance providing for the control of
the discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest
degree of effluent reduction which the Administrator determines
to be achievable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods,
or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a
standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.
Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to
publish within one year of enactment of the Act, regulations
providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth
the degree of practicable control technology currently
available and the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best control measures and
practices achievable including treatment techniques, process
and procedure innovations, operation methods and other
alternatives.
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within
one year after a category of sources is included in a list
published pursuant to Section 306(b) (1) (A) of the Act, to
propose regulations establishing Federal standards of
performances for new sources within such categories. The
Administrator published in the Federal Register of January 16,
1973, a list of 27 source categories. Publication of the
list constituted announcement of the Administrator’s intention
of establishing, under Section 306, standards of performance
7
-------
DRAFT
applicable to new sources within the iron and steel industry
which was included within the list published January 16,
1973.
SUMMARY OF METHODS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
proposed herein were developed in the following manner. The
point source category was first studied for the purpose of
determining whether separate limitations and standards would
be required for different segments within a point source
category. The analysis was based upon raw material used,
product produced, manufacturing process employed, and other
factors. The raw waste characteristics for each subcategory
were then identified. This included an analyses of (1) the
source and volume of water used in the process employed and
the sources of waste and wastewaters in the plant; and
(2) the constituents (including thermal) of all wastewaters
including toxic constituents and other constituents which
result in taste, odor, and color in water. The constituents
of wastewaters which should be subject to effluent limitations
guidelines and standards of performance were identified.
The full range of control and treatment technologies existing
within each subcategory was identified. This included an
identification of each distinct control and treatment technology,
including both inplant and end-of-process technologies,
which are existent or capable of being designed for each
subcategory. It also included an identification in terms of
the amount of constituents (including thermal) and the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of
pollutants, of the effluent level resulting from the application
of each of the treatment and control technologies’. The
problems, limitations and reliability of each treatment and
control technology and the required implementation time was
also identified. In addition, the nonwater quality environmental
impact, such as the effects, of the application of such
technologies upon other pollution problems, including air,
solid waste, noise and radiation were also identified. The
energy requirements of each of the control and treatment
technologies were identified as well as the cost of the
application of such technologies.
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in
order to determine what levels of technology constituted the
“best practicable control technology currently available,”
“best available technology economically achievable” and the
“best available demonstrated control technology, processes,
8
-------
DRAFT
operating methods, or other alternatives.” In identifying
such technologies, various factors were considered. These
included the total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved
from such application, the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of control techniques,
process changes, nonwater quality environmental impaát
(including energy requirements) and other factors.
The data for identification and analyses were derived from a
number of sources. These sources included EPA research
information, EPA and State environmental personnel, trade
associations, published literature, qualified technical
consultation, and on—site visits including sampling programs
and interviews at foundries throughout the United States
which were known to have above average waste treatment
facilities. All references used in developing the guidelines
for effluent limitations and standards of performance for
new sources reported herein are listed in Section XIII of
this document.
Operating plants were visited and information and samples
were obtained on from three to nine plants in each of the
subcategories. Both in—process and end—of—pipe data were
obtained as a basis for determining water use rates and
capabilities and effluent loads. The permit application
data was of limited value for the purposes of this study
• since most of this data is on outfalls serving more than one
operation and frequently was deficient in one or more of the
components needed to correlate the data. Forms requesting
wastewater capital and operating costs, analytical data,
production process information, and process water usage were
provided to the plants at the time of the sampling visit.
The plants were requested to complete the forms return this
information to the study contractor.
General Descxiption of the Industry
The unique feature of the foundry industry is the pouring of
molten metal into a mold. The cavity of the mold representing
within close tolerances the final dimensions of the product.
One of the major advantages of this process is the intricate
shapes of the metal that are not obtainable by any other
method of fabrication. Another advantage is the rapid
translation of a projected design into a finished article.
New articles are easily standardized and duplicated by the
casting method.
9
-------
DRAFT
The foundry industry ranks sixth among all manufacturing
industries based on “Value added by Manufacture” according
to data issued by the United States Department of Commerce
in 1970 (Survey of Manufacturers, SIC 29—30). Presently,
the foundry industry in the United States totals over 4,300
foundries employing approximately 400,000 workers and producing
over 17 million tons/year of cast metal products. This
study will cover the 1,690 foundries that produce gray,
ductile, malleable iron and carbon steel castings.’
Product Classification
The U. S. Bureau of Census, Census of Manufacturers classifies
the steel industry under Major Group 33 - Primary Metal
Industries. This phase of study includes the iron and steel
foundries as included under SIC No. 3321, 3322, and 3323.
This includes all processes, subprocesses, and alternate
processes involved in the manufacture of intermediate or
finished products in the above categories. A detailed list
of product codes within the industry classification code 3321,
3322, and 3323 is included in Table 1.
Anticipated tndusti y Growth
The past decade has seen a declIne in the number of foundries
producing gray, ductile, malleable iron and carbon steel
castings. However, production has increased in this period
from 12.7 million tons in 1961 to 16.3 million tons in 1971,
an increase of 28.3%. (Source, Bureau of Census, Department
of Commerce)
The dollar - value of castings has shown a remarkable increase
due to the inflation within our economy. The value of
castings increased from $434/ton in 1961 to. $652/ton in
1971, and $722/ton in 1975. This latest value reflects a
66% increase over the 1961 figure.
General Description of the ‘ 42!
Th basic foundry process is essentially the same regardless
_1 .L.1 .J —‘ p 1 1 ‘i ’ ’1nq ff
J t.d . i. tUt.. fuuudi. 1 u i. Lzuu is skiu t ii syu . I
In all types of foundries, raw materials are assembled and
stored in various material bins. These are usually outdoors
and are bulk handling types.
From these bins, a “charge” is selected by using various
amounts of the several materials. This material is “charged t ’
into a melting furnace and through a heating process, the
metal is made liauid.
10
-------
TABLE 1
PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION BY SIC CODE
(3321, 3322, and 3323)
FOR IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES
DRAFT
3321 — GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing gray iron
castings, including cast iron pressure and soil pipes and
fittings.
Brake shoes, railroad: cast
iron - made in foundries
Car wheels, railroad: chilled
cast iron - made in foundries
Castings, gray iron and semi—
steel
Cooking uteniils, cast iron
Couplings, pipe: pressure and
soil pipe, cast i.ron - made in
foundries
Elbows, pipe: pressure and
soil pipe, cast iron - made in
foundries
Foundries, gray iron
steel
Gas
Gas pipe, cast iron:
foundries
Gray iron foundries
Nipples, pi p0: pressure and
soil pipc, cast iron — made
in foundries
Pipe and f.i Ltings, soil and
prcssurô: cast iron — made
in foundries
Railroad brake shoes, cast
iron
Rolling mill rolls, iron:
not machined
Sewer pipe, cast iron: made
in foundries
Water pipe, cast iron: made
in foundries
3322 - MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES
Establishments primarily engaged in mdnutacturlny malleable
iron castings.
Hydrants, water: cast iron —
made in foundries
Ingot molds and stools:
in foundries
Iron ca ;tnqs, nodular
Manhole covers, metal
made
and semi—
made in
11
-------
TABLE 1 (Cont’d.)
DRAFT
Castings, malleable iron
Foundries, malleable iron
3323 - STEEL FOUNDRIES
Establishments primarily engaged
ings.
Uushings, cast steel
Castings, steel
Cast steel railroad car
wheels
Pearlitic castings, malle-
able iron
in manufacturing steel cast-
Foundries, steel
Investment castings, steel
Rolling mill rolls, steel:
not machined
12
-------
*LO
rfl Ison ,., s, o,
J# 5 I flfl
.e0.s, flaw at.s
a ______a I FIGURE I
I •
>
*4ST flt
tfl0
fib
-------
DRAFT
Simultaneously, molds are being prepared. This process
begins by forming a pattern (usually of wood) to the approximate
final shape of the product. This pattern is usually made in
two pieces that will eventually match to form a single
piece. Each part of the pattern is used to form a cavity in
a moist sand media, and the two portions (called “cope” and
“drag”) are matched together to form a complete cavity in
the sand media. An entrance hole (called a “sprue”) is cut
to provide the proper introduction of the molten metal into
the cavity and the mold is ready to be poured.
The molten metal is now “tapped” from the furnace into the
ladle. The ladle and molds are moved to a pouring area and
the metal is poured into the molds. The molds are moved to
a cooling area where the molten metal solidifies into the
shape of the pattern. When sufficiently cooled, the molds
are placed onto a “shake out”. By violent shaking, the sand
is loosened from around the metal and falls to a conveyor
that returns it to the sand storage area.
The cast metal object (casting) is further processed by
removing excess metal, and cleaned by various methods that
complete the removal of the sand from its surface. Depending
bn the final use of the casting, further processing in the
form of heat treatment, quenching, or chemical treatment may
take place. After inspection, the casting is then ready for
shipping. The process flow of the typical foundry operation
is shown in Figure 2.
14
-------
s .*ø r*ao
:‘i INS
fj
NVN •Q Ph
U i
i.QW OOwPi
Oc S n OrnS*AM
$ _$
$ S
-------
DRAFT•
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CATEGORI ZATION
An evaluation of the foundry operations was necessary to
detern ine whether or not subcategorization would be required
in order to prepare effluent guidelines which would be
broadly applicable and yet representative and appropriate
for the operations and conditions to be controlled. Toward
this end an understanding, of the operations was required.
DESCRIPTION OF FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
The unique feature of the foundry industry is the pouring of
molten metal into a mold. The cavity of the mold representing
within close tolerances the final dimensions of the product.
One of the major advantages of this process is the intricate
shapes of the metal that are not obtainable by any other
method of fabrication. Another advantage is the rapid
translation of a projected design into a finished article.
New articles are easily standardized and duplicated by the
casting method.
Historically, foundries have been classified by the types of
metal that they produce. A classification of this nature
may be ill defined as many foundries produce several types
of metal. These metals are:
1. Gray Iron
2. Ductile Iron
3. Malleable Iron
4. Carbon Steel
5. Alloy Steel
6. Non—Ferrous Metals
A secondary method of classification has been by the melting
process used. However, many foundries use three or four
different methods of melting, and various metals are often
melted in several types of furnaces. The furnace types are:
1. Cupola
2. Electric Arc
3. Electric Induction
4. Crucible
5. Reverbatory
6. Non-Crucible
7. Air Furnaces
17
-------
DRAFT
In addition to the variety of metals and melting methods,
there are several mold types that impart certain properties
to the finished product. These mold types are:
1. Green Sand Molds
2. Dry Sand Molds
3. Shell Sand Molds
4. Permanent Molds
S. Centrifugal Molds
6. Plaster Molds
7. Investment Molds
8. Die Cast Molds
Others steps in the production of a casting that further
contribute to the complexity of the foundry industry are:
cleaning processes, heat treatment, and finishing.
MELTING OPERATIONS
Cupola Furnace
The cupola furnace is a vertical shaft furnace consisting of
a cylindrical steel shell lined with refractories and
equipped with a wind bo s and tuyeres for the admission of
air. A charging opening is provided at an upper level for
the introduction of melting stock and fuel. Near the bottom
are holes and spouts for removal of molten metal and slag.
One of the outstanding features of a cupola is that the
ascending gases come into intimate contact with the descending
melting stock, and a direct and efficient exchange of heat
takes place. The descending.fuel replaces that burned
from the original coke bed and thus maintains the height of
this bed.
Operations begin with the laying of coke bed just above the
tuyeres. A charge of melting stock and flux is placed above
this, and then alternate layers of fuel and melting stock.
When the coke bed is “lit off” the air blast is begun and
heat is rapidly produced. The consumption of the fuel in
the coke bed gradually reduces this bed thickness, and the
burden above it moves down.
The ascending hot gases begin melting the scrap and flux.
These materials run down the interior of the bed and collect
in a pool below the tuyeres. The molten metal remains in
the refractory-lined pool and is covered by the floating
slag. Tapping is not begun until the molds are ready, as
delays in pouring metal into the molds cannot be permitted.
18
-------
DRAFT
Slags are drawn of f periodically to keep the slag cover to
proper dimensions. If slags get too high, they are chilled
by the tuyeres and become unmanageable. Cold slags also
reduce the metal temperature as they absorb heat from the
metal as it runs through the slag.
Cupolas are operated at various ratios of iron to coke
depending on local shop practice as well as final metal
specifications. In general, ratios of 7—1/2:1 (7.5 lb metal
per lb of coke) to 10.4:1 are used. Air blast is approximately
1,000 cm ft/mm/ton of metal and can be reduced in larger
melting furnaöes. Tons of metal produced is a function of
the cross—sectional area of the furnace and the air blast
volumes. The coke ratio influences the melting temperature.
More specific details of typical cupola operations are
presented on Figures 3, 4, and 5.
Electric Arc Furnace
The electric arc furnace is mainly used in producing carbon
steels and steel alloys. This study covers its use on
carbon steel.
A refractory-lined cylindrical futnace is charged with a
cold scrap charge and fluxes. The heat for melting is
furnished by passing an electric current (arc) through the
scrap and the melted metal by means of three triangularly
arranged cylindrical carbon electrodes inserted through the
roof.
The electrodes are consumed and oxidize at a rate of 5 to 8
kg/metric ton of steel. Large tonnage furnaces have hinged
removable roofs for scrap addition, while smaller furnaces
are charged through the furnace doors. Furnaces range in
size from 250 kilograms to 35 metric tons per heat, and from
1 meter to 7 meters in diameter. Heat cycle time is generally
three to four hours.
Production of some high quality steels require the use of
two different slags, referred to as oxidizing and reducing
slags. After the metal has been melted -and oxidized, the
first slag may be removed, and different fluxes are charged
to obtain reduction of certain elements in the metal to the
proper limits.
The heat cycle generally consists of charging, melt-down,
molten metal period, oxidizing, refining, and tapping
(pouring). Pure oxygen is usually lanced across the bath to
speed up the oxidation cycle which in turn reduces electric
current consumption.
19
-------
I
,tn ..sSTs., qtu
..a_ .oI.atv tw.a
n.. S
— .‘a_
I— a $ 4 I a I
K
-------
N J
H 4
-------
,fl ,a.r CUa
,...d I
.aa a s.n
2.1.141 iGURI
I
S
I
a
p
0
>
-------
DRAFT
The waste products from the process are smoke, slag, carbon
monoxide and dioxide gases, and oxides of iron emitted as
submicron fumes. Other waste contaminants such as zinc
oxides from galvanized scrap will be released depending on
the quality of scrap charged. High oil bearing scrap, such
as machine shop turnings and chips, will yield a high
quantity of reddish-black smoke as the oils are burned of f
in the melt—down cycle. Oxides of nitrogen and ozone are
released during the lancing of the bath. Generally, 5 kilograms
of dust/metric ton (10 lb/ton) of steel is produced, but
this may go as high as 15 kilograms per metric ton (30 lb/ton)
if inferior, quality scrap is used. These waste products are
discharged and do not become waterborne unless some type of
dust collector entraps them pith water.
Three types of dust collectors are used — baghouses, scrubbers,
and dry precipitators. In addition to the type of dust
collection, there are generally four means of exhausting
these fumes from the electric arc furnace. These are:
1. Furnace building extracting
2. Local fume hoods
3. “Snorkel” or fourth hole extraction
4. Furnace canopy
Furnace building extraction requires that the shop openings
be sealed and the installation of exhaust hoods in the roof
trusses for exhausting the entire shop atmosphere. This air
is filtered through a baghouse collector and requires handling
of large volumes of air. Makeup air vents and heating of
the makeup air must be provided to maintain the balance of
air in the shop. A shop using this system will handle
125,000 cu ft/mm of air. The system is readily adapted to
electric furnace practice, and captures all emissions in the
building.
Local fume hoods fitted to furnace door openings, electrode
openings and junctures between the roof and furnace shell
are wi4ely used. A baghouse collector is used with this
type of exhaust system, as sufficient air is bled into the
system during fume entrapment to reduce the gas temperature
to acceptable levels. These systems are not effective when
hinged roof charging is used.
The third type “snorkel or fourth hole,” keeps the furnace
under negative pressure by withdrawing the furnace atmosphere.
This prevents fumes from leaking through furnace openings.
The extraction hole or “snorkel” must be refractory—lined
and water cooled, as the gases will be about 1,345°C (2, 500°F).
A gap in the pipe immediately behind the snorkel permits a
23
-------
DRAFT
large infiltration of air that enables the combustion of
gases to take place. It also enables furnace roof movement
caused by charging, pouring, and slagging operations to
proceed without special sophisticated arrangements between
the furnace roof and the exhaust system. Both exhaust
systems can be used with all three types of dust collectors.
If a baghouse is used, a spray chamber is added to the gas
cleaning system to condition the gas temperature to 135°C
(275°F) and to eliminate any sparks to the baghouse.
If precipitators are used, a spark box is placed in the
system to condition gases to 130°C (260°F) before entry into
the precipitator. The spray chamber, spark box, and quenchers
may discharge a water effluent.
When the steel from any of the electric furnaces is tapped
(poured) into the ladles, it is quickly transported to the
pouring area where it is either poured into molds, or into
several smaller ladles for more effective pouring. Some
ladle additions are made at this point to adjust the final
chemistry of the steel and to stop the oxidation.
More specific details of the electric arc furnace operation
are presented on Figures 6, 7, and 8.
Induction Furnaces
The induction furnace is generally used in producing special
alloy iron and steel. In this type of furnace, a crucible
is surrounded by the coils of a current conveying metal. An
alternating current in this coil induces eddy currents in
the metal that has been charged into the crucible. These
currents cause heating of the charged metal.
This type of furnace provides good furnace atmosphere control,
since no fuel is introduced into the crucible. As long as
clean materials such as castings and clean metal scrap are
used, no air pollution control equipment is necessary. If
contaminated scrap is charged or magnesium is added to
manufacture ductile iron, canopy type hoods are required.
There are no aqueous discharges from this type of furnace.
Noncontact cooling water is used to keep furnace equipment
at tolerable temperatures.
Reverbatory Furnace
A reverbatory furnace operates by radiating heat from the
burner flame, roof, and walls onto the material to be heated.
This type of furnace was developed particularly for melting
24
-------
U i
-------
0 1
-------
. • * %
—
— .aat• r-—
.
— aa,
a r.a m. t U.3’ at at4 /.t
-
wLaAiA* Ij L L.
— t I. SWS. li • *P1 441 (a, ...Iat p—ø * w
.s . — sat .—Ya,- ’4 * P t •
*pat
(_ss_1, t s 7
— , 4 .4 (tI4 *.T N 4d
I — —. S*/.4 i.i4 (1*. • ‘4 — )
na W- ’ fl
4 ? P to . 10
M t. . 10044 0 - %
4 -1
I, I
I -
4J CP 10 -
•) (W/?* aO
* P1*. . -p4/i4 (*.‘I WU)
4rra 410tD StI
(•l )
s 0.4/44
44/I’
I,
S
-------
DRAFT
solids and for refining and heating the resulting liquids.
It is generally one of the least expensive methods of melting
since the flames come into direct contact with the solids
and molten metal.
A reverbatory furnace usually consists of a shallow, refractory—
lined hearth for holding the charjed metal. It is enclosed
by vertical side and end walls, and covered with a low
arched roof of refractories. Combustion of fuel occurs
directly above the charge and the molten bath. The walls
and roof receive heat from the flame and combustion products
and re—radiate heat to the molten bath. Transfer of heat
occurs almost solely by radiation.
There are many shapes of reverbatory furnaces; most common
type is the open hearth style used in steel manufacture.
However, the cost of pollution control equipment, as well as
inefficiencies in handling the metal, have caused this type
of furnace to be obsolete. Very few are still in use, and
these are being phased out of production due to costs. No
reverbatory furnaces were included in this study as none
were found that produced a water stream as part of the
furnace process.
MOLDING OPERATIONS
The second major area of foundry operation is the preparation
of molds. This operation has three subprocesses:
1. Sand Storage and Preparation
2. Mold Making
3. Core Making
A general rule of thumb in foundry operation is that it
takes 8 lbs of sand to make 1 lb of casting. Thus a foundry
producing 20 tons/day must have facilities to store, prepare
and move 160 tons/day of molding sand. Generally, this
calls for large storage silos or bins with bulk handling
conveyors, screws, feeders, etc., for efficient handling.
It may be noted on the process flow diagram (Figure 2) that
the sand moves from storage to mullers where it is wetted
and mixed with binders that impart sufficient strength to
permit packing the sand to a firm media for molding. The
binders consist of various natural and synthetic materials
that will add strength to the sand and not detract from its
moldability.
28
-------
DRAFT
Sand is carefully chosen for its grain size, shape, reliability
of supply, and cost. Sand preparation consists of mechanically
mixing the binders selected with the sand so that the sand
grains are coated with a thin layer of binder. It is usually
wetted with a small amount of water (3-5% moisture) to
improve its moldability and green strength. The prepared
sand is delivered to the mold maker who packs it around a
pattern to form one-half of the final cavity for. the metal.
This is performed by having the half pattern mounted on a
board. The pattern is then surrounded by a four—sided
“flask” that is open on top and bottom. Sand is packed
around the pattern and then rammed, vibrated or jolted to
compact it to a uniform density. The packed flask is now
inverted (rolled over) and the pattern is withdrawn from the
sand leaving a cavity. This represents one—half of the
final cavity.
The other half of the final cavity is formed in a similar
manner and the two parts are fitted together by means of
alignment pins to form a complete cavity.
Many castings require a cavity within the metal object.
This is obtained by placing a “core” in the half cavity
before joining it with the other half.
“Cores” are also made of sand. They usually are made with a
stronger binder, as they are subjected to more heat and
erosive metal flow than the main cavity. The sand preparation
is similar to that of molding sand, and the cores are
formed in a bi-parting box of wood or metal. Depending on
the type of binder used, cores may require some type of
curing before use to. obtain the strengths necessary.
The bottom half of the mold is called a “drag” and the top
is called a “cope.” Before they are joined together, they
are inspected and the core or cores are set in their proper
place. After joining, they are held together by clamps on
the flasks and weights on the cope. The metal entry hole
(sprue) is in the cope half, and may be reinforced with a
“sprue cup” to absorb the erosive effects of the poured
metal striking the sprue.
The mold is now ready for pouring. It is transported (if
not too large) to a pouring area where the molten metal will
be poured into, the sprue. In some cases where economics
warrant, the sand mold can be replaced by a permanent mold.
These molds are made of iron or steel. They must be capable
of sustaining the heat cycle required in this service.
29
-------
DRAFT
CLEANING OPERATIONS
After metal is poured into the molds, .a period of time is
necessary for the metal to cool and solidify. During this
time, the metal cools from about 1,540°C (2,800°F) to 770°C
(1,400°F). The binders in the molding sand have become
heated and brittle and have lost their strength.
The casting is dumped onto a metal çrating of heavy construction.
This grating is vibrated and vigorously shakes the mold and
casting causing the sand to fall away from the metal.
Usually 95% of the sand falls from the casting in the “shakeout”
operation.
This sand is returned to the storage area via a sand conveyor
and usually through a sand reclaim operation. The reclamation
can be wet or dry and will tend to cool the sand, screen out
lumps, metal particles, core rods, nails, chills, etc.
SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
In a wet reclamation system, the sand is washed by high
pressure water jets, and then sent through a classifier
where fines, and spent binder particles are removed. The
cleaned sand is dried and returned to the sand storage area
for reuse.
One of the major methods of sand reclaiming is by washing
the sand in water. There are many variations of this process,
all of which include the following steps.
1. Reduce sand to grain size.
2. Thoroughly wet the grains.
3. Agitate wet sand mix to rub the grains together and
remove the spent binder.
4. Separate the sand from the dirty water.
5. Dry the sand.
While these steps have been combined many ways using various
pieces of equipment, three general systems can be identified.
These are:
1. Crusher to agitator tank to dewater to dryer.
2. Water jet to slurry classifier to dewater to dryer.
3. Oversize screenings to slurry mixer to déwater to dryer.
In each of these systems the critical steps are agitation of
the wet sand, and separation of th sand from the dirty
water.
30
-------
DRAFT
After separation, the sand is dried either naturally, or by
a forced heat dryer. The sand is then sent to storage for
reuse.
The development of the “no bake” and use of other special
chemicals may force operators to replace wet reclaim systems
with dry systems.
In a dry reclaimer, the sand is tumbled in an air stream to
remove the fines and spent binder by air separation. The
cleaned sand is then returned to storage.
After “shakeout,” the casting is transported to an area
where the heads and gates are removed. A “head” is a relatively
large volume of metal projecting above the normal height of
the casting. It is needed to assure adequate flow of metal
to all parts of the casting as it cools and contracts. This
liquid metal under a static head will supply areas subject
to shrinkage and severe contracting stresses.
The gates and the runners are the passages needed to supply
all parts of the casting with hot metal during pouring.
These are no longer needed when the casting is cooled. The
heads and gates are broken or cut from the final casting and
returned for reprocessing as scrap. Heads and gates may be
50% of the metal poured.
The casting is moved to other cleaning stations where a
thorough cleaning is performed. This can include shot
blasting, sand blasting, grinding, chipping, crack or flaw
repair by welding, chemical cleaning, etc., depending on the
final requirements of the product. The potential for wastewater
contaminants from these operations is small. Dust collectors
may have water sprays to remove the particulates from the
air.
HEAT TREATMENT
Castings have been processed from the pouring station through
cleaning with very little regard to final physical properties.
The grain structure developed in the general cooling process
may vary widely. To develop proper grain structure and the
resulting physical properties, it may be necessary to heat
treat the castings. This heat treating is accomplished in
ovens that are programmed to give the correct thermal treatment
to the metal. After the heat cycle, it may be necessary to
quench the castings by means of a water or oil bath.
The heat from this quench operation can be rejected via air
cooling towers, or heat exchangers with noncontact cooling
31
-------
DRAFT
water. The quench fluid is only a heat transfer medium. It
does not require quality water. Quench tanks occasionally
contain b].owdown systems, but usually are used until the
water is very turbid with suspended particles and then they
are drained.
FOUNDRY EMISSION CONTROL
Various methods have been utilized to control the emissions
from the foundry operations. These are:
1. Filtration or “Baghouse”
2. Electro-Static Precipitation
3. Semi—Wet (refinements to 1 & 2)
4. Wet Scrubbers
a. Washing Cooler
b. WetCap
5. High Energy Venturi Scrubbers
6. Mechanical Centrifugal Scrubbers
7. Cyclone Scrubber
8. Orifice Type Scrubbers
This study will discuss only those methods that use water., in
contact with the process materials (noncontact cooling water
is excluded).
Generally, two problems are associated with foundry emissions.
These are:
1. Particulate Matter
2. Gases
The particulate matter, or “dusts,” can amount to 10 kg/kkg
(20 lb/ton) of product, and depend largely on the type of
charged material.
The amount and composition of gases is a function of the
type of fuel, the fuel-air ratio, and the material charged.
For a coke ratio of 7—1/2:1, the carbon monoxide will
approximate 140 kg/kkg (275 lb/ton) of iron melted in a
cupola furnace. If galvanized scrap metal is charged, zinc
oxides can be expected, etc.
The hot furnace gases contain a sizeable amount of sensible
and latent heat. This heat is often reclaimed by igniting
the CO and burning to C02, and then using these hot gases to
preheat the blast air by means of a recuperator. After the
heat is reclaimed, the gases are either scrubbed and/or
filtered and released. (See Figures 3 and 5)
32
-------
DRAFT
Filtration
The collection of particulate matter is achieved by entrapment
of the particles in the fabric of a filter cloth that is
placed across a flowing gas stream. These dust particles
are removed from the cloth by shaking or back flushing the
fabric with air.
Filtration does not remove gases from the furnace di charge
gas stream. These gases are: CO, phenol, C02, HC1, H2,
112S, N2, NH3, and H20. Their quantities depend on type of
fuel, furnace efficrency, and infiltration of air into the
gas stream.
Filtering methods have been developed to a high degree of
efficiency (97—99% removal of particulate matter). These
methods coupled with recuperation of heat and ignition of
the combustible gases have received considerable .attention
from industry and are useful processes.
Electric furnaces will have fewer gases than fossil fuel
furnaces, since no gases are used in the heating process.
Semi-Wet ystem
In many filter applications, the gases are very hot. If
they entered the filter chamber, they would ignite the
filter cloth. In order to cool these gases, they are first
sent through a spray chamber where they are sprayed with
water. This chamber usually is arranged to provide a sharp
reversal in. the gas stream direction and a sudden reduction
in flow veloôity. These features coupled with a cooling
effect achieved by the evaporation of sufficient water
causes the larger dust particles to be deposi1 ed on the
chamber floor. The gas then flows to the filter chamber.
The dust that is deposited is removed periodically.
Wet Systems
Washing Coolers . Several general designs of washing coolers
are used. All use some method to secure a long retention
time to keep the gases in contact with the scrubbing liquor.
In general, they consist of a large cylindrical vessel with
the gases entering tangentially at the bottom and exiting
through the top center. Several levels of sprays bring the
liquor into contact with the rising gases. The bottom is
usually conical with a large pipe outlet to return the dirty
liquor to a settling area.
33
-------
DRAFT
Some washers were built with internal fittings to give
countercurrent exposure of gases and cleaning liquor. These
tend to require considerable maintenance to keep the internal
fittings clean and flowing. Other washers are designed
without internal fittings and use spray nozzles at the
periphery at several levels to inject the sprayed liquor
into the gas stream.
Another type known as he bulk bed washer contains water
sprayed gravel beds. The dusty gas enters in a downward or
tangential direction and •has a preliminary dust removal by
inertia. The gases then flow upward through a wetted
gravel bed. At the upper si irface of this bed, the gas
velocity causes a turbulent water zone that brings the
finest dust particles into contact with the water. The
water is sprayed in above this filter bed and continually
washes it and is removed at the bottom as sludge. Above the
spray heads is a droplet catcher that removes the droplets
from the rising gas stream. This method requires approximately
10 in. w.c. of pressure drop and is not effective on particles
smaller than 1 micron.
Wet Cap . The “wet cap” method is an early attempt to reduce
the particulate emissions by passing the waste gases through
a water stream or water curtain. This method operated with
a low pressure drop could be added to existing cupolas with
only minor changes to equipment and operations. The results
achieved are only 80% effective at best.
Venturi Scrubber . This scrubber consists primarily of a
venturi Eube fitted with spray nozzles at the throat. The
dust—laden gases flow axially into the throat where they are
accelerated to 200 ft/sec. Water is sprayed into this
throat by a ring of nozzles. This produces a dense mist—
like water curtain. The water droplets of this curtain
combine with the dust particles. In the subsequent diffuser,
the velocity is reduced and inertia is used to separate the
droplet and the gas stream.
Venturi scrubbers require 15-100 in. w.c. of pressure drop
of the gas stream. They are very effective on particulate
matter in the 1 micron range and readily adsorb many furnace
gases in their water streams.
Mechanical-Centrifugal . A spray of water at the inlet to a
fan becomes a mechanical—centrifugal collector. The collection
efficiency is enhanced by the entrapment of dusts on the
droplet surface, and impingement of the droplets on the
rotating blades. The spray also flushes the blades of the
collected dusts. This spray will substantially increase
corrosion and wear on the fan.
34
-------
bRA, FT
Cyclone Scrubbers . This type of dust collector ranges from
the simple dry cyclone with spray nozzles to special multi-
stage scrubbers with elaborate internal devices to promote
counter flow contact. All feature a tangential entry to a
cylindrical body. Attempts are made to increase exposure
time of the water sprays with the gas stream. Since centrifugal
force is the ‘main separating mechanism, velocity increases
improve the efficiency.
Orifice Scrubber . Orifice scrubbers use the velocity of the
gas stream to provIde gas/liquid contact. The air flows
through a series of restricted pas ages that are partially
submerged in water. This causes dispersion of the water
with resulting wetting of the dust particles. The particles
are then collected by inertial separation or contact with a
wetted wall. The quantity of water in motion in the dust
stream is large, and the water is recirculated without
pumps.
RATIONALE FOR CATEGORIZATION - FACTORS CONSIDERED
With respect to identifying any relevant, discrete categories
for the foundry industry, the following factors were considered
in determining industry subcategories for the purpose of the
application of effluent limitation guidelines and standards
of performance:
1. Manufacturing processes
2. Products
3. Wastewater constituents
4. Gas cleaning equipment
5. Waste treatability
6. Age and size
7. Land availability
8. Aqueous waste loads
9. Process water usage
After consideration of all these factors, it was concluded
that the foundry industry is comprised of separate and
distinct processes with enough variability in product and
waste to require categorizing into more than one unit operation.
The individual processes, products, and the wastewater
constituents comprise the most significant factors in the
categorization of this industry. Process descriptions are
provided in this section of the report delineating the
detailed processes along with their products and sources of
wastewaters. The use of various gas cleaning equipment in
the melting and molding subcategories, warrants the need for
process subcategorization. Gas cleaning is also discussed
under process descriptions. Waste treatability in itself is
35
-------
DRA FT
of such magnitude that in some industries, categorization
might be based strictly on the waste treatment process.
However, with the categorization based primarily on the
process with its products and wastes, it is more reasonable
to treat each process waste treatment system under the
individual category or subcategory. Waste treatability is
discussed at length under Section VII, Control and Treatment
Technology. Size and age of the plants has no direct bearing
on the categorization. The processes and treatment systems
are similar regardless of the age and size of the plant.
•Table 2 provides, in addition to the plant size, the geographic
location of the plant along with the age of the plant and
the treatment plant. Table 3 shows the range of production
capacity of the plants visited during the study period. It
was rather imperative that plants of varying sizes be studied.
It can be noted that neither the wastes nor the treatment
will vary in respect to the age or size factor. The afore-
mentioned tables should be tied back to the discussion in
Sections VII and VIII, related to raw waste loads, treatment
systems and plant effluents. Therefore, age and size in
itself would not substantiate industry categorization.
The number and type of pollutant parameters of significance
varies with the operation being conducted and the raw
materials used. The waste volumes and waste loads also vary
with the operation. In order to prepare effluent limitation
that would adequately reflect these variations in significant
parameters and waste volumes the industry was subcategorized
primarily along operational lines with permutations where
necessary, as indicated in Table 4.
SELECTION OF CANDIDATE PLANTS FOR VISITS
A survey of existing treatment facilities and t heir performance
was undertaken to develop a list of best plants for consideration
for plant visits. Information was obtained from:
1. The Study Contractor’s Personnel
2. State Environmental Agencies
3. EPA Personnel
4. Personal Contact
5. Literature Search
6. Trade Associations
Personal experiences and contacts provided information
required to assess plant processes and treatment technology.
Although an extensive literature search was conducted, the
infdrmation was generally sketchy and could not be relied
upon solely without further investigation.
36
-------
TA3LZ 2
PLANT AG A D SXZE
Molding and
0 A I L ‘1 Metal Poured Cleaning Dust Sand
P R 0 D U C T I 0 N When Sampled P1a t Age Treatment Sys. Melting Collection Washing Multiple
Location KXg/D Tons/D Ton/D Yr. Suilt Yr. Installed Operations Operations Operations 2 tions
W—2 Middle Atlantic 360 400 458 1921—67 1973 X X X X
WW—2 Midwest 175 192 352 1925-65 1963—65 X X
XX—2 Great Lakes 83 92.5 93 1920—71 1972 X
XX-2A Great Lakes 162 180 193 1967 1971 X X
xX—28 Great Lakes 63 70 86 1969 1973 X
YY—2 Midwsst 150 170 185 1911—69 1970 X X X
AAA —2 Midwest 594 660 819 1971 1971 x x
MA-Pt Midwest 656 729 842 1921—65 1965 x x
AAA—28 Midwest 452 503 459 1973 1973 x x
BBB-2 Middle Atlantic 8 9 9 1917—72 1974 X
ZZ—2 Great Lakes 76 85 185 1925—56 1958 x x x
H3U4—2 Great Lakes 117 130 196 1955—65 1973 x
HXH—2A Great Lakes 130 143 217 1968—73 1973 X X
M}LH—2B Great Lakes 81 90 136 1969—74 1973 X
GGG—2 New England 36 40 40 1839—71 1971 X
CCC—2 Middle Atlantic 27 30 25 194 1974 x x
EEE—2 Middle Atiant c 58 65 74 1952 1972 X
FFF—2 Middle Atlantic 31 35 35 1922—46 1947 X
DDD—2 Great Lakes 9 10 14 1946 1971 X X
-------
TABLE
PLANT
R4 JGE OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY 5AMPLED c’TONS/MONT ) L O.QO /
LIppT/M
AAA-2 13200
AAA-2A t4 OO
AAA-25 ic eoo
xx-2 1840
XX-ZA oo
XX-ZB 1400
YV-2 18000
WW-2 7000
cc YYZ 3200
Z2 1700
189
FFF-Z 700
CCC-2 1300
000-2 200
EE-Z 300
GGG-2 560
4000
1
1-4 1-U4-2A 4300
__ >
I lHH-26 2700
-1
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 4
SUBCATEGORIZATION OF THE
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
I. Melting Operations
II. Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
III. Sand Washing Operations
IV. Multiple Operations
39
-------
DRAFT
Upon completion of this plant survey, the findings were
compiled and preliminary candidate lists were prepared on
those plants that were consideredby mOre than one source to
be providing the best waste treatment in one or more subcategory.
These lists were submitted to the EPA by the study contractor
for concurrence on sites to be visited. The rationale for
plant selections is presented in Table 5. In several instances,
changes had to be made because of the non-availability of
the plant. Table 6 presents a summary of the requirements
for the study.
40
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARXS
Cupola All dry systems
400 T/M
Cupola Wet dust collector on sand Landfill dry dusts to city
750 T/M system.
2 t’lectric All dry systems
fuiii.t*t’s
1 • t .) T/M
Cupola V nLuri scrubber, slag quench
300 TIM md wet dust collectors, dis—
charge to city sewer.
6000T/M Venturi scrubber drains to
Cupola large pond. Settling — re-
cycle. No treatment.
41
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DR-
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Cupola Exhaust cupola to baghouse.
400 T/M All systems dry.
2 arc furnace. All dry systems.
250 T/t1
250 T/M All dry systems.
Electric
furnace
500 TIM Venturi scrubber on cupola
Cupola exhaust. Recycle, pH control—
discharge to city sewer.
6000 T/M High energy Venturi scrubber.,
Cupola Discharge to settling pond,
overflow to holding pond,
1 c cyc led.
(1) W i t ‘r 9uc ’nch ‘i ’d nk
(2) () it Quench Tank
SJ)1 lid je to flkli fl set t linq pund
to holding pond. Water recyclC’
42
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
1 (cQT) arc All dry systems.
furnace
550 T/M
Electric All.dry systems.
furnace
500 T/M
1—30 ton basi’ Sand scrubbing system to clan Wastewater — discharge
arc furnace fiers. Chemical treatment. clarifier. Recycle overflow.
5500 T/M Recycle, solids to landfill. Underf low to storm sewer.
Several unit dust collector
feed to central system.
Cupola Venturi scrubber discharge
500 T/M to city sewer.
2 arc All dry systems.
furnaces
600 T/M
43
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
1—10 ton acid No water discharge
electric
furnace
400T/M
Electric All dry systems.
furnace
channel mdi —
ca to r
750 T/M
Electric 2 wet dust collectors. Zero
furnace discharge. Recycle.
750 T/M
2 arc furnaces No treatment- 1 — quench tank, 2250 gal
4 induction overflow
furnaces 1 — LPI booth
Vacuum degasse:
650 T/M
Electric arc Al ] dry systems
furnace -
600 T/M
Cupola M 1 dry syst:ems
ik OOT/M
44
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Electric arc No systems Furnace dry baghouse
and induction (2) wet dust coil. —
furnace 0 discharge
1,000 to No sand scrubbing, quenching
12,000 lbs
900T/M
650 T/M Venturi scrubber to drag tank
Cupola to settling tank - NaOH added
for pH control 600 gpm makeup.
Zero discharge.
220T/M Wet scrubber on cupola — uses 38 + 6 employees
0/F cooling from A/cornp. plus
fresti. Recycles — adds dry
caustic for p11 control. Dis—
charqos after day’s run — 400
g/d — to settling pond. Water
percolates into soil. No other
discharge
1000 T/M Venturi scrubber — drag tank -
recycle drain system once a
week.
Cupola Venturi scrubber on cupola not
in compliance with local codes
EagIi u ;e on dust call. No sand
scrnhbi nq
45
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
1—6 ton basic All dry systems
electric
furnace
385T/M
2 basic elec. All dry systems
furnaces
2500T/M
2 arc furnaces All, dry systems
1 () T/ri
El r i c arc Al] dry systems
I UFIIdC(.
‘1 20()T/M
8800 T/M Closed loop on cooling sys-
tems. Wet dust collectors.
Cupola Radiant burners and heat
600T/M exchange to baghouse. Dry
systems.
1 — 35 ton arc i—wet hati t t:o baghouse.
furnace I u ; t. I lectors and sand crub
7000 T/M her Lu ;cttlincj tank. Add
cheinicitl s — recycle—blowdowl to river.
46
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
Cupola - wet tcrubber on
J.)S discharge
Wastewater — discharge to
settling basin, ad soda ash—
discharge (underf low) to creek
recycle overflow
Wet scrubber to drag chain,
recycle. Non—contact water
to cooling tower.
Venturi scrubbers to primary
sett]ing tank and/or lagoon.
Recyc]o — zero discharge.
Efflueiit to crer k. Reported
good by industry representa-
tive.
Large modern production
foundries with qood treatmen
facilities.
Once-thru system with solids
settlement.
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
No treatment system
200 T/M
cupola
DDD-2
Arc furnace
500 T/M
Cupolas
30,000 T/M
S pJ ants
111111—2
l111l1—2a
111111—25
Cupola
200 T/M
2—25 ton
arc furnaces
10,000 T/M
Exhaust to baghouse — no
water used.
Gas cleaning — venturi
scrubbers, solids settlement,
once—thru system.
47
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
3 duplex Central GM Foundry production
cupolas complex. Has central water sys
tern that mixes from other
industrial processes.
Electric
furnace 2 wet dust collectors —
850 T/M recycle.
Direct arc All dry system No water discharge. Closed
furnace loop on non—contact cooling
760T/M and Iizd sys.
2000T/M (est..) 2 cupolas with high energy Reported as good by industry
2 cupolas scrubber. Treatment — to representative
mixing tank add lime; to
lagoon, to cooling lagoon to
pump pond. Contains some
carbon lampblack
4000T/M No wet systems Oil’s closed down.. Steel
OH & Arc Furti. open only
48
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
4 md. furnace All, dry systems Plans future cupola with
350 T/M water loop. All cooling
water is reáir. and Bd to
city sewers. Sand reclaim
and dust coll. dry.
2 arc furnaces No wet systems Non—contact cooling only all
600 T/M baghouse on dust coil, fee.
and sand mixing etc.
650 TIM Venturi scrubber - recycle
Cupola with p11 control. Zero dis-
charge.
1—5 ton acid No wet systems
electric
furnace
225 T/M
49
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
4000 TIM Discharge from Venturi to cy— Treated discharge to city
clones, overflow recycled; sanitary sewers.
cupo a underflow to settling tank.
YY—2 Overflow to city sanitary
sewer, underf1o z to landfill.
1600 T/M Dust collection system and System not stabilized.
cupola sand scrubber are wet systems. -
Uses polymer for settling —
pU treatment.
New venturi Settling in drag tank. Re—
scrubber cycle - blowdown di ily.
2-9 ft arc 1 gpin blowdown to city sewer Baghouse on furnace
furnaces (1) wet dust collection
1600 T/M blowdown to sanitary
sewer
Electric All dry systems
fur tiace
600 T/M
50
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
W2\STEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
50() TIM All dry systems.
C upo 1 a
13,000 T/M Water spray into cyclone for Semi—wet electric arc
gray iron dust entrapment and gas cool— furnace system. No dis—
electric arc jug. Gas to baghouse. Waste charge.
water to settling pond.
W iiLew iter from dust col—
I ctors — to e1t] i fl(J pond,
&:l.irit: icr . and vacuum ii.I.t:cr.
Soiid to land fill., rt cyc1.e
wj tei .
4 cupolas Large sand washing systems Older i;lant with good
14,000 TIM water used once thru and then facilities.
A A—2A to lagoon. Dust collectors
(12) recycle & blowdown to
1 agoo n.
4 electric ar Extensive dust collection New-plant with good
furnaces system used thru foundry w/we facilities.
10,000 T/M collectors discharging to a
AAA--2b central treatment system.
Cupola All dry systems
600 T/M
Electric No wet equipment (had a
furnace sand scrubber).
51
-------
TABLE 5
R .TIONALE FOR PLA.NT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
200 T/M Baqhouse (semi—wet) slag
4 — cupola quench, recycle water, over-
flow to city sewer — drag tan}
slag to landfill. No water
treatment.
Cupola Slag quench system to lagoon.
Electric Recycle pH control & inhibitoi
furnace
1050 T/M
700 TIM No wet discharges
3—30 ton in—
duc ti.on
furnaceS
2 arc furnaces No treatment systems Non-contact cooling is re—
7 induction cycled thru CT — 0 discharge
furnaces No wet dust collection
500 T/M Quench ;ystem — recycled
thru CT.
4 arc furnaces No treatment systems
5 induction (1) wet scrubber
furnaces
1700 T/M
Electric arc 1 1l dry systems
furnaces
52
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLA.NT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PPOLMJCTION.
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
85 T/M Cupola - all dry — no water 40 employees
discharges. Dry dust col—
lecto r.
3 arc furnaces All dry systems
2000 T/M
1 arc furnace All dry systems. Quench tanks
3 induction 0/F to river
furnaces
360 TIM
Cupola Venturi scrubber being in—
800 T/M stalled. Operating late in 75
Electric All dry systems.
furnace -
500 TIM
Cupola Ilydro—tilter systcm. p11 & poly
800 T/M drag tank - ov f1ów to city s orm sewer.
53
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
.
RE 4ARXS
750 T/M Venturi purchased. 9/75
Cupola installation.
Cupola Venturi scrubber (2) wet Autoinative and engineered
3500 T/M dust collectors. Recycle — castings
add NaOH to control pH
Cupola Venturi scrubber primary
600 T/M settling, blowdown pH control
only
Cupola All dry systems.
550 T/M
1 electric arc Use spray towers for heat New 300,000 ft 2 plant.
furnace rejection. 5 wet dust col— Plant not in full production.
3 induction lectors to central lagoon for
furnaces settling. No treatment
54
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
— -
— WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Cupola Exhaust to baghouse. (1) wet
1000 T/M dust collector.
Closing foundry
Induction No wet systems
furnaces -
425 T/M
Cupola Quench chamber (semi—wet) on
3300 TIM cupola. 4 wet dust co1lector
WW—2 discharge to city sanitary
sewer.. Slag quench to city
sower.
55
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
bRA FT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS —
1400 T/M Recirculate non—contact cool—
Coreless md. ing water. 1 wet dust col-
lector. Add chemical coagular
drag solids, recycle.
Cupola All dry systems.
800 T/M
Electric arc N.c. cooling water recycled. Citation on environmental
furnace improvement. No wet systems
1500 T/M All dry systems.
56
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Electric fur- No treatment system Old sand scrubber
ziace
2850 T/M
70 T/M Wet cap on cupola — recycle - 50 employees
no chemical. Fly ash to road
fill. Zero discharge — no wet
dust collectors. Less than
5T/hr. cupola.
4—40 ton Two dust collecting systems. Use polymers for treatment.
induction Discharge to pond, add poly-
furnaces m r, recycle to collector.
Solids dewatered then to land-
fill.
1 induction Water from dust collector Wet collection on pouring
furnace to drag tank, add alum and line and “shakeout”.
1 wet dust polymer. Drag chain sludge
collector to landfill. Recycle water.
120 T/M
57
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILIT] ES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Foundry & Dust col1ector and wet $64mm expansion
machine shop scrubber to lagoon then to “Rotoclone” dust collector
river. Plans to install re-
cycle loop.
Electric All dry systems.
furnace
500 TIM
1000 T/M No response.
Cupola Cupola with hydrofilter drains
1350 T/M to sump — drag tank solids to
landfill. Recycle water from
air compressors as makeup over
f low 11 gpm to city sewer.
58
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
bRAFT
PRODUCTION.
FACILITI ES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Cupola Wet scrubber or cupola 1 to 50, employees
90 TIM 1—1/4 hrs/day operation. Dis-
charge to sewer. No other
discharges
Cupola to be Have washers on cupola. Going
replaced by to electric furnaces and bag-
electric house. 14 wet dust collectors
furnace add polymers before 5 clan—
fiers. Recycle.
Cupola Venturi scrubber to drag tan)c.
700 T/M Recycle with blowdown to pond
and overflow to stream.
3 arc furnaces No wet systems No water except NC cooling
225 T/M
2 arc furnaces All dry
5 induction
furnaces
800 TIM
59
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRA FT
Cupola exhaust system to
spark box and baghouse.
Wastewater - dust collector
with washer — sand reclaim
system thru classifier — re—
C ’C Ic iiiii blowdown to lagOOnS
Slag quench to lagoons.
No aqueous discharge from
spray chamber.
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
No response.
All dry
All d4 y systems
Venturi scrubber recycle —
blowdown to city sewer
All dry systems
No water discharges —
sand scrubber is air type
baghouse on furnace
600 T/M
1—2 ton acid
electric
furnace
450 T/M
Cupola
300 T/M
Cupola
40 T/M
BBB—2
Cupola
250 T/M
18,000 T/M
Pipe (Centfi)
Shell Mold
W— 2
60
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
1—3 ton acid
electric fur-
nace
l—(1—]/2) ton
acid electric
furnace
630 T/M
400 T/M
3 electric arc
furnaces
1 00 T/M
ZZ- 2
1—9 ton acid
electric fur-
nace
1-18 ton acid
electric fur—i
nace
2400 T/M
Cupola
- 700 TIM
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
All dy systems.
All dry
No response
3 wet dust collectors, sand
washing system, wastewater
treatment and recycle system.
All dry systems
Complete recycle system
No water discharges from
foundry.
61
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION.
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
500 T/M No response
750 T/M No response
No response
(1) 1—1/2 ton Z&ro discharge from wet Non-contact cooling water
basic electric dust collectors only. Sand scrubber — air
furnace type. 4 wet dust collectors
1—2 ton acid with 0 discharge.
electric fur-
nace
1000 T/M
electric Baghouse. No wet discharges.
furnaces
500 T/M
62
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Induction Use cooling tower for heat
furnaces rejection
2400 T/M 1 wet dust collector. No
sand reclaim
cupola Venturi scrubber—to pond
1785 T/M chemicals added. Recirculate
500 gpm system antiquated.
4 wet.dust collectors — drag
sludge 0/F to Fox River to
land fill. Sand scrubber not
run.
2 electric arc All dry systems Plant closed 1972.
furnaces
800 T/M
63
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
5 electric No waste treatment systems. Non—contact cooling from
furnaces cistern. All dry baghouse
4500 T/M on furnace and dust system.
Dry sand reclaim. Quench
tank recycle to cooling
cistern.
8500 P/N High energy scrubber on
cupola cupola. Wastewater — closed
XX—2 system — discharge to settlin(
XX—2A b3sin — drag chain solids
XX2B removal — makeup and lime
treatment — recycle
900 T/M No response
Electric Recirculate cooling water. 38 employees
furnace No discharge, no wet dust
induction cc] lector.
110 T/M
64
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION.
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
700 T/M No response
2 arc furnaces Sand scrubber and wet dust Baghouse on furnace
2 induction collector into central system
furnaces settling tank and pumps to
840 T/M landfill - quench system —
CT closed cycle
Cupola Exhausts to baghouse. No
3 electric dquec us discharges.
f a ru i ces
720 T/M
125 T/M No response
2 arc furnaces All dry systems. Non-contact cooling water
5 induction overflow to city storm
furnaces sewer.
400 T/M
65
-------
DRAB
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWPATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
• 700 T/M No response
450 T/M All dry systems.
200 TIM All d y systems
2—25 ton basic All dry systems Open hearth furnaces
open hr. fur— closed due to lack of air
nace pollution equipment
1—35 ton basic
open hr. furn.
2—45 ton basic
open hr. furn.
1—30 ton basic
electric arc
furnace
6000 T/M
66
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT -
REMARKS
High energy Venturi water to settlement Complete recycle. No
scrubber pond - pH control (NaOH) aqueous discharge.
700 T/M cupola recycle
9 electric All dry No wet equipment
induction fur-
naces
600 T/M
Induction All dry systems
furnace
1 cupola Venturi scrubber and complex Medium size foundry with
11.00 T/M troatment system - zero zero discharge.
EEE—2 discharge
High energy Venturi
25,000 T/M Wet scrubbers, discharge to
lagoon and then to river.
Dust collectors to lagoon alsc
No rc’sponse
67
-------
- TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION.
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
2—10 ton No wet discharges
electric arc
furnaces
1800 T/M
8 electric All dry systems No wet systems — all bag—
furnaces house
1500 T/M
1 cupola Afterburner on cupola — to 24 employees
55 T/M cyclone & baghouse. No wet
discharge. 1 gpm cooling
water on A/comp.
600 TIM Venturi scrubber. Recycle — Recoffimended by state EPA
GGG—2 zero discharge.
Cupola — hot Semi-wet system. Zero dis-
molding & charge. All dry to baghouse.
cleaning
68
-------
TABLE 5 DRAFT
:1 TI0NAIaE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
150 T/M All dry systems New foundry
500 T/M All dry systems New equipment
Electric Baghouse - wet sand reclaim Sand reclaim to 3 part
furnace settling sump discharge to
700 TIM river
FFF—2
4 Cupola — gas cleaner — Venturi Completely recycle system
scrubber no aqueous discharge
(estimated) Wastewater treatment — set—
cupola .
tling basin with thickeners
to remove solids. Dewater
solids to landfill
Cupola High energy Venturi scrubber
280 T/M add polymer and NaOH recycle
CCC-2 and blowdown - wet sand scrub-
ber — add polymer, recycle.
Cupola Cupola t xhaust to spark box
5000 P/N with ;rr ty chamber and then tc
— No Iqut ou ; dii;cIhucJ
69
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
Chatanooga, TN
Union City, CA
Bessemer, AL
Birmingham, AL
Burlington, NJ
1500 T/t4(est.)
cupola and
electric
induction
furnaces
High energy scrubber
Wastewater — discharge to
hydraulic cyclone to settling
basins to clarifier solids to
landfill - recycle
1 — wet dust collector
1 — casting quench
Considered good by state
EPA.
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Semi—wet systems at all plants-
Recycle system — solids to
landfill. No discharge.
1200 T/M
purchase
hot metal
cupola
1400 T/M
Wet cap cupola. Discharge to
settling tank and NaOH — de-
water solids — recycle
Reported as good by
industry representative
70
-------
TABLE 5
BATIONALE FOR PLANT VISIT SELECTIONS
DRAFT
PRODUCTION.
FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REMARKS
Electric Baghouse dust collectors 65 employees
furnace No other — cooling recycle —
induction some blowdown.
350 T/M
1 cupola No water process. Cupola 40 employees
70 T/M No wet dust collector, etc.
71
-------
TAELE 6
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIZATION AND SURVEY REQUIREMENTS
Nuitther of Samples Each Location
Number of Raw Waste I Treated Effluent Misc. I Intake
Subcategory Locations Surveyed L Composite Samples Grab
I. Melting Operations 9 3 3 3 1
II. Molding and Cleaning
Dust Collection
Operations 7 2 2 2 1
III. Sand Washing
Operations 3 2 2 2 1
IV. Multiple Operations 5 6 3 4 1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
GENERAL
The wastewater streams for the industry are described
individually in their respective subcategories. Waste loads
were developed by actual plant sampling programs at selected
better plants on which EPA concurred. Raw waste loads are
established as net plant raw waste loads. This is further
defined as the contaminants attributable to the process of
concern. It is the total or gross process load minus the
contaminated load due to background (makeup). The basis for
plant selection was primarily on their waste treatment
practices. Therefore, further rationale for selection of
the plant sites is presented under Section VII - Control and
Treatment Technology.
The sources of water in the foundry are summarized as follows:
1. Melting operations — gas scrubbing and slag quench
2. Molding and cleaning dust collection operations - dusts
and gases picked up by wet dust collection systems
3. Sand washing operations - wet sand cleaning
MELTING OPERATIONS
Fossil Fuel
General process and water flow schematics of typical cupola
furnaces are presented on Figures 3, 4, and 5’.
The cupola has two main water systems:
1. Cupola shell cooling
2. Dust scrubber sprays
In most applications, the shell cooling is either a once-
through system that is then used as slag quench, or it is a
closed recirculating loop system through a cooling tower for
heat rejection. In either case, as shell cooling, it is
noncontact cooling water.
When used as a once—through to slag quench, it is directed
into the slag trough to chill and solidify the slag, and to
convey it to a slag quench sump. In this sump, a chain drag
73
-------
DRAFT
continuously removes the slag to a solids disposal system,
and the water -is discharged after a short term settling and
screening to remove the slag.
When a closed recirculated loop is employed, waste heat is
rejected through a cooling tower, and water conditioning
chemicals are added to permit high recycling.
The dust scrubber system may range from complete dry precipi-
tation or cloth filtration (baghouse) systems to semi-wet to
high energy venturi scrubbers. Each particular system has
advantages in relation to plant characteristics.
The dry precipitator cannot handle i. ses over 260°C (500°F),
and is usually located at consider . tance downstream
from the cupola to permit gas coolh g z £ idiation and
convection. This is also true of cloth filters. Temperatures
over 260°C (500°F) will destroy the fabric, and a bypass
damper will operate to dump fumes directly to the atmosphere
if this temperature is exceeded at the unit inlet.
In semi-wet operations, the gas stream is cooled by spraying
water into the gas stream in a “spray tower” or “quench
chamber” and causing the evaporation of the water. This
cooling action reduces gas volume and velocity. It promotes
agglomeration of particulate matter and the adsorption of
some gases. When operated properly, the water sprayed into
the gas stream is completely evaporated. This results in
zero aqueous discharge. The water leaves as steam, or as
moisture on the particulate matter that collects at the
bottom of the spray chamber or quench tower. Water used in
the gas scrubber system may be drained from slag quench or
it may be clean water from other sources.
Venturi Scrubber
The gases exit the cupola at 1,000°C (1,832°F) and are drawn
through a venturi where they are sprayed with atomized
water. The turbulence of the gas stream and the high surface
area of the spray droplets promote maximum contact. The gas
stream is rapidly cooled, and even submicron particles are
wetted. The gas stream next enters an expansion chamber
where the velocity drops and the particulate matter an I
water droplets fall from the gas streant.
This expansion chamber or “De—Mister” can be arranged for
tangential entry of the gas stream using the inertia of the
particulate to separate them from the gas, or have a sudden
directional change of the gas stream that promotes inertial
separation. The gases leave the expansion chamber at
temperatures of about 150°C (300°F).
74
-------
DRAFT
The aqueous discharge is returned to a collection sump, and
-treated to keep the suspended solids under control. This
treatment can be physical separation such as a hydraulic
cyclone, a side stream settling basin with sludge blowdown,
or chemically treated with a flocculant to promote solids
removal via a drag chain.
These discharges are typically collected in a sump along
with slag quench discharges and dust collector discharges.
A diag chain operates to remove the heavier slag particles
that settle out in this suxnp and a portion of the suspended
solids that settle. This sump is the source of the recirculation
water to the wet scrubber venturi, slag quench and De—Mister
sprays. Losses are due to evaporation, leakage and blowdown
to a final settling tank. Makeup is provided by cooling
tower blowdown, dust collector blowdown and/or clean water.
ELECTRIC FURNACE OPERATIONS
General process and water flow schematics of electric furnace,
operations are presented on Figures 6, 7, and 8.
The electric furnace has two main plant water systems:
1. Noncontact cooling water for furnace door, electrode
ring, roof ring, cable and transformer cooling water system.
2. Fume collection water system.
The noncontact furnace cooling water systems for the roof
ring, electrode ring, and door cooling is generally a once—
through system but can be a “closed recirculating” system.
The resultant aqueous discharge from these cooling systems
is heated water, generally with a temperature increase of
15—25°C (60—80°F).
The type of cooling water systems applied to the electric
arc furnace are dependent on furnace size. The type of fume
collection and hood exhaust system is not only dependent
upon capital cost but also equated on other plant characteristics
such as operating cost, plant location, availability of
resources (power and water), and available pollution abatement
facilities. The fume collection systems range from a complete
dry to semi-wet to wet high energy venturi scrubbers. Each
system has advantages in relation to plant characteristics.
The dry fume collection system consists of baghouses with
local exhaust or plant rooftop exhaust hoods. The local
hoods are located at the sources of fume generation (door,
electrode openings, etc.). Enough cooling air is drawn into
75
-------
the hoods to temper the hot gases for a baghouse operation,
to approximately 135°C. The ‘rooftop exhaust system exhausts
the entire furnace shop.
The semi—wet, system employs a spark box or spray chamber to
condition the hot gases for either a precipitator or baghouse.
A spark box is generally used with a precipitator system and
a spr ay chamber for a baghouse system. The spark box conditions
the gases to 200°C (360°F) while spray chamber conditions
gases to 135°C (275°F). A water cooled elbow is ‘used as the
exhaust ductwork and is directly connected to the electric
furnace roof. The aqueous discharge from the water. cooled
elbOw is heated cooling water. The systems are generally
once-through with temperature differential of 15-25°C (60-
80°F) in cooling waters.
The wet high energy venturi scrubber fume collection systems
use the water cooled elbow for extracting the gases from the
electric arc furnace. Combustion air gaps are always left
between the water cooled elbow and fume collection ductwork
to insure that all the CO gas burns to C02 before entering
the high energy venturi scrubber or any other fume collection
cleaning device. As the hot gases pass through the scrubber,
the gases are conditioned and cooled to approximately 85°C
(185°F).
Table 7 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads fOr melting
- operations for the plants studied.
MOLDING AND CLEANING DUST COLLECTION OPERATIONS
The second source of pollution producing operations considered
in foundries is molding operations. These include:
1. Sand storage and preparation
2. Mold and core making
3. Shakeout and casting cleaning
All of these operations are common for foundries. Typically
they produce a dust that is collected and handled through a
dry baghouse or a wet collection system. Wet dust collectors
used in foundries for mold operation dust collecting are
generally of the low energy type. These consist of a fan
providing suction for airborne dusts. These dusts are
wetted by sprays or by being drawn through submerge4 orifices,
etc., upstream of the fan entrance. The liquid provides a
collecting .and entraping medium for the dusts. The liquid
in turn is collected by impingement or inertial action and
drains to a swap or basin.
76
-------
DRAFT
The liquid in the basin is recycled directly or it drains to
a larger basin where it may be treated, to promote settling
of solids before recycling.
Casting Cleaning
Previous operations have produced a metal object formed in a
cavity in a sand media. After the molten metal has solidified,
the sand media is not needed. The sand and casting are
separated and the sand is returned for reuse. The casting
needs further processing.
The operation that separates the sand and the casting is
called “shakeout.” The mold is dumped onto a large, rugged,
metal grill work that is vigorously vibrated. This causes
the sand to fall from the casting to a collecting conveyor
beneath the vibrating bed, This method removes about 98% of
the sand from the casting. The remaining sand is very
tenacious and requires much additional attention. The
shakeout process produces considerable dust and should be
done in an area where the dust can be captured and collected.
The casting moves to a “head and gate” removal station. In
cast iron, these excess metal parts of the casting can be
broken from the product by a sharp blow. In steel castings,
abrasive saws, oxyacetylene torches, and carbon arcs are
required. Considerable fumes are produced in steel foundries
at this stage.
Castings next are shot blast cleaned. This process occurs
in a closed machine where streams of metal shot are directed
at all parts of the casting to chip away any remaining sand.
The next cleaning step is the removal of any excess or
unwanted metal. Fins caused by mismatch of mold halves,
incomplete removal of heads and gates, etc., must be ground
or chipped from the casting. Some defects in castings are
ground or chipped out, and then repaired by welding.
Each of these operations produces some dust or fume. Proper
shop atmosphere requires that these dusts and fumes be
collected and removed.
The dust collection by wet scrubbers has been covered in the
preceding section. Dust collection systems work equally
well on molding operations and cleaning operations. Most
foundries will combine operations to secure a larger more
efficient dust collector.
77
-------
DRAFT
Table 7 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the
molding and cleaning operations for the plants studied.
SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
Another source of pollution from foundrieá is generated by
wet sand cleaning operations.
Depending on economics, a foundry may clean all, part or.
none of its sand before reuse. Two methods of cleaning are
available. One method is pneumatic and no water waste is
generated. A second method is wet scrubbing. This method
is more efficient and produces a better sand, but is expensive.
To a large degree it has been displaced by the pneumatic
method..
The wastewater generated by sand cleaning is usually high in
bentonite. This is a clay normally used as a binder to give
the mixed sand strength. This material can be settled by
installation of properly designed sedimentation techniques.
Table 7 summarizes the net plant raw waste loads for the
sand washing operations for the plants studied.
HEAT TREATMENT
An additional source of water usage in foundries is that
produced by the quenching of the casting.
The physical properties of the cast metal occasionally need
alteration from the “as cast’ t condition. This can be
achieved by heating and cooling the metal in special ways.
The cooling is accomplished by “quenching” the heated
casting in an oil or water media. This is do ze in a large
tank but water usage is insignificant and no subcategory was
established for this operation.
Water use in all the operations which have been established
as subcategories is summarized in Table 8 for the various
plants studied.
SLAG QUENCH SYSTEM
Normal practice for this process is to permit the molten
slag stream emitted from the furnace to be discharged into a
swiftly moving stream of water for rapid cooling. This
action causes the slag to expand in volume while breaking up
into discrete particles called “popcorn slag.” Such systems
are commonly recycled with a small discharge. A slag pit or
78
-------
bRA FT
tank is provided with a drag chain for continuous removal of
the “popcorn slag.” The popcorn slag tends to float, but,
in general, this offers no significant contaminant or
removal problem. Often the entire raw waste load from the
process is discharged directly into and/or combined with the
total raw waste load from the furnace emission control
system. Alternatively, just the slag quench wastewater
blowdown itself can be combined with the recycled wastewater
returned to the furnace emission control system.
The benefits of the above techniques are twofold. One is to
provide a source of calcium to the furnace emission control
system for fluoride control, while the other is to affect a
zero aqueous discharge from the slag quench process.
The quality of the slag quench blowdown waste stream is far
superior to that which is being recirculated back to the
emission control system. , it compares quite favorably
with the fresh makeup water applied to the furnace emissioti
control stack gas quench ring used for both unit scrubber
type systems as well as dry baghouse type systems. Water
consumption of stack gas quench rings is normally equal to,
or as much as five times greater than the wastewater dis-
charged from the slag quench process in terms of gallons/ton
of metal poured.
Hence, further uses of the slag quench process blowdown
stream can be found in wet type furnace emission control
systems as well as dry baghouse type furnace emission
control systems. The cited alternatives may be used to
affect a zero aqueous discharge from the slag quench process
regardless of the type of emission control system employed.
79
-------
TABLE 7
CHARACTERISTICS OF FOUNDRY OPERATIONS WASTES
NET PLANT RP N WASTE LOADS
Melting Operations
mg/ i
Plant Code
XX—2
XX-2A
XX—23
GGG— 2
BBB—2
EEE .-2
CCC—2
DDD-2
WW—2
DDD—2
HHii- 2A
Flow
Gal/Ton
4,983
298
6,139
1,200
142
152
722
129
74
102
4,557
SS
O&G
Pb
MJ-
F
Phenol
21
2.6
—
0.40
3.1
526
25.3
32.0
14.6
32
2.1
—
0.37
34.7
403
1,257
3.0
44.5
41
6.0
120
36.8
15.9
268
9.6
37
433
0.157
236
3.48
—
14.7
0.48
648
1.0
—
75
47
0.30
0.67
S
0.6
3.6
2 • 44
39 • 3
0.55
21.3
4.55
0.02
5.0
0.5
i’ 1ding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
12,880
8].
6,600
138
1.0
23
— 2 ,1
— 0.14
0.63 6.1
0 • 30
1.8
13
— 9.2
— 7.2
— 9.2
8.29 11.0
— 8.1
11.8 7.2
21.0 9.3
100 4.4
.7.6
0.09 7.4
3.3 7.8
HI
3.35
0 • 64
0.21
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Sand Washing Operations
Pb Mn
Ss--
Flow
Plant Code Ga1/Toi
FFF—2 240
SS 0&G
8,199 11.6
mq/ 1
2.0 3.6
Phenol
65 2.08
Multiple Operations
VV— 2
YY— 2
AAA— 2
AAA-2A
AAA-2B
ZZ—2
HHH— 2
HHH—2A&2B
11.6 4.3
301
32.3
484
1,140
381
155
270
720
226
40.8
4,504
5,891
22,700
17,624
72.2
1,569
0
— 0.32
— 40
— 7.2
— 1.6
0.42 3.4
3.6
19.4
7 • 99
42
17.9
1.03
6.0
6.3
— 7.5
— 7.0
0.50 7.5
— 7.6
1.4 7.8
0.091
0.75
1.8
2.4
3.4
0.32
3.72
19
0.008
0.53
0.58
1.98
0 • 085
0.132
1.64
1.5
16
(0.02
4.07
1.12
0.50
9.6
0.02
0.045
2.7
8.65
6.1
26
10.5
0.842
28
8.0
8.3
8.8
-------
T 3LE B
WATER APPLICATIOW b DISCHARGE RATES OP PLANTS STUDIED
Melting Systems
issico Slag Application Discharge
ToWDay Control Quench Rate Slag Bag Rate
Poured Gal/Ton Gal/Ton Gal/Ton Qiuench Venturi House Other Gal/Ton Re 5 rki
BBB—2 9 3,120 — 3,120 x 147
DDD-2 14 2,314 2,314 x 128
CCC—2 25 3,360 3,360 x 168
GGG—2 40 788 788 0
EEE-2 74 3,081 — 3,081 x 0
XX2B 86 13,395 6,139 19,534 X X 6,139 1 eä0 i1ag
105 10,917 4,982 15,899 x x 4,982 S cj ts
thru treatment system.
HHH—2 8 136 1,576 1,576 0
YY—2 185 2,854 2,143 4,997 X x 32
xX—2A 193 5,969 298 6,267 X 298
01 10—2 196 3,085 4,898 7,983 X X 264
1 1 0 1 1—2A 217 1,207 3,041 4,248 x x 0
WW-2 352 218 141 359 X X QC 141
VV—2 458 104 305 409 x x QC 305
-------
TABLE 8, (continued)
Dust Collection Systems
Ton Sand Application Type of System* Discharge
Code Used/Day Gal/Ton Sand RC OT ED Further Treatment Rate Gal/Ton
DDD2 65 1,107 X 3 44
CCC—2 38.5 1,942 X 20 218
YY—2 2,880 110 X 15 X 4.9
XX—2A 2,510 191 X 52 19.8
WW—2 2,000 48 X 100 48
HHH—2A 640 251 X 0 0
HHH—2B 209 267 X 0 0
vv—2 265 271 X 1 X 1.8
zz—2 680 529 X 8 X 8.4
AAA-2 8,547 303 X 275 X 46.3
AAA—2A 7,020 96 X 700 90
AAA—2B 1,200 1,600 X 200 X 160
*RC — Recycle systems
OT - Once thru systems
BD — Blowdown from RC system
0
-------
TABLE 8 (continued)
Sand Washing Systems
Sand Washed Application Rate Type of System* Discharge
Code Ton/Day Gal/Ton Sand RC OT BD Further Treatment Rate Gal/Ton .
W—2 50 2,880 X 200 X 200
ZZ—2 108 213 X 213
FFF—2 32 240 X 240
AAA—2A 176 5,454 x x 5,454
— Recycle systems
OT - Once thru systems
- Blowdown from RC system
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION
The selection of the control parameters was accomplished by
a three step process. First, a broad list of pollutant
parameters to be tested for was established. Second, the.
list of anticipated control parameters and procedures for
analyses of these critical parameters was established.
Third, the data from the field sampling program was evaluated
to establish the need to deviate from the anticipated list
based an the field experience.
BROAD LIST OF POLLUTANTS
Prior to the initiation of the plant visiting and sampling
phase of the study it was necessary to establish the list of
pollutant parameters that were antiëipated to be treated in
each type of waste source. These parameters were selected
primarily on the basis of a knowledge of the materials used
or generated in the operations and on the basis of pollutants
known to be present as i ndicated by previously reported
analyses. The purpose of the broad list was to identify
those pollutants present in a significant amount but not
normally reported or known to be present to such an extent.
The parameters that may be present in foundry wastewatez
streams are presented in table form as follows:
Table 9 - Melting Operations
Table 10 - Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection and Sand
Washing Operations
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF CONTROL PARAMETERS
On the basis of prior analyses and experience the major
wastewater parameters that were generally considered of
pollutional significance for the foundry operations included
suspended solids, oil, lead, and zinc. Other parameters are
present in significant amounts but were not established as
control parameters because their presence in the effluent is
not as signficant and the cost of treatment and technology
for removal in these operations is considered to be beyond
the scope of best practicable or best available technology
at this time. In addition, some parameters cannot be
designated as control parameters until sufficient data is
made available on which to base effluent limitations or
until sufficient data on treatment capabilities is developed.
85
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 9
NELTING OPERATION
PARAMETERS
Acidity (Free and Total)
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.)
Aluminum
Ammonia
BOD 5
Beryllium
Chloride
COD
Color
Copper
Cyanide
Dissolved Solids
* Flow
*Fluorjde
Hardness, Total
Heat
Iron, Total
*Lead
*ManganeSe
Mercury
Nitrate
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl
*Ojl and Crease
*pH
Phenol
Phosphorus. Total
Potassium
Silica, Total
Sodium
Sulfate
*Sulfjde
* suspended Solids
Thiocyanate
TOC
T.O.N.
Total Solids
*Zjnc
86
-------
TABLE 10
MOLDING AND CLEANING - SAND WASHING OPERATIONS
PARAMETERS
Acidity (Free and Total)
Alkalinity (Pht. and M.O.)
Aluminum
Chloride
Color
Copper
Dissolved Solids
* F low
*F luorjde
Hardness, Total
Heat
Iron, Total
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
*Ojl and Grease
* pH
Phosphorus, Total
Potassium
Silica, Total
Sodium
Sulfate
Sulfide
*Suspended Solids
Tin
T.O.N.
Total Solids
Zinc
R7
DRAFT
-------
DRAFT
Standard raw waste loads and guidelines are developed only
on the critical parameters which were starred in the tables.
Multiple analyses of these anticipated control parameters
were provided for to give added accuracy to the data.
SRT.ECTION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL PARAMETERS
The plant studies indicated that consideration should be
given to additional parameters as control parameters in
certain subcategories because of the quantities found or
likely to be present and the pollutional significance of the
material. These parameters are enumerated in their respective
subcategories and include fluoride and manganese.
SELECTION OF CRITICAL PARAMETERS BY OPERATION
The rationale for selection of the major waste parameters is
given below.
Foundry wastewaters emanate principally from collection
methods attached to gas cleaning from the melting operations,
wet dust collection in sand preparation, mold shakeout, and
cleaning - operations.
contaminants may occur in wastewater streams from the melting
operation when water is used as a means of scrubbing furnace
gases. Mold operations include sand preparation and sand
reclaim, pouring, shakeout, and coremaking. The sand
preparation occurs in a mixing activity where dusts and
gases are picked up by a wet dust collection system.
Shakeout is a direct source of solids and gases when a wet
dust collection system is used. The use of wet dust collectors
in the cleaning, room is an added source of solids from
casting operations and the sand additives. These come from
such cleaning room operations as tumbling, shot blasting,
sand blasting, chipping, grinding, gate cutting, and welding.
When sand reclaiming is done by the wet method, it may be a
direct source of solids (silica, metals, sand additives) and
soluble compounds that are used in the sand and core preparation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POLLUTANTS
H, Acidity and Alkalinity
Acidity and alkalinity are reciprocal terms. Acidity is
produced by substances that yield hydrogen ions upon hydrolysis
and alkalinity is produced by substances that yield hydroxyl
ions. The terms “total acidity” and “total alkalinity” are
88
-------
DRAFT
often used to express the buffering capacity of a solution.
Acidity in natural waters is caused by carbon dioxide,
mineral acids, weakly dissociated acids, and the salts of
strong acids and weak bases. Alkalinity is caused by strong
bases and the salts of strong alkalies and weak acids.
The term pH is a logarithmic expression of the concentration
of hydrogen ions. At a pH of 7, the hydrogen and hydroxyl
ion concentrations are essentially equal and the water is
neutral. Lower pH values indicate acidity while higher
values indicate alkalinity. The relationship between pH and
acidity or alkalinity is not necessarily linear or direct.
Waters with a pH below 6.0 are corrosive to water works
structures, distribution lines, and household plumbing
fixtures and can thus add such constituents to drinking
water as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium and lead. The hydrogen
ion concentration can affect the “taste’ t of the water. 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. This is very significant for
providing safe drinking water.
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions
or kill aquatic life outright. Dead fish, associated algal
blooms, and foul stenches are aesthetic liabilities of any
waterway. 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. Metalocyanide complexes can increase
a thousandfold in toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units. The
availability of many nutrient substances varies with the
alkalinity and acidity. Ammonia is more lethal with a
higher pH.
The lacrimal fluid of the human eye has a pH of approximately
7.0 and a deviation of 0.1 pH unit from the norm may result
in eye irritation for the swimmer. Appreciable irritation
will cause severe pain.
Total Suspended Solids
Suspended solids include both organic and inorganic materials.
The inorganic components include sand, silt, and clay. The
organic fraction includes such materials as grease, oil,
tar, animal and vegetable fats, various fibers, sawdust,
hair, and various materials from sewers. These solids may
settle out rapidly and bottom deposits are often a mixture
of both organic and inorganic solids. They adversely affect
fisheries by covering the bottom of the stream or lake. with
89
-------
a blanket of material that destroys the fish-food bottom
fauna or the spawning ground of fish. Deposits containing
organic materials may deplete bottom oxygen supplies and
produce hydrogen sulfite, carbon dioxide, methane, and other
noxious gases.
In raw water sources for domestic use, state and regional
agencies generally specify that suspended solids in streams
shall not be present in sufficient concentration to be
objectionable or to interfere with normal treatment processes.
Suspended solids in water may interfere with many industrial
processes, and cause foaming in boilers, or encrustations on
equipment exposed to water, especially as the temperature
rises. Suspended solids are undesirable in water for textile
industries; paper and pulp; beverages; dairy products;
laundries; dyeing; photography; cooling systems; and power
plants. Suspended particles also serve as a transport
mechanism for pesticides and other substances which are
readily sorbed into or onto clay particles.
Solids may be suspended in water for a time, and then settle
to the bed of the stream or lake. These settleable solids
discharged with man’s wastes may be inert, slowly biodegradable
materials, or rapidly decomposable substances. While in
suspension, they increase the turbidity of the water, reduce
light penetration and impair the photosynthetic activity of
aquatic plants.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When
they settle to form sludge deposits on the stream or lake
bed, they are often much more dam ging to the life in water,
and they retain the capacity to displease the senses.
Solids, when transformed to sludge deposits, may do a variety
of damaging things, including bl nketing 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 and therefore decomposable nature, solids
use a portion or all of the dissolved oxygen available in
the area. Organic materials also serve as a seemingly
inexhaustible food source for sludgeworms and associated
organisms.
Turbidity is principally a measure of the light absorbing
properties of suspended solids. It is frequently used as a
substitute method of quickly estimating the total suspended
solids when the concentration is relatively low.
90
-------
DRAFT
Zinc
Occurring abundantly in rocks and ores, zinc is readily
refined into a stable pure metal and is used extensively for
galvanizing, in alloys, for electrical purposes, in printing
plates, for dye manufacture and for dyeing processes, and
for many other industrial purposes. Zinc salts are used in
paint pigments, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, dyes, insecticides,
and other products too numerous to list herein. Many of
these salts (e.g., zinc chloride and zinc sulfate) are
highly soluble in water; hence, it is to be expected that
zinc might occur in many industrial wastes. On the other
hand, some zinc salts (zinc carbonate, zinc oxide, zinc
sulfide) are insoluble in water and consequently it is to be
expected that some zinc will precipitate and be removed
readily in most natural waters.
In zinc—mining areas, zinc has been found in waters in
concentrations as high as 50 mg/i and in effluent from
metal-plating works and small-arms ammunition plants it may
occur in significant concentrations. In most surface and
groundwaters, it is present only in trace amounts. There is
some evidence that zinc ions are adsorbed strongly and
permanently on silt, resulting in inactivation of the zinc.
Concentrations of zinc in excess of 5 mg/i in raw water used
for drinking water supplies cause an undesirable taste which
persists through conventional treatment. Zinc can have an
adverse effect on man and animals at high concentrations.
In soft water, concentrations of zinc ranging from 0.1 to
1.0 mg/i have been reported to be lethal to fish. Zinc is
thought to exert its toxic action by forming insoluble
compounds with the mucous that covers the gills, by damage
to the gill epitheliuxu, or possibly by acting as an internal
poison. The sensitivity of fish to zinc varies with species,
age and condition, as well as with the physical and chemical
characteristics of the water. Some acclimatization to the
presence of zinc is possible. It has also been observed
that the effects of zinc poisoning may not become apparent
immediately, so that fish removed from zinc—contaminated to
zinc—free water (after 4—6 hours of exposure to zinc) may
die 48 hours later. The presence of copper in water may
increase the toxicity of zinc to aquatic organisms, but the
presence of calcium or hardness may decrease the relative
toxicity.
Observed values for the distribution of zinc in ocean waters
vary widely. The major concern with zinc compounds in
marine waters is not one of acute toxicity, but rather of
91
-------
RAFT
the long—term sublethal effects of the metallic compounds
and compiexeE. From an acute toxicity point of view, invertebrate
marine animalsseem to be the most sensitive organisms
tested. The growth of the sea urchin, for example, has been
retarded by as little as 30 ugh of zinc.
Zinc sulfate has also been found to be lethal to many plants,
and it could impair agricultural uses of the water in which
it is present.
Fluorides
As the most reactive non—metal, fluorine is never found free
in nature. However, it is found as a constituent of fluorite
Cf luorspar or calcium fluoride) in sedimentary rocks, and
also as a constituent of cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride)
in igneous rocks. Owing to... their origin only in certain
types of rocks and only in a few regions, fluorides in high
concentrations are not a common constituent of natural
surface waters, but they may occur in detrimental concentrations
in groundwaters.
Fluorides are used as insecticides, for disinfecting brewery
apparatus, as a flux in the manufacture of steel, for preserving
wood and mucilages, for the manufacture of glass and enamels,
in chemical industries, for water treatment, and for other
uses.
Fluorides in sufficient quantity are toxic tO humans, with
doses of 250 to 450 mg giving severe symptoms or causing
death.
There are numerous articles describing the effects of fluoride-
bearing waters on dental enamel of children; these studies
lead to the generalizatjon that water containing less than
0.9 to 1.0 mg/i of fluoride will seldom cause mottled enamel
in children, and for adults, concentrations less than 3 or 4
mg/l are not likely to cause endemic cumulative fluorosis
and skeletal effects. abundant literature is also available
describing the advantages of maintaining 0.8 to 1.5 mg/i of
fluoride ion in drinking water to aid in the reduction of
dental decay, especially among children.
Chronic fluoride poisoning of livestock has been observed in
areas where water contained 10 to 15 mg/i fluoride. Concentrations
of 30 to 50 mg/i of fluoride in the total ration of dairy
cows is considered the upper safe limit. Fluoride from
waters apparently does not accumulate in soft tissue to a
significant degree and it is transferred to a very small
extent into the milk and to a somewhat greater degree into
eggs. Data for fresh water indicate that fluorides are
toxic to fish at concen ations higher than 1.5 mg/i.
92
-------
DP FT
Manganese ,
The presence of manganese may interfere with water usage,
since manganese stains materials, especially when the pH is
raised as in laundering, scouring, or other washing operations.
These stains, if not masked by iron, may be dirty brown,
gray or black in color and usually -occur in spots and streaks.
Waters containing manganeous bicarbonate cannot be used in
the textile industries, in dyeing, tanning, laundering, or
in hosts of other industrial uses. In the pulp and paper
industry, waters containing above 0.05 ppm manganese cannot
be toierated except for low—grade products. Very small-
amounts of manganese (0.2 to 0.3 ppm) may form heavy encrustations
in piping, while even smaller amounts may form noticeable
black deposits.
Suif ides
Suif ides are oxidizable and therefore can exert an oxygen
demand on the receiving stream. Their presence in amounts
which consume oxygen at a rate exceeding the oxygen uptake
of the stream can produce a condition of insufficient dissolved
oxygen in the receiving water. Suif ides also impart an
unpleasant taste and odor to the water and can render the
water unfit for other u es.
Suif ides are constituents of many industrial wastes such as
those from tanneries, paper mills, chemical plants, and gas
works; but they are also generated in sewage and some natural
waters by the anaerobic decomposition or organic matter.
When added to water, soluble sulfide salts such as Na2S
dissociate into sulfide ions which in turn react with the
hydrogen ions i the water to form US- or H2S, the proportion
of each depending upon the resulting pH value. Thus, when
reference is made to sulfides in water, the reader should
bear in mind that the sulfide is probably in the form of HS-
or H2S.
Owing to the unpleasant taste and odor which result when
suif ides occur in water, it i_s unlikely that any person or
animals will donsume a harmful dose. The thresholds of
taste and smell were reported to be 0.2 mg/l of suif ides in
pulp—mill wastes. For industrial uses, however, even Small
traces of suif ides are often detrimental. Sulfides are of
little importance in irrigation waters.
The toxicity of solutions of sulf ides toward fish increases
as the pH value is lowered, i.e., the H2S or HS— rather than
the sulfide ion, appears to be the principle toxic agent.
In water containing 3.2 mg/i of sodium sulfite, trout overturned
93
-------
DP FT
in two hours at pH 9.0, in ten minutes at pH 7.8, and lin
four minutes at pH 6.0. Inorganic sulf ides have provided
fatal to sensitive fish such as trout at concentrationS
between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/i as sulfide, even in neutral and
somewhat alkaline solutions.
Lead
Some natural waters contain lead in solution, as much s 0.4
to 0.8 mg/i, where mountain limestone and galena are found.
Iyt the U.S.A., lead concentrations in surface and groundwaters
used for domestic supplies range from traces to 0.04 mg/i
averaging about 0.01 mq/l.
Foreign to the human body, lead is a cumulative poison. It
tends to be deposited in bone as a cumulative poison. The
intake that can be regarded as safe for everyone cannot be
stated definitely, because the sensitivity of individuals to
lead differs considerably. Lead poisoning usually results
from the cumulative toxic effects of lead after continuous
consumption over a long period of time, rather than from
occasional small doses. Lead is not among the metals considered
essential to the nutrition of animals or human beings.
Lead may enter the body through food, air, and tobacco smoke
as well as from water and other beverages. The exact level
at which the intake of lead by the human body will exceed
the amount excreted has not been established, but it probably
lies between 0.3 and 1.0 mg per day. The mean daily intake
of lead by adults in North America is about 0.33 mg. Of
this quantity, 0 01 to 0.03 mg per day are derived from
water used for cooking and drinking.
Lead in an amount of 0.1 mg ingested daily over, a period of
years has been reported to cause lead poisoning. On the
other hand one reference considered 0.5 mg per day safe for
human beings, and a daily dose of 2.0 mg for a one year
period apparently did not affect the health of one adult.
Lead poisonin among human beings is reported to have been
caused by the drinking of water containing lead in concentrations
varying from 0.042 mg/i to 1.0 mg/i or more. On the other
hand, other instances of drinking water at concentrations of
0.01 to 0.16 mg/i over long periods of time have apparently
been nonpoisonous. The mandatory limit for lead in the
USPHS Drinking Water Standards is 0.05 mg/i. Several countries
use .0.1 mg/i as a standard.
94
-------
DRAFT
Traces of lead in metal-plating baths will affect the smoothness
and brightness of deposits. Inorganic lead salts in irrigation
water may be toxic to plants and should be investigated
further. It is not unusual for cattle to be poisoned by
lead in the water; the lead need not necessarily be in
solution, but may be in suspension, as, for example, oxycarbonate.
Chronic lead poisoning among animals has been caused by 0.18
mg/i of lead in soft water. Most authorities agree that 0.5
mg/i of lead is the maximum safe limit for lead in a potable
supply for animals. The toxic concentration of lead for
aerobic bacteria is reported to be 1.0 mg/i; for flagellates
and infusoria, 0.5 mg/i. The bacterial decomposition of
organic matter is inhibited by 0.1 to 0.5 mg/i of lead.
Studies indicate that in water containing lead salts, a film
of coagulated mucous forms, first over the gills, and then
over the whole body of the fish, probably as a result of a
reaction between lead and an organic constituent of mucous.
The death of the fish is caused by suffocation due to this
obstructive layer. In soft water, lead may be very toxic;
in hard water equivalent concentrations of lead are less
toxic. Concentrations of lead as low as 0.1 mg/i have been
reported toxic or lethal to fish. Other studies have shown
that the toxicity of lead toward rainbow trout increases
with a reduction of the dissolved oxygen concentration of
the water.
95
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
Plant studies were conducted at plants that were deemed to
be the best relative to performance levels attained by their
treatment facilities. The plants visited were selected by
the EPA from the candidate plants listed in Table 5.
Table 11 presents a brief summary of treatment practices
employed at all plants visited in this study and shows the
variability of treatment techniques employed in the industry.
Included in each subcategory are tables presenting the size,
location, and ages of the plants that were visited.
A survey was made of the foundry industry to obtain a more
sp cif ic knowledge of water usage and wastewater practices
than available from literature. Noncontact cooling water
was excluded.
One hundred thirty—nine contacts were made covering all
sizes of foundries (see Table 5). From the responses, the
following data was developed.
All dry operations 65 46.7%
Wet systems - Melt operations only 33 23.7
Wet systems - Dust collection only 17 12.2
Wet systems - Sand washing only 1 0.7
Wet systems - Melting & dust coil. 8 5•7*
Wet systems - Melting & sand wash 0 0
Wet systems - Dust coil. & sand wash 5 3.6*
Semi—wet melting - Wet dust coil. 1 0.7*
& sand wash
Semi-wet melting only 9 6.4
139 100%
*These type plant wastewater systems are covered under the
subcategory Multiple Operations.
RANGE AND PERMUTATIONS OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND CURRENT
PRACTICE AS EXEMPLIFIED BY PLANTS VISITED DURING THE STUDY
In each subcategory, a discussion is presented on the full
range of technology employed within the industry followed by
a discussion on the treatment practices, effluent loads, and
reduction benefits at the plants that were visited. The
effluent is stated in terms of gross plant effluent waste
load.
97
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PRACTICE OF PLANTS VISITED
I.’ Melting Operations
Plant Practice
VV-2 Slag qUench water only, once-thru (OT) drained
to lagoon ,for settlement.
WW-2 Slag quench water only, OT and drained to city
sewers.
BBB-2 Scrubber wastewaters to a primary settling tank
CCC—2 with solids removal. Chemical additions, re-
DDD—2 cycle to process and blowdown to city sewers.
XX—2 Slag quench and scrubber wastewaters to a pri-
mary settling tank with solids removal. Chemical
XX—2A additions ai d recycle to process. Side stream
to clarifier with solids removal. System blow-
XX-2B down to city sewer.
GGG—2 Scrubber wastewaters collected to swap for
settlement and solids removal. Recycle to
process with zero discharge.
EEE—2 Scrubber wastewaters to classifier, chemical
additions, recycle and blowdown to drag tank.
Solids removal at drag tank and recycle. Zero
discharge.
HHH-2A Scrubber wastewaters to large-lagoon, chemical
HHH-2B j additions, solids removal, recycle to process,
zero discharge.
HHH-2 Scrubber wastewaters to drag tank with solids
removal and chemical additions. Side stream to
clarifier system with blowdown to second clari-
fier — chemical additions, underfiow to landfill
and overflow discharge to sanitary sewer. Slacj
quench water settled and discharged to sanitary
sewer.
98
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 11 (continued)
YY—2 Slag quench scrubber wastewaters and dust
collector blowdown collected in drag tank with
chemical additions. Solids removed. Recycle
to process and side stream clarifier. Blow—
down to second clarifier with underf low to
landfill and overflow to city sanitary sewer.
II. Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
VV—2 Washing cooler with recycle. Blowdown dewatered
and drained to lagoon for settlement.
WW—2 J Orifice scrubber — recycled - blowdown to city
XX—2A sanitary sewer.
CCC—2 Dust collector wastewaters to drag tank with
chemical additions.
DDD—2 Solids removal — recycle to dust collectors.
Overflow to sanitary sewer.
AAPi —2 Wastewaters from commercial dust collectors
sent to central system for chemical addition,
AAA—2B clarification, solids removal and recycle to
process. Blowdown from clarifier to second
clarifier for further treatment. Underf low
from second clarifier to vacuum filter for
solids removal. Overflow available for reuse
or discharge.
III. Sand Washing Operations
FFF—2 Once—thru systems discharge to multi unit waste
ZZ—2 treatment system.
AAA- 2B
VV—2 Recycle thru hydraulic multiclone system with
heavy blowdown to lagoon for further treatment.
99
-------
DRAFT
MELTING OPERATIONS
Fossil Fuel Furnace
In general, three systems of gas collection utilizing water
are Practiced for cupola emission control. These are:
1. Washing Coolers
2. Wet Caps
3. Venturi Scrubbers
Each of these methods has its advantages and limitations.
Washing Cooler Type I
Washing coolers are large cylindrical vessels with the gases
entering tangentially near the bottom. The gas stream is
sprayed with scrubbing liquor which removes the larger
particulate matter. The gas velocity is reduced and moves
upward through fluidized bed section that is packed with
perforated plastic spheres. These spheres are flooded with
scrubbing liquor flowing downward. The reduction of flow
area through the spheres and between their interstices
increases the gas and dust velocity. Bubbles and wat er
droplets create I by the intense agitation of the fluidized
bed, trap the dust particles and serve to condense any water
vapor originally in the gas stream.
Cleaned gas and some dirty water droplets rise to the demist
elements where the water droplets collect and are returned
to the fluidized bed. Cleaned gas exits through the top of
the scrubber while dirty water collects below the gas inlet
and some of the solids settle out while the liquor is recycled.
A b].owdown valve relieves the system of a slurry of the
trapped dusts and water.
This equipment has high efficiency resulting from intimate
gas—water mixing over a long contact time. Simple design,
reduced maintenance, and low power cost are the features of
this system. High variations in dust loading and volume
variations do not affect efficiency. There is little collection
of dusts less than 1 micron.
Washing Cooler Type II
The dirty gas is drawn through a tapered duct to increase
the velocity. At the point of maximum velocity, a spray of
water is introduced into the gas stream. This is drawn into
a moisture separation chamber with a sudden change or reversal
of direction. The gas goes through a cyclone separator that
100
-------
DRAFT
separates the dust laden water from the gas, and the gas
rises through the top outlet. The water descends to a
sludge outlet where it can be treated and recycled.
The Type II washer is used where hot gases occur (1,800°F).
The spray action cools the gas stream as well as wetting and
coalescing the dust particles.
The pressure drop is very small usually 2—3 in. w.c. and
efficiency is poor, especially for smaller particles less
thah 1 micron.
Wet Cap
The wet cap was developed in England as a method of eliminating
the flame of a cupola as a target for Nazi bombers. It
consists of a water cooled, cylindrical shell placed on the
top of an existing cupola. Internal cones permit water to
be cascaded, while the cupola gas exits through the cascading
water.
The efficiency of the wet cap as a particulate remover is
80%. However, very little of the dusts in the size range of
10 micron and smaller are removed and little of the gaseous
components are removed.
Wet caps are of a simple, rugged design that remove the
coarser particulates and claim low capital and reduced
operating costs.
Venturi Scrubbers
Venturi scrubbex s consist of a converging duct, the narrowest
point containing spray nozzles where atomized water is
injected into the gas stream, and a diverging duct downstream
of the injection point. The gas stream is then subjected to
a sudden expansion and/or a sharp reversal of direction.
Dust particles in the gas stream are wetted by the fine
mist, and coalesce to permit inertial separation from the
gas stream.
The most efficient designs of venturi scrubbers include a
water separator or “de—mister” before releasing the gas
stream to the atmosphere. Some designs replaim heat from
the cupola gases before spray cooling. This reduces the gas
volume.
Venturi scrubbers require considerable horsepower as large
volumes of gas are handled. Pressure drops of 60 to 100 in.
water column are required for best collection efficiency.
101
-------
bRA FT
Electric Furnace
The baghouse or dry dust cleaning techniques are generally
utilized for electric furnace dust and fume collection. In
a few instances, water sprays are used for cooling before a
precipitator or bagho se. Although this is called a semi-
wet system, with proper design and operation this system has
no aqueous discharge.
A more thorough discussion of the wet dust collecting techniques
is presented in Section V. Wet type systems are used for
these operations regardless if melting is done by fossil
fuel or electric furnace melting operations.
WATER TREATMENT PECRNOLOGY
Melting Operations
The wastewater produced is the result of the fume collector
system employed. Where dry bagilouse or dry type precipitators
are used, there is no discharge of wastewater and no water
treatment is involved.
The wet systems involved with high energy acrubbers use
either fixed or variable orifice high energy units closely
connected to quenchers and mist eliminating hoods.
The basic type water treatment consists of a steel or concrete
rectangular tank with a motorized drag chain to remove
settled solids. The water is permitted to settle some
heavier solids, and then is recycled to secondary tanks for
clarification of finer particles, usually with addition of
chemical flocculants. The settled material is blown down to
the first sump or to a solids removal system. Recycle is
generally practiced with makeup water replacing that evaporated
in the quencher and venturi.
In semi—wet systems the quencher is operated to obtain zero
aqueous discharge. Normal operation is upstream of a baghouse
or precipitator where the finer particulate matter is
removed.
Solids removed as moist material at the quencher are landfilled
along with baghouse dusts.
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection erations
In most foundries, the molding operations that produce
wastewaters are associated with dust control, sand reclamation,
or cooling of permanent molds. These operations are combined
102
-------
DRAFT
with cleaning department operations of a similar nature. As
a result, it is necessary to view molding operations and
cleaning operations as common since the wastewater treatment
systems are common.
Treatment of wastewaters vary from the simplest form of
settlement to elaborate vacuum filtration and recycle
systems.
Settlement ponds which treat a variety of wastewaters consist
simply of lagoons where particle settlement occur. With
adequate detention time, these give good results.
Generally, the wastewater treatment used throughout the
industry for molding and cleaning wastes consists of a
concrete or steel rectangular tank with a motorized flight
conveyor to remove settled solids. Chemical flocculation
for improved control is used, but costs are cautiously eyed.
The overflow is recycled and a continuous “blowdown’ t is used
to reduce the system suspended solids. Makeup water replaces
evaporation and blowdown losses.
Sophisticated plants have upgraded these systems to include
sidestream thickeners and in some cases vacuum filters with
partial or complete recycle of the thickener overflow.
Sand Washing Operations
In general, sand washing wastes are combined with other
operation wastes and treated in a combined system. Only one
plant visited had a separate treatment system for these
wastes, and this was the only wastewater system in the
plant.
Improved treatment is possible in lagoons with adequate
retention time and/or settling tanks with added chemical
treatment.
Heat Treat Operations
Due to the limited volume and intermittent flow, little
water treatment is practiced in this area. Most plants may
have no overflow from the quench tank and losses occur from
evaporation, carryover and splashing.
In cases where plants may have a small discharge, this small
and intermittent flow may be combined with wastewater for
treatment from other foundry operations.
103
-------
DRAFT
PLANT VISITS
Nineteen foundries were visited in the study. Visits were
made to plants with better treatment systems and with multiple
wastewater systems where possible. Plants were also selected
for specific operations and/or treatment systems.
Table 2 presents a summary of the plants visited with respect
to geographic location, daily production, plant age, and age
of treatment facility.
Brief descriptions and schematic drawings of the individual
wastewater systems are presented.
Plant VV-2 - Figure 9
The cupola gas stream was cooled (quenched) by sprays of
water. This spray system was closely monitored to completely
evaporate all of the spray water. The resulting discharge
from the system was a moist (3 to 5%) :solid consisting of
particulate matter that had been wetted and inertially
separated from the gas stream. The gas stream was then
filtered by fabric bags before release to the atmosphere.
The system had zero aqueous discharge.
This plant has washing type dust collector serving a large
shakeout machine in the cleaning department.
Dusts created by the vigorous shaking of large sand covered
castings are drawn into the tower via two 36 in. diameter
ducts. The air is drawn through a bed of plastic spheres
that are continuously wetted by sprays above the bed.
The washing water drains to a conical sump where some settling
takes place. The bottom of the cone is connected to a valve
that is pneumatically operated. The valve action is controlled
by means of a circuit that senses the resistance to a slow
speed paddle located near the point of the cone. As a
sludge develops around this paddle, the torque required to
turn the paddle increases, and when a set point is reached,
the valve is operated for five seconds discharging the
sludge to a dewatering pit. This pit is emptied weekly to a
landfill. The water drains from the pit to a sewer that
carries it to the retention pond. A float valve in the
tower basin operates to makeup water lost via blowdown and
Water carried out through the fan.
Sand washing operations consist of a jet of water flushing
the sand from a casting to the suinp. A pump delivers it to
a classifier (multiclone type). The underf low goes to a
104
-------
I
F - ’
0
U i
-------
DRAFT
sand bucket where the sand is dewatered, and then reused.
The dewater returns to the sump. The overflow of the classifier
goes to the plant lagoons.
The pipe machine system has a water system used to cool the
permanent molds. This system is blown down to the lagoons.
The lagoons are designed to give 12 hours detention, and
then 72 hours detention. The two smaller lagoons are used
alternately, and provide continuous service while being
cleaned.
Plant WW-2 — Figure 10
The cupola gas stream was cooled (quenched) by sprays of
water. This spray system was closely monitored to completely
evaporate all of the spray water. The resulting discharge
from the system was a moist (3 to-5%) solid consisting of
particulate matter that had been wette4 and inertially
separated from the gas stream. The gaá stream was then
filtered by fabric bags before release to the atmosphere.
The system had zero aqueous discharge.
This plant has four wet type dust collectors to collect dust
from sand mixing, mold- shakeout, and shot blast cleaning
operations. They are mechanical—centrifugal type collectors.
After settling, a portion of the water is recycled back to
the dust collector. The remainder is discharged to the
municipal sanitary treatment plant.
Plant XX-2 — Figure 11
This plant has a high energy venturi scrubber for gas cleaning
on the duplex cupolas. The cupola is unlined and has a
water cooled shell. Shell cooling water is used once through
and then acts as slag quench and transport water delivering
the slag to a drag tank. Pumps recycle the emission control
water from this sump to the venturi, a quench chamber, and
to a sidestream classifier. Solids are removed from the
drag tank, and by the underf low stream from the classifier.
Hydrated lime is added to the drag tank.
Overflow from the drag tank flows through a trap, and then
is discharged to the city storm sewer.
106
-------
,csq . M01.Nt 4 OZANIN flT U4 TINS
ww.I
S S1 .0 1 0S?U 0 DN• 00 Sl0/O01
(w,ow a. aS /Dl
itat ISUMtf
.fl ..fl, efla
fl *t ¶SUIflNY fl..
*.TSt 0(0 —
FI URI 10
I
p
C
•0• .? I
—I I
I $ I I
S I
-------
-------
DRAFT
Plant XX-2a - Figure 12
This plant has a high energy venturi scrubber for gas cleaning
on the duplex cupolas. The cupola is lined and has a water
cooled shell. The cooling water is used once, and then
becomes slag quench and transport water delivering slag to
the drag tank.
Recycle pumps circulate the drag tank water to the quencher
and venturi, and to a si 1estreain classifier underf low.
Hydrated lime is added to the drag tank..
Overflow from the drag tank flows through a trap and is
discharged to a plant sewer ‘Ihich goes through two additional
traps before release to the city storm sewers.
The separator on the gas stream discharge has an aftercooler
and cooling tower to reduce stack temperature and carryover
from the venturi. The heat is rejected through a cooling
tower in a closed loop system. The blowdown from this
cooling tower goes to the drag tank sump.
This plant has a wet dust collection system on the molding,
core room, shakeout, and c1ean ing areas. These wastewaters
are collected in a drag tank for solids removal, chemical
additions and recycle. The system blowdown goes to municipal
sanitary sewers.
Plant XX-2b - Figure 13
This plant has a high energy venturi scrubber for gas cleaning
on the duplex cupolas. The cupola is unlined and has a
water cooled shell. Cooling water is used “once through”
and then becomes slag quench and transport water delivering
the slag to a drag tank.
Recycle pumps circulate the drag tank water to the quencher
and venturi and to a sidestream classifier. Solids are
removed at the drag tank and classifier underf low. Hydrated
lime is added to the drag tank.
Overflow from the drag tank flows through two traps to
discharge into a city storm sewer.
Plant YY-2 - Figure 14
This plant had progressed from a wet cap to a venturi
system, as the air quality requirements became more stringent
and the treatment system was altered to meet these requirements.
The hot gases are drawn through the cupola wet cap to the
109
-------
-------
p1
-------
I I I
4
S
S MII W*U! 4 IM
.
2 - I I. 4J FI u S •4
a
— - . ,,.*
a. .a,a. *i.. ii ass,
(Ill as. a. ass/a.,
I- I
I-J
I
I
-------
bRA FT
venturi, and then through the mist eliminator to the fan,
and then exhausted through a stack. A pre-cleaning by the
wet cap removes the coarse particulates. This pre—clean-ing
water is then used as a slag quench stream that cools and
transports the slag to the drag tank.
The venturi wets the dust particles remaining in the gas
stream. The venturi scrubber water drains from the “mist
e1imin tor.” The mist eliminator is supplied with additional
water that is sprayed into the chamber to cool and condense
the mist developed in the scrubber. This combined drain
water is pumped through two cyclone separators and the
overflow or cleaner water is returned to the venturi scrubber.
The underf low or dirtier water is drained to the drag tank.
The drag tank is treated with acid to control the pH and
with a coagulant to assist in the settling of suspended
matter. The drag tank is the source of water for the wet
cap and mist eliminator.
Water is pumped from the drag tank to a classifier tank
where settled solids are “blown down” to a dewater box, and
the over-flow is discharged to city sewers. The solids are
sent to landfill.
Three large countercurrent centrifugal impingement type
scrubbers serve the molding and core making operations of
this large foundry. The dirty water is drained to a settling
basin and drag tank where it is treated with caustic to
control corrosion. Solids are removed by drag chain and
dewatered before disposal to landfill. A continuous blowdown
operates to remove solids also. This blowdown goes to the
cupola drag tank, and to the classifier tank for final
clarification before being released to municipal sewers.
Plant ZZ-2 -. Figure 15
This plant air cools and filters furnace gases through a
baghouse. Noncontact furnace cooling water is “once through”
and then dumped to the plant process treatment system.
Three mechanical, centrifugal collectors served the sand
preparation mold and core making areas of this foundry.
The collectors use approximately 8 gpm of city water which
is drained to the plant water clarification operation.
This plant had the most elaborate water treatment operation
of all plants visited. The system is designed to collect
all wastewaters from dust collectors, sand washers, and
noncontact.cooling systems. This water is treated with
113
-------
A
C
0
I
_y.
_ a __ . nflnej . v
_s - . 0. ‘ v p
__.Is , , — -‘
P u t 15
a I S S
OPI**1I0$$
I ..’
(ISS a.*IIuSS*I/0)
1tz1=L ‘ L’+’
-------
bRA FT
flocculant an& proceeds through a settling basin. Solids
are removed at about 25% and processed through a vacuum
f liter to achieve 50 to 60%. solids. These are next processed
through a dryer and then sent to landfill at about 95%
solids.
The supernatant and filtrate were drained to a pond where
additional settling occurred. The pond had an overflow weir
and a return pump. The system is designed to have a pump
return the pond overflow to a vacuum filter. The filter
cake is delivered to the discharge point of the main settling
basin while the filtrate is pumped through the chlorinator
and to a chlorine contact tank. From here, it is pumped to
a point just downstream from the stand pipe. The pump at the
pond overflow was inoperative at .the time of the plant
visit. The pond overflow was discharged to a natural water
course.
Plant AAA-2 — Figure 16
This plant utilizes the semi-wet method for cooling and
coalescing furnace emissions before the baghouse. Hence,
operated as designed the spray chamber or spark box has no
aqueous discharge.
This plant used a central water treatment plant to remove
the collected material from wet dust collectors in the sand
preparation, mold, and core making areas as well as pouring,
cooling, shakeout, and cleaning areas.
Water from the various dust collectors is pumped to a “dirty
side” sump. From there it is pumped into a cyclone separator.
The cyclone separates the heavier solids which are dewatered
by a vibrated screen and collected for disposal to landfill.
The dewater returns to the dirty side suiup.
The lighter portion of the cyclone goes to a thickener.
Polymer is added and promotes settling. The underf low from
the thickener is vacuum filtered with the cake going to
landfill, and the liquid returned to the thickener. The
overflow is reused, or goes to city sewers.
Plant AAA-2a - Figure 17
This plant had a series of 12 bulk bed washer type dust
collectors in the foundry for molding and cleaning dusts.
The blowdown from these units was pumped to a collection
sump and then to a lagoon.
This plant also had a sand washing system to clean sand for
reuse. The wastewater from this operation also went to the
lagoons.
115
-------
F IY11 SV p
I t.scr.e ‘vJsAcg PP.O4v
I 4 Ptw Pf4 flS*Th.e%t SPI?R*M
•dPfl Paw O,ASS.
jIO.22.13J I UR( #6
S S 7
I
I
I P,OO&C? ’*’ 4, —
, .
S
s mp i 4 pornrs
-------
-4
-------
DRAFT
The lagoons were arranged to give maximum use of the land
area. The inlet to the first lagoon. wa s arranged so that
the heavy solids could be removed readily. This was a daily
routine.
Plant AAA-2b — Figure 18
This plant had a wet dust collection system for the dusts
collected in the molding, core room, pouring, cooling and
cleaning.areas. The wastewater treatment consisted of a
primary tank with lime addition that was pumped to a cyclone
separator. The cyclone underf low went to a classifier for
dewatering and removal of solids with the dewater returned
to the primary tank.
The upf low from the cyclones went to a second tank for
recycle, with a blowdown (10%) to a thickener. Alum and
poly were added. The underf low went to a vacuum filter.
The cake went to landfill and the filtrate was returned to
the thickener.
The thickener overflow was available for reuse or discharge
to the river.
Plant BBB-2 — Figure 19
This plant had a venturi scrubber on the cupola emissions.
The wastewater was collected in a settling tank where caustic
was added. The overflow was recycled to the venturi.
Makeup was from a well and was adjusted to give a slight
surplus of return water in the settling tank. This surplus
was blown down to the city sewer. The settling tank was
dumped daily to a dewater box. The dewater went to the city
sewer, and solids were landfilled.
Plant HHR-2 - Figure 20
This plant collected venturi scrubber waters in a drag tank
where caustic was added and heavy solids were removed.
The overflow from this tank went to a second tank for recycle
to the process. A sidestream from this second tank went
through cyclone classifiers and then to pressure sand filters.
The filter backwash was blown down to a surge tank and then
to a floc tank where chemical additions were made. This
tank overflowed to a contact clarifier. The clarifier
underfiow was pumped to landfill, and the overflow was
discharged to municipal sanitary sewers. The slag quench
water was settled through two sumps, and then released to
the same sewer system.
118
-------
-Ti
-------
P oCrs3 M 4 rL7/N6
PLANT 888!
P ooucr,oN 8/kr icTow/o
9 TONS/D
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IRON AND ST(EL
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY 5TUDY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER I LOW DIAGRAM
Es’ 4/
0
1 [
To LAND / LS
4-28-Ti FIGURE 19
-------
-------
Plant HHH-2a - Figure 21
This plant collected the wastewater from a venturi scrubber
on a triplex cupola arrangement into a slurry tank. Caustic
was added, and the water was pumped to a large lagoon that
was shared with another plant. The lagoon water was recycled
to the venturi.
Slag quench water was “blown down” from a cooling tower and
was discharged to the lagoon from the slag pit.
The plant had a wet dust collector system that discharged to
a separate lagoon, and was recycled to the dust collectOrs.
There was zero discharge from the system.
Plant HHH-2b Figure 22
This plant drained wastewater from the venturi scrubbers and
separator to a large lagoon. The water was recycled from
the lagoon to the quencher.
The Wet dust collectors also drained to the lagoon and was
recycled. There was zero discharge from the lagoon.
Plant GGG-2 -. Figure 23
The venturi and quench chamber water was collected in a
separator, and then pumped to a large sump. After settling
overnight, the sump was syphoned to a second sump. Water
from this second sump was recycled to the quench chamber the
next day. This plant had zero discharge. Solids were
removed from the first sump bimonthly.
Plant CCC-2 - Figure 24
The wastewater from the venturi and separator drained into a
drag tank. Caustic and flocculant were added and solids
were removed. Water was recycled to the venturi. Overflow
drained to the city sewer.
This plant also had a wet dust collector that had a similar
drag tank and chemical addition system. Overflow was discharged
to city sewers.
Plant EEE-2 - Figure 25
The venturi and separator wastewaters drained to a classifier
tank where caustic and polyelectro].ytes were added. The
underfiow went to a drag tank where solids were settled and
removed. The drag tank overflow was recycled to the classifier,
and excess was drained to a transfer tank. Water was recycled
from the classifier to the process.
122
-------
I
L )
-------
I
-------
Poi’No ey MgLrIN
lP An/T GGG-z
S
&/S
soy-’-
E/.IV,ROI IMENTAL PRO7TCTIQV AGENcy
ZRON AND 5r ei.
,COL,jvojey ZvorI$rRY ..5fl’ OY
WA 5re WA TE TREATflENT 5y rE 1
WATER I LOW 0/A
U,
S OLIos
REM OVAL
8/- moN T1VLY
4-28-7J Ic; L,Rg 23
-------
U
To
L4NO1’4
( JC
ENVIRONMEN1A PROThCTION A&Ncy
IRON AND STEEL.
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
WASTE WATER TRE.ATMEP4I SYSTEM
WA1E FLOW DIAGRAM
4 ?M/! J I IC,URE 24
4O (.
P,rocw rnLTlN Dusr
Co (cr/oN
PIANr CCC2
O47QCT/ON 23 Mtra c v/D
257 JD
/C LANI,
To tij ,c/pAL Siwcg
I
-------
H
-------
0 R 1 4
The overflow tank collected noncontact cooling water from
the air compressors, and pumped it and the drag tank overflow
water to a hea4 tank for makeup to the system. Caustic was
also added at this tank for corrosion control.
This plant had zero discharge.
Plant FFF-2 - Figure 26
This plant had a sand washing system. The sand from shakeout
was conveyed to a screen. A magnetic Separator removed all
metallic items from the iand.
The screen oversize (+3/8 in.) went to a mixer vessel where
city water was added. This was thoroughly agitated, and
then pumped to a slurry tank. The slurry tank metered the
nix to a dewater table where the solids were screw conveyed
to a rotary dryer. The underf low from the dewater table was
pumped to a settling tank.
the settling tank is cleaned out on a weekly schedule and
solids are removed to landfill. The settled water drains to
the river.
! lant DDD-2 - Figure 27
This plant had a venturi scrubber and a separator on the
cupola. The separator had a conical bottom that collected
heavy solids. Caustic was added to the separator via a pump
from a mixing tank. Water was pumped from the separator to
the process, and an overflow from the separator discharged
to the sanitary sewers.
The separator was drained, at the end of the cupola run, to
a dewatering tank, and the solids were sent to landfill.
The plant had a wet dust collector that drained wastewaters
to a drag tank where a flocculant was added, and solids were
removed. The water was recycled to the collector, and the
overflow went to the sanitary sewer.
Table 12 gives the water effluent treatment’ costs for melting
wastewater systems, as well as net raw waste loads and unit
effluent loads of these systems.
Tables 13, 14, and 15 give similar information on dust
collection systems, sand washing’ systems and multi-unit
systems.
128
-------
I
-------
0
-------
BASE LEVEL OF TREATMENT
In developing the technology, guidelines, and incremental
costs associated with the application of the technologies
subsequently to be selected and designated as one approach
to the treatment of effluents to achieve the BPCTCA, BATEA,
and NSPS effluent qualities, it was necessary to determine
what base or minimum level of treatment was already in
existence for practically all plants within the industry in
any given subcategory. The different technology levels were
then formulaled in an “add—on” fashion to these base levels.
The various treatment levels and corresponding effluent
volumes and characteristics are listed in Tables 15 through
17. Since these tables also list the corresponding costs
for the average size plant, these tables are presented in
Section VIII.
It was obvious from the plant visits that many of the plants
in existence today have treatment and control facilities
with capabilities that exceed the technologies chosen to be
the base levels of treatment. Even though many plants may
be superior to the base technology it was necessary, in
order to be all inclusive of the industry as a whole, to
start at the base level of technology in the development of
treatment models and incremental costs.
131
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
This section will discuss the incremental costs incurred in
applying the different levels of pollution control technology.
The analysis will also describe energy requirements, non—
water quality aspects (including sludge disposal, by-prpduct
recovery, etc.), and their techniques, magnitude, and costs
fot each level of technology.
It must be noted that some of the technology beyond the base
level may already be in use. Also many possible combinations
and/or permutations of various treatment methods are possible.
Thus, not all plants will be required to add all of the
treatment capabilities or incur all of the incremental costs
indicated to bring the base level facilities into compliance
with the effluent limitations.
COSTS
The water pollution control costs for the plants visited
during the study are presented in Tables 12 through 15. The
treatment systems, gross effluent loads, and reduction
benefits were described in Section VII. The costs were
estimated from data supplied by the plants. Costs are based
on 1972 casting production.
Subcategory Plant Cost per unit weight of product
$/kkg $/ton
Melting XX—2b 4.95 4.50
XX—2 4.67 4.25
XX—2a 1.95 1.77
GGG—2 9.78 8.88
BBB—2 12.85 11.68
EEE—2 1.75 1.59
CCC—2 3.40 3.09
DDD—2 8.28 7.53
Molding & Cleaning WW-2 0.09 0.08
Dust Collection DDD—2 6.43 5.85
HHH—2a 1.47 1.34
133
-------
0 RA
Sand Washing FFF—2 8.15 7.41
Multiple Process VV-2 0.22 0.20
YY—2 2.09 1.90
AAA—2 1.20 1.09
AAA—2b 1.67 1.52
ZZ—2 10.89 9.90
AAA—2a 0.36 0.33
RHH—2 3.21 2.92
HHH—2a&2b 4.61 4.19
BASE LEVEL AND INTERMEDIATE TECHNOLOGY, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER
IMPACT
The base levels of treatment and the energy requirements and
non—water quality aspects associated with intermediate
levels of treatment are discussed below by subcategories.
Melting Operations
Base Level of Treatment . Implementation of good housekeeping
practices with in—process separation in a settling tank and
slag quench water treated in a drag tank. Periodic solids
removal. Once—through use of water.
Additional Power Requirements . To meet the anticipated 1977
standard in cleaning the emissions from the melting operations
will require modifications to the wastewater treatment
system. The additional energy consumed will be 56.7 kwh/kkg
5l.5 kwh/ton) of metal produced. For the typical 36.3 kkg/day
(40 tons/day) melting operation, 85.8 kw (115 hp) will have
to be added. The annual operating cost for the additional
equipment will be $8,625.
Non-Water Quality pL2 •
1. Air Pollution: The main air pollution problem associated
with the melting operation will be suspended particulate
matter. Although the exhaust gases will be passed through a
wash, 0.1 kkg of particulate emission per kkg (lb/l,000 lb)
of exhaust gas will be emitted into the atmosphere.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: A portion of the solid waste
from the waste system may be collected and re’cycled to the
melting operations whereas the remainder may be clamshelled
and landfilled.
134
-------
TABLE 12
H
U i
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS FOR FOtFIDRIES
Melting Operations
0(-2
XX—2A
XX-2 5
888—2
Rang.
Initial Investment
(1971 8)
Annual Costs
Operating Labor
Utilities
Maintenance
Depreciation
Cost of Capital
Other
1bta1
972 Ions Product
8/Ton
1000 gal treated
8/1000 gal treated
$135,758
0
89,000
3,600
13,576
5,701
-
111,827
26,300
4.252
1.44 a 106
0.175
$151,560
0
62,100
1,800
15,156
6,365
-
$5,421
48,200
1.772
1.584 x 1O
54.064
$124,320
0
77,320
1.800
12.432
5,221
-
96,773
21,500
4.501
1.162 X 10
0.633
$ 92,540
1,613
8,455
2,074
9,254
3,886
—
26,282
2,250
11.68
3.24 x 1O
8.1111
9161—225,000
41.59—11.68
80.77—54.06
—
AVERAGE_NET RAW WASTE LOAD
Paralseters
I/ton
mg/i
I/ton
ag/i
*/tofl
ag/i
f/ton
ag/i
i/ton ag/li
Flow gal/ton
Suapended solids
Oil and 8a.M.
pH
Fluoride
Land
$ananan.
Sulfide
Zinc
15,900
8.7f 1
1.081
9.1
1.29
1.58
2.83—1
21
2.6
3.1
0.4
0.6
6267
1.31
6.292
7.2
3.652
7 952
9.02
526
25.3
—
14.6
32
3.6
19,534
1.64
i.of 1
9.2
1.776
1.892
1.251
32
2.1
34.7
0.37
2.44
3,120
26.02
l.6O2
7.9
1.6061
—
2.402
1.241
—
1300
8
38
•
120
62
788 to 19,534
6.95 to 26.02
2.l5 to 6.292
7.2-to 11
1.22 to 2.681
i.ag2 to 2.40
.9f 4 to 1.241
l.51 to l.07
21 to 1300
2 to 25.3
.
9.6 to 44.5
0.37 to 120
0.6 to 62
8.3 to 100
AVERAGE SS
EFFLUENT
WASTE
LOAD
Parametars
4/ton
mg/i
f/ton
mg/i
s/ton
mg/i
I/ton
agfl
Flow gal/ton
Suspended solid.
Oil md Greas.
p0
Fluoride
.
Land
Manganese
Sulfide
Zinc
4982
9.421
1.451
9.1
1.8281
-
1.579_2
2.9092
22
35
—
4.4
-
0.38
0.7
-
298
1.310
6.512
9.5
3.9762
—
7•953 2
9.022
-
—
526
26.2
—
16
-
32
3.63
-
6139
1.997
1.6901
9.2
2.151
—
2.3042
l.705 1
—
—
39
3.3
—
42
-
0.45
333
—
147
1.55
i.iio2
8.1
457 2
-
1.4801
5432_2
-
—
1262
9
—
368
—
119.9
44.3
-
0 to 6139
0 tO 1.99
0 to 1.691
8.1 to 9.5
0 to 2.15
0 to 4392
0 to 1.491
0 to 1.701
0 to 1.26
0 to 1262
0 to 35
•
0 to 59
0.to 45
0 to 120
0 to 44.3
o to 100
p
-------
TAE.5 12
(cont inu.d)
WATE* PYLU1IIT T68&ThENT C0$t’S FOR OU1D*XU
)Isltinq Operations
‘* 3
d ’i
CCC—2
000-2
—2
-2
uri c
Initial 1iwes at
(1971 $)
Annual Casts
Operating &. r
UtiUti..
Maintenance
Deprsciatio.
Cast of Capital
Other
t n1
1972 Tons Pru t
$/
1000 9al treated
6/1000 gal treated
* 9,161
.
381
10,448
801
916
384
12,930
4,194
3.09
1.104 * LO
$11.72
*105,00
900
3,525
3 70Q
10,500
4,410
23,035
3,060
7.53
433
$53.32
$ 31,621
1.153
14,149
3,439
2.162
908
21,830
13,750
1.59
13.6 x lO
$1.38
*325,000
12,570
3.445
8,034
22,300
9,430
55,999
6,300
8.88
2.88 x 10
$19.44
916 1223, 0 0 0
.
.
1.39—11.68
0.77—54.06
AV1M _l T PAD W&$TZ WAD
p.rnastsrs
SItes
SWL
a,’te
88/1
6/ten
ag /i
6/ton
ag,i
Flow gal/tea
lua;-ids’ solide
Oil
p1 1
Fluoride
Sulfide
Zinc
3360
1.422
4.5152
9.1
3555 1
2.O8i
350 2
i. 1
1.264
—
236
7.5
—
59
44.5
s a
21.3
21.0
2314
6.9491
214S
6.1
5.0402
4397 2
8.043
5.630
1.0721
—
648
a
—
47
41
75
5.25
100
3061
3.39
s.g
7.2
549 l
1.2f 2
4.692
6.9f 4
i.st
.
268
—
9.6
37
0.55
11.8
766
4.03
2.002
11
Seq
—
1.431
seq
8.182
403
3.0
—
14.7
—
8.29
788 tO 19,534
to 26.02
2.1S to $ ,39 2
7.2 to 11
1.22 to 3$$1
1.89 to 2.40
6.97 to 1.241
1.51 2 to 1.O7 1
21 tO 1300
2 to 25.3
9.6 to 44.5
0.37 to 120
0.6 to 62
8.3 to 100
t
AV!M 08088. rLumtr
WASTE WAD
Paraa(t.rs
Flow q 5 / fl
Suap.nd.d .01184
Oil and ea•s
p11
Fluoride
Lead
Manganc..
sgfi d.
tic
i/ten
168
1.422
4515 2
9.1
3555 1
2.68l
3•3052
l.289
1.2041
agil
236
75
—
59
44.5
5.99
21.3
21.0
6/ton
38
6.9491
2.l45
8.1
5.O4O
4397 2
s.o f 2
5.630
1.0721
ag/i
-
648
2
—
47
41
75
.25
100
If ton
E DI I
8
ag / i
MR
.
•
ilton
£ZW D I I
ag/i
WA
6139
0 to 1.99
0 tO 1.691
8.1 to 9.5
0th 2.15
0 to 4•392
0 to 1.481
0 to 1.701
0 to 1.26
0 to 1262
0th 33
.
0 tO 59
0 t 45
0 to 120
0 to 44.3
0 to 100
-------
TAStE 13
W-2 —
000 -2
NHH-2A
Range
lnit oL Znvss nt
(1971 $)
Annual Cost.
Operating Labor
utiliti..
M eint.n ancS
0.pr.ciation
Cost of Capital
Other
Total
1972 Tone Product
S/Ton
1030 gel treated
$/1000 gal treated
$ 25,000
0
2,625
875
2,500
1,050
0
7,050
88.000
o.oeo
3.6 x JO
0.1.96
$ 41,999
590
9,211
2,156
4,199
1,763
0
17,909
3,060
5.85
3.456 x io2
51.82
$ 268,632
17.544
24,900
26,316
26,863
11,282
0
106,905
80,000
1.34
1.58 x 104
6.75
25,000 to 268,000
0 tø 17.544
9,211 to 25,000
875 to 26.316
2500 to 26,863
.
7,000 to 106,900
3,000 to 88,000
0.08 to 5.85
0.19 to 52
*
AVERAGE_NET
RAW WAStE LOAD
*
I/ton
p ara .t.rs
Wton
mg/i
I/ton’
ag/i
I/ton
mg/i
ag/I
ma/i
flow gal/ton
Suspended solids
Oil and Grass.
pH
Fluorids
teed
Mmnganee.
Sulfids
Zinc
60
2.69
i.so . 2
7.5
1.50
—
1.20
1.000
—
-
5380
150
—
0.3
—
2.4
<0 02
—
3.870
2.5372
6.336
7.5
S.861
—
5.386
i.84
—
—
82
2
—
LBS
—
0.17
5.8
347
19.11
6.662
7.8
3.762
1.82
j•4473
9.55
—
6600
23
1.3
0.63
<0.5
3.3
60 to 1870
3 52 to 19
6.3 to 7 52
7.5 tO 7.8
1.5 to 3•72
1.82
5•35 to i.f 2
1.0 to 1.8
9•53
82 to 6600
2 to 150
0.3 to 13
0.63
0.17 to 5.9
0.02 to 5.8
3 3
t -
AVE E G SS
EFFL JENI
WAS
LOAD
s/ton
*/ton
rng/L
Par& eterS
S/ton
mg/i
4/ten
mq/i
/ton
mgii
0 to 48
Flow gal/ton
Suspended solids
011. and Grease
pH
Fluoride
Lead
Manganese
Sulfids
Zinc
48
5.152
5.522
7.6
4.80
—
3.364
<3 35
—
12800
138
—
0.3
2.1
<0.02
37.4
1.5142
3.694
7.4
3.417
-
3.14
1.0642
- :
—
82
2
—
1.85
—
0.17
5.8
Zero Die
harge
:
0 to: 5.15
0 to 5•52
7.4 to 7.6
0 to 4.8
: —
0 to 3.f 3
0 to i.o 2
0 to 12,800
0 to 138
0 tO 1.85
0 to 2.1
0 to 5.8
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS FOR FO R DRXE8
)I,lding end Cleaning Dust Collection Op.raUone
I .-’
( J
-J
‘S&nd used/day
-------
TAEL! 14
NATE EFFLUENT TE ATMENT COSTS FOR OtINDRIES
Sand Washing Operationa
—
FFF—2
•
Pa
initial Investasat
(1971 6)
Annual Costs
Operating Labor
Utilitie s
Maintenance
bepruciation
Cost of Capital
Other
T ta1
1972 Tons Product
8/Ton
1000 gal treated
$/1000 gal treated
$174,769
10,400
4,755
14,568
17.477
7.340
54,540
7,360
7.4 ).
8.632 * 10
A.18
AVERAGE NET
p.
RM( WASTE WAD
Paranet.ra
I/ton
mg/I
P/ton
ag/i
I/ton
I/ton
ag
Flow gaL/ton
Suspended SOLLde
Oil fl4
pH
Fluoride
Lead
Manginess
• 1 gfj4
Sins
1200
16.41
3.Sf 2
6.3
i.i,2
3•$93
7.O9
Wig.
•• 3
8199
17.6
6.0
)•94
3.54
Meg.
AVERAGS 3 SS
EFFL.UENT
WASTE LO
AD
Paraneter s
I/t on
- ag/i
I/ton
mg/I
6/ton
mg/I
I/ton
W1
.
Flow gal/ton
Suspended wiLds
Oil and Groin.
p H
Fluoride
Lead
,.angansse
Sulfide
Zinc
1200
2.201
3$ )3*3
6.3
1.501
3.2O3
s.soC 3
6.6OS
1100
19
—
7.5
1.6
2.8
0.8
3.3
.
-------
TABLE 15
I-J
‘ .0
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS FOR YOUNORXES
Multiple Operations
W—2
YY—2
ZZ—2
AAA . 2
Initial Investi nt
(1971 SI
Mnuil Costs
Operating Labor
ut*Liti.s
Maintenance
DepreCietion
Cost of Capital
Other
i t a i
1972 tons Product
S/Ton
100 ai treated
$/10 ’ 3 gal treated
087,960
0
7,410
0
8,796
3,694
0
19,900
100,237
0.198
4.025 x 10
0.0494
$109,200
32,000
13,540
9,630
10,920
4,590
70,680
37,103
1.90
1.4)5 , 1O
49.25
$ 7G7 ,190
18,043
30,948
3,617
70,719
29,701
1,407
154,435
15,600
9.90
5.225 x io
2.955
329 ,S00
42,187
41.968
26,153
32,950
13,844
1,743
158,847
145,708
1.09
1.053 * 10
1.508
87,000—1,668,000
0—73,000
19,900—494,000
0.33—9.90
0.04—49.25
NET
RAW WASTE WAD
para.netec.
I/ton
mqfl
0/ton
mg/i
5 /ton
rag/i
0/ton
mg/i
*/tofl mg/i
Flow gal/ton
Suspended solids
Oil and Cr. . ..
pH
Fluoride
Lead
Mangan.s .
Sulfide
Zinc
1014
5.673 1
1.024
7.5
2.284
—
8.033
5 .020
—
—
226
40.8
—
0.091
—
0.32
(0.02
—
32.3
3.446
2.446
7.5
1.064
—
i.ois2
1.532
—
—
1280
9.1
—
3.9
40
5.7
389
17.77
2.3852
8.1
4.789k
1 . 851 _s
8.672
3.618
1.1032
—
4679
6.28
—
0.126
0.005
2.28
0.009
2.90
3.2
1.743
7.496
7.6
6.955
—
2.782
4.32f 4
—
—
4504
19.4
—
1.8
—
7.2
1.12
32 to 1884
3•41 to 127
2.44 to 8.2Sf
7.5 to 8.8
2.28 to s.o9 1
1.85 to 3.96
8.03 to 1.89
3.62 to 6.852
4.45 to 21.8
226 to 22,700
6 to 47
0.09 to 29
0.005 to 226
0.32 to 108
0.009 to 9.6
1.4 to 1244
AIZ .GE 0’S
ErF E t
WASTE LOAD
parairster.
4/ton
mg/ i
u/ton
.g/1
a/ton
zag/ I.
a/ron
mg/i
Flow gal/ton
Suspended solids
011 and Cruise
pH
Fluoride
Lead
Msngansee
Sulfide
Zinc
301
4.3121
5.3902
7.6
4.851
—
l.886
5.390
—
—
16
2
—
0.18
—
0.07
0.02
—
32.3
1.213
4.sa3
7.5
2.426
—
8.3Sf 4
—
—
45
1.7
9
—
3.1
4.1
•
389
2.404k
3.0052
7.5
3,95Q4
(4.061
1.299
1.46f 3
4.061
29.6
3,7
—
0.49
<0.05
0.16
0.18
0.053
372
i.oei2
6.9S5
7.4
8.1l4
—
4.637
<7.728
—
28
1.8
—
2.1.
—
0.12
(0.2
0 to 4.311
0 to 3.002
7.4 to 8.7
0 to 1.202
0 to 4.0k
0 to j ,3Ø3
0 to 9,4Q3
0 to 1.4f 3
0 to 46
0 to9
0 to 9
0 to 0.9
0 to 3.1
0 to 23
0 to 3.5
-------
TA$LE 15
(continued)
WAnt srrz.uzwr T*8AT18811 COSTS 108 10I9 S1U
Multiple 0p.rati t.
I - ,
0
AAA—ZA
AM—2$
‘° 1 d V8 5 I1t
d.nosl Cost.
Operating 1I or
*L I1tLS.
Maintenance
Depreciation
Co I capital
Other
Total
1912 TonC Product
8/Ton
1000 gaL trsat.d
8/1000 gal treated
.
$ 345,540
0
19,050
2,144
34,554
14513
0
76.260
210.706
0.333
3.917 x 10
0.180
$291,36$
31,966
24,101
1,909
29,137
I ,2 ?
0
106,350
69,761
1.52
3.107 *
2.06
$ 54i .4t4
17.344
45,694
3S , 0 1•
54,141
23,742
0
175,505
00.000
2.925
4.608 x 1O
3.00S
888—2* &
51,668,283
13,029
119.414
6 .790
166,828
70,068
0
494,129
118.000(’73)
4.19
2.6 x
19.04
17.000 — 1,160,000
0 — 73,000
19,900 — 494,000
0.33 — 9.90
0.04 - 49.25
AVZPA08_MET RP$ WAITE WAD
‘
Para .et.rs
I/ton
ag/i
a/ton
so il
I/ton
ag/i
9/ton
ag /i
If ton
ag/ I
f lo wga l/ton
lucpended ..lLd.
oil aM snas
p 1 1
Fluorid.
L.ad
sageness
5. 1214*
$i n
193$
56.0
7.6
3.3322
—
4•7533
—
5091
8.0
—
34
—
1.6
0.5
—
361
72.26
1.337
7.8
1.083
j•3373
1.0822
3.0S0
4.450
22,700
42
-
3.4
0.42
3.4
9.6
1.4
270
127.3
8.2551
8.5
s.o,f’
3.969
1.893
6$50
21.849
—
7250
47
—
29
226
10$
3.9
1244
1884
10.80
4.1312
8.8
1.3081
1.101
j•7$91
1.8 582
1.9271
1569
6
—
19
16
26
2.7
28
32t0 1 884
3,41 to 127
2.4C to 8.25
7.5 to 6.8
2.28k to 5.091
1.8S to 3.96
8.O3 tO 1.69
3.62 to .es .2
4•453 to 21.0
226 to 22,700
6 to 47
0.09 to 29
0.005 to 226
0.32 tO. tOO
o.009 to 9.6
1.4 to 1244
P VE*J
48 G U
FLVENT
WASTE LC
Paranaterl
I/tOfl
. 9/i
I/ On
ag/i
9/ton
.9/1
I/ton
911
flow gal/ton
$usp.n4.d solid.
Oil $nd Ozeane
pM
? luoU4.
Lssd
Manganeon
1.1814.
Zinc
1938
1.221
1.74S 2
8.1
1.2021
—
2.1l4
(9.694
6.3
9
—
6.2
-
0.14
(0.5
381
6.138
8.008
8.7
l.l61
—
l.870
1.134
46
6
—
0.87
0.14
0.85
264
S.311
1.430
1.7
1.1782
3.799
8.7I4
9.40
1.43
-
13
3.5
—
7.88
0.93
2.15
23
3.5
NO DISCI
‘
0 tO 4.311
0 to 3.002
7.4 to 8.7
0 to 1.20k
0 to 4.0
0 tO 1.30
0 to 9.40
0 to t.43
0 tO 46
0 to 9
0 to 9
0 to 0.9
0 to 3.1
0 to 23
0 tO 3.5
B
-------
Molding and Dust Collection Operations
Base Level of Treatment . Implementation of good housekeeping
practices with settling and periodic solids removal. Once-
through use of water.
Additional Power Requirements . In order to meet the anticipated
standard the emissions from the molding and cleaning dust
collection operations will require additional equipment for
the wastewater treatment system. The additional energy
consumed will be 2.77 kwh/kkg (2.52 kwh/ton) of sand processed.
For the typical 290.2 kkg/day (320 tons/day) molding and
cleaning dust collection operations, 33.6 kw (45 hp) will
have to be added. The annual operating cost for the additional
equipment will be $3,375.
Non-Water Quality Aspects .
1. Air Pollution: The main air pollution problem will be
suspended particulate matter. Although the exhaust gases
will be passed through a wash, 0.]. kkg of particulate emission
per kkg (lb/l,000 lb) of exhaust gas will be emitted into
the atmosphere.
2. Solid Waste Disposal:- A portion of the solid waste
from the waste system may be collected and recycled to the
melting operations and the remainder may be clamshelled and
landfilled.
Sand Washing Operations
Base Level of Treatment . Implementation of good housekeeping
practices w]Ih treatment of wastewater in settling tank with
period solids removal. Once—through use of water.
Additional Power Requirements . Additional equipment will be
required in order to meet the anticipated standard of 1977
for the sand washing operations. The additional energy
consumed will be 12.3 kwh/kkg (11.2 kwh/ton) of metal produced.
18.6 kw (25 hp) will have to be added to the typical 36.3
kkg/day (40 ton/day) sand washing operations. The annual
operating cost for the additional equipment will be $1,875.
Non-Water Quality Aspects .
1. Solid Waste Disposal: The solid waste from the waste
system maybe clamshelled and landfilled.
141
-------
td 1 pt
Multiple Operations
Base Level of Treatment . Implementation of good housekeeping
practices combining wastewater from all systems in a common
settling tank, with periodic solids removal. Once-through
use of water.
Additional Power Re uirements . In order to meet the antici-
pated standard utilizing a wet system in cleaning the
emissions from the multiple foundry operations will require
additional equipment for the wastewater treatment system.
The additional energy consumed will range from 15.1 to 71.8
kwh/kkg (13.7 to 65.2 kwh/ton) of metal produced, depending
on the combination of multiple operations used. For the
typical 36.3 kkg/day (40 tons/day) foundry multiple operations,
52.2 to 138.0 kw (70 to 185 hp) will have to be added. The
annual operating cost for the additional equipment will
range from $5,250 to $13,875.
Non—Water Quality Aspects .
1. Air Pollution: The main air pollution problem will be
suspended particulate matter. Although the exhaust gases
will be passed through a wash, 0.1 kkg of particulate
emission per kkg (lbs/L,000 ibs) of exhaust gas will be
emitted into the atmosphere.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: A portion of the solid waste may
be recycled to the melting system whereas the remainder may
be clamshelled and landfilled.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER IMPACT
The energy requirements and non—water quality aspects
associated with the advanced treatment technology for each
subcategory are discussed below:
Melting Operations
Additional Power Requirements . Additional equipment will be
required to improve the water to meet the anticipated 1983
standard. The additional energy consumption will be 98.7
kwh/kkg (89.5 kwh/ton) of metal produced. The additional
power requirements will be 149.2 kw (200 hp) for the typical
36.3 kkg/day (40 ton/day) melting operations. The annual
operating cost due to the addition of this equipment will be
$15,000.
142
-------
Non-Water Quality Aspects .
1. Air Pollution: Same as 1977.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977.
Moldi and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
Additional Power Requirements . Additional equipment will be
necessary to improve the quality of”the water to meet the
1983 standard. The additional energy consumed will be 9.25
kwh/kkg (8.39 kwh/ton) of metal produced. The additional
power requirements will be 111.9 kw (150 hp) for the typical
290.2 kkg/day (320 ton/day) molding and cleaning dust collection
operations. The annual operating cost due to the addition
of this equipment will be $11,250.
Non-Water Quality Aspects .
1. Air Pollution: Same as 1977.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977.
Sand Washing Operations
Additional Power Requirements . In order to improve the
quality of [ he water to meet the 1983 standard, additional
equipment will be necessary. The additional energy consumed
will be 98.7 kwh/kkg (89.5 kwh/ton) of metal produced. The
additional power requirements will be 149.2 kw (200 hp) for
the typical 36.3 kkg/day (40 ton/day) sand washing operations.
The annual operating cost due to the addition of this equipment
will be $15,000.
Non-Water Quality Aspects .
1. Air Pollution: Same as 1977.
2. Solid Waste Di posal: Same as 1977.
Multiple Operations - Melting and Molding and Cleaning
Additional Power Requirements . Additional equipment will be
required to improve the water to meet the anticipated 1983
standard. The additional energy consumption will be 39.5
kwh/kkg (35.8 kwh/ton) of metal produced. The additional
power requirements will be 59.7 kw (80 hp) for the typical
36.3 kkg/day (40 ton/day) foundry utilizing melting and
molding and cleaning dust collection operations. The annual
operating cost due to the addition of this equipment will be
$6,000.
143
-------
b 1 ç 1
Non-Water Quality Aspects .
1. Air Pollution: Same as 1977.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977.
Multiple Operations - Melting and Sand Washing
Additional Power Requirements . Additional equipment will be
required to improve the water to meet the anticipated 1983
standard. The additional energy consumption will be 37.0
kwh/kkg (33.6 kwh/ton) of metal produced. The additional
power requirement will be 55.9 kw (75 hp) for the typical
36.3 kkg/day (40 ton/day) foundry with melting and sand
washing operations. The annual operating cost due to the
addition of this equipment will be $5,625.
Non-Water Quality
1. Air Pollution: Same as 1977.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977.
Multiple Operations - Molding and Cleaning and Sand Washing
Additional Power Requirements . Additional equipment will be
I Eo improve the water to meet the anticipated 1983
standard. The additional energy consumption will be 29.6
kwh/kkg (26.8 kwh/ton) of metal produced. The additional
power requir nts will be 44.7 kw (60 hp) for the typical
36.3 kkg/day (40 ton/day) foundry with molding and cleaning
dust collection and sand washing Operations. The annual
operating cost due to the addition of this equipment will be
$4,500.
Non-Water Quality
1. Air Poflution: Same as 1977.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977.
Multiple Operations - All Subcategories
Additional Power Requirements . Additional equipment will be
iI to improve the water to meet the anticipated 1983
standard • The additional energy consumption will be 49.3
kwh/kkg (44.7 kwh/ton) of metal produced. The additional
power requirements will be 74.6 kw (100 hp) for the typical
36.3 kkg/day (40 ton/day) foundry using wet collection
systems on all operations. The annual operating cost due to
the addition of this equipment will be $7,500.
144
-------
Non-Water Quality Aspects .
1. Air Pollution: Same as 1977.
2. Solid Waste Disposal: Same as 1977.
FULL RANGE OF TECHNOLOGY IN USE OR AVAILABLE TO THE FOUNDRY
INDUSTRY
The full range of technology in use or available to the
foundry industry today is presented in Tables 16 through 22.
In addition to presenting the range of treatment met hods
available, these tables also describe for each method:
1. Resulting effluent levels for critical constituents
2. Status and reliability
3. Problems and limitations
4. Implementation time
5. Land requirements
6. Environmental impacts other than water
7. Solid waste generation
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES
Costs associated with the full range of treatment technology
including investment* capital depreciation, operating and
maintenance, and energy and power are presented on water
effluent cost tables corresponding to the appropriate
category technology Tables 16 through 22.
Costs were developed as follows:
1, National annual production rate data was collected and
tabulated along with the number of plants in each subcategory.
From this, an “average” size plant was established.
2. Flow rates were established based on the’ data accumulated
during the survey portion of this study and from knowledge
of what flow reductions could be obtained with minor modif i-
cations. The flow is here expressed in l/kkg or gal./ton of
product.
3. Then a treatment process model and flow diagram, was
developed for each subcategory.
This was based on knowledge of how most industries in a
certain subcategory handle their wastes, and on the flow
rates established by 1 and 2 above.
4. Finally, a quasi-detailed cost estimate was made on the
developed flow diagram.
145
-------
Total, annual costs in August, 1971 dollars were calculated
on total operating costs (including all chemicals, maintenance,
labor, energy, and power) and the capital recovery costs.
Capital recovery costs were then subdivided into straight-
line ten—year depreciation and the cost of capital at a 7%
annual interest rate for ten years.
The capital recovery factor (CRF) is normally used in
industry to help allocate the initial investment and the
interest to the total operating cost of a facility. ‘The CRF
is equal to i plus i divided by a -1, where a is equal to
(1 + i) to the power n. The CRF is multiplied by the
initial investment to obtain the annual capital recovery.
That is: (CRF) (P) ACR. The annual depreciation is found
by dividing the initial investment by the depreciation
period (n 10 years). That is: P/10 = annual depreciation.
Then the annual cost of capital has been assumed to be the
total annual capital recovery minus the annual depreciation.
That is: ACR - P110 = annual cost of capital.
Construction costs are dependent upon many different variable
conditions and in order to determine definitive costs the
following parameters are established as the basis of estimates.
In addition, the cost estimates as developed reflect only
average coats.
1. The treatment facilities are contained within a “battery
limit” site location and are erected on a “green field”
site. Site clearance costs such as existing plant equipment
relocation, etc., are not included in cost estimates.
2.- Equipment costs are based on specific effluent water
rates. A change in water flow rates will affect costs.
3. The treatment facilities are located in criose proximity
to the foundry processing areas. Piping and other utility
costs for interconnecting utility runs between the treatment
facilities battery limits and process equipment areas are
not included in cost estimates.
4. Sales a nd use taxes or freight charges are not included
in cost estimates.
5. Land acquisition coats are not included in cost estimates.
6. Expansion of existing supporting utilities such as
sewage, river water pumping stations, increased boiler
caRacity are not included in cost estimates.
146
-------
7. Potable water, fire lines, and sewage lines to service
treatment facilities are not included in cost estimates.
8. Limited instrumentation has been included for pH
control, but no automatic samplers, temperature indicators,
flow meters, recorders, etc., are included in cost estimates.
9. The site conditions are based on:
a. No hardpan or rock excavation, blasting. etc.
b. No pilings or spread footing foundations for poor soil
conditiOns.
c. No well pointing.
d. No dams, channels, or site drainage required.
e. No cut and fill or grading of site.
f. No seeding or planting of grasses and only minor site
grubbing and small shrubs clearance; no tree removal.
10. Control buildings are prefabricated buildings, not
brick or block type.
11. No painting, pipe insulation, and steam or electric
heat tracing are included.
12. No special guardrails, buildings, lab test facilities,
signs, docks are included.
Other factors that affect costs but cannot be evaluated:
1. Geographic location in United States.
2. Metropolitan or rural areas.
3. Labor rates, local union rules, regulations, and
restrictions.
4. Manpower requirements.
5. Type of contract.
6. Weather conditions or season.
7. Transportation of men, materials, and equipment.
147
-------
8. Building code requirements.
9. Safety requirements.
10. General business conditions.
The cost estimates do reflect an on—site “battery limit”
treatment plant with electrical substation and equipment for
powering the facilities, all necessary pumps, treatment
plant interconnecting feed pipe lines, chemical treatment
facilities, foundations, structural steel, and control
house. Access roadways within battery limits area are
inclided ix estimates baEed upon 3.65 cm (1.5 in.) thick
bituminous wearing course a 10 cm (4 in.) thick sub-base
with sealer, binder, and gravel surfacing. A nine gage
chain 1i k fence with three strand barbed wire and one truck
gate was included for fencing in treatment facilities area.
The cost estimates also include a 15% contingency, 10%
contractor’s overhead and profit, and engineering fees of
15%.
148
-------
I- .’
CA:EGORY/SUBCATEGORY: Melting Operations
TABLE 16
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
and/or control
eployed*
Resulting Ef—
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
.
Status
and
Reliability
Problems
and
Limitations
Implementation
Time
Land
Requirement!
nvironmenta1 Solid Waste
Impact Other I Generation
than & Primary
Water Constit’.at ti
free furnace .siie-1
system collscts4
e.parator with Rini_j
solid rs.oval
pS 5—9
U 2000-5000
OSG 10-60
Pb 10-500
Insff.ctive if
t ..intainsd
Gross diacharg
of solids
•
1
santh
10’ a 10’
Solid waste
disposal
Silica and
iron o*id.
direct discharge.
So 10-400
.
water usage.
So 10—2000
5— 5-50
row slag quench-
P 15 —90
in slag quench
tank) ainiaal sow-
.
resaval follow
discharge.
wet*r aage.
collection of .11
for solids r val
.
discharge. dens—
with effluents
pH 5-9
Erratic per-
Sane is A.
2
acnths
30’ a 30’
Sane as *
Sane as A
water separator
U 200—1500
fozowacs if
to s.ttling tank
OSG 10-40
flow fluctuate
owerf Low for
Pb S-lao
suspended solids
So 5—200
O srf low to direct
Zn 10—500
.
solids xsso.d
S 5—50
F 15-70
•Listed in order or increasing effcti àneiS
-------
C GORY/SVECATEGORYt
TAILE 16 (cont.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREAT NT TECHZ OWGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUSCArEGORIES
ar.d/or cor.trol
e yed’
Resulting EL—
fluent Levels
for Critical
Conitjt nts
StQtui
an4
Reliability
Pc,,bl.m.
and
Liritatiens
Implementation
T a
Land
ftequirsm.ntr
1 .nv .roon a .. 5oJ. c aste
Impact Other ‘G.ne:atic
than & Prinary
Water Cp st tu F
with partial cc— j
settling tank effiu—1
sumac. ssusion
Caustic or
for corrosion
Nigh solids undeg—
uousiy discharq.4
for d.watsr$ng.
p $9
U 150—700
Pb 5—40
5-SO
to 10.40
S 63$
F 1545
Fair — sass
as jj 5.
jq ggican
.o lids r.d*c-
t.ton.
Mquirag con—
SinuoUs cc—
aovøl of ,
5.quirss in-
.tr ntaticn
for h cal
addition
6
nsnths
60’ n 60’ Snore.., in Solid waits
anlid waits contains lass
for disposal veter
$
I
with partial cc—
quench drag
back to slag
fcc. slag qusoch
.
and settling tank
OO LnS4 for direct
100’ x 100’ Sam. as C
.
with addition of
to furnace
pH 6—9
$5 50—250
Fair to good -
significant
Sass as C -
m.quir.s
6
esaths
Sam. as C
control system set—
060 10—30
r.ductiOn in
additional
for improved
Pb 3—20
solids. Tends
chs.icals
solids removal.
5—25
to be staM.
5—35
with all the efflu
1 5—25
entfro .thsslaqquSnchdi*
F 3—46
incorporated with or
water applied
emission control
0
This affects a tern
discharge fcc. the
process.
.
j
‘I
-------
1
U1
:O Y/SUBCATZ 3RY: M.itinq operation
TABLE 16 (cont.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
Treatent .c/ r ccr.erol
ret .s .--.- ..tvoc
Resuit r.g —
fluent Levels Status
for Critica2. and
Cotit nts Re1iabi1Lty
Pr:blerts
and
LimitatiOnS
Lnviror . an al So c naste
I p ct Other Gene:ttio
Ilnplecer.tationl Land than & Pri ary
Tire Requiro ents caeer Co s:ie -ts
D—l
Same as A—I .Jith discharge
of all raw waste from slag
quench and f4tnace emissIOn
control discr.arqed to large
drag tank for zolid removal.
Addition of caustic or lime
for corrosion control. Polyl
electrolyte addition for
iziprov.d solids removal.
i
Partial recycle of drag tank
,
effluent to slagging and
emission control systems.
I
!
S.
Same as 0 with discharge
pH 6-9
Good — shows
Requires large
6
months to
1/8 — 3 Sam. as C
Same as C
to co n settling basin for
55 40
considerable
capacity.
1
year
acres
further solids removal, Oil
skiew.ing followed by direct
OIG 15
Pb 1.6
stabilitj at
constant flow
Requires
maintenance
I
discharge.
Mn S
Zn S
—— 0
and frequent
solids removal
I
:
F.
Same a. E wit. addition of
pH 6—9
Very good —
Requires close.
6
ironths to
Same as E Same as C Same ma C
recirculating 3idestream
SS 25
little tan—
control and
1
year
:
chemical treat.’pnt. settling
O&G 10
dency to upset
increased
tanji. d. grittr. clarifica—
tion and/er filtration for
further solids removal thus
Pb 1
Mn 3
Zn 3
maintenance
I
upgrading the quality of
S 1.25
the discharge stream. Com—
plete recycle of the efflu—
ant from settling basin.
F 12.5
Discharge of sid.str.am
effluent b1ow own or back
wash thus affecting a
-------
itLa. 0 .ration*
TABLE 16 (cont.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND EA ’IZ T TEcM oWGY
FOR RZLATED CATEGORIRS AND SUBCATZGOZXES
and,’ r e*ntrol
e_ c
M tfl9 E±—
fLint Lsviis
for Crittcai
Conatittents
Status
and
R.1Labi1ity
Pr3blsms
and
Limitations
•.
Iap l.m.ntationi Land
?i to RequirementS
Envirofl .Intai soi .aste
Impact Other GeneratiOn
than & Pri ary
water CO?tSt t4VtS
redaction in 1
wait.w.t.r j—
Dtac arq. of slid.
to p. ly.l.ctro 4
coagulant
.
,
fallow by flash
clarification and
discharge.
with co litI
westewmtsx and
Vary good -
uro discharg.
Requires lszg
area
B sontha to
1 year
Ba.. as C
sans as C
S as C
discharge.
.
sufticieet detinti.
settling of solids
of
Casstic addi.
corrosion control.
.
I
,
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 16
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
MELTING SUBCATEGORY
Treatment of Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the BATEA BATEA
Scope of Work: A B I C 0 E 1 I F
Investment ________ 5211.500 5121c00 S 2g.200 S 18.300 SIQR,flflfl
Annual Costs:
Capital ________ 9.100 5.200 1.300 gflp ________
Depreciation ________ 21,200 12.100 2.900 1.800 19.500
Operation & Maintenance ________ 7.400 4.300 1.000 oo _ .900
Sludge Disposal _______ ________ 1.300 _______ _______ _______
n.rgy & Power ________ ________ 7.500 ego 400 ‘ 5.000
Oil Disposal ________ ________ ________ ________ 700 ________
chemical Costs ________ ________ 100 2.000 ________ 200
TOTAL ________ 537,700 s 30.500 s a,ooo $ 4.300 550.400
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents Resulting Effluent Levels
Parsasters — units
Flow, gal./ton 6000 6000 1700 1500 1500 300
3000— 200—
Suspend.d Solids, ag/i 5000 1500 150—700 50—250 40 25
Oil and Grease, mg/i 10—60 10—40 10—40 10—30 15 10
Fluoride, ag/l 15—90 15—70 15—45 5—45 20 12.5
Manganese, ag/ I 10—400 5—200 5—50 5—25 5 3
Lead, ag/i 10—500 5—100 5—40 5—20 1.6 1.0
Zinc, mg/l 10—2000 10—500 10—50 5—35 5 3
Sulfide, ag/i 5—SO 5-SO S—25 5—25 2 1.25
PH. units 5—9 S—9 6—9 6—9 6—9 6—9
153
-------
I-i
U’
TABLE 17
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL MD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
TON RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORXES
CZGORY/S BCATEGONY z Molding and Cleaning Dust Collect ion Op.rat ions
Tr.atr snt and/or control
.ehods an loy.d
Resulting E —
flu.nt Levels
for Critical
Constituents
•
Status Probisal
and and
Rs1i*bUiW Liaitatio $
.
Land
Nequirenent.
EnvironnentaL SoAic &5te
lupact Other Generation
than 6 Prinary
cater Co stitu t
Xiipl.asnt*tior
Tins
A.
Vastscatr cell*ct.d in s.t-
tzing tint or ll j ca el
for bulk rSdsctlon of suapsa-
— -s
as 5,ooo-as ooo
Ce o 20-ZOO
InIffecti’S it
poorly .ais
tathid
s di.-
chorge of
solids
1 soeth
30’ 1 30’
solid casts
disposal
Silica and
iron
dsd solids, solids r.....i 3
periodically with direct
dtsctozgs of ws.t.catat.
Cec.-t ouqh catar usage.
•.
Sbus a. A with partial
recycle of wastawatar. -
tinuoso solids r’al by Eel
p5 6-9
50 1000-4000
016 20-150
*rrstic pecfor-
canon if flow
fluctuates
oes di.-
charg. of
solid.
2 etbu
60’ 1 60’
solid waste
disposal
silic, and
astaflic
iron
flow Cyclone aspirator..
drag tank with bottos drag
chsi* or Larger iagc t.
Mditios of caustic or line
.fox p1 control.
C.
Sans as B with discborgs of
w.st t.r to large
.ont for L. ,....ssl solids
p5 6-9
U 10-3000
056 20-50
fair to good
.igoificsnt
solids ruduc—
asquirsa con-
tinucqa. rova
of solids and
6 .oetbo
00’ 510’
Additional I sans as I
solid cast.
disposal
r ,al foll by direct
5’ 10-20
tion
in.transotatio
discharge,
for chanical
odditica
D.
Seas as C with .dditics of
p1 6-9
Good -
Mqiairca large
sootbo to
1 y.ar
1/5—3 acre.
5 .. C
5 as B
poly.lsctrolyte and flash aix
jog oUow.d discharge to to-
pounduant. Oil u— and
disc h arg.
11 40
066 IS
shows oonsidec-
able stability
of constant
flow
capacity cain-
taL thg and
frequsat solid
r,. 1
List.d in order OZ Increas Ing srzect vans..
-------
U .’
U.’
TABLE 17 (CON?.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTP.OL AI D TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RZLATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
cA::zOPY/suECA ?zG RY: Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
Resuita.n 1z—
Treat .ent ar.d/ : :c trol for Critical
fluent Levels
et ds c Cor.stitts
and
Status
eiiability
I inv ronmcntai. So t ‘&ste I
[ nd Inpler.entation Land than & Primary
Impact Other Generation
Proble
Llnitations Tite Requirenents tcatar Co stit .c er
Requires clOse 6 months to 1 years Same as 0 Same as C Same as B
control and
increased main-i
E.
.
Same as 0 with a Lt on of pH 6—9
recirculat nq st estrean cheri—iSS 25
ical treatment. ettlinq lOeG 10
V.ery good —
littl, tendency
towards upset
tanks degrtttirig. c artfxca—
teinence
tion and or filtratton for
further solids r’ ovaL thus
upgrading the quality of the
discharge stream. o3% return
of sidestream flow to dust
collection process. aloi own
of sidestream to existing
blowdown treatrent followed
F.
by direct thacharg. to
existing blowdown treatment
syst .
Sail. as B with complete re—
PH Very good -
SS —— zero discharge
O SG ——
Requires large
jrea
6 months to
1 Y.ai
j
Same as D Same as c Same as s
cycle of wastewater and zero
aqueous discharge requires
large impoundment for set
tling of solids and equalibra—
tion of waitewater.
.
‘I
-------
DR,
TABLE 17
WA!IR EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
MOLDING AND CLEANING DUST COLLECTION SUBCATEGORY
Treatasut of Control Thcunoiogi.es
Identified under Iten III of the BPCTCA BATEA
8co p oof rk: A LB D I I S I
Investasut ! 309 .100 $244,000 $ 24,000 $ 39,700 $274,900
p Il nal Costss
Capital 13.300 10.500 1 .000 1.700 11 . 500
Depreciation 30.900 j 1 jQ9 2.400 4.000 27.500
operation & Ma 1 ”t.i’ ’ cs 10,800 _j g 800 1,400 9.600
Sludge Disposal _______ 8.700 _______ _______ _______
Energy & Poser _______ 2.300 _______ 1.100 1 .300
Oil Disposal ________ ________ ________ 1 20Q ________
Chasical Costs ________ 200 ________ 1.600 ________
TOTAL J J QQ9 jJjJ 9 j . .jJ99 $ 11.000 S 60.200
If fluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents Resulting Effluent Levels
Parasstrs -. units
Flow. qal./ton 1 700 300 300 300 100
1,000— 80—
8wIpendl4S !14s. 1 1 3/ i 15.000 6,000 1.000 40
Oil and Gr.as., ag/i 20—200 20—150 20—50 15 10
pa, units 6—8 6—9 6—9 6—9 6—9
156
-------
I- ’
U i
-4
CAGO ?/SUBCA?EGORY: Sand Washino Operations
TABLE 18
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL MD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR BELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
Tree tz.nt and/or control
eehods em 1oyed ’
Resulting Ef—
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
Status
and
Reliability
Problems
and
Limitations
IapleLsntation
Tins
Land
Environmental Solia haste
Impact Other Generation
than a Primary
Water Con1tit’3e t
A.
Wastsw.t.r affluent fron
product s.parator discharged
to usali settling tank with
stir os.rf law • for suspended
pA 6-9
aS 1000-2000
OaG 40-150
Inst f.ctiv. if
poorly us$.n-
tain.d
Gross discharq
of solids
1 .onth
30 K 30’
Solid wait. Silica and
disposal iron
solids raso,al follow.d by
direct diacbarg.. Once —
through usage. Periodic ce—
soval of solid..
5.
Sane as A with widerf low to
drag tank for isprov.d solids
pH 6-9
ss 300—1000
Irratic p.rfor-
sanc. if flaw
5 a. A
2 sonths
60’ K 60
has as A
Sass as *
r ,si followed by direct
ceo 40-150
fluctuates
discharg, of co in.d .fflu-
—Its.
C.
£ as I with addition of
poly.1.ctrolyts to settling
tank for isproved solid.
s.ttlingj addition of ca .tL
for pH contxoli partial di. —
6-9
55 100-300
ceo 40-150
Pair to good
significant
solids r.duction
Requires r
.1 of solids
and ln,tru.as-
tatiol%
ical addition
6 .nnths
SO’ K 80’
Additionil
solid west.
dispOsal
Sase as A
charge back to sand wa 1il —g
prooe .s. Ov,xflow to direct
discharge.
D.
iaes a. C with discharg, to
i oundesnt oil sktlnq
followed by discharge.
pH 6-9
5 5 40
OSiG 15
Good shows
consid.ra)g,
stability at
Requires large
cspacity usia-
tenance and
6 south . to
yasr
1
1/8 to 3
ecr.s
ha.. as C
Baa. as A
.
constant flow
.
fr.quust solid
royal
.
-
‘Listed in ord.r Of effectiveness
-------
U,
ôna pp4r na
TABLE 18 (CONT.)
FOUNDR? O? RATIONS
CONTROL A RZ: E T TECENOLOGY
FOR RELATED cA:EGCR:zs A D SUBCA EG0RIES
eat er t ar.d .’ : control
ret - ds ,r :ed •
Resuit .ng Ef—
f1% ent Levels
for Critical
Corstit . entS
Stntus Pro 1.ma
end and
Reliabil ti LLrltaticnl
Inpiementation Land
Ttre Reauir.r.enti
Xnpnct Other Generation
then & Pri zry
,ter co stit . t
E.
Sajie a. 3 with dt n of rsi
circ i.tinq si * itresa chea
ical trsatrsnt. Set;.in tank. 1
d.gritter, eiar et. and/or
filtration for further solids
pH 6—9
U 25
OSG 10
cry good.
ittl. tendencY
0 ‘3PI’
Mquir.. close
control and La—
reas.d aSth
tanance
6 sooth. to
year
1
Seal as 0
Increase in
solid waste for
disposal
Solid waits
ontatn. liii
water
rsa oval thus upgrading the
quality of he d .scharqe
struan. 6O ret.3Efl f side—
.
stream flow to aen weaning
process. 31o ,dcvn of side—
stream to sxtsti g blowdown
ttsetmsnt follow. by direct
discharge.
P.
SaPs C5 $ with c plete re—
p8 --
ery good, zero
Requires large
6 months to
1
Sese as 0
Ieee as S
Sam. as I
cycle of wast.weter and zero
U —
tscharg.
area
year
aqueous d schar. figures
OSG --
large impoundment for
settling of solids and
squ.lzbretion of westewatsr.
Poly.LeCtto lytU addition
for improved solids ramoval
and caustic addition for pH
I
control.
-
.___
I
-------
bRA FT
TABLE 18
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
SAND WASHING SUSCATEGORY
Treatment of Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the BPCTCA BATEA
Scope of Work: A I B C 0 I I E
Investment $211,800 $ 17,000 $ 87,000 $ 18,300 $197,300
Annual Costs:
Capital 9,100 700 3,800 800 8,500
Depreciation 21,200 1,700 8,700 1,800 19,700
Operation & Maintenance 7,400 600 3,000 600 6,900
Sludge Disposal ________ 300 ________ ________ ________
Energy & Power ________ ________ 1,500 400 15,000
Oil Disposal _______ ________ ________ 1,300 ________
Chemical Costs ________ ________ 3,000 ________ 2,700
$ 37,700 $ 3,300 $ 20,000 $ 4,900 $ 52,800
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents Resulting Effluent Levels
Parameters — units
Flow, gal./ton 3000 3000 1000 1000 300
1000— 300—
Suspended Solids, mg/i 2000 1000 100—300 40 25
Oil and Grease, mg/i 40—150 40—150 40—150 15 10
pH, units 6—9 6—9 6-9 69 6—9
159
-------
0
0
CA GORY/5U3CATECORY Nultiple Operations
TARLZ 19
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL ?4ID TREATMENT TECIINOWGY
FOR REL TZD CATEGORIES MID SUBCATEGORIES
Dust
and/or control
enploy.d
ff W1 -
fluent Lavels
for Critical
CoMtituutts
.
Status
and
Reliability
Prcbl.aa
and
LiMtatiOfli
lissatatL r
TLS
Land
*e uireaintt
Impact Other I G.nSration
than S Prinary
Water Conitituontr
.
collected in set-
pa s-a
1nsffecti e if
ess dis-
1 anath
10’ r 10’
Solid waste dio
silica iron
or ball i oond-
redonti.. of
Is J000 4000
000 1040
not intained
arg. of
solid.
9 0. 51
oxide
solid.. SolId.
direct dioaberg
Pb 10-SOD
Pb 10-400
,
‘
Op.s-thro
Pb 10-2000
usage.
W S-SO
P 15-90
.
10’ a 29’
collected in set-
pa 6-9
In.ffectiwe if
Gross die-
1 nooth
solid waits di.
Silica iron
or snail Iapousd-
$ 1 5000-1500
not asiotsinud
abarge of
posal
oxide
redection of
050 20-200
solid. -
solid.. Solid.
periodically with
,
of wastO-
Oncs-throiapb water
.
slag qimnabthq
used as k.i*
furnace .uission
pa 6-9
U 40
050 15
Doad - shawl
considerable
stability at
lequirs. large
cop.clty and
wain. u—
6 wanths to
1 year
1/S to 3 acres
Increased ohid
waste disposal
Ions a. A
with waco
Pb 1.6
constant flaw
frequsut solid
discharge. Addition
Pb S
.. v_l,
as iatic and poly-
Pb S
to fusnace eeL.-
1 2
systsu recycled
P 20
for susp.i d
with di.charg
to fi ther clan
‘
oil skianing.
•List.d in order of increasing of fsctiPSnSI s
-------
Multiple Operations
I’ABL.E 19 (CONT.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TRT T TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND $L7aCATEGORIES
Meltina S Moldina S Cleanina
I
H
H
Resuit g Et-
Envi ôr.nental Sojic caste
:tent e d/ : cer.erel
fluent Levels
for Critical
Status
and
Pr S1e s
and
Imp1ementation Land
In pact Other Generation
than & Pri ry
r s ved’
Corstituonts
Re1iahi1 ty
Lir i aticns
Tin .e Requirenents
tater Constit Z
:: .
:
SI. Addition of lire or caustic
p&( 6—9
Good - shows
Requires large
6 months to
1/8 to 3 acres
Increased solid
SaSe as A
and po lyelectrrljte to re—
55 40
c nsidereb1.
capacity. main
1 year
wast, disposal
cycled wash watir r sus—
050 15
stability at
t.nanca and
p.n .d CoLid renavai with
constant flaw
frequent solid
diarnarge of b1ow wn to
removal
f .irther carift ation and oi
siri thg.
Combine discharged effluents
from I and II in co n dis-
charge.
BAlSA
C.—t C I I
Sans as level S b ,t with
pH 6-9
Very good -
Requires close
6 months to
Same a. BPCItA Same as SPClCA Same as A
combining waste streams from
SS 25
littl, tendency
control and
1 year
I and II for e l ds removal
osO 10
to upset
increasea
and oil ski r.;. Addition
of recirculatir.g sidestream
Pb
Mn <3
maintenance
.
I
chemical treat.r ent, settling
tSJLk5, degnitt—rs, cla.nifica
Zn
S <1.25
I
tion and/or filtration for
further solids removal thuS
F <12.5
.
upgrading the quality of the
disc iarge stream. Complete
recycle of the etfluent from
.
the settling oasin back to
.
the w it me’ting operation
and molding and cleaning
-------
CA OPY/SUBCA EGr 7rf sultipis Op.rations
TABLE 19 CONT.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTAOL M D TR ATZZ T TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES IIND SUBCATEGORIES
oust ouction Operations
and/or control
kesult ng £2—
fluent Levels
for Critical
Cor.etitmonts
Status
and
Reliability
Problems
and
Linitatiorts
Land
Requirements
Lnvironrcntai So.La.c a5te
X pact Other ‘Generation
than & Prinary
t aeer Co .st tue tS
Implem.ntatior
Ti s
I
I
op.rstton. I
sidsetreas blow.’
backwash to polyel.c4
addition follow.d
i*inq. clarifica—
discharg . Thus
pN 6 —9
59 25
010 10
Pb ‘1
itt (3
20 (3
Very good -
litti. t.nd.ncy
tO upset
Rsqu.ttse close
ontroi and
increased
eaint.nasic.
6 .ontha to
1 year
Slas as PPC1 CA S aS. as RPCTCA Basses A
significant
the wasts load
$ (1.25
P (12.5
of w.St.watlr
t)wovqh the
osrèin.d treat-
wsstswater* f too
operation.
B w t dis-
blowdour frog
and clearing
operation
to so1id aspen—
ta h of netting
entt no 4—
cleaning dust col-
6—9
59 25
010 10
Pb 4
b (3
Zn (3
S (1.25
F (12.5
Very good —
•cosiastc a l
20quires
closer control
and increased
eaint.nance
6 eanths to
1 year
Seas as BPCTCA’ Base as IPCTCA
Baa. as A
Operation has now
rune açusous
the blowdoim
is used 55 aak.up
unit melting opera-
Discharge of unit
-------
cZ OY/SCA EC RY:
TABLE 19 (CONT.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIO ;S
CONTROL A D TR ATIENT TECENOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
Nettino & Moldina & Cleanina
ust
f1 ent Levels
a d/c cor.:rol for Crit ca1
ycc’ Cor.stieu2nts
operation blowd m pM 6-9
susp nded solids SS 25
oil skirTstLnq. 0&G 10
recirculating Pb <1
cheric l treat— (3
tahrs. de— Zn <3
clariftcati n S <1.25
filtration for F <12.5
ramovsl thus
the quality of
strean.
recycle of the
the settling
to the unit
Status
and
Reliability
.
Very good —
economical
Pr thler s
and Irip1er entation
ti itati s Ti .e
,
Requires closer 6 month. to
Control and 1 year
increas*d main_f
tenance
I
I
nvjroh entjj Soj ste
I Ir pact Other Gene: tion
Land than a Pric ary
Reouirei entr caeer Cor stitue s
i
Saae as BPCTCA Same as BPCTCA Same as A
f
uperation and unit
cleaning dust
operatiofl. Di.
the si estrea *
bac ash to
addition
flash miring,
and disciaxqe.
a sigruuicar.t
of th. waste load
of the discharge
writ operation
benefits of com-
of the waste
unit operation.
.
I
I
S
I
I
I-I
-------
TM!.! 19 (cON?.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREAT ZNT TtCHNOLOG
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
nultiDi. Oo .ratiana
Islting & Noldins a Cl.wJnq
Tr,atnent and/or control
ret! :ds c— .cyed
N.suit3ng U—
f1* sr t Lavals
for Critical
Cot ztitt..nts
8tst za
and
ReliabilitY
Problems
and
LimItations
.
Land
nts
-
£nv rou .nta1 Solic baIts
Inpact Other Gsn•ration
than J a Prinary
j__ Constit M
Xaplemsontation
Tin.
0.— la ir
I
Discharg, of all aitreat.d r
waste to fore wUt so ding and
pi
U
V.ry good
t.quiLzes larg.
.
C soothe to
1 year
Sb 5 M &
lean as sam
• , an £
cleaning dust eolleti.cn spur.—
O&d
tion and isUt nuLtU operation
Pb —
to a GQoa settLing has aJt or
Pb • --
draq taM. Addition of caustic
and han for pM sd usr.annt. Ad-
Pb —
1 —
dition of poly.1.ctrslyts for
? —
*.oprovsd solids rsoovsi sod oil
•kiinq with conpists recycle
and zero .quso m diachargu.
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 19
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
MULTIPLE OPERATIONS
MELTING AND MOWING AND CLEANING DUST COLLECTION SUBCATEGORY
Treatment of Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the BPCTCA BATEA
Scope of Work: A I B U [ C I D E
Investment $520,900 $476,700 $327,000
Annual Costs:
Capital 22,400 20,500 14,000 ________ ________
Depreciation 52,100 47 r 60 ° 32,700 ________ ________
Op.ration 6 Maintenance 18,200 16,600 11,400 ________ ________
Sludge Disposal ________ 10,000 ________ ________ ________
Energy 6 Power ________ 12,100 6,000 ________ ________
Oil Disposal ________ 1,900 ________ ________ ________
Chemical Costs ________ 3,900 7,600 ________ ________
TOTAL $ 92,700 $112,600 $ 71,700 ________ ________
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents Resulting Effluent Levels
Parameters - units -
Flow, gal./ton 19,600 3,900 825 ________ ________
6,000—
Suspended Solids, mg/i 10,000 40 25 ________ ________
Oil and Grease, aq/l 15—160 15 10 ________ ________
Fluoride, mg/i 15—45 7.7 3.4 _______ ________
Manganese, mg/i 10—100 1.9 0.8 ________ ________
Lead, mg/i 10—150 0.62 0.27 ________ ________
Zinc, mg/i 10—500 1.9 0.8 ________ ________
Sulfide, mg/i 5—15 0.77 0.34 ________ ________
pH, units 5—9. 6—9 6—9 ________ ________
165
-------
C T!GORY/SUBCAflGORy$ - Multiple O rations
TAIL! 20
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TR!ATJ4EHI’ TECHNOLOGY
IOn RELATED CATEGORIES AND SU$CATEQORX !S
C’
C .,
Neltino and Rand
Trsat.nt and/or control
—ee ds e . cioy.d ’
A.
I. Wmstsvstsr collected in
settUaq tank or ll in—
pa t for halt r ctiea
of luspendud aoiids. lblJdi
risowed with direct di*-
chugs of wastsw.tar.
cncs-thtouØ wastswat.r
us.,..
in. w ..t ter collscted in
s,ttliaq tank or l1
inpoun et for bulk re-
duction of suspended olids.
Solids r ..d periodically
with direct dls rq. of
soet t.r. Ooce-throuqh
astor us.,..
“CA
• ed fren Slag quench-
Isp operation saud as .aks
up water to furnace L*sici
control systen with asro
aqueous discharge. Mdi-
ties of has or caustic end
polyel.ctroiyt. to furnace
onission control syst re-
cycled as.t.mter for ens—
pendsd solids r va1 with
discharg, of hi,... to
furtb.r clarification and
oil sfr44 9 .
Nelulting U—
fluent Iaveis
for Critical
Constituents
p5 6-0
U 3000*000
C l i 10—SO
Pb 10-600
lb 10400
lb 10-2000
5 6-50
V iS-SO
p5 6-0
U 1000-2000
050 40—150
f
Status 1
and
Rlliabi1itY
Inaffectire if
not iet&L
Ia.ffscti s if
not aaintathed
Probisno
and
LinitatiOni
o.. dinotor,
of solids
.
woe . di.chsrq
of solids
I
i l ntatLol I Land
TIa I quirsm.ntr
1 asath 10’ Z 10’
1 onsth 10’ 6 10
.
Envirorunsntalj Solid ti i
In pact Other Generation
than I s Priaary
Water COnItituC t
Solid waste dis- Zilica and
posai iron
Solid waste Eu- silica and
posal iron
pe 6-9
U 40
010 15
Pb 1.6
lb 3
Zn 3
I 2
F 20
Ooc d -
shave consider-
ibis stability
at constant
flow
lbqsirs large
capacity and
asiatenaace
frequent solidi
roas l
6 .oathu to 1
yand
Vi to 3 acts.
.
Increased solid
wait, disposal
.
Silica ..d
iron
•Listnd in ordsr of increasing effectiveness
-------
CAG?/SCA ZG PL: M..ltjple Operations
TABLE 20 CONT.)
FOUNDR’ OPERATIONS
CONTP.OL AND TRgAT1E ;T TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND St CATEGORIES
i esult1ng tt—
fluent Levels
Status
.
Pr 1e s
nvc inta.. oj .c naste
Impact Ot er Gene: a ion
Tr
eat—ant a-d/ ,: c r .t o1
for Critical
and
and
I p1enentation Land than 4 Primary
t ds :yCd’
Constituents
Ro1 abi1 tv
Li itatiCns
Tire
Recuirenents ¶ator Cn stituo r
UI.
Addition of l e Cr ca ..st c 6—9
end polyele:trc.yte to re- SS 40
cycled wasce ter to: sus— 0&G 15
pended solids removal with
discharge of blowdown to
further clarification and
oil sk ing. I
Good —
snOWs consider—
able stability
at constant
flow
equ res iarge 6 months to
capa ty. oaii year
tena :e and
frequent solids
r val
I
1
1/8—3 acres
ncreased solid Silica and
waste disposal i:on
I
I
5
Combine discharged effluent
from I and III in cormon
discharge.
C.
OATEA
I & I ll
Same as level S t.it with
combining wsste screarle fr
I and it! for sOii S remov-
al. and oil ski r.inq. Add-
ition of recir :ulatin side 1
stream chem&cal treatment.
settling tankS. decr tters.
clarificst on ar /or fit—
tretion for further solids
removal thus uoradin the
quality of the discharge
strean. Complete recy:le
of the effluent from the
settling basin back to the
unit melting operation nd
unit send washing operation
Discharge of sidestream
blowdown or backwash to
M 6—9
SS 25
0&G 10
Pb 1
Mn <3
Zn <3
S (1.25
P (1.25
Very good —
little tendency
to upset
eq ires clossi 6 months to
control and year
increased
maintenance
i
1
1/8—3 acres
Increased solid Same as A
Waite disposal
;
Zleltina and Sand Waahina O mrati
-J
0
>
-I,
-------
ZGORY/SVA EG RY d4ultipl.Op .ration.
TABLE 20 (COST.)
FOUSD i O?ERATiO: S
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECF.NOLOC!
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND $UBCFiTEGOPIES
MIs4. and Sand ti k4.
..—---..—
,.——..-..
a-d/-ir cor trol
e - . :cd
i e$uitlng t—
fluane Levels
for Critical
cortstitu nts
Status
and
Reliability
#r blex a
and
Limitations
Istpl.aentation
Tim.
Land
Requirement,
knviro .n;a . SOJ .I c ntste
Xopact Other I G.ne:atio
than ( & Prirnary
eter Co stit ..e . ts
I I: C0NT.)
I
addition
I esh aiiiifiq.
and discharge.
.
a saqaif Loan
in the waateload
of a stewater
througn the
CCUbLnUd treat-
water S roe
.
operation.
1.v.l B with di .-
941 6-9
Very good
Sequin, close
6 .onthl to 1
9 as BPC CA
Baa, as BPCfCA
Saas as B
b1o down I r a uni
U 25
eCOfloSiCal
control and
year
operation din-
OIG 10
Jicr.asud
buds s.para-
Pb ‘ 1
aaint.nancs
drag tank
1 5 % 43
,
Unit sand
Zn
operation has now
$ (1.25
zero aquous
P ‘12.5
as the owdown
is s,d as fur—
.
control aye-
water. Discherg
slti-g operation
further sus-
roeoval and
addition
I -I
C’
-------
c /AZGO Y: Multiple Operations
TABLE 20 (CONT.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CON?ROL AND TREATMENT TECNNOLOGY
FOR R LAED C TECORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
Resu tlng E -
inv ro rnental Sojic tste
Tr
fluent Levels
eat ent ar.d/ r cor.trol I for Critical
et ds er; yad* Cor stitu nts
Status
and
Reliability
Problens
and
Linitations
IrnpleJT entati
Ti e
on Land
Reauire ents
Ictp ct Other I Gener&tic n
than & Prinary
t ater Constjt e.-:ts
C t
B.?EA I & III (CO% ’.)
of racirculatthg sidestr.aa
ch ica1 treat ant, sett—
ting tanks, degrittur. c1ar i
ifiestion and/or filtration
tot further soLids renoval
thus upgradLng the quaLity
of the discharge streen.
Coeplet. recycle of the
effluent frosi thu settlthq
basin back to the unit
suiting operation and unit
sand washing operation.
Discharge of the sid.str.
blowd wn or backwash to
poly.l.ctrotyte addition
followed by flash sisinq,
clarification and discharge
Thus, affecting a signif—
icant reduction of the
WC$te load and vO1%3 e of
the discharge frow the two
unit operation through the
benefits at coethin.d treat—
sent of the waSte frow the
two unit operation..
t
I
I
I
I
Melting and Sand Washing Operations
I - .’
0•s
‘ 0
-------
CY/3uacAT y Multthle Onerations
TABLE 20 (CON?.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
COnTROL AND TREATMEnT TECH OLOGF
FOR RZ.A?ED CATEGORIZS AND SUBCATEGORIES
.reatent ar for control
ree ds •— 1*ycd’
R..uAt. r .g E l—
fluent Levels Status
for Critical and
Constituents Re ,iabiLity
Problems
and
Limitations
•
Implementation Land
Remuir.m.ntr
Env ron .-nentai So .c aste
Impact Other Generation
than I s Primary
Vater Conctituanti
0. lA EA
.
I
Z aZI
Discharqe of all w treat.d raw
wests ho. unit und w•shinq
pM —
U —
Vary good
Baqutres large
ar.a
6 .onths tO
year
1
sin, as
sPc cA
san. as
BPC?CA
San. me A
operation and unit ..ltinq
014 —
op.zmtion to a iQn settling
Pb --
basin or drag tank. Addition
—
of caustic and has for pN
adjusseant. Addition of poly-
electrolyte for taprosed
Is —
I -—
p —
.
solid. rinoval oIl skiasinq
with canpiete recycl, mud sane
aqu.Oui diachargo.
“.
Melting and Sand Washing Operations
C
-------
TABLE 20
WATER EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
MULTIPLE OPERATIONS
MELTING AND SAND WASHING SUBCATEGORY
DRAFT
Treatment of Control Techno og ics
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work: A
BPCTCA BATEA
I B 1 [ I
D
E
Invütaent
$423,600
291, 00 600
Annual Costs:
,
Capital
18,200
- 12,600 — 12 900
Depreciation
42,400
29,100 30d 0 0
Operation & Maintenance
14,800
10,100 10,500
Sludge Disposal
.V
1,600
Energy & Power
10,500 5,600
Oil Disposal
2.000
Chemical. Costs
- 5,100 6,400
-
TOTAL
$ 75,400
$ 71,000 $ 65,500
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents
Parameters — units
Resulting Effluent
Levels
Flow, gal/ton
—
- 9000
1000—
5000
10—100
2500 450
40 25 —
- 15 10
Suspended Solids, mgL
Oil and Grease, mg/ I.
Fluoride, ag/l —
10—60 -
12 6.25
Manganese, eq/i
l O-’300
- 3 1.5
Lead, mg/i
10350
l0l250
— 5—35
1.0 0.5
- 3 1.5
1.2 0.6
zinc, ag/i
Sulfide, eq/i
pH, units
5—9
6—9 6—9
171
-------
C .YZGOPY1SUaCMrcowf 2 J 1tipls OpornUons
TASL$ 2 .
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL MID T1ZAT NT TECREOLOC!
FOR RELATED CATROORIES MID $UNCATZGONXES
T TAT!!
flusot Lsvsls
Tr.atnent and/or control tox Critical
‘ethods .nploysd° Constitusuts
Status
and
*slLabilitr
Prebla
asid
Land
IflVirOflMSfltaL 50134 WaitS
Impact Other’] G.caration
than & Primary
conitit% tl
I l ntaticr
A.
II. Wutswst.r ooU.cwd is
s.ttlLa t or i1
055 u1A ts —
ties of asiil.
5013.05 psxiodicSllV
p5 $4
— 5000—11000
0 1*
ISSIPSOSLI
ii t ants-
1.aa
05055 4Ls
5013.05
1 casth
102 * 102
,
solid wait,
possl
silica and
iron cmids
with direct dia r9e of
—. s- throuØ
ort.r ona s.
,
PU. 5utS2*tSf osllactsd is
settling tm* or ash
for bulk go05c—
ticsi of s.spsi: .013.05.
p5 5— 5
U 1000-3000
040 40—150
Znsff.ctivs
if cat sha-
t atssd
05ois
d3adisrgs of
.o lL05
1 sth
30’ * 30 .
5013.4 wait,.
4i.po. al
Silica 1*4
iron osids
$oli05 i—v —P periodiesllV
with direct discburgs of
wasUvatss. 05cc -thron
,
wtar asqs.
.
a.
II. Mditios of ilas or esontic
mo& polytlsctrolyts re—
cycle v .stastsr Per son—
solids . .ca,al with
discharge of bloo in te
fh.Iksz clazifioatPcs d
p5 5—0
U 40
055 15
00*4 - sbuvs
OOinL05 1S
et.bility et
constant flow
50quirss
largu c soit
and inta—
tsnanos Psi-
quint solids
r .val
S sostbs . 0
3 peer
1/It. 3
acres
Incr.sa.d
solid vast.
disposal
silica mod
iron 0*145
.
oil ukishnq.
.
.
I
- — ._____p
—
W 3•05 5 an oscar or
-------
CEGOR?/SUV EGOPY: !0p.r*U0fl 5
?MLE 21 (cent.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREAT: - sT TECKNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
-J
bldirg S Cleaning Dust Collection and Sand Washing Operation .
Resu1t .ng t -
1
Envircentai o c a te
Treatment ar / ,r cor.trol
t c s - yed
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
Status
and
Reliability
Pr3blerns
and
Linitations
Inpienentation
i re
Land
Re uirexnents
Impact Other Gene:&tien
than I & Prinary
water Cot .t t
BPCTCA (continuedm
B.
III. Addition of lire or caustic
and polyelectrolyt. to re—
cycle wastewater for sue—
pand.d sol.4s removed with
blowdown to further clan—
fication and oil ski inq.
p11 6—9
5$ 40
OSG 15
Good — shows
considerable.
stability
at constant
flow
Require. Large
capac ty and
maintsnancs
fr.quan solids
removal
6
1
months to
year
1/8 to 3
icr..
increased so1id Silica and
waste disposal I iron oxide
Combine discharge effluents
from I I and III in cormon
discharge.
MTZA
C.—IIM ID I I I
I
I
-
Same as Increased eolid Saae a. A
BPCTCA waete disposal
.
.
.
Same •s level B but with
combining waste streams from
II and III for solide re—
moval and oil sklnning.
Addition of rocirculating
sid. stream cnell-icsl treat—
sent, settling ta-uis, de—
qritt.rs, clar ficatiOn and
or filtration f r further
solids removal thus upqrad—
mg th. quality of the die—
charge stream. Complete re
cycle of the effluent from
molding and cleaning dust
collection operation. Di.—
charge of sidestream blow—
down or backwash to poly
- electrolyte_addition
p11 a—
$5 25
OSG 1,5
very good — Requires close
little tendenc control and
to upset increased
maintenance
6
1
.
.
months to
year
.
-------
TABLE 21 (cont.)
rOuN RY OPEMTLOUS
CONTROL AND TREAT lZNT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RZL TED CArZGORZZS AND SU CA’rEGORIU
Trest—s e and/or control
e . td
RS1U1t3fl9 £f-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constituents
I
Status
and
R.liability
Problens
and
Linitations
ImplementAtion
Tim.
f
‘
Land
Enviro asntal Soi .c saste
Impact Other Generation
than $ Prinary
Water Constit tt
IA (cont nu.d)
foiicwed oy flash xing,
clarif :st on and discharge.
This oor& natien will affeci
a siqn ficant duction in
th. waits load md unlus.
of waatswatsr discharged
through the b.nef its of ci.
bthed treatosni of waste—
water S r a the two unit
cpexat On$.
0. — I X N D IX !
Discharg. of ill untreated
raw wait. from unit sand
pH —
U —
Very good
quires
large area
6 cintha to
1 eat
Ii... as
IATM
Sm. as
UTEA
sawe as A
waa)u lg operations and unit
010 —
cildtnq and clean nq. Dust
unu)..cuon operat on to a
cu n ,.ttl nq basLn.or
drsq tank. Ad4ition of
caust e or ties for pH oon—
trol. addition of poly—
electrolyte for isproved
solid, r. vaL and oil
i
skii.ing with cooptet.
recycle end zero aqueous
discharge.
CZGO T/S 3CEG Multiple Operation .
a Oust and Sand P4
I- ’
-------
TABLE 21
WATER EFFWENT TREATMENT COSTS
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
MULTIPLE OPERATIONS
MOLDING AND CLEANING DUST COLLECTION AND SAND WASHING SUBCATEGORY
DP.A CT
Treatment of Control Technologies
Identified under Item III of the
Scope of Work: A
BPCTCA BATEA
I B 1 C
D
B
Investment
$520,900
$430,000 $192,000
Annual Costa:
Capital
22,400
18,500 - 8,300
Depreciation
52.100
43,000 19.200
Operation & Maintenance
18.200
15.000 — 6.700
Sludge Disposal
9.000
Energy & Power
5,300 4,500
Oil Disposal
2.500
Chemical Costs
4700 3.500
TOTAL
I.L1.Q
$ 98.000 $ 42.200
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constituents
Parameters - units
Resulting Effluent
Levels
Plow, gal./ton
16,600
4,000—
12,000
30—200.
. ...k2.......-
3,400 825
-
40 25
15 10
.i.L_..
.
-
Suspended Solids, mq l
Oil, and Grease, mg/l
p0, units
175
-------
CATEGO RY/$U$CAflCOJ y h’gttpl. Op’ rstions
TABLE 22
FOUNDRY OPERATXONS
CONTROL AND TRZATII!NT TECHROW !
FOR RELATED CATEQORIES MD BU$q TEGORXE1
reat ent and/or control
rethods eroloyed 0
Rssu ltirq Et—
flusot .,vle
for Critical
Cor,stituonts
Status
$04
R.Usbi1Lty
Probl.*s,
* 04
Limitations
I
I
Land
*squirrn.nt,
knvirorutental Solia 1aite
Intpsct Other Generation
than S
Water Constit 1t
T
Ix*plim.nt*tion
Ti
A.
I.
Wasteweter coliocted in sit—
tiinq tani, ox s oLl isipeisid-
ant Let bulk r..duction of
5 1 1 s—s
g 3000-5000
060 10-60
.ecU vs if
not siint.in.d
Gross dii’-
charge of
solid
1 sith
l0 * 10’
SOlid wasti
disposal
Silica and
iron
•uspsndsd solids. solids a-
Pb 10—500
soad with dit, t discharql
So 10-400
of wastswat.r. 06c-throuØ
westuwat.r usaps.
So 10-2000
5 S-SO
P .15—90
I I.
Wast.water sollect.4 in sit
pH 6—9
Ineffectiv, if
Gross di .-
1 soeth
30’ * 30’
solid waste
Silica and
sling Sink or snail impound-
U SOQO-1S000
not aaintain.d
charge of
disposal
iron
ant for bulk roductien of
000 20—200
solid
suspsndsd spud.. Solids
rsnovsd psriodicaliy with
direct dLecharg ’ of wests-
yaSir. Once-through water
,
usage.
X I.
Wastewatsr collected in in-
pH —9
Ineffective if
Gross dii-
1 anth
30’ a 30’
Solid wiltS
Silica and
Sling tank or sell impound—
U 1000-2000
not maintained
charged.
disposal
iron
mans for bulk reduction of
060 40-150
suspended solids. ilids
reav.d p.riodicafly with
direct discharge of waste-
water once-through water
usage.
.
a———— .
a..
.1$SO lfl w . .w,..w.,n...
“1
ALi
I- ,
-4
C. ’
-------
I - ’
-4
-J
CATEGORY/SIJ CATECORY Multiple Operations
All 5tb aracori.s
TABLE 22 (COST.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES M.D SUBCATEGORIES
re.ticent and/jr control
-ethods yed 5
Resuitir.g E —
fluent Levels
for Critical
— Ceratit onts
Status
and
Reliability
Problems
and
Llr tat ona
Inplementation Land
Time Reguirenonts
Environ enta1 Solic i Waste
Impact Other Generation
than & Prinary
Water Constitu it
BPCrCA
.
a.
I. Slowdown frca 1ag quench
pH 6—9
Good - shows
Requires large.
6 months to
1/8 to 3 acre
Solid waste di.
Silica and
operation uSeO as makeup
IS 40
considerabl,
capacity fre—
1 year
p e a a l
i O
water to furnace emission
060 15
stability at
qu.nt solid.
control systan wIth acre
Pb 1.6
Const&nt flow
removal
aqueous disc..arga. Addi—
Mu 5
tion of line or caustic end
Zn S
.
polyslectroIjt. to furnace
$ 2
emission control system.
P 20
Recycle wastowstfr for sue—
•
pended solida r va1 with
discharge of b1o own to
,
,
further clar flc1tion and
oil skiee ing.
II. Addition Of IITh or caustic
and polye1eetro yte to re—
pH 6 -9
58 40
Good — shows
considerable
Ssqutr.a Large
capacity and
6 months to
1 year
1/8 to 3 acre
Solid waste di.
posal
Silica and
metallic iron
cycled wastewat,: for sue—
010 15
stability at
frequent solid
.
pended sotida ranovat with
constant flow
removal
-
discharge of blowdown to
further clar Ification and
S
oil skien -g.
I X !. Addition of line or caustic
and polyel.ct:oLyte to re—
cycled wastewator for sue—
pM 6—9
56 40
050 15
Good — chews I R.qulres large
considerable capocity and
stability at frequent solids
6 months to
1 year
1/8 to 3 acres
Solid waste di.
p0511
Silica and
metallic iron
pended soi ds removal with
constant flow
removal
discharge of bl wdown to
further clarIfication end
oil 5kime ng.
.
I
lstec i.r orc r or ncreas ng ezzect .veness
-------
cATEcoRy,gu ScArzaoRy Multiple Operations
TABL! 22 CONT.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND ?PZATNENT TECNNOWGY
FOR RELPITED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
11
-‘
Treat -ent and/er control
?e da •p1 yed
Resulting U—
fluent Lovots
for Critical
Constituents
Statue PrableOs
and and
ReliabilitYjLir it1tiOn*
.
Xmplewentationi Land
Ti o iReguiromerits
-
nviroru entai Solid haste
Impact Other Generation
than & Prirory
Water Constjtüe es
C.
CA?t_A
I . 11. III
Same as level B but with cc.-
bining wante stream Sr.. I . i i
and 112 for .oLL4s ramoval and
oil skimaung. Addition of
pH 6-9
as 25
O&G 10
Pb ‘1
Very good -
litti. tind.ncy
tcvard .st
Requires doe.
oo tro1 and
increii.d
maintenance
6 nths to
1 year
S. .. ma B
increased so’id
west. di.po.al
sir. as B
recirculating sidestrea.
(3
chem Ical treatr.ftt, aatttinq
Zn (3
tank.. d.gritt.r. clariftc.—
s cl.25
tion aid filtration for
p (j3 .5
•
further solids reonvat thus
çqradin9 the quality of th.
disdtarg. stream. Coeplete
recjdl. of the effLuent ftc.
the settling basin back to
th. unit melting operation.
unit molding operation and
the w it sand washing opera-
tion. Discharge of side—
stream blawdomn or backwash
to poly.iectrolyte addition
followed by flash mixing.
clarification and discharge.
Thu. aff.cting a significant
reduction in the w$stl load
and the VO1 of wast.w.t.t
discharged through thi bene-
fits of combined tr.atr.nt of
wiltewater from the thre* w i
operat ions.
.
- ara -_4 . - - -
— a ã,.i..
—
in oz increasing
-------
CATEGORY/SUSCATEGORY Multiple Operations
TABLE 22 (CON?.)
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR RELATED CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
I:,
>
-n
—1
I- . ’
-4
Treatrent and/or control
ret ’.cds e ployed*
Resulting Ef-
fluent Levels
for Critical
Constit ients
r f
Status Problems
and and
Reliability Limitations
Ixnplei entation Land
Tin .e Reguirenents
Environitental Solx Waste
Inpact Other j Generation
than & Prinary
Water Constitue it
0. I. II. III
I
Discharq. of all untreated
pH —-
Very good
Requires larg.
6 eontha to
Saae as
$a s as EPCXCA
Sane as
raw Waite fran unit melting
ES -—
ar.a
1 y.ar
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
operation. unit molding
O&G
operation and unit sand wash—
Pb -—
ing operation to a coe n
settling basin or drag tank.
Zn ——
Addition of cautjc or line
S ——
for pH adjt tnent. Addition
P --
of polyslectrolyt. for a-
proved solids r.meva l. oil
skineing with cc 1ste re-
cycle and zero aq aous dis-
charge.
a e
-—
j
5 lStsu Afl at ng erre t1veness
-------
T1 T 22
U?W ? TA , STS
VosRDRY RY
IWLTIPLE OPERATIONS
AL SUBCATEGORIES
?rata t of Control Technologies
Identified under Itsa III of the BPCTCA MTEA
Soop.of.Work: A FR II C I 0
Inv.stasnt 8712700 1599.000 8385.500
Annual Colts:
Cspital .J1 J29 is. 500 ________ ________
D.pr.aistian 73.300 _LIQ.9 38.600 _______ _______
Operation A )Iaintsnanos 25.600 21000 13,500 _______ _______
Sledge Diapos 1 _______ 10.300 _______ _______ _______
Energy A Po .sr _______ 14.000 7500 ________ ________
Oil Disposal _______ 3.100 _______ _______ _______
%4ca1 Costs _______ 6,700 e.soo _______ _______
TOTAL j 3 9 4 9 1140.800 LJiJQP
Effluent Quality:
Effluent Constitue”ts Resulting Effluent Levels
Parter* - units
Ploy , qal./ton 22,600 4.900 1.050 ________ ________
3.000—
Suspended Solida,’aq/l 10,000 40 25 — ________ ________
Ott and Grsase. aB/1 20—160 15 10 ________ ________
Fluoride, ag/l 5—25 6.1 2.7 _______ _______
Eangansas. s oIl 5—100 1.5 — 0.64 ________ ________
Lend. ag/i 5—125 0.5 — 0.21 _______ _______
Zinc, so / i 5—500 1.5 0.64 _______ _______
Sulfide. ag/i 2—12 0.6 0.27 _______ _______
pE. units 5—9 6—9 ________ ________
180
-------
ORIAFT
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
.The effluent limitations which must be achieved July 1, 1977
are to specify the effluent quality attainable through the
application of the BeSt Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available. Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available is generally based upon the average of
the best existing performance by plants of various sizes,
ages, and unit processes within the industrial subcategory.
This average is not based upon a broad range of plants
within the foundry industry, but based upon performance
levels achieved by plants purported by the industry or by
regulatory agencies to be equipped with the best treatment
facilities. Experience demonstrated that in some instances
these facilities were, exemp1ary only in the control of a
portion of the waste parameters present. In those industrial
categories where present control and treatment practices are
uniformly inadequate, a higher level of control than any
currently in place may be required if the technology to
achieve such higher level can be practicably applied by July
1, 1977.
Cdnsiderations must also be given to:
1. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved
2. The processes employed
3. Non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements)
4. The engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques
5. Process changes
6. The total cost of application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such
application
181
-------
DRA .‘T
Also, Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing
process but includes the control technologies within ‘the
process itself when the latter are considered to be normal
practice within an industry.
A further consideration is the degree of economic and
engineering reliability which must be established for the
technology to be currently available.” As a result of
demonstration projects, pilot plants and general use, there
must exist a high degree of confidence in the engineering
and economic practicability of the technology at the time of
commencement of construction or installation of the control
facilities.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF BPCTCA
The following paragraph siii vnarized factors, that were considered
in selecting the categorization, water use rates, level of
treatment technology, effluent concentrations attainable by
the technology, and hence the establishmeit of the effluent
limitations for BPCTCA.
Size and Age of Facilities and Land Availability Considerations
As discussed in Section IV, the age and size of the iron and
steel foundry industry facilities has little direct bearing
in the quantity or quality of wastewater generated. Thus,
the ELG for a given subcategory of waste source applies
equally to all plants regardless of size or age. Land
availability for installation of add—on treatment facilities
can influence the type of technology utilized to meet the
ELGs. This is one of the considerations which can account
for a range in the costs that might be incurred.
Consideration of Processes Employed
All plants in a given subcategory use the same or similar
production methods, giving similar discharges. There is no
evidence that operation of any current process or subprocess
will substantially affect capabilities to implement the best
practicable control technology currently available. At such
time that new processes appear imminent for broad application
the ELGS should be amended to cover these new sources. No
changes in process employed are envisioned as necessary for
implementation of this technology for plants in any subcategory.
The treatment technologies to achieve BPCTCA are end-of-
process methods which can be added onto the existing treatment
facilities.
182
-------
DRAFT
Consideration of Non—Water Quality Environmental Impact
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Air Quality . The increased
use of recycle systems have the potential fOr increasing the
loss of volatile substances to the atmosphere. Recycle
systems are so effective in reducing wastewater volumes and
hence waste loads to and from treatment system and in
reducing the size and cost of treatment systems that a
trade—off must be accepted. Recycle systems requiring the
use of cooling towers have contributed significantly to
reductions of effluen loads while contributing only minimally
to air pollution problems. Careful operation of such a
system can avoid or minimize air pollution problems.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Solid Waste Problems .
Consideration has also been given to the solid waste aspects
of water pollution controls. The processes for treating the
wastewaters from this industry produce considerable volumes
of sludges. Much of this material is inert sand and iron
oxide which can be reused profitably. Other sludges not
suitable for reuse must be disposed of to landfills since
most of them are chemical precipitates which could be little
reduced by incineration. Being precipitates, they are by
nature relatively insoluble and nonhazardous substances
requiring minimal custodial care.
In order to ensure long—term protection of the environment
from harmful constituents, special consideration of disposal
sites should be made. All landfill sites should be selected
so as to prevent horizontal and vertical migration of these
contaminants to ground or surface waters. In cases where
geologic conditions may not reasonably ensure this, adequate
mechanical precautions (e.g., impervious liners) should be
taken to ensure long—term protection to the environment. A
program of routine periodic sampling and analysis of leach—
ates is advisable. Where appropriate the location of solid
hazardous materials disposal sites, if any, should be
permanently recorded in the appropriate office of legal
jurisdiction.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Energy Requirements . The
effects of water pollution control measures on energy
requirements has also been determined. The additional
energy required in the form of electric power to achieve the
effluent limitations proposed for BPCTCA and BATEA amounts
to approximately 1.3% of the 51.6 billion kwh of electrical
energy used by the total iron and steel industry in 1972.
183
-------
DRAFT
The enhancement to water quality management provided by
these proposed effluent limitations substantially outweighs
the impact on air, solid waste, and energy requirements.
Consideration of the Engineering Aspects of the Application
of Various Types of Control Techniques — ___ ___________
The level of technology selected as the basis for BPCTCA
limitations is considered to be practicable in that the
concepts are proven and are currently available for imple-
mentation and may be readily applied as “add-ons” to existing
treatment facilities.
Consideration of Process C ianges
No in-process changes will be required to achieve the BPCTCA
limitations although recycle water quality changes may occur
as a result of efforts to reduce effluent discharge rates.
Some plants are already employing recycle, or treatment and
recycle as a means to minimizing water use and the volume of
effluents discharged. The limitations are load limitations
(unit weight of pollutant discharged per unit weight of
product) only and not volume or concentration limitations.
The limitations can be achieved by extensive treatment of
large flows; however., an evaluation of costs indicates that
the limitations can usually be achieved most economically by.
minimizing effluent volumes.
- Consideration of Costs Versus Effluent Reduction Benefits
In consideration of the costs of implementing the BPCTCA
limitations relative to the benefits to be derived, the
limitations were set at values which would not result in
excessive capital or operating costs to the industry.
To accomplish this economic evaluation, it was necessary to
establish the treatment technologies that could be applied
to each subcategory in an add-on fashion, the éf fluent
qualities attainable with each technology, and the costs.
In order to determine the added costs, it was necessary to
determine what treatment processes were already in place and
currently being utilized by most of the plants. This was
established as the base level of treatment..
Treatment systems were then envisioned which, as add—ons to
existing facilities, would achieve significant waste load
reductions. Capital and operating costs for these systems
were then developed for the average size facility. The
average size was determined by dividing the total industry
production by the number of operating facilities. The
184
-------
DRAFT
capital costs were developed from a quasi—detailed engineering
estimate of the cost of the components of each of the systems.
The annual operating cost for each of the facilities was,
determined by summing the capital recovery (basis ten year
straight line depreciation) and capital use (basis 7% interest)
charges, operating and maintenance costs, chemical costs,
and utility costs.
Cost effectiveness diagrams were then prepared to show the
pollution reduction benefits derived relative to the costs
incurred. As expected, the diagrams show an increasing cost
for treatment per percent reduction obtained as the percent
of the initial pollutional load remaining decreased. The
BPCTCA limitations were set at the point where the costs per
percent pollutant reduction took a sharp break upward toward
higher costs per percent of pollutant removed.
The initial capital investment and annual expenditures
required of the industry to achieve BPCTCA were developed by
multiplying the costs (capital or annual) for the average
size facility by the number of facilities operating for each
subcategory. These costs are summarized in Table 31 in
Section X.
After selection was made of the treatment technology to be
designated as a means to achieve the BPCTCA limitations for
each subcategory, a sketch of each treatment model was
prepared. The sketch for each subcategory is presented
following the table presenting the BPCTCA limitations f or
the subcategory.
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE - BPCTCA
Based on the information contained in Septions III through
VIII of this report, a determination has been made that the
quality of effluent attainable through the application of
the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
is as listed in Tables 23 through 26. These tables set
forth the ELGs for the following subcategories of the iron
and steel foundry industry:
I. Melting Operations
II. Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
III. Sand Washing Operations
IV. Multiple Operations
In establishing the subject guidelines, it should be noted
that the resulting limitations or standards are applicable
to aqueous waste discharge only, exclusive of noncontact
185
-------
DRAFT
cooling waters. In the section of this report which dis-
cusses control and treatment technology for the iron and
steel foundry industry as a whole, a qualitative reference
has been given regarding “the environmental impact other
than water” for the subcategories investigated.
The effluent guidelines established herein take into account
only those aqueous constituents considered to be major
pollutants in each of the subcategories investigated. In
general, the critical parameters were selected for each
subcategory on the basis of those waste constituents known
to be generated in the specific manufacturing process and
also known to be present in sufficient quantitiy to be
inimical to the environment. Certain general parameters
such as suspended solids naturally include the oxides of
iron and silica; however, these latter specific constituents
were not included as critical parameters, since adequate
removal of the general parameter (suspended solids) in turn
provides for adequate removal of the more specific parameters
indicated. This does not hold true when certain of the
parameters are in the dissolved state; however, in the case
of sand and iron oxides generated in the iron and steel
foundry processes, they are for the most part insoluble in
the relatively neutral effluents in which they are contained.
The absence of apparent less important parameters from the
guidelines in no way endorses unrestricted discharge of
same.
The recommended effluent limitations guidelines resulting
from this study for BPCTCA are summarized in Tables 23 to
26. These tables also list the control and treatment technology
applicable or normally utilized to reach the constituent
levels indicated. These effluent limitations proposed
herein are by no means the absolute lowest values attainable
(except where no discharge of process wastewater pollutant
is recommended) by the indicated technolbgy, but moreover
they represent values which can be readily controlled around
on a day-by-day basis.
It should be noted that these effluent limitations represent
values not to be exceeded by any 30 continuous day average.
The maximum daily effluent loads per unit of production
should not exceed these values by a factor of more than
three. In the absence of sufficient performance data from
the industry to establish these factors on a statistical
basis, the factor of three was chosen in consideration of
the operating variations allowed for in selecting the 30
continuous day average limitations.
186
-------
DRAFT
DISCUSSION BY SUBCATEGORIES
The rationale used for developing the BPCTCA effluent
limitations guidelines is summarized below for each of the
subcategories. All effluent limitations guidelines are
presented on a “gross”, basis since for the most part,
removals are relatively independent of initial concentrations
of contaminants. The ELGs are in kilograms of pollutant-per
metric ton of product or in pounds of pollutant per 1,000
lt s of product and in these terms only. The ELGs are not a
limitation on flow, type of technology to be utilized, or
concentrations to be achieved. These items are listed only
as a guide to show the basis for the ELGs and may be varied
as the discharger desires so long as the ELG loads per unit
of production are met.
Melting Operations
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
BPCTCA effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) applying to the
Melting Operations subcategory. As far as possible, the
stated limits are based upon performance levels attained by
the selected plants surveyed during this study. Where
treatment levels can be improved by application of addi-
tional currently available control and treatment technology,
the anticipated reduction of waste loads was included in the
estimates.
The BPCTCA ELGs for the Melting Operations subcategory, and
the control and treatment technology to achieve these limits,
are summarized in Table 23.
Flow . Nine unit melting operations were surveyed in this
study, with an average furnace emission control process
water applied flow rate of 13,280 l/kkg (3,187 gal./ton) of
hot metal poured. Of the nine units surveyed, seven were
utilizing partial recycle, with blowdown rates ranging
between 534 l/kkg (128 gal./ton) and 25,600 l/kkg (6,139
gal./ton) of metal poured. The two remaining units had
total recycle systems with zero aqueous discharge.
Because of the extremely wide range of effluent flows observed,
the BPCTCA ELG are based on flow rates set at slightly more
than the median flow of the seven units discharging wastes,
or 6,250 1/kkg (1,500 gal./ton) of metal poured, excluding
afi noncontact cooling water. This mid—range value is well
within the capability ofcurrent technology to achieve, as
evidenced by those plants already well below this level. At
the same time, this value will provide the impetus for once—
through water users to develop recycle systems while at the
187
-------
DRAB
same time allowing them to achieve this end by 1977 in a
cost effective manner. It is anticipated that as the once—
through users begin to convert to recycle systems, they will
find it economically advantageous to go all the way to tight
recycle with minimal blowdown rather than approach this end
in a stepwise manne .
Suspended Solids . Nine unit operations were surveyed in
this study. Suspended solids effluent loads in treated
wastewater ranged from 0.Q835 kg/kkg (0.167 lbs/ton) of
metal poured to 1.000 kg/kkg (1.997 lbs/ton) of metal
poured. Units practicing polyelectrolyte addition with
suspended solids removal or tight recycle had effluent loads
in treated wastewater ranging from 0.0835 kg/kkg (0.167
lbs/ton) of metal poured to 0.348 kg/kkg (0.6949 lbs/ton) of
metal poured with an average value of 0.221 kg/kkg (0.441
lbs/ton) of metal poured. Unit operation exceeding the
value can achieve this level by utilization of polyelectrolyte
addition and plain sedimentation or clarification. Therefore,
the BPCTCA ELG for suspended solids removal is conservatively
set at 0.250 kg/kkg (0.500 lbs suspended solids/ton) of
metal poured, equivalent to 40 mg/i in a discharge flow of
1,500 gaL/ton of metal poured.
Oil and Grease . Of the nine unit operations surveyed, oil
and grease effluent loads in treated wastewater ranged from
0.00107 kg/kkg (0.00215 lbs/ton) of metal poured to 0.0847
kg/kkg (1.690 lbs/ton) of metal poured with an average of
0.111 kg/kkg (0.222 lbs/ton) of metal poured. However,
seven of the nine units were discharging below this average.
The two units exceeding the value could readily discharge
less than the average also by the use of oil skimming
equipment. Therefore, the BPCTCA limit for oil and grease
is conservatively set slightly less than the average at
0.0937 kg/kkg (0.187 lbs oil and grease/ton) of metal
poured, equivalent to 15 mg/i in a discharge flow of 1,500
gal./ton of metal poured.
Lead . Of the units surveyed, lead effluent loads in treated
wastewater ranged from 0.000777 kg/kkg (0.00155 lbs/ton) of
metal poured to 0.134 kg/kkg (0.268 lbs/ton) of metal poured
with an average of 0.0348 kg/kkg (0.0696 lbs/ton) of metal
poured. However, one unit had insufficient solids removal.
The remaining plants showed an average of 0.00998 kg/kkg
(0.0199 lbs/ton) of metal poured. Therefore, the BPCTCA
limit for lead is conservatively set at 0.0100 kg/kkg
(0.0200 lbs lead/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 1.6
mg/i in a discharge flow of 1,500 gal./ton of metal poured.
188
-------
DRAFT
Manganese . Of the nine units surveyed, manganese effluent
loads in treated wastewater ranged from 0.00149 kg/kkg
(0.00297 lbs/ton) of metal poured, to 0.0741 kg/kkg (0.148
lbs/ton) of metal poured with an average of 0.0250 kg/kkg
(0.0500 lbs/ton) of metal poured. Therefore, the BPCTCA ELG
for manganese is conservatively set slightly higher than the
average at 0.0316 kg/kkg (0.0630 lbs of manganese/ton) of
metal poured, equivalent to 5 mg/i in a discharge flow of
1,500 gal./ton of metal poured. Any unit exceeding this
value could readily achieve it by -adequate pH control,
polyelectrolyte addition followed by plain sedimentation or
clarification.
Zinc . Of the unit operations surveyed, zinc effluent loads
in treated wastewater ranged from 0.00252 kg/kkg (0.00503
lbs/ton) of metal poured to 0.0633 kg/kkg (0.126 lbs/ton) of
metal poured, with an average of 0.0262 kg/kkg (0.0523
lbs/ton) of metal poured. Therefore, the BPCTCA ELG for
zinc is conservatively set slightly higher than the average
at 0.0316 kg/kkg (0.063 lbs zinc/ton) of metal poured,
equivalent to 5 mg/i in a discharge flow of 1,500 gal./ton
of metal poured. Any unit exceeding- this value could
readily achieve it by adequate pH control, polyelectroiyte
addition followed by plain sedimentation or clarification.
Fluoride . Of the nine units surveyed, fluoride loads in
treated wastewater ranged from 0.00478 kg/kkg (0.00955
lbs/ton) of metal poured to 0.245 kg/kkg (0.549 lbs/ton) of
metal poured, with an average of 0.193 kg/kkg (0.386 lbs/ton)
of metal poured. The average of five of the units was
0.0879 kg/kkg (0.176 lbs/ton) of metal poured. Therefore,
the BPCTCA ELG for fluoride is very conservatively set
slightly higher than this average at 0.125 kg/kkg (0.250
lbs/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 20 mg/i in a dis-
charge flow of 1,500 gal./ton of metal poured.
Any unit exceeding this value could readily achieve it
through addition of lime for pH control followed by plain
sedimentation or clarification.
. All of the units surveyed fell within the pH constraint
range of 6.0 to 9.0, thus providing a basis for establishing
this range as BPCTCA ELG for pH. Any unit falling outside
of this range can readily remedy the situation by applying
appropriate neutralization procedures in the treatment
process.
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
BPCTCA effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) applying to the
189
-------
TABLE 23
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Melting Operations
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS ESTIMATED 4
CRITICAL Xg/KKgW ‘2 3 TOTAL COST
RAMETERS ( L511000 LB1 mg/i’ ‘ CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY’ $/KKg SITON
Suspended Solids 0.250 40 Slag quench water recycled, with discharge
to emission system; emission system re—
Oil & Grease 0.0940 15 cycles, with lime and polymer addition 4.54
within the loop, drag tanks on both eye—
Fluoride 0.125 20 tests for continuous solids removals oil
skissning and additional settling for
Manganese 0.0313 5 blowdown froa emission system.
Lead 0.0100 1.6
0
Zinc. 0.0313 5
pH 6.0—9.0
Flow Most probable value for moderately tight recycle system is 6250 liters of
effluent per kkg of product (1500 gal/ton); excluding all non-contact cooling
water.
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of metal poured or pounds per 1000 pounds of metal poured.
(2) Milligrams/liter, based on 6250 liters effluent per kkg of steel degas8ed (1500 gal/ton).
(3) AvaiLable technology listed ii not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a
plant.
Z2
-------
0
I-
SUSPENOED SOLIDS
OIL AND GREASE
FLUORIDE
LEAD
MANGANESE
SULFIDE
IPdC
Ph
,?_335GPM
AG FROM FURNACE
167
——
V
DRAG TANK
— — — A5E LEVEL SYSTEM AND PCTCA MODEL
ATEA
LOW 6250 QI 5OOGAI/Od)
GPM
JSPENDED S0I l05
OIL GREASE
FWORI DE
LEAD
MANGANE 5
ZINC
O.71
: 5
20 — 7 /L
.6
S
5
ENVIRONMENTAL OTECTION AGENCY
FOUNDRY INDUSTRY STUDY
MELTING OPERATION
SU8CAIEGORY
BPCTCA MODEL
FIGURE ?8
6- 25-75
-------
DRAFT
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations subcategory.
As far as possible, the stated limits are based upon per-
formance levels attained by the selected plants surveyed
during this study. Where treatment levels can be improved
by application of additional currently available control and
treatment technology, the anticipated reduction of waste
loads was included in the estimates.
The BP TCA ELGs for the Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
Operations subcategory, and the control and treatment
technology to achieve these limits, are summarized in Table
24.
Flow . Seven unit Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
Operations were surveyed in this - study, with an average
process water applied flow rate of 7,083 l/kkg (1,700
gal./ton) of sand passing before the ladle. Of the seven
units surveyed, six were utilizing partial recycle with
blowdown rates ranging between 83.4 l/kkg (20 gal./ton) and
2,779 ]./kkg (667 gal./ton) of sand passing before the ladle.
The remaining unit was utilizing total recycle with zero
aqueous discharge.
Because of the range of effluent flows observed, the BPCTCA
ELGs are conservatively based on flow rates set at about 15%
of the applied rate of the eight units surveyed, or 1,250
l/kkg (300 gal./ton) of sand passing before the ladle,
excluding all noncontact cooling water. This mid-range
value is well within the capability of current technology to
achieve, as evidenced by those plants already well below
this level. At the same time, this value will provide the
impetus for once—through water users to develop recycle
systems while at the same time allowing them to achieve this
end by 1977 in a cost effective manner. It is anticipated
that as the once—through users begin to convert to recycle
systems, they will find it economically advantageous to go
all the way to tight recycle with minimal blowdown rather
than approach this end in a stepwise manner.
Suspended Solids . Seven unit operations were surveyed in
this study. Suspended solids effluent loads in treated
wastewaters ranged from 0.00054 kg/kkg (0.00108 lbs/ton) of
sa1 passing before the ladle to 0.165 kg/kkg (0.329 lbs/ton)
of sand passing before the ladle, with an average of 0.0501
kg/kkg (0.100 lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle, for
practicing polyelectrolyte addition, followed by plain
sedimentation or clarification. Therefore, the BPCTCA ELG -
for suspended solids is conservatively set at 0.0501 kg/kkg
(0.1 lb of suspended solids/ton of sand passing before the
ladle equivalent to 40 mg/i in a discharge flow of 300
gal./ton of sand passing before the ladle. Unit operations
192
-------
.TADLE 24
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS ESTIMATED
CRITICAL Kg/KKg 2 TOTAL COST
PAMMETERS ( LB/bOO LB) mg/i CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3 $JXKg $/TON
Suspended Solids 0.0500 40 Solids removal via cyclone separators,
1assifier and dump box; lime and polymer 0.925 0.839
Oil and Grease 0.0187 15 addition; oil skinm ing; final, settling
basin
pH 6.9-9.0
Flow Most probable value for moderately tight recycle system is 1250 liters of
effluent per kkg of product (300 gal/ton) excluding all non—contact cool-
ing water.
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of sand in the system or pounds per 1000 pounds of sand passing before the ladle.
(2) Milligrams/liter, based on 1250 liters effluent per kkg of sand in the system (300 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the..indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing with;n a
plant.
-------
-———- BASE LEVf . sYsrfm
Øpcrc4 meodi.
ENwRONMEWrAL PRO rgcr/Av .4qfmY
fOuNO v .rôusrR y sr€,oy
MoL0.w 9CL1ANIN o ’sr C L ECY/OM
.,u c TEe4O eY
PcTcA ,WQOEL
1
•q PM
rSQSPENOEO SQL/OS $O00-/FOO0# n;//
JO/A. REAS 2O 2OO ..e /I
Lf 0w 7093 (/700 4 AL/T0PI)
A
/0% SQL/OS
TAN/c
5(/SPENOEO 5O lDS
OIL(4 EA%E /$.,,,
PH
PLOW ZW.#/..t*, (ioo
(F L (lENT
-21-7F 1
-------
DRAFT
exceeding this value can readily achieve it by the addition
of polyelectrolyte followed by plain sedimentation or
clarification.
Oil and Grease . Unit operations surveyed show oil and
grease effluent loads ranging from 0.000185 kg/kkg (0.000.369
lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle to 0.782 kg/kkg
(1.56’lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle, with an
average value of 0.117 kg/kkg (0.233 lbs/ton). Six of the
units were discharging.less than 0.0188 kg/kkg (0.0375
lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle. The other unit
would have been able to a chieve this level through the use
of oil skimming equipment. Therefore, the BPCTCA ELG for
oil and grease is set conservatively at 0.0188 kg/kkg
(0.0375 lbs of oil and grease/ton) of sand passing before’
the ladle, equivalent to 15 mg/i in a discharge flow of 300
gal./ton of sand passing before the ladle.
. All of the units surveyed fell within the pH constraint
range of 6.0 to 9.0, thus providing a basis for establishing
this range as BPCTCA ELG for pH. Any unit falling outside
of this range can readily remedy the situation by applying
appropriate neutraljzation procedure in the treatment
process.
Sand Washing Operations
Following is a swumary of the factors used to establish the
BPCTCA effluent limitation guidelines (ELG8) applying to the
Sand Washing Operations subcategory. As far as possible,
the stated limits are based upon performance levels attained
by the selected plants surveyed during this study. Where
treatment levels can be improved by application of addi-
tional currently available control and treatment technology,
the anticipated reduction of waste loads was included in the
estimates.
The BPCTCA ELGs for the Sand Washing Operations subcategory,
and the control and treatment technology to achieve these
limits, are summarized in Table 25.
Flow . Of the four sand washing unit operations surveyed in
this study, two practiced once—through water usage with
direct discharge; one practiced excellent water conservation
by concurrent flow and sequential washing stages followed by
direct discharge, while the fourth practiced recycle of
wastewater with blowdown to discharge. Of these four
plants, three discharged to multiple operation treatment
systems, while the fourth discharged to a receiving stream.
195
-------
DRAFT
Process water applied flow rates ranged from 417 l/kkg (100
gal./ton) of sand washing to 24,019 l/kkg (5,760 gal./ton)
of sand washed, with an average water application rate of
13,191 l/kkg (3,166 gal./ton) of sand washed. Discharge
flows ranged from 417 l/kkg (100 gal./ton) of sand washed to
22,725 l/kkg (5,454 gal./ton) of sand washed.
Because of the wide range of effluent flows observed, the
BPCTCA ELGs are based on flow rates set at approximately 30%
of the average applied rate of the four units surveyed,
achieving this reduction in flow via partial recycle of
wastewater. This results in recommended BP TCA flow rates
of 4,170 l/kkg (1,000 ga l./ton) of sand washed. This mid-
range value is well within he capability of current technology
to achieve, as evidenced by the unit already achieving this
level. At the same time, this value will provide the impetus
for once—through water users to develop recycle systems,
while at the same time allowing them to achieve this end by
1977 in a cost effective manner. It is anticipated that as
the once-through users begin to convert to recycle systems,
they will find it economically advantageous to go all the
way to tight recycle, rather than approach it in a stepwise
manner.
Suspended Solids . A review df unit effluent waste loads and
revels of treatment technology practiced reveals that,
except for recycle of wastewater, none of the units surveyed
provided adequate treatment and control technology before
discharge from the unit. However, waste loads from three of
these units received further treatment in multiple process
treatment systems.
The raw waste loads discharged from sand washing operations
compare very favorably with those from the molding and
cleaning dust collection operations. Therefore, a transfer
of BPCTCA level treatment and control technology from the
unit Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operation subcategory
to the unit Sand Washing Operation aubcategory, is justified.
It is felt that all unit sand washing operations could
achieve BPCTCA ELGs equivalent to those for molding and
cleaning dust collection operations by the addition of
polyelectrolyte, plain sedimentation or clarification. The
BPCTCA ELG for suspended solids for the Molding and Cleaning
Dust Collection Operations subcategory is 0.0500 kg/kkg
(0.100 lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle. However,
due to the fact that the water application rate for the unit
sand washing operation is two times that of the unit molding
and cleaning dust collection operation, it is felt that an
additional allowance should be provided. Therefore, the
196
-------
TABLE 25
BPCTCA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUSCATEGORY Sand Washing Operations
SPCTCA LIMITATIONS ESTIMATED 4
CRITICAL Kg/KKg 1 TOTAL COST
PARAMETERS ( LB/bOO LB) mg/b 2 CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3 $JKKg $JTON
Suspended solids 0.167 40 Drag tank for continuous solids removal;
recycle with addition of caustic and 3.00 2.72
Oil and Grease 0.0625 15 polyelectrolyte; blowdown treated via oil
skimming and settling in lagoon.
pH 6.0—9.0
Flow Most probable value for moderately tight recycle system is 4170 liters of
effluent per kkg of product (1000 gal/ton); excluding all non—contact
cooling water.
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of sand washed or pounds per 1000 pounds of sand washed.
(2) Milligrams/liter, based on 4170 liters effluent per kkg of sand washed (1000 gal/ton).
(3) Available technolo9y listed is not neeessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treated methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow to
be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs
shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities whichare normally existing within a
plant.
>
-------
167 GPM -
--V
I D
8 3GP Z5OGPM 1 WASWIP4G \ —r j
FR OUO$ —ciEEi
FLOW IZ OO./W 1 (XOOC#.L/TOt4) *
‘_.i.=:’..
I ‘.‘t I
I I I
/
‘ /
/
SUSPENO D SOtiDS 40 i /I
OIL 4 GREASE I
Y
— — — — BASE LEVEl. SYSTEM
BPCTCA MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOtNCY
I OUWDRY INDUSTRY ,TuDY
ANI) WASIIINC, 014 ATI0N5
5UBCATE GORI
BPCTCA MODEL
- ,
I FKJURI iO
V
\ nhINc N
/
I
-------
0 RAFT
BPCTCA ELG for suspended solids for the unit sand washing
subcategory is conservatively set at 0.167 kg/kkg (0.334 lbs
of suspended solids/ton) of sand washed, equivalent to 40
mg/i in a discharge flow of 1,000 gal./ton of sand washed.
Oil and Grease . Of the thur unit sand washing operations
surveyed in this study, three showed oil and grease waste
loads in effluent streams of less than 0.0625 kg/kkg (0.125
lbs/ton) of sand washed. The remaining unit could achieve
this levei by the accepted practice of oil skimming.
Therefore, the BPCTCA ELG for oil and grease is set at
0.0625 kg/kkg (0.125 lbs of oil and grease/ton) of sand
washed, equivalent to 15 mg/i in a discharge of 1,000
gal./ton of sand washed.
. All of the units surveyed fell within the pH constraints
range of 6.0 to 9.0, thus providing a basis for establishing
this range as BPCTCA ELG for pH. Any unit falling outside
of this range can readily remedy the situation by applying
appropriate neutralization procedures in the treatment
process.
Multipie Operations
FOllowing is a summary of the factors used to establish the
BPCTCA effluent limitation guidelines ‘(ELGS) applying to the
Multiple Operations subcategory. As far as possible, the
stated limits are based upon performance levels attained by
the selected plants surveyed during this study.
It is recognized that some of the multiple operations
facilities surveyed were practicing better than BPCTCA ELG
treatment and control technology. Therefore, the BPCTCA ELG
for multiple operation facilities should be the sum of the
BPCTCA ELG treatment and control technology previously cited
for each constituent unit operation. The BPCTCA ELGs for
the Multiple Operations subcategory are summarized in Table
26.
Flow . The recommended BPCTCA ELG flow for the Multiple
Operations subcategory shall be the sum of the previously
cited individual BPCTCA ELG flows from each constituent unit
operation.
Sus ended Solids . The recommended BPCTCA ELG suspended
solids forthe Multiple Operations subcategory shall be the
sum of the individual BPCTCA ELG suspended solids load for
each constituent unit operation.
1. Unit Melting Operations. 0.250 kg/kkg (0.500 lbs of
suspended solids/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 40 mg/i
in a discharge flow of 1,500 gal./ton of metal poured.
199
-------
DRAFT
2. Unit Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations.
0.0501 kg/kkg (0.1 lbs of suspended solids/ton) of sand
passing before the ladle, equivalent to 40 mg/I in a dis-
charge flow of 300 gal./ton of sand passing before the
ladle. p
3. Unit Sand Washing Operations. 0.167 kg/kkg (0.334 lbs
of suspended solids/ton of sand washed, equivalent to 40
mg/l in a discharge flow of 1,000 gal./ton of sand washed.
Oil’and Grease . The recommended BPCTCA ELG for oil and
grease load for Multiple Operations subcategory shall be the
sum of the individual BPcTCA ELG oil and grease load for
each previously cited individual constituent unit operation.
1. Unit Melting Operations. 0.0937 kg/kkg (0.187 lbs of
oil and grease/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 15 mg/l
in a discharge flow of 1,500 gal./ton of metal poured.
2. Unit Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations.
0.0188 kg/kkg (0.0375 lbs of oil and grease/ton) of sand
passing before the ladle, equivalent to 15 mg/i in a dis-
charge flow of 300 gal./ton of sand passing before the
ladle..
3. Unit Sand Washing Operations. 0.0625 kg/kkg (0.125 lbs
of oil and grease/ton) of sand washed, equivalent to 15 mg/i
in a discharge flow of 1,000 gal./ton of sand washed.
Lead . The recommended BPCTCA ELG for lead from Multiple
Operations subcategory shall be that recommended specifically
for the BPCTCA ELG for the Unit Melting Operations sub-
category.
1. Unit Melting Operations. 0.0100 kg/kkg (0.0200 lbs/ton)
of metal poured, equivalent to 1.6 mg/i in a discharge flow
of 1,500 gal./ton of metal poured.
Manganese . The recommended BPCTCA ELG for manganese from
Multiple Operations subcategory shall be that recommended
specifically for the BP TCA ELG for the Unit Melting Operations
subcategory
1. Unit Melting Operations. 0.0316 kg/kkg (0.0630 lbs of
manganese/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 5 mg/i in a
discharge flow of 1,500 gal./ton of metal poured.
Zinc . The recommended BPCTCA ELG for zinc from the Multiple
Operations subcategory shall be that recommended specifically
for BPCTCA ELG for the Unit Melting Operations subcategory.
200
-------
TABLE 26
BPCTCA - EffLUENT LIMITATIO7 S GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY ‘Iultiple O?eratiorts
Xg/KXg
( LB/bOO LB )
The sins of the pounds per
1000 pounds fnr each sub—
category for suspended
solids and oil and grease.
0 • 125
o • 0313
0.0100
0.0313
Joint treatment of raw wastewater or blow—
downs from partially treated wastewaters
from any combination of multiple operations
utilizing recycle systems: lime or caustic
and polymer additions: clarification: and
oil skiming.
) st probable value for moderately tight recycle system will range from
10,420th 20,420 liters/Icky (2,500 to 4,900 gal/ton) of hot metal poured,
depending on the combination of multiple operations used.
ESTIMATED
TOTAL COST —
_____ $/TON
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of metal pot.red or pounds per 1000 pounds of metal poured.
(2) E4iUigra 1 ms per liter will depend on the combined discharge flow rate.
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre—
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
BPCTCA LIMITATIONS
CRITICAL
PARAMETERS
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Zinc
p 11
Flow
mgji(2) CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3
C
I-
7.53 to
14.93
6.0—9.0
6.83 to
13.54
-------
DRAFT
1. Unit Melting Operations. 0.0316 kg/kkg (0.063 lbs of
zinc/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 5 mg/i in a dis-.
charge flow of 1,500 gai./ton of metal’poured.
Fluoride . The recommended BPCTCA ELG for fluoride for the
Multiple Operations subcategory shall be that recommended
specifically for BPCTCA ELG for the Unit Melting Operations
subcategory.
1. Unit Melting Operations. 0.125 kg/kkg (0.250 lbs of
fluoride/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 20 mg/i in a
discharge flow of 1,500 gal./ton of metal poured.
All of the unit operations for each subcategory as fell
within the pH constraints range of 6.0 to 9.0, thus pro-
viding a basis for establishing this range as BPCTCA ELG for
pH. Any unit operation or multiple operation facility
falling outside of this range can readily remedy the situation
by applying appropriate neutralizing procedures in the
treatment process.
TREATMENT MODELS
Treatment models of systems to achieve the effluent quality
for each subcategory have been developed. Sketches of the
BPCTCA models are presented in Figures 28 through 30. The
development included not only a determination that a treatment
facility of the type developed for each subcategory could
achieve the effluent quality proposed but it included a
determination of the capital investment and the total annual
operating costs for the average size facility. In all
subcategories these models are based on the combination of
unit (waste treatment) operations in an “add-on” faShion as
required to control the significant waste parameters. The
unit operations were each selected as the least expensive
means to accomplish their particular function and thus their
combination into a treatment model presents the least
expensive method of control for a given subcategory.
COST EFFECTIVENESS DIAGRAMS
Figures 3lB through 34E presented in Section X show the
pollutant reduction achieved by each step of the treatment
models discussed in Tables 16 through 22 and the cumulative
cost, including base level, to achieve that reduction. The
curves are discussed in more detail in Section X.
202
-------
DRAFT
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE-
THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1,
1983 are to specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable
through the application of the best available technology
economically achievable. Best available technology is not
based upon an average of the best performance within an
industrial category, but isto be determined by identifying
the very best control and treatment technology employed by a
specific point source within the industrial category or
subcategory, or where it is readily transferable from one
industry to another, such technology may be identified as
BATEA technology. A specific finding must be made as to the
availability of control measures and practices to eliminate
the discharge of pollutants, taking into account the cost of
such elimination.
Consideration must also be given to:
1. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved.
2. The processes employed. -
3. Non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements).
4. The engineering aspects of the application of various
types of áontrol techniques.
5. Process changes.
6. The cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting
from application of BATEA technology.
Best available technology assesses the availability in all
cases of in—process changes or controls which can be applied
to reduce waste loads as well as additional treatment
techniques which can be applied at the end of a production
process. Those plant processes and control technologies
which at the pilot plant, semi-works, or other level, have
203
-------
DRAFT
demonstrated both technological performances and economic
viability at a level sufficient to reasonably justify
investing in such facilities may be considered in assessing
best available technology.
Best available technology is the highest degree of control
technology that has been achieved or has been demonstrated
to be capable of being designed for plant scale operation up
to and including “no discharge” of pollutants. Although
economic factOrs are considered in the development, the
costs for this level of control is intended to be the top-
of-the-line current technology subject to limitations
imposed by economic and engineering feasibility. However,
this level may be characterized by some technical risk with
respect to performance and with respect to certainty of
costs. Therefore, the BATEA limitations may necessitate
some industrially sponsored development work prior to its
application.
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF BATEA
The following paragraphs suv arize the factors that were
considered in selecting the categorization, water use rates,
level of treatment technology, effluent concentrations
attainable by the technology, and hence the establishment of
the effluent limitations for BATEA.
Siz! and Age of Facilities and Land Availability Considerations
As discussed in Section IV, the-age and size of iron and
steel foundry industry facilities has little direct bearing
on the quantity or quality of wastewater generated. Thus,
the ELG for a given aubcategory of waste source applies
equally to at]. plants regardless of size or age. Land
availability for installation of add-on treatment facilities
can influence the type pf technology utilized to meet the
ELGs. This is one of the considerations which can account
for a range in the costs that might be incurred.
Consideration of Processes Employed
All plants in a given subcategory use the same or similar
production methods, giving similar discharges. There is no
evidence that operation of any current process or subprocess
will substantially affect capabilities to implement the best
available control technology economically achievable. At
such time that new processes appear in ninent for broad
application the ELGa should be amended to cover these new
sources. No process changes are envisioned for implementation
204
-------
DRAFT
of this technology for plants in any subcategory. The
treatment technologies to achieve BATEA assess the availa--
bility of in—process controls as well as control or addi-
tional treatment techniques employed at the end of a produc-
tion process.
Consideration of Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Air Quality . The impact
of BATEA limitations upon the n3 -water elements of the
environment has been considered. The increased use of
recycle systems have the potent.iàl for increasing the loss
of volatiles to the atmosphere. Recycle systems are so
effective in reducing wastewater volumes and hence waste
loads to and from treatment systems and in reducing the size
and cost of treatment systems that a trade—off must be
accepted. These systems have contributed significantly to
reductions of effluent loads while contributing only minimally
to air pollution problems. Careful operation of such
systems can avoid or minimize air pollution problems.
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Solid Waste Problems .
Consideration has also been gTven to the solid waste aspects
of water pollution coi trols. The processes for treating the
wastewaters from this industry produce considerable volumes
of sludges. Much of this material is inert sand and iron
oxide which can be reused profitably. Other sludges not
suitable for reuse must be disposed of to landfills since
most of them are chemical precipitates which could be little
reduced by incineration. Being precipitates they are by
nature relatively insoluble and nonhazardous substances
requiring minimal custodial care.
Impact of Proposed Limitations Due to Hazardous Materials .
In ordeFto ensure long-term protectTon of the environment
from harmful constituents, special consideration of disposal
sites should be made. All landfill sites should be selected
so as to prevent horizontal and vertical migration of these
contaminants to ground or surface waters. In cases where
geologic conaitions may not reasonably ensure this, adequate
mechanical precautions (e.g., impervious liners) should be
taken to ensure long—term protection to the environment. A
program of routine periodic sampling and analysis of leachates
is advisable. Where appropriate the location of solid
hazardous materials disposal sites, if any, should be
permanently recorded in the appropriate office of legal
j uçisdiction.
205
-------
‘DRAFT
Impact of Proposed Limitations on Energy Requirements . The
effects of water pollution control measures on energy
requirements has also been determined. The additional
energy required in the form of electric power to achieve the
effluent limitations proposed for BPCTCA and BATEA amounts
to approximately 1.3% of the electrical energy used by the
iron and steel foundry industry in 1972.
The enhancement to water quality management provided by
these proposed effluent limitations substantially outweighs
the impact on air, solid waste, and energy requiremehts.
Consideration of the Engineerin9 Aspects of the Application
of Various Types TContro1 Techniques
This level, of technology is considered to be the best
available and economically achievable in that the concepts
are proven and available for implementation and may be
readily applied through adaptation or as add-one to proposed
BPCTCA treatment facilities.
Consideration of Process Changes
No process changes are envisioned for implementation of this
technology for plants in any subcategory. The treatment
technologies to achieve BATEA assesses the availability of
in—process controls as well as control or additional treat-
ment techniques employed at the end of a production process.
Consideration of Costs of Achievin9 the Effluent Reduction
esu1ting fromThe Appli ation of BATEA Technology
The costs of implementing the BATEA limitations relative to
the benefits to be derived is pertinent but is expected to
be higher per unit reduction in waste load achieved as
higher quality effluents are produced. The dverall impact
of capital and operating costs relative to the value of the
products produced and revenues generated was considered in
establishing the BATEA limitations. -
The technol’ogy evaluation, treatment facility, costing, and
calculation of overall capital and operating costs, to the
industry as described in Section IX and which provided the
basis for the development of the BPCTCA limitations was also
used to provide the basis for determining the BATEA limita-
tions, the costs therefore, and the acceptability of those
costs.
The initial capital investment and total annual expenditures
required of the industry to achieve BATEA limitations are
siumnarized in Table 31.
206
-------
DRAFT
After selection of the treatment technology to be designated
as one means to achieve the BATEA limitations for each
subcategory was made a sketch of each treatment model was
prepared.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE - BATEA
Based on the information contained in Sections III through
VIII of this report, a. determination has been made that the
quality of effluent attainable through the application of
the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable is as
listed in Tables 27 through 30.. These tables set forth the
ELGs for the following subcategories of the iron and steel
foundry industry:
I. Melting Operations
II. Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
III. Sand Washing Operations
IV. Multiple Operations
In establishing the subject guidelines, it should be noted
that the resulting limitations or standards are applicable
to aqueous waste discharges dnly, exclusive of noncontact
cooling waters. In the section of this report which dis—
cusses control and treatment technology for the iron and
steel foundry industry as a whole, a qualitative reference
has been given regarding “the environmental impact other
than water” for the subcategories investigated.
The effluent guidelines established herein taken into
account only those aqueous constituents considered to be
major pollutants in each of the subcategories investigated.
In general, the critical parameters were selected for each
subcategoryon the basis of those waste constituents known
to be generated in the specific manufacturing process and
also known to be present in sufficient quantity to be
inimical to the environment. Certain general parameters
such as suspended solids naturally include the oxides of
iron and silica, however, these latter specific constituents
were not included as critical parameters, since adequate
removal of the general parameters (suspended solids) in turn
provides for adequate removal of the more specific parameters
indicated. This does not hold true when certain of the
parameters are in the dissolved state; however, in the case
of sand and iron oxides generated in.the iron and steel
foundry processes, they are for the most part insoluble in
the relatively neutral effluents in which they are contained.
The absence of apparent less important parameters from the
guidelines in no way endorses unrestricted discharge of the
same.
207
-------
DRAFT
The recoimnended effluent limitations guidelines resulting
from this study for BATEA limitatIons are summarized in
Tables 27 to 30. These tables also list the control and
treatment technology applicable or normally utilized to
reach the óonstituent levels indicated. These effluent
limitations set herein are by no means the absolute lowest
values attainable (except where no discharge of process•
wastewater pollutants to navigable waters is recommended) by
the indicated technology, but moreover they represent values
which can be readily controlled around on a day-by-day
basis.
It should be noted that these effluent limitations represent
values not to be exceeded by any 30 continuous day average.
The maximum daily effluent loads per unit of production
should not exceed these values by a factor of three as
discussed in Section IX.
Cost Versus Effluent Reduction Benefits
Estimated total costs on a dollars per ton basis have been
included for each subcategory as a whole. These costs have
been based on the wastewaters emanating from a typical
average size production fac4.lity for each of the subcategories
investigated. In airiving at these effluent limitations
guidelines, due consideration was given to keeping the costs
of implementing the new technology to a minimum. Specifically,
the effluent limitations guidelines were kept at values
which would not result in excessive capital or operating
costs to the industry. The capital and annual operating
costs that would be required of the industry to achieve
BATEA was determined by a six-step process for each of the
four subcategories. It was first determined what treatment
processes were already in place and currently being utilized
by nxst of the plants. Secondly, a hypothetical treatment
system Was envisioned which, as an add-on to existing facilities
would treat the effluent sufficiently to meet. BATEA ELG5.
Thirdly, the average plant size was determined by dividing
the total industry production by the number of operation
facilities. Fourth, a quasi-detailed engineering estimate
was prepared on the cost of the components and the total
capital cost of the add-on facilities for the average plant.
Fifth, the annual operating, maintenance,’ capital recovery
(basis 10 years straight line depreciation) and capital use
(basis 7% interest) charges were determined. And sixth, the
costs developed for the average facility were multiplied by
the total number of facilities to arrive at the total capital
and annual costs to the industry for each subcategory. The
results are s” rized in Table 31.
208
-------
BATEA EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The BATEA limitations have been established in accordance
with the policies and definitions set forth at the beginning
of this section. Further refinements of some of the tech-
nologies and the ELG5 discussed in the previous Section IX
of this study will be required. The subject BATEA limitations
are summarized in Tables 27 to 30 along with their projected
costs and treatment technologies.
DISCUSSION BY SUBCATEGORIES
The rationale used for developing BATEA effluent limitations
guidelines is summarized below for each of the major sub-
categories. All effluent limitations guidelines are presented
on a “gross” basis since for the most part, removals are
relatively independent of initial concentrations of contami—
nants. The ELGs are in kilograms of pollutant per metric
ton of product or in pounds of pollutant per thousand pounds
of product and in these terms only. The ELGs are not a
limitation on flow, type of technology to be utilized, or
concentrations to be achieved. These items are listed only
to show the basis for the ELGs and may be varied as the
discharger desires so long as the ELGs per unit of production
are met.
Melting Operations
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
BATEA effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) applying to the
Melting Operations subcategory. As far as possible, the
stated limits are based upon performance levels attained by
the selected plants surveyed during this study. Where
treatment levels can be improved by applic tion of additional
currently available control and treatment technology, the
anticipated reduction of waste loads was included in the
estimates.
The BATEA ELGs for the Melting Operations subcategory, and
the control and treatment technology to achieve these limits,
are summarized in Table 27.
Flow . One of the unit melting operations surveyed recycling
wastewater from the furnace emission control process utilized
caustic addition for pH adjustment and corrosion control and
polyelectrolyte addition followed by clarification for
solids removal. All wastewater was recycled resulting in a
zero aqueous discharge. Another unit melting operation
simply discharged all its raw wastewater to a large holding
tank for overnight-settling of solids and natural equilibration
of the wastewater resulting in zero aqueous discharge from
the unit melting operation.
209
-------
One unit melting operation surveyed in this study employed
98% recycle of wastewater from the furnace emissiOn control
system. This was accomplished through the utilization of
caustic addition for corrosion control and pH adjustment.
Solids from raw waste flow were removed in a drag tank with
continuous bottom drag chain. The effluent from the drag
tank was discharged to a holding tank and then pumped to
centrifugal degritters for further golids removal. The
solids thus removed were transferred to the drag tank for
exclusion from the system. The effluent from the degritters
Was further processed by sand filtration to remove the finer
suspended solid particles. The filters were backwashed
periodically with the backwash receiving• flash mixing with
polyelectrolyte followed by clarification with a. discharge
flow of 208 l/kkg (50 gal./ton) of metal poured.
This same unit melting operation also operated a recycling
wet slag quench process with 96% recycle of wastewater.
Solids were removed by a continuous bottom drag chain in the
slag quench pit, followed by direct discharge of the blowdown
at 917 l/kkg (220 gal./ton) of metal poured.
The quality of this slag quench blowdown waste stream was
far superior to that which was being recycled back to the
furnace emission control system. Further, it compared quite
favorably with the fresh makeup water being applied to the
furnace emission control stack gas quench ring. Water
consumption of the stack gas quench ring was three times
that of the slag quench process blowdown. Slag quench
wastewater discharges are commonly used as part of the
makeup water routinely consumed by furnace emission control
systems. Quite often the entire raw waste load from the
slag quenching process is discharged directly into and/or
combined with the total raw waste load from the furnace
emission control system. Alternatively, just the slag
quench b]owdown itself can be combined with the recycled
wastewater returned to the furnace emission control system.
Any of the above alternatives affects a zero aqueous discharge
from the slag quench process.
It is felt that the subject unit melting operations could
conveniently incorporate the blowdown from the slag quench
process with other wastewater recycled back to the furnace
emission control system and thus affect a zero aqueous
discharge from the slag quench process. This would result
in a 98% recycle of all wastewater applied to unit melting
operations while still achieving the previously stated 208
l/kkg (50 gal./ton) of metal poured from the wastewater
treatment system. This modification would affect an 80%
210
-------
reduction of the current 1,125 l/kkg (270 gal./ton) of metal
poured while still satisfying all the water application
requirements of the unit melting operations. However, this
modification has yet to be executed by the unit melting
operations.
Although zero discharge has been successfully achieved at
several melting operations, it is not recommended at this
time due to the fact that this complete practice may not be
dniversally applicable. The HATEA ELG recommended discharge
flow rate is felt to be very conservative when set at
slightly above the combined total discharge flow rate from
this unit melting operation. Therefore, the BATEA ELG
recommended discharge flow rate is set at 1,250 l/kkg (300
gal./ton) of metal poured.
Suspended Solids . The unit melting operation operating the
slag quench under flow was discharging a suspended solids
waste load of 0.00266 kg/kkg (0.0053 lbs/ton) of metal
poured from the furnace emission control wastewater treat-
ment system, and 0.0812 kg/kkg (0.162 lbs/ton) of metal
poured from its slag quench process. It is felt that the
slag quench process discharge could be used as makeup water
to the emission control system. This would result in a
negligible increased suspended solids load of 1.3% on the
treatment system which is current1 j successfully treating a
suspended solids raw waste load of 62.1 kg/kkg (124 lbs/ton)
of metal poured. Further, this unit was only discharging
208 l/kkg (50 gal./ton) of metal poured from the wastewater
treatment system. Using the same suspended solids load
factor of the treatment system discharge, but with a dis-
charge flow rate adjusted upward to the BATEA ELG recommended
discharge flow of 1,250 l/kkg (300.gal./ton) of metal
poured, the suspended solids discharge load would be equiva-
lent to 0.0159 kg/kkg (0.0318 lbs/ton) of metal poured.
In view of the above rationale, BATEA ELG is felt to be very
conservative when set at twice this value. Therefore, the
BATEA ELG for suspended solids is set at 0.0313 kg/kkg
(0.0626 lbs of suspended solids/ton) of metal poured,
equivalent to 25 mg/i suspended solids in a discharge flow
of 300 gai./ton of metal poured.
Oil and Grease . This same unit melting operation discussed
under BATEA flow, was discharging an oil and grease load of
0.000716 kg/kkg (0.00143 lbs/ton) of metal poured from its
furnace emission control wastewater treatment system, and
0.00316 kg/kkg (0.00631 lbs/ton) of metal poured from its
slag quench process. It is felt that the slag quench
211
-------
process discharge should be used as makeup water to the
furnace emission control system. This would result in a
negligible increased oil and grease of 1.48% on the treat-
ment system which is currently successfully treating an oil
and grease raw waste load of 0.213 kg/kkg (0.4263 lbs/ton)
of metal poured. Further, this unit was only discharging
208 l/kkg (50 gal./ton) of metal poured from the treatment
system. Using the same oil and grease load factor of the
treatment system discharge flow but with a discharge rate
adjusted upward to the BATEA ELG recommended discharge flow
of 1,250 l/kkg (300 gal./ton) of metal poured, the oil and
grease load would be equivalent to 0.00858 kg/kkg (0.00143
lbs/ton) of metal poured. Basing this load on the recommended
BATEA ELG discharge flow of 1,250 l/kkg (300 gal./ton) of
metal poured, results in concentrations too low to adequately
measure by most readily available analytical techniques.
Therefore, the BATEA ELG for oil and grease is conservatively
set at 0.0125 kg/kkg (0.0250 lbs of oil and grease/ton) of
metal poured, equivalent to 10 mg/i in a discharge flow of
300 gal./ton of metal poured.
Lead . The unit melting operation discussed under flow was
discharging a lead waste load of 0.000760 kg/kkg (0.000380
lbs/ton) of metal poured from its furnace emission control
wastewater treatment system and 0.000586 kg/kkg (0.00117
lbs/ton) of metal poured from its slag quench process. It
is felt that the slag quench process discharge should be
used as makeup water to the emission control system. This
would result in a negligible increased lead load of 2.90% on
the treatment system which is currently successfully treating
a lead raw waste load of 2.02 kg/kkg (4.03 lbs/ton) of metal
poured. Further, this unit was only discharging 208 l/kkg
(50 gal./ton) of metal poured from the treatment system.
Using the sante lead load factor of the treatment system
discharge, but with a discharge rate adjusted upward to the
BATEA ELG recommended discharge flow 1,250 l/kkg (300
gal./ton) of metal poured, the lead discharge load would be
equivalent to 0.00114 kg/kkg (0.00228 lbs of lead/ton) of
metal poured. Therefore, the BATEA ELG for lead is set
slightly above this value at 0.00125 kg/kkg (0.00250 lbs of
lead/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 1 mg/i of lead in
300 gal./ton of metal poured.
Manganese . The unit melting operation discussed under flow
was discharging a manganese waste load of 0.000440 kg/kkg
(0.000878 lbs/ton) of metal poured from its furnace emission
control wastewater treatment system, and 0.00105 kg/kkg
(0.00209 lbs/ton) of metal poured from its slag quench
process. It is felt that the slag quench process discharge
212
-------
should be used as makeup water to the emission control
system. This would result in a negligible increased manga—
nese load of 1.09% on the treatment system which is currently
successfully treating a manganese raw waste load of 2.62
kg/kkg (5.23 lbs/ton) of metal poured. Further, this unit
was only discharging 209 l/kkg (50 gal./ton) of metal poured
from the treatment system. Using the same manganese load
factors of the treatment system discharge, but with a
discharge rate adjusted upward to BATEA ELG recommended
discharge flow of 1,250 1/kkg (300 gai./ton) of metal
poured, the manganese discharge load would be equivalent to
0.00263 kg/kkg (0.00525 lbs/ton) of metal poured. Therefore,
the BATEA ELG for manganese is set slightly above this value
at 0.00375 kg/kkg (0.00750 lbs of manganese/ton) of metal
poured, equivalent to 3 mg/i of manganese in 300 gal./ton of
metal poured.
Zinc . The unit melting operation discussed in flow was
discharging a zinc waste load of 0.000715 kg/kkg (0.00143
lbs/ton) of metal poured from its furnace emission control
waste treatment system and 0.00180 kg/kkg (0.00360 lbs/ton)
of metal poured from its slag quench process. It is felt
that the slag quench process discharge could be used as
makeup water to the emission control system. This would
result in a negligible increased zinc load of 0.0178% on the
treatment system which is currently successfully treating a
raw zinc load of 10.1 kg/kkg (20.2 lbs/ton) of metal poured.
Further, this unit was only discharging 208 l/kkg (50
gal./ton) of metal poured from the treatment system. Using
this same zinc load factor of the treatment system discharge,
but with a discharge rate adjusted upward to BATEA ELG
recommended discharge flow 1,250 1/kkg (.300 gal./ton) of
metal poured, the zinc discharge load would be equivalent to
0.00442 kg/kkg (0.00882 lbs/ton) of metal poured. Therefore,
the BATEA ELG for zinc is set slightly less than this value
at 0. 00375 kg/kkg (0.00750 lbs of zinc/ton) of metal poured,
equivalent to 3 mg/l of zinc in 300 gal./ton of metal poured.
Sulfide . The unit melting operation discussed under flow
was discharging a sulfide waste load of 0.000471 kg/kkg
(0.000940 lbs/ton) of metal poured from its furnace emission
control system, and 0.000451 kg/kkg (0.000901 lbs/ton) of
metal poured from its slag quench process. It is felt that
the slag quench process discharge could be used as makeup
water to the emission control system. This would result in
a negligible increased sulfide load of 2.36% on the treatment
system which is currently successfully treating a sulfide
raw waste load of 0.0191 kg/kkg (0.0382 lbs/ton) of metal
poured. Further, this unit was only discharging 208 l/kkg
213
-------
(50 gal./ton) of metal poured from the treatment system.
Using the same sulfide load factor of the treatment system
but with a discharge flow adjusted upward to BATEA ELG
recommended discharge flow 1,250 l/kkg (300 gal./ton) of
metal poured, the sulfide discharge load would be equivalent
to 0.00283 kg/kkg (0.00564 lbs/ton) of metal poured.
However, the decrease of the wastewater recycle rate from
98% to 90% would greatly aid the oxidation of sulfide to
even lower levels than the current 0.000471 kg/kkg (0.000940
lbs/ton) of metal poured. Therefore, the BATEA ELG for
sulfide is being conservatively set at 0.00157 kg/kkg
(0.00313 lbs of sulfide/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to
1.25 mg/l of sulfide in 300 gal./ton of metal poured.
Fluoride . The unit melting operation discussed under flow
was discharging a fluoride waste load of 0.00420 kg/kkg
(0.00840 lbs/ton) of metal poured from its furnace emission
control wastewater treatment system, and 0.000586 kg/kkg
(0.00117 lbs/ton) of metal poured from its slag quench
process. It is felt that the slag quench process discharge
could be used as makeup water to the emission control
system. This would result in a negligible increased fluoride
load of 0.0413% on the treatment system which is currently
successfully treating a fluoride raw waste load of 0.177
kg/kkg (0.353 lbs/ton) of metal poured. Further, this unit
is only discharging 208 l/kkg (50 gal./ton) of metal poured
from the treatment system. Using the same fluoride load
factor of the treatment system discharge, but with a dis-
charge rate adjusted upward to BATEA ELG recommended dis-
charge flow 1,250 1/kkg (300 gal./ton) of metal poured, the
fluoride discharge load would be equivalent to 0.00577
kg/kkg (0.0155 lbs/ton) of metal poured. However, the
appearance of fluoride in waste loads is largely a function
of the constituents used in the melting process. Gross
fluoride loads are commonly controlled by the addition of
lime for pH adjustment. Therefore, the BATEA ELG for
fluoride is being conservatively set at 0.0157 kg/kkg
(0.0313 lbs of fluoride/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to
12.5 mg/i of fluoride in 300 gal./ton of metal poured.
All unit melting operations surveyed fell within the pH
constraint range of 6.0 to 9.0 for final effluent, thus
providing a basis for establishing this range as the BATEA
ELG. Any plant failing outside this range can easily remedy
the situation by applying appropriate neutralization pro-
cedures to the final effluent.
214
-------
TABLE 7
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Melting Operations
BATEA LIMITATIONS (4
(j ESTIMAI ED
CRITICAL Kg/KKcj ‘ (2) TOTAL COST
PA1U METERS j /iOOO LB) mg/i CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3 $/KKg
Suspended Solids 0.0313 25 Sand filtration, with recycle of all
0il and Grease 0.0125 10 filtrates; discharge of filtrate 5.35 4.85
backwash to separator clarifier, with
Fluoride 0.0157 12.5 polymer addition and flash mixing.
Manganese 0.00375 3
Lead 0.00125 1
Zinc 0.00375 3
Sulfide 0.00157 1.25
pH 6.0—9.0
Flow Most probable value for tight recycle system is ‘1250 liters of effluent per
kkg of product (300 gal/ton); excluding all non—contact cooling water.
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of metal poured or pounds per 1000 pounds of metal poured.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 1250 liters effluent per kkg of steel produced (300 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it ‘reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre—
liminary modifications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
B
-------
______ 5USPENDED XID
I .1 GPM EVAPORATION OIL i CiR€A5E
WORIO
—. LEAD
/ MANGANESE
4JLFIOE
I 12500
__ —
1* - pot’,,
8533 GPM
LIG7 G PM
_1_ _
5ETTLING
¼ TANK
I 1250PM
/
/
/
[ NVIRONMENTAI PROTECTION Ac,ENcv
VOUNORY INO$JSTRY STARS
MELTING OPERATION
SUBCATLGORY
BATIA MODEL
C ’ ?5-?5
FIGUR [ IA
lz5
447 CPU
-. 1
-I--
I-
4000- 6oOC). J1
4o-eo 01 /& I
IO-OOO ft I
l0-soo ,. iA I
10 -80 /L I
v- o0 i. /J I
t/Kk 0000 GAL/TON’) I
£
I / I
I -i I
I I
—25 CPM
OIL
EVC L SYS1tbI AND
BPCTCA MODEL
t3A tEA
SUSPINLXDSO( IOS
OIL! c,RtA Io /&
flUcRItX
LEAP Inj/t
MANGAN1 E S
)11ID(
ZINC 3
P h 65
W)W 5o1IKK pooG Jo4
-------
—S
- .4
8O 5OO
7 2OO
0
U
-J
37,70c’
P/cWRE 1L .
,410011.. COST F EC /V N 155 O/A4RAM
MEI TIN4 5 d c.47rqOe V
AWN /AL COST5 8A5i0 CNTE.V YEAR cAP/rAL. *ECOVE . Y
1,NTERE5T A1Z 7%
,‘ OPi 4T W4 COSTS /NCL(.AOE LA8 O.k, C/i E/4fCAL5 (1T L/Tl 5
# M4INT(NANC COSTS 8.4510 0%’ £J% OP CAPITAL C 2$T5
COSTS 8 .45(0 ON 3 .J K/( /04)f(4o fo1.l5/o.. y),cRooucT/ON
7W/S APH CA,VWOr 8E YSE 0 PO 6 E /Nrz e ,w oiA TE V,4LL’E5
0
£ ($PCrcA)
0
(8A SE
LEVEL)
/3e, 900
‘C.
(BATEA)
0 20 40 60 90 /00
PERCENT /QEMOVEO
217
-------
°R.4Fr
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
BATEA effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) applying to the
Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations subcategory.
As far as possible, the stated limits are based upon performance
levels attained by the selected plants surveyed during this
study. Where treatment levels can be improved by application
of additional currently available control and treatment
technology, the anticipated reduction of waste loads was
included in the estimates.
The BATEA ELGs for the Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
Operations subcategory, and the control and treatment technology
to achieve these limits, are summarized in Table 28.
Flow . One unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation
surveyed in this study was discharging the raw waste load
from the operation to a lagoon for solids removal. All
wastewater was recycled resulting in a zero aqueous discharge.
It is felt that the practice employed by this unit operation
may not be universally applied to all unit molding and
cleaning dust collection operations. Therefore, zero aqueous
discharge is not being’ recommended as the BATEA ELG treatment
and control method technology.
Two of the unit molding and cleaning dust collection operations
surveyed in this study were practicing recycle of wastewater
from the operation. One utilized lime addition for pH
adjustment of the recycled wastewater while the other provided
no pH adjustment. In both cases, wastewaters were collected
in a reservoir holding tank from which they were pumped to a
wet cyclone separator for removal of solids. The wastewaters
were then delivered to a second reservoir for continuous
recycle back to the unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operations. Solids from the cyclone separator were dewatered
by a classifier operation. A portion of the wastewater
effluent from the wet cyclone separator was taken as the
system 1 s blowdown.
In both cases, this blowdown received flash mixing with
polyelectrolyte, or polyelectrolyte and alum. Waste loads
were further reduced by delivering the flow to a clarifier,
thickener. The overflow from the unit was delivered to
discharge while the underf low solids were dewatered by a
vacuum filter. The effluent flow from one unit molding and
cleaning dust collection operation’s waste treatment system
was 129 l/kkg (31 gaL/ton) of sand passing before the
ladle, while the other was discharging 667 l/kkg (160 gal./ton)
218
-------
of sand passing before the ladle. The average discharge of
the two units was 398 l/kkg (95.5 gal./ton) of sand passing
before the ladle. Therefore, the recommended flow from unit
molding and dust collection operations for BATEA ELG treat-
ment and technology is set slight above this average at 417
l/kkg (100 gal./ton) of sand passing before the ladle. The-
unit operation exceeding this value could achieve it by
closer Oontrol of its recycle rate.
Suspended Solids . The two unit molding and cleaning dust
collection operations were discharging suspended solids
ranging from 0.00542 kg/kkg (0.0108 lbs/ton) of sand passing
before the ladle to 0.0334 kg/kkg (0.0667 lbs/ton) of sand
passing before the ladle, with an average of 0.0194 kg/kkg
(0. 0388 lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle. However,
the unit operation discharging the greater load far exceeded
the BATEA ELG recommended flow, while the unit discharging
the smaller load was under the BATEA ELG recommended flow.
Therefore, the BATEA ELG for suspended solids is conservatively
set at approximately twice this lower value, or 0.0104
kg/kkg (0.0208 lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle,
equivalent to 25 mg/i of suspended solids in a discharge
flow of 100 gal./ton of sand passing before the ladle.
The unit exceeding this value can readily achieve this limit
by closer control of its recycle rate, and thus discharge
less suspended solids load, or by closer control of the
waste treatment system.
Oil and Grease . The two unit molding and cleaning dust
collection operations were discharging oil and grease loads
ranging from 0.000348 kg/kkg (0.000696 lbs/ton) of sand
passing before the ladle, to 0.00401 kg/kkg (0.00800 lbs/ton)
of sand passing before the ladle, with an average of 0.00218
kg/kkg (0.00435 lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle.
However, selecting this average for the BATEA ELG would
result in concentrations too low to adequately measure by
the most readily available analytical techniques. Therefore,
the BATEA ELG for oil and grease is conservatively set at
0.00417 kg/kkg (0.00833 lbs/ton) of sand passing before the
ladle, equivalent to 10 mg/i in a discharge flow of 100
gal./ton of sand passing before the ladle.
All molding and cleaning dust collection operations
surveyed fell within the pH constraint range of 6.0 to. 9.0,
both for filter feeds and for final effluents, thus providing
a basis for establishing this range as the BATEA ELG. Any
plant falling outside this range can easily remedy the
situation by applying appropriate neutralization procedures
to the final effluent.
219
-------
TABLE 28
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations
BATEA LIMITATIONS ESTIMATED 4
CRITICAL Kg/KKgW (2) TOTAL COST
PARAMETERS ( LB/bOO LB) mg/i CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY /xIcg $/TO I
Suspended Solids 0.0104 25 Dighter recycle system; side stream clari-
fication via thickener, with vacu sn filtra— 0.797 0.723
Oil and Grease 0.00417 10 tion of underf lows.
pH 6.0—9.0
Flow ? st probable value for tight recycle system is 417 liters of effluent per
0 kkg of product (100 gal/ton); excluding all non—contact cooling water.
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of sand in the system or pounds per 1000 pounds of sand passing before the ladle.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 417 liters effluent per kkg of sand in the system (100 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected vnere competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary medificationg requried to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
-------
t’ MiJ__
I ii
I I
4PM
5QMP
1
i 1 CYCL Ej 1 — — J
/ I
/
\ / I
\ /
-
I 5 0L/Os
II
... s rr,Ji q TA/hr —
-
SIJ5PENOED SOL/O
OIL. REA5( io /J
pH ( -
P4.0W 417 J/ * (/00 r4AL/TOIV) 5AND
-. FLASNI \
MIX d
T4N ‘-—-i
8A E L(VEL .SYSTE/418PCTC.4/4ooi
B TEA ,4100E4.
CNV/ WMENTAL. PROTECTION 44E, X
FOUNDRY ZNOL1 TRY STUDY
MOI..O/N4 cL.(AW/NCj OUST COLLECT/ON
SUBCA E ORY
8ATEA MODEL
I F/4L/RE 5ZA
G4.7 4PM
200 G’°
SUSPENDED SOLIDS 5A ’O/fO p7/1
011. * ( R(.ASE 2O-2OO I(
PH -S
FLOW 7O8i ,/e* (1700
— 4A4./7W )
t\)
SOLIDS
I
-------
,r,Gc,R( 28
MO EI. COST FFPECT/IIENESS O/4q .QAM
I fOS. /N 4 CLF4NI’V O /5T C0i.LFCT/OA’
S /8CA TE 4Y
AN’v .’ 4i- cosi-: a BASeD ON TEN ‘EAt CAPITAl. RECOVERY
,‘ /NrERESr , A1T 7%
,‘ OP!QArIN4 cos7 -S /1*/CL .‘O( LABOR, CHE/.1/CALSq t.Ir1LIr/ 5
1 /4Ai#ITENANCE CO1?5 BASED ON 3.5% Of CAP/’74L C05r5
C 05T5 8A SED Oil 5 . 3 KX4/DAY (qo roNs/o.4 v) oouc r,oi,
F ’1i5 jRAP/f CANNOT BE C1i60 O4 //V?ERM(O/A T( VALVES
‘secrcA)
C
8
8 A S(
LI VEL)
(‘aAT&4.)
20
40
Pc Q CENT , EMove
80 /00
222
-------
bRAFT
Sand Washing Operations
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
effluent limitation-guidelines (ELGs) applying to the Sand
Washing Operations subcategory. As far as possible, the
stated limits are based upon performance levels attained by
the selected plants surveyed during this study. Where
treatment levels can be improved by application of additional
currently available control and treatment technology, the
anticipated reduction of waste loads was included in the
estimates.
The BATEA ELGs for the Sand Washing Operations subcategory,
and the control and treatment technology to achieve these
limits, are summarized in Table 29.
Flow . Of the four sand washing unit operations surveyed in
this study, two practiced once—through water usage with
direct discharge; one practiced excellent water conservation
by concurrent flow and sequential washing stages followed by
direct discharge; while the fourth practiced recycle of
wastewater with blowdown to discharge. Of these four plants,
three discharged to multi—unit operation treatment system,
while the fourth discharged to a receiving stream.
Process water applied flow rates ranged from 24,000 l/kkg
(5,760 gal./ton) of sand washed downward to 417 l/kkg (100
gal.ton) of sand washed, with an average water application
rate of 13,202 l/kkg (3,166 gal./ton) of sand washed.
Discharge flows ranged from 22,743 l/kkg (5,454 gal./ton) of
sand washed downward to 417 l/kkg (100 gal./ton) of sand
washed.
Because of the wide range of effluent flows observed, the
BATEA ELGs are based on flow rates set at approximately 10%
of the average applied rate of the four units surveyed,
achieving this reduction in flow via partial recycle of
wastewater. This results in recommended BATEA flow rates of
1,250 l/kkg (300 gal./ton) of sand washed. This value is
well within the capability of current technology to achieve,
as evidenced by the unit already achieving this level. At
the same time, this value will provide the impetus for once-
through water users to develop recycle systems, while at the
same time allowing them to achieve this end by 1983 in a
cost effective manner. It is anticipated that as the once-
through users begin to convert to recycle systems, they will
find it economically advantageous to go all the way to tight
recycle, rather than approach it in a stepwise manner.
223
-------
DP FT
Suspended Solids . A review of unit effluent waste loads and
levels of treatment technology practiced reveals that,
except for recycle of wastewater, none of the units surveyed
provided adequate treatment and control technology before
discharge from the unit. However, waste loads from three of
these units received further treatment in multi—unit process
treatment systems.
The raw waste loads discharged from sand washing operations
compare very favorably with those from the molding and
cleaning dust collection operations. Therefore, a transfer
of BATEA level treatment and control technology from the
unit Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection Operations sub-
category to the unit Sand Washing Operations subcategory is
justified. It is felt that all unit sand washing operations
could achieve BATEA ELGs equivalent to those for molding and
cleaning dust collection operations by the addition of
polyelectrolyte, plain sedimentation or clarification. The
BATEA ELG for suspended solids for the Molding and Cleaning
Dust Collection Operations subcategory is 0.0104 kg/kkg
(0.0208 lbs/ton) of sand passing before the ladle. However,
due to the fact that the water application rate for the unit
sand washing operations is two to three times that of the
unit molding and cleaning dust collection operations, it is
felt that an additional allowance should be provided.
Therefore, the BATEA ELG for suspended solids for the unit
Sand Washing Operations subcategory is conservatively set at
0.0313 kg/kkg (0.0625 lbs of suspended solids/ton) of sand
washed, equivalent to 25 mg/i in a discharge flow of 300
gal./ton of sand washed.
Oil and Grease . Of the four unit sand washing operations
surveyed in this study, one showed oil and grease waste
loads in effluent stream of less than 0.0125 kg/kkg (0.0250
lbs/ton) of sand washed. The remaining unit could achieve
this level by the accepted practice of oil skimming.
Therefore, the BATEA ELG for oil and grease is set at 0.0125
kg/kkg (0.0250 lbs of oil and grease/ton) of sand washed,
equivalent to 10 mg/i in 300 gal./ton of sand washed.
j. All of the units surveyed fell within the pH constraints
range of 6.0 to 9.0, thus providing a basis for establishing
this range as BATEA ELG for pH. Any unit falling outside of
this range can readily remedy the situation’ by applying
appropriate neutralization procedures in the treatment
process.
224
-------
TABLE 29
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Sand Washing Operations
BATE1 LIMITATIONS — ESTIMATED 4
CRITICAL Kg/KKg 2 TOTAL COST
PARAMETERS ( LB/bOO LB) mg/i CONTROL & TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3 $/KKg $/TON
Suspended Solids 0.0313 25 Tighter recycle system; side stream 5.60 5.08
clarification via thickener, with vacuum
filtration of underf lows.
Oil and Grease 0.0125 10
pH 6.0—9.0
Flow Most probable value for tight recycle system is 1250 liters of effluent per
kkg of product (300 gal/ton); excluding all non—contact cooling water.
(1) Kilograms per metric ton of sand washed or pounds per 1000 pounds of sand washed.
(2) Milligrams per liter based on 1250 liters effluent per kkg of sand washed (300 gal/ton).
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of pre-
liminary n difications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated
total costs shown are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally
existing within a plant and/or have been installed as a result of complying with BPCTCA standards.
-------
(PM - - 4
1 - -
I --- — IfltY
/‘rNL f) —: T —
CiR A5F 44) •* ) /t I
p4
flow I?iOO / (k (iOOOC At/toN — —
\ DRAC,TANI(
I I
ç 3 GPM
/
LAGuON
\___ ————-- /
USP N D JiIVS e5
OIL. G1 EA E (0.,
FLOW I25O 1 $
— bME LE LL SYSTEM bPCTCA MODEL
ATEA MODCL
UNVIROt’JMENTAL PROTECTION 4G NCY
FOUNDRY UJOU37RY STUDY
S/ ND WASI-1IN& OPERATIONS
SUBC/\T E GORY
6 ATEA MODEL
25 -75 I FIGURE 334
N J
NJ
L
ARIrIrR/T UICKENIR
-I
501 105
I
-------
FI&URE 33B
MODEL COST EFFECTiVENESS AC,RAM
SAND WASHIN& - SUBCATEC,ORV
ANNUAL COSTS BASED ON TEN YEAR CAPITAL RECOVERY
+ INTREST RATE 7%
4 ‘ERATINC, COSTS INCLUDE LABOR G4EMICALS I UTILfTIES
4 MAINTENANCE COSTS BASED ON 35 0FCAPITAL COSTS
COSTS BASED ON 36 3 KKO/DA (4orONs/c Y) P ODUCT!ON
TkIS GR PI -i CANNOT BE USED rORINTCRMEDIATE VALUES
(BPCTCA’)
A ( AS [
Lrvft)
DRAFT
lB. 700
(BA TEA)
t)
N
L
z
z
0
20
SO
PtkC [ NT kEMOVED
80 00
227
-------
DRAFT
Multiple Operations
Following is a summary of the factors used to establish the
BATEA effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) applying to the
Multiple Operations subcategory. As far as possible, the
stated limits are based upon performance levels attained by
the selected plants surveyed during this study. Where
treatment levels can be improved by application of addi-
tional currently available control and treatment technology,
the anticipated reduction of waste loads was included in the
estimates.
The BATEA ELGs for the Multiple Operations subcategory, and
the control and treatment technology to achieve these
limits, are summarized in Table 30.
Flow . One multiple operation facility was discharging raw
waste loads from two unit melting operations (including the
blowdown of a recirculating slag quench process) as well as
the raw waste load from a large unit molding and dust
collection operation to a lagoon for settling of suspended
solids and the natural equilibration of the wastewater. All
wastewater was then recycled indiscriminately back to the
two unit melting operations and the unit molding and cleaning
dust collection operation. Cooling tower blowdown was
supplied as makeup water to the slag quench process. This
affected a zero aqueous discharge from the multiple operation
facility.
It is felt that the practices employed by this multiple
operation facility may not be universally applicable to all
multiple operation facilities. Therefore, zero aqueous
discharge is not being recommended as the BATEA ELG treat-
ment and control method technology.
Three multiple operation facilities combining discharges
from unit sand washing operations and unit molding and
cleaning dust collection operations were surveyed in this
study. One facility was discharging 96% of the BATEA ELG
recommended flow for the unit molding and cleaning dust
collection operation and a flow grossly in excess of the
BATEA ELG the unit sand washing operation. The combined
flows created an effluent flow from the multiple operation
which was in excess of the sum of the flows recommended
under the BATEA ELG for the two multiple operations.
A second facility was operating a unit molding and cleaning
dust collection operation with a discharge of 2% of the
BATEA ELG recommended flow, while the discharge from the
unit sand washing operation was grossly in excess of the
228
-------
DRAFI
BATEA ELG recommended flow. The combined flow created an
effluent flow from these two unit operations that was in
excess of the sum of the flows recommended by the BATEA ELG
for the two unit operations.
A third multiple operation facility was discharging 8.5% of
the recommended BATEA ELG flow from a unit molding and
cleaning dust collection operation, and 71% of the recorn—
mended BATEA ELG flow from a unit sand washing operation.
The combined flows created an effluent that was only 29% of
the sum of the BATEA ELG flow recommended for the tw’o unit
- operations.
Another multiple operation facility was discharging the
untreated blowdown from a recycled unit molding and cleaning
dust collection operation into a drag tank used for solids
removal for a recycled unit melting operation which also
operated a recycled slag quench process. Cooling tower
blowdown was used as a source of makeup water to the unit
melting operation. The blowdown from the recycled unit
melting operation was delivered to a settling tank for
clarification and discharged. The effluent from this
multiple operation was considerably less than 25% of the sum
of the recommended BATEA ELG flows for the two unit operations.
From the above discussion, it is clear that the waste loads
from the three separate unit operation subcategories can be
combined in any of several different ways, and thus achieve
a reduced flow that may be considerably less than the sum of
the BATEA ELG recommended flows for each constituent unit
operation and thereby enjoy the benefits of common treatment
of wastewaters from multiple operations. Therefore, the
recommended BATEA ELG flow from multiple operation facilities
is set at the sum of 75% of the BATEA ELG flow previously
established for each of the three separate constituent unit
operation subcategories. Multiple operations facilities can
achieve this flow reduction through the recycle of good
quality wastewater back to the constituent unit operations.
The recommended BATEA ELG flow for the unit melting opera—
tions portion of a multiple operation facility is conserva-
tively set at 113 l/kkg (225 gal./ton) of metal poured.
The recommended BATEA ELG flow for the unit molding and
cleaning dust collection operation portion of a multiple
operation facility is conservatively set at 37.6 l/kkg (75
gal./ton) of sand passing before the ladle.
229
-------
DRAFT
The recommended BATEA ELG flow for the unit sand washing
operation portion of a multiple operation facility is
conservatively set at 113 l/kkg (225 gal./ton) of sand
washed.
Suspended Solids . One multiple operation facility treating
wastewater from a unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operation and a unit melting operation was discharging a
suspended solids load of about 3% of the sum of the suspended
solids load of the BATEA ELG for the two constituent unit
operations. This was accomplished by discharging the waste
load from a recycled unit molding and cleaning dust collec-
tion operation into a, drag tank used for solids removal from
a recycled unit melting operation which also operated a
recycled slag quench process. Cooling tower blowdown was
used as a source of makeup water to the unit melting operation.
The blowdown from the recycled unit melting operation was
delivered to a settling tank for clarification and discharged.
Another multiple operation facility surveyed was combining
wastewaters from a unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operation and a unit sand washing operation for common
treatment with polyelectrolyte and solids removal in a drag
tank followed by furt her solids removal by a lagoon before
discharging. This multiple operation is currently dis-
charging 85% of the sum of the suspended solids load of the
BATEA ELG for the constituent unit operations. However,
this discharged load could be reduced substantially by the
exclusion of a noncontact cooling water flow which accounts
for 60% of the discharge flow. Therefore, the recommended
BATEA ELG suspended solids load from multiple operation
facilities is conservatively set at 75% of the sum of the
BATEA ELG suspended solids loads previously established for
each of the separate constituent unit operation subcategories.
Thus, the recommended BATEA ELG for suspended solids load
from the unit melting operation portion of a multiple
operation facility is conservatively set at 0.0235 kg/kkg
(0.0469 lbs of suspended solids/ton) of metal poured,
equivalent to 25 mg/i in a discharge flow of 225 gal./ton of
metal poured.
The recommended BATEA ELG for suspended solids load from the
unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation portion
of a multiple operation facility j8 conservatively set at
0.00782 kg/kkg (0.0156 lbs of suspended solids/ton) of sand
passing before the ladle, equivalent to 25 mg/i in 75
gaL/ton of sand passing before the ladle.
230
-------
JRAET
The recommended BATEA ELG for suspended solids load from the
unit sand washing operation portion of a multiple operation
facility is conservatively set at 0.0235 kg/kkg (0.0469 lbs
of suspended solids/ton) of sand washed, equivalent to 25
mg/i in a discharge flow of 225 gal./ton of sand washed.
Oil and Grease . Three multiple operations were surveyed
combining wastewater flows from unit molding and cleaning
dust collection operations and unit sand washing operations
for common solids removal in a lagoon followed by discharge.
One of the multiple operation facilities was discharging oil
and grease loads approximately 2.5 times that of the sum of
the recommended BATEA ELG fqr the two constituent unit
operations. A second multiple unit operation was discharging
oil and grease loads approximately 4.4 times the recommended
BATEA ELG for the two constituent unit operations. However,
these multiple operations provided no oil skimming equipment
for oil and grease removal. A third multiple operation
combined wastewater for common treatment by polyelectrolyte
addition followed by solids removal in a drag tank followed
by a lagoon for further solids removal and discharge. This
multiple facility was discharging an oil and grease load of
about 29% of the sum of the recommended BATEA ELG for the
constituent unit operations.
Another multiple operation surveyed was discharging the
waste load from a recycle unit molding and cleaning dust
collection operation into a drag tank used for solids
removal from a recycled unit melting operation which also
operated a recycled slag quench process. Cooling tower
blowdown was used as a source of makeup water to the unit
melting operation. The blowdown was delivered to a settling
tank for clarification and discharge. This multiple facility
was discharging oil and grease loads of less than one
percent of the sum of the recommended BATEA ELG from each
constituent unit operation. However, selecting this low
value for the BATEA ELG would result in concentrations too
low to adequately measure by most readily available analytical
techniques. Therefore, the BATEA ELG for oil and grease
from multiple operation facilities is conservatively set at
the sum of 75% of the BATEA ELG oil and grease loads previously
established for each of the three separate constituent unit
operation subcategories. Thus, the recommended BATEA ELG
for oil and grease loads from the unit melting operations
portion of a multiple operation facility is conservatively
set at 0.00939 kg/kkg (0.0188 lbs of oil and grease/ton) of
metal poured, equivalent to 10 mg/l in a discharge flow of
225 gal../ton of metal poured.
231
-------
DRAFT
The recommended BATEA ELG for oil and grease loads from the
unit molding and cleaning dust collection operations portion
of multiple operation facilities is conservatively set at
0.00313 kg/kkg (0.00625 lbs of oil and grease/ton) of sand
passiirig before the ladle, equivalent to 10 mg/i in a dis-
charge flow of 75 gal./ton of sand passing before the ladle.
The recommended BATEA ELG for oil and grease loads from the
unit sand washing operations portion of multiple operation
facilities is conservatively set at 0.00939 kg/kkg (0.0188
lbs of oil and grease/ton) of sand washed, equivalent to 10
mg/i in a discharge f1 w of 225 gal./ton of sand washed.
Lead . The data indicate that lead is a critical parameter
for unit melting operations only. In general, lead appears
in particulate form and its concentration is proportional to
the suspended solids concentration. Good hard data for lead
loads discharged from multiple operation facilities with
unit melting operations does not exist. However, the
evidence is persuasive that extremely low lead discharge
levels can be demonstrated by the unit melting operation
discussed under BATEA ELG lead. The unit is currently
discharging 0.000190 kg/kkg (0.000380 lbs/ton) of metal
poured. It is felt that through the benefits of combined
treatment with wastewater from other unit operations, and
the benefits of a tighter recycle flow, that a reduction of
the lead load from multiple operation facilities proportional
to the suspended solids reductions achieved is justified.
One multiple operation facility treating wastewater from a
unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation and a
unit melting operation was discharging a suspended solids
load of about 3% of the sum of the suspended solids load of
the BATEA ELG for the two constituent unit operations. This
was accomplished by discharging the waste load from a
recycle unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation
into a drag tank used for solids removal from a recycled
unit melting operation which also operated a recycled slag
quench process. Cooling tower blowdown was used as a source
of makeup water to the unit melting operation. The blowdown
from the recycled unit melting operation was delivered to a
settling tank for clarification and discharged.
Another multiple operation facility surveyed was combining
wastewater from a unit molding and cleaning dust coliection
operation and a unit sand washing operation for common
treatment with polyelectrolyte and solids removal in a drag
tank followed by further solids removal by a lagoon before
discharging. This multiple operation is currently discharging
85% of the sum of the suspended solids load of the BATEA ELG
232
-------
DRAFT
for the constituent unit operations. However, this dis-
charged load could be reduced substantially by the exclusion
of a noncontact cooling water flow which accounts for 60% of
the discharge flow.
Since lead is a critical parameter only for unit melting
operations, the recommended BATEA ELG for lead is 75% of the
BATEA limit for melting operations alone. Therefore, the
BATEA ELG for lead from the unit melting operation of a
multiple operation facility is conservatively set at 0.000938
kg/kkg (0.00188 lbs of lead/ton) of metal poured, equivalent
to 1 mg/i of lead in a discharge flow of 225 gal./ton of
metal poured. Any affected multiple operation facility can
achieve this value through proper pH adjustment, poiyeiectroiyte
addition and clarification as well as maintaining a high
rate of recycle. No additional load is provided for the
other portions of multiple operation facilities.
Manganese . The data indicate that manganese is a critical
parameter for unit melting operations only. In general,
manganese appears in particulate form and its concentration
is proportional to the suspended solids concentration. The
first multiple operation facility was discharging a manganese
load approximately 1% of that which would have been allow ed
under the BATEA ELGfor the unit melting operation only.
The evidence is very persuasive that extremely low manganese
levels can be readily achieved. This is demonstrated by the
referenced unit melting operation currently discharging
0.000419 kg/kkg (0.000836 lbs/ton) of metal poured. It is
felt that through the benefits of combined treatment with
wastewater from other unit operations, and the benefits of a
tighter recycle flow, that a reduction of the manganese load
from multiple operation facilities proportional to the
suspended solids reductions achieved is justified.
One multiple operation facility treating wastewater from a
unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation and a
unit melting operation was discharging a suspended solids
load of about 3% of the sum of the suspended solids load of
the BATEA ELG for the two constituent unit operations. This
was accomplished by discharging the waste load from a
recycled unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation
into a drag tank used for solids removal from a recycled
unit melting operation which also operated a recycled slag
quench process. Cooling tower blowdown was used as a source
of makeup water to the unit melting operation. The blowdown
from the recycled unit melting operation was delivered to a
settling tank for clarification and discharged.
233
-------
DRAFT
Another multiple operation facility surveyed was combining
wastewater from a unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operation and a unit sand washing operation for common
treatment with polyelectrolyte and solids removal in a drag
tank followed by further solids removal by a lagoon before
discharging. This multiple operation is currently dis-
charging 85% of the sum of the suspended solids load of the
BATEA ELG for the constituent unit operations. However,
this discharged load could be even reduced substantially
more by the exclusion of a noncontact cooling water flow
which accounts for 60% of the discharge flow.
The BATEA ELG for manganese being recommended is 75% of the
BATEA ELG for unit melting operations. Therefore, the BATEA
ELG for manganese from unit melting operations of a multiple
operation facility is conservatively set at 0.00281 kg/kkg
(0.00563 lbs of manganese/ton) of metal poured, equivalent
to 3 mg/i in a discharge flow of 225 gal./ton of metal
poured. Any affected multiple operation facility can
achieve this value through proper pH adjustment, polyelectro-
lyte addition and clarification as well as maintaining a
high rate of recycle. No additional manganese load is
provided for the other portions of multiple operation
facilities.
Zinc . The data indicate that zinc is a critical parameter
for unit melting operations only. In general, zinc appears
in particulate form and its concentration is proportional to
the suspended solids concentration. Good hard data for zinc
loads discharged from multiple operation facilities with
unit melting operations does not exist. However, the
evidence is persuasive that extremely low zinc loads propor-
tional to the suspended solids reductions achieved are
justified.
One multiple operation facility treating wastewater from a
unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation and a
unit melting operation was discharging a suspended solids
load of about 3% of the sum of the suspended solids load of
the BATEA ELG for the two constituent unit operations. This
was accomplished by discharging the waste load from a
recycled unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation
into a drag tank used for solids removal from a recycled
unit melting operation which also operated a recycled slag
quench process. Cooling tower blowdown was used as a source
of makeup water to the unit melting operation. The blowdown
from the recycled unit melting operation was delivered to a
settling tank for clarification and discharged.
234
-------
DRAFT
Another multiple operation facility surveyed was combining
wastewater from a unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operation and a unit sand washing operation for common
treatment with polyelectrolyte and solids removal in a drag
tank followed by further solids removal by a lagoon before
discharging. This multiple operation is currently dis-
charging 85% of the sum of the suspended solids load of the
BATEA ELG for the constituent unit operations. However,
this discharged load could be reduced substantially by the
exclusion of a noncontact cooling water flow which accounts
for 60% of the discharge flow.
The BATEA ELG for zinc being recommended is 75% of the BATEA
ELG for unit melting operations. Therefore, the BATEA ELG
for zinc from unit melting operations of multiple operation
facilities is conservatively set at 0.00281 kg/kkg (0.00563
lbs of zinc/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 3 mg/l of
zinc in a discharge flow of 225 gal./ton of metal poured.
It is felt that through the benefits of combined treatment
with other unit operations, .any multiple unit operation
facility can achieve this value through proper pH adjustment,
polyelectrolyte addition and clarification as well as
maintaining a high rate of recycle. No additional zinc load
is provided for the other portions of multiple operation
facilities.
Sulfide . One multiple operation facility treating waste-
water from a unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operation and a unit melting operation was discharging a
sulfide load of about 50% of that which would have been
recommended by the BATEA ELG for unit melting operations
alone. This was accomplished by discharging the waste load
from a recycled unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operation into a drag tank used for solids removal from a
recycled unit melting operation which also operated a
recycled slag quench process. Cooling tower blowdown was
used as a source of makeup water to the unit melting opera-
tion. The blowdown from the recycled unit melting operation
was delivered to a settling tank for clarification and
discharged.
The data indicate that sulfide is a critical parameter for
unit melting operations only. In general; sulfide may be
aerated and oxidized by recycling the wastewater back to the
furnace emission control system. The referenced multiple
operation was achieving a sulfide discharge load of 0.000769
kg/kkg (0.00154 lbs/ton) of metal poured even while practicing
an extremely tight wastewater recycle of 99%. Reducing this
235
-------
DRAFT
recycle rate would aid in reducing the discharged sulfide
load to even lower values. The evidence is persuasive that
extremely low sulfide load discharge levels can be achieved.
It is felt that through the benefits of combined treatment
of wastewater from other unit operations, and the benefits
of appropriate recycle, flows, that a reduction of the
sulfide discharge load from multiple operation facilities is
justified. The BATEA ELG for sulfide being recommended is
75% of the BATEA ELG for unit melting operations. Therefore,
the BATEA ELG for sulfide from the unit melting operations
of a multiple operation facility is set at 0.00117 kg/kkg
(0.00235 lbs/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to 1.25 mg/i
of sulfide in a discharge flow of 225 gal./ton of metal
poured. Any affected multiple operation facility can
achieve this value through the proper control of the waste—
water recycle rate for the unit melting operations. No
additional sulfide load is provided for the other portions
of multiple operation facilities.
Fluoride . One multiple operation facility treating waste-
water from a unit molding and cleaning dust collection
operation and a unit melting operation was discharging a
fluoride load of about 3% of that which would have been
recommended by the BATEA ELG for unit melting operations.
This was accomplished by discharging the waste load from a
recycled unit molding and cleaning dust collection operation
into a drag tank used for solids removal from a recycled
unit melting operation which also operated a recycled slag
quench process. Cooling tower blowdown was used as a source
of makeup water to the unit melting operation. The blowdown
from the recycled unit melting operation was delivered to a
settling tank for clarification and discharged.
The data indicate that fluoride is a critical parameter for
the unit melting operations only. The appearance of fluoride
in waste loads is largely a function of the constituents
used in the melting process. The referenced multiple
operation was achieving a fluoride discharge load of 0.000528
kg/kkg (0.00105 lbs/ton) of metal poured. The low discharge
load was accomplished by the action of the calcium contributed
from the slag quench process with the fluoride. It is felt
that through this means, and through the benefits of combined
treatment with wastewater from other unit operations, and
the benefits of recycling wastewater, th&t a reduction of
the fluoride discharge load from multiple operation facilities
is justified. The BATEA ELG for fluoride being recommended
is 75% of the BATEA ELG for unit melting operation. Therefore,
the BATEA ELG for fluoride from the unit melting operations
of a multiple operation facility is set at 0.0117 kg/kkg
236
-------
TABLE 30
BATEA - EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
SUBCATEGORY Multiple Operations
RATEA LIMITATIONS ESTIMATED 4
CRITICAL Kg/XKg (2) TOTAL COST
PARAMETERS ( LB/bOO LB) mg/i CONTROL & TRE TMENT TECHNOLOGY 3 $/KKg s/TON
Suspended Solids Seventy—five percent of the sum of the Additional treatment or combined wastes
pounds per ton for each subcategory for from BPCTCA treatment via tightened 4.47 to 4.06 to
Oti and Grease
suspended solids and oil and grease, recycle systems; sidestream treatment; 9.00 8.16
additional polyelectrolyte addition;
Fluoride 0.0117 filtration; flash mixing and clarifi—
C.) Manganese 0.00281 cation of filter backwashes.
Lead 0.000938
“Sulfide 0.00117
Zinc 0.00281
pH 6.0—9.0
Flow l bst probable value for tight recycle system will range from 1,875 to
4,375 l/kkg (450 to 1,050 gal/ton), of hot metal poured, depending
on the combination of multiple operations used.
Cl) Kilograms per metric ton of metal poured or pounds per 1000 pounds of metal poured.
(2) Milligrams/liter will depend on the combined discharge flow rate.
(3) Available technology listed is not necessarily all inclusive nor does it reflect all possible
combinations or permutations of treatment methods.
(4) Costs may vary some depending on such factors as location, availability of land and chemicals, flow
to be treated, treatment technology selected where competing alternatives exist, and extent of preliminary
nx,difications required to accept the indicated control and treatment devices. Estimated total costs shown
are only incremental costs required above those facilities which are normally existing within a plant.
0
-------
1/ 4p
VAP
f fATOR
4 _ 50O4PM
\\fusp(ND(D 5 /05
PLASH Ml.
TANI< p u
, ow ? / 7 P/4 k
(z2, oo t AI./Y’ Af) ,c L.
‘1pI 1
S,TrL/N
- — — — - 845( LEVEL 5YsT(b
8 4T(A /1OI)EL
ENV/ROA’ .IENTAL PROTECT/ON 44ENCy
POWIoiQY IN0OS QY sr v
4UL rIPLE OPERA TIONS
Su8CA rE o Q
BA TEA MODEL
5uSPENl ED SOLIDS
/Lfc RE45E /C / ’
pH
ow 437fJ/ ti (,‘o;o AL/roN)nE i.
I F/ URE 34A
J/O4.z Pbi
MAK( -VP
p ‘8 O c P M
DUsT 1
COLLECTOR
//5 PM
C.)
P(R/OO/C SQL/OS
REMOVAL (20% FoLios)
£
SE TTI 1N4 flO/ ’O
- /74 :5 4PM
7
-------
FIGURE 54 6
MODEL COST EFFECTIV WESS DIAGRAM
MULTIPLE OPERATIONS - MELTING 4 MOLDING 4 CLEANIh G DUST LOLLUCTIONOPER.OTIONS
U8CATEGORY
ANNUAL (() I 8A$ED ON TEN YEAR CAPITAL RECOVER’y’
t INTI (E5T fr.ATE 7%
t OPERATING COSTS INCLUDE LA6OR,CI IEP4ICAL5l ur,LrrEs
t M4INTUNANCE COSTS SASED oN 35% OFCAPIT/IL COSTS
COSTS SASEO ON 36. -S o
-------
0 20 40 0 80
P RcFNr E(M0V O
8
(3Pc TrA)
L. L)
RA T
r/cw QE J4C
ft1OOE . COST jCP fCT/VfNF5c D/4qRA,M
i4IVL TIPLE OPERATIONS ,4lE .7/vG . 4NO WASn’/NQ
OP AT/oN5 S I8CA7Ec oRy
,4NN 1AL. C0STS= 8456Q OdV 7WE Y 4 C 4P’74I.. RECOVERy
#1NTERE5T RATE 7%
# OPERA Trn4 cosrs IiVCI.UOE LAD R, CHEMIC4LS UT,U TIES
*/lAuvr(NANCE C0S7 3 , 15 (0 0 .41 3f% c’fC4PIrA . COSTS
cosrs BASED ON J .3 /(#c’4/oAy (“0 roNs/aAY) peooucr,oN
NS c. R.4P l? CANNOT a V2 , ..s’rZ MEoIAr( VAI. 1E5
C
(BA TEA)
I
240
-------
E14u eE 340
,MO EL CO5f EF.’ECT/VENESS O/A4, .4i ’1
Moz..r/PLE O (QAT/ONS ,$lOLO Al4 CLEAN/Nq o,-’sr
COUL (C 7/ON .4M0 SANO WAcN/iyG O .E 477ON5 5O8CAY(*Q V
bRAFT
2 3 ,
ANNt’A - C OSi • BA 5 (O ON E.V YFA4 CAPS rAt. eECO vF v
NrEeESr 4T( 77.
# o EeAr/A’G cocrs /NCL.U E LABos , CNE l1/C4LS t 1r/L/r/t5
7’ /.l4’,VTENA,vcE COSTS á4 SEQ ON 3.5% OF CAPITAl. COSTS
COSTS BA E0 ON 3 .3 NXc / 4Y (40 TON5/OAY) ‘ o .’cr/oN
Tills EAPH CANNOT BE 15EO FO IN TEemEO/A ri VA L. ‘(5
/9’O, 700
•1
-S
0-
0
IJ
1.
qz, 700
0 20 40 O 30 /00
PE C(Nr €(ncvEo
241
-------
FIGURE 34
MODEL COST EFFECTIVENESS D .4GRP.t.1
MULTIPLE OP R4TIOt.45 SU8CATEGORV
AU SUBCATEGORIES
ANNU4I COSTS 4SED ON TEN YEAR CAP?TAL REWVE
+ IfJTRE5T RATE 7
+ OPERIiTiNG COSTS JNCLUC7E LAaORCflEfthCAtS UTiLITIE ’
+ MAIftJT(NANCE CO.5T5 ASEDON 3.5hO CAPtT4L Co5r5
COSTS öASEO ON 3S XKGIGAY(40 1t)Ns/C AY) P OOUCT ION
ThIS GR Pi4 CANr O7 DE USED sO INTERMEDIATE VALUES
DRAFT
4
‘ -I
0
-J
4
z
2
4
A (CASE
if VEL)
0 20 40
60
PF’ C€NT FWMOVEO
242
-------
(0.0235 lbs/ton) of metal poured, equivalent to. 12.5 mg/i in
a discharge flow of 225 gal./ton of metal poured. Any
affected multiple operation facility can easily achieve this
value through the incorporation of slag quench process
wastewater with furnace emission control recycled wastewater.
Alternatively, lime addition for pH control may be used to
achieve the same effect. No additional fluoride load is
provided for the other portions of multiple operation
facilities.
All multiple operatIon plants surveyed fell within the
pH constraint range of 6.0 .to 9.0, both for filter feeds and
for final effluents, thus providing a basis for establishing
this range as the BATEA ELG. Any plant falling outside this
range can easily remedy the situation by applying appropriate
neutralization procedures to the final effluent.
COST TO THE FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
Table 31 presents a sununary of projected capital and annual
operating costs to the foundry industry as a whole to
achieve the effluent quality proposed herein for BPCTCA and
BATEA guidelines.
As presented in the table, an initial capital investment of
approximately $210 million, with annual capital and operating
costs of $50 million would be required by the industry to
achieve BPCTCA guidelines. An additional capital investment
of approximately $187 million and total annual capital
amortization and operating costs of $94 million would be
needed to achieve BATEA guidelines. Costs may vary depending
upon such factors as location, availability of land and
chemicals, flows to be treated, treatment technology selected
where competing alternatives exist, and the extent of
preliminary modifications required to accept the necessary
control and treatment devices.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The economic impact of these proposed BPCTCA and BATEA
limitations will be discussed in an economic analysis report
prepared by another contractor.
243
-------
TABLE 31
FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
PW)JZCTED TOTAL COSTS FOR R&.ATED SUBCATEGORIES
Costs to Industry ’
SPCTCA BATEA
1972 Annual Number Annual Capital Initial Annual capital 3 Initial
Production (2) of and Capital and Capital
Subcategory Millions of Tons Plants Operating Costs Investment Operating Costs Investment
I. Melting 3.87 401 17,162,800 67,769,000 17.373 2O0 79,399,000
II. Molding & Cleaning
Dust Collection 1.99 206 14,378,000 63,386,200 26,780,000 56,629,400
III. Sand Washing 0.12 12 338,400 1,467.600 972,000 2,367,600
IV. Multiple Process
I & II 0.93 96 10,809,600 45,763,200 17,693,800 3l,392, 00
I & III 0.12 12 852,000 3,495,600 1,638,000 3,601,200
II & III 0.46 49 4,802,000 21,070,000 6,868,000 9,408,000
I, ii, III 0.12 __ 1 688,600 7 l88 ,000 2 ,7O8 400 4 ,626,000
TOTAL 761 788 50,031,400 210,139,600 94,033,400 187,428,200
(1) Costs determined by following relationships:
(a) Annual capital + operating — nu. ber of plants x annual cost/facility
(b) Initial capital investment number of plants x first cost/facility
(2) Production does not include plants with completely dry pollution control
systems and no aqueous discharges. 0
(3) Includes BPCTCA costs.
-------
“ i tt
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
The Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT)
is to be achieved by “New Sources.” “New Sources” has been
defined as any source the construction of which is commenced
after the publication of the proposed regulations. The
BADCT technology is that level which can be achieved by
adding to the BATEA technology improved production processes
and/or treatment techniques. For purposes of developing the
BPCTCA and BATEA technologies and limitations, the industry
was divided into the following subcategories:
I. Melting Operations
II. Molding and Cleaning Dust Collection
III. Sand Washing Operations
IV. Multiple Operations
With the expection of sand washing, there are plants in all
other categories who are presently achieving the proposed
BATEA effluent limitation guidelines. However, the treating
technology proposed for sand washing is identical to other
operations. This in itself justifies the fact that technology
is available and demonstrates that the limitations can be
achieved on a day by day basis. Therefore, it is recommended
that in all categories new source installations meet the
BATEA guidelines.
NSPS Discharge Standard . Refer to rationale for all sub-
categories as discussed in Section X, BATEA.
245
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared upder Contract #68-01-1507 by the
Cyrus Wm. I ice Division of NUS Corporation. The RICE
operations are based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The pr,eparation and writing of this document was accomplished
through the efforts of Mr. Thomas J. Centi, Project Manager,
Mr. Samuel A. Young, and Mr. John E. Loehr.
Field and sampling programs were conducted under the leadership
of Mr. Samuel A. Young and Mr. John E. Loehr.
Laboratory and analytical services were conducted under the
guidance of Mr. Paul Goldstein and Miss C. Ellen Gonter.
The many excellent drawings contained within were provided
by the RICE drafting room under the supervision of Mr. Albert
M. Finke and Mr. William B. Johnson.
The work associated with the calculations of raw waste
loads, effluent loads, and costs associated with treatment
levels is attributed to Mr. Gregory A. Troilo, Mr. Carl J.
Lenore, Mr. Robert J. Ondof, and Mr. David A. Crosbie.
The support of the project by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the excellent guidance provided by Mr. Walter J.
Hunt, Chief, Effluent Guidelines Development Branch, and
Mr. Edward L. Dulaney, the Project Officer, is acknowledged
with grateful appreciation.
The excellent cooperation of the individual companies who
offered their plants for survey and contributed pertinent
data is gratefully appreciated. The operations and the
plants visited were the property of the following companies:
Cadillac Metal Casting, Campbell, Wyatt & Cannon, Dalton
Foundry, Deere & Company, Littletown Foundry, Lynchburg
Foundry Company, Maynard Electric Steel Casting, Neenah
Foundry Company, Riverside Foundry (Donsco, Inc.), Turner &
Seymour, Union Specialty Steel Company, and M.S. Locke
Company.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to Ms. Minnie
C. Herold, for library assistance and to Ms. Mary Lou
Simpson, Ms. Mary Lou Baronyak, and Ms. Denise Devlin of the
RICE Division for their efforts in typing of drafts, necessary
revisions and final preparation of the original RICE effluent
guidelines,, documents, and revisions.
247
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
1. Bader, A. J., “Waste Treatment for an Automated Gray
and Nodular Iron Foundry”, Proceedings of the Industrial
Waste Conference, 22nd, Purdue University , pp. 468-476
(1967).
2. “Chrylser’s Winfield Foundry Solves Pollution Problem”,
Foundry , 97, pp. 162, 167—169 (September, 1969).
3. “Cupola Emission Control”, Engles and Weber (1967).
4. “Cupola Pollution Control at Unicost”, Foundry , 98,
pp. 240, 242 (April, 1970).
5. Deacon, J. S., “In Defense of the Wet Cap”, Modern
Casting , pp. 48—49 (September, 1973).
6. “Emissions Control System is Based on Impingement”,
Foundry , 101, N.9, pp. 108-110 (September, 1973).
7. Foundry , “1973 Outlook” (January, 1973).
8. “Foundries Look to the ‘Future”, Foundry (October,
1972)
9. “Inventory of Foundry Equipment”, Foundry (May, 1968).
10. “Iron Casting Handbook”, Gray and Ductile Iron Foundries
Society, Inc., 1971, Cleveland, Ohio.
11. Manual Standard Industrial Classification (1967).
12. “Metal Casting Industry Census Guide”, Foundry (August,
1972).
13. “Metal Casting Industry Guide”, Foundry (January,
1972)
14. Miske, Jack C., “Environment Control at Dayton Foundry”,
Foundry , 98, pp. 68—69 (May, 1970)
15. “Settling Basins Clean GM Foundry Water”, Found , 97,
p. 146 (February, 1969).
16. U. S. Department of Commerce, “Iron and Steel Foundries
and Steel Ingot Producers”, Current Industrial Reports ,
pp. 1—18 (1971)
249
-------
17. U. S. -Department H.E.W., Public Health Service Publication,
#99-AP-40 .
18. Wagner, A. J., “Grede’s Wichita Midwest Division
Honored for Top Environmental Control Job”, Modern Casting ,
58, N.6, pp. 40—43 (December, 1970).
19. “Water Pollution From Foundry Wastes”, American Foundrymen’s
Society (1967).
20. Waters, 0. B., “Total Water Recycling for Sand System
Scrubbers”, Modern Casting , pp. 31—32 (July, 1973).
250
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
Agglomerate . The collecting of small particles together
into a larger mass.
Baghouse . An independent structure or building that contains
fabric bags to collect dusts. Usually contains fans and
dust conveying equipment also.
Binder . Any material used to help sand grains to stick
together.
Bulk Bed Washer . A wet type dust collector consisting of a
bed of lightweight spheres through which the dust laden air
must pass while being sprayed by water or liquor.
Charge . A minimum combination of the various materials
required to produce a hot metal of proper specifications.
Classifier . A device that separates particles from a fluid
stream by size. The larger sized units drop out when the
stream velocity can no longer carry them. Stream velocity
is gradually reduced.
Cope . The top half of a two piece mold.
Core . An extra firm shape of sand used to obtain a hollow
section in a casting by placing it in a mold cavity to give
interior shape to a casting.
Crucible . A highly refractory vessel used to melt metals.
Cupola . A vertical shaft furnace consisting of a cylindrical
steel shell lined with refractories and equipped with air
inlets at the base and an opening for charging with fuel and
melting stock near the top. Molten metal runs to the bottom.
Drag . The lower half of a two piece mold.
Electrode . Long cylindrical rods made of carbon or graphite
and used to conduct electricity into a charge of metal.
Flask . A rectangular frame open at top and bottom used to
retain molding sand around a pattern.
Flux . A substance used to promote the melting or purification
a metal in a furnace.
251
-------
Gate . An entry passage for molted metal into a mold.
Head . A large reservoir of molten metal incorporated in a
mold that can supply hot metal to a shrinking portion of a
casting during its cooling stage.
Heat Treat . To adjust or alter a metal property through
heat.
Hydraulic Cyclone . A fluid classifying device that separates
heavier particles from a slurry.
Impingement . The striking of air or gasborne particles on a
wall or baffle.
Induction Furnace . A crucible surrounded by coils carrying
alternating electric current. The current induces magnetic
forces into the metal charged into the crucible. These
forces cause the metal to heat.
Ladle . A vessel used to hold or pour molten metal.
Mold . A form, made of sand, metal, or refractory material,
whiOh contains the cavity into which molten metal is poured
to produce a casting.
Pattern . A form of wood, metal, or other material around
which molding material is placed to make a mold for casting
metals.
Quenching . A process of inducing rapid cooling from an
elevated temperature.
Recuperator . A steel or refractory chamber used to reclaim
heat from waste gases.
Scrap . Usually refers to.miscellaneous metal used in a
charge to make new metal.
Shot Blast . A casting cleaning process employing a metal
abrasive (grit or shot) propelled by centrifugal or air
force.
Shakeout . The operation of removing castings from the mold.
A mechanical unit for separating the mold material from the
solidified casting.
Slag . A product resulting from the action of a flux on the
oxidized non—metallic constituents of molten metals.
252
-------
Slag Quench . A process of rapidly cooling molten slag to a
solid material. Usually performed in a water trough or
sump.
Snorkel . A pipe through the furnace roof, or an opening in
a furnace roof, used to withdraw the furnace atmosphere.
Spray Chamber . A large volume chamber in a flowing stream
where water or liquor sprays are inserted to set the flowing
gas.
Sprue . A vertical channel from the top of the mold used to
conduct the molten metal to the mold cavity.
Tapping . The process of removing molten metal from a furnace.
Tuyere . An opening in a cupola for introduction of air for
combustion.
Venturi Scrubber . A wet type of dust collector that uses
the turbulence developed in a narrowed section of the conduit
to promote intermixing of the dust laden gas with water
sprayed into the conduit.
Washi 9 Cooler . A large vessel where a flowing gas stream
is subjected to sprays of water or liquor to remove gasborne
dusts and to cool the stream by evaporation.
Wet Cap . A mechanical device placed on the top of a stack
that forms a curtain from a water stream through which the
stack gases must pass.
253
-------
bRA FT
TABLE 32
METRIC UNITS
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS) TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
acre ac 0.405 ha hectares
acre-feet ac ft 1233.5 cu in cubic meters
British Thermal Unit BIT 0.252 kg cal kilogram — calories
British Thermal Unit! 8 1 13/cu 9.00 kg cal/ kilogram calorie!
cubic foot CU ifl cubic meter
British Thermal Unit/pound BTU/lb 0.555 kg cal/kg kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic feet/minute cfm 0.028 Cu minim cubic meters/minute
cubic feet/second cfs 1.7 cu in/mm cubic meters/minute
cubic feet cu ft 0.028 cu in cubic meters
Cubic feet cu ft 28.32 1 liters
cubic inches cu in 16.39 cu cm cubic centimeters
degree Fahrenheit °F O.555(OF_32)* °C degree Centigrade
feet ft 0.3048 meters
gallon gal 3.785 1 liters
gallon/minute gpo 0.0631 1/sec liters/second
gallon/ton gal/t 4.17 l/kkg liter/metric ton
horsepower hp 0.7457 kw kilowatts
inches in 2.54 cm centimeters
inches of mercury in Hg 0.03342 at atmospheres
million gallons/day mgd 3,785 cu n/day cubic meters/day
mile m x 1.609 km kilometer
pounds lb 0.454 kg kilograms
pound/square mnch(gauge) psi? (0.06085 psig+l)* atm atmo rçheres(abso lute)
pounds/ton lb/t 0.501 kg/kkg- kiloarans/metric ton
square feet sq ft 0.0929 sq in square meters
square inches sq in 6.45? sq cm square centimeters
tons(short) t 0.907 kkg metric tons(l000 kilograrr )
yard y 0.9144 m meters
kctual conversion, not a multiplier
254
------- |