ENVIRON!! ENTAL ION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA-330/2-75-011
Characterization and Evaluation
of Wastewater Sources
United States Steel Corporation
Edgar Thomson Plant
Pittshurgh, PennsyIvania
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTEF
DENVER. COLORADO
REGION
AND
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
DECEMBER 1975
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER SOURCES
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
EDGAR THOMSON PLANT, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
July 22-August 5, 1975
December 1975
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Denver, Colorado
-------
I.
II .
III.
IV.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY
MONITORING PROCEDURES
FINDINGS OF IN-PLANT
MONITORING
OUTFALL 001
OUTFALL 002
OUTFALL 003
OUTFALL 004
OUTFALL 010
V. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1
3
8
12
12
12
14
16
18
21
TABLES 3—9
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A Study Methods
B Analytical Procedures and
Quality Control
C Chain of Custody Procedures
D Letter: Dye Injection Equipment
E Letter: Oil Spill
F Letter: Reconnaissance Visit -
El Plant
23
42
43
111
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Steel Corporation (USSC) Edgar Thomson (El) Plant
is a basic steel production facility* producing steel ingots which in
turn are rolled into slabs. The majority of these slabs are conveyed
by rail to the Irvin Plant where they are converted into various finished
steel and tin products.
The El Plant consists of a sintering plant**, five blast furnaces (BE),
two basic oxygen furnaces, a 44-inch slab mill and an ingot mold foundry.
The plant was recently modernized with the installation of a two-unit Basic
Oxygen Plant (BOP). These units replaced the 16 furnace open-hearth shop.
The open-hearth furnaces are being razed.
Two intake stations on the Monongahela River supply the facility with
up to 795,000 m 3 /day (210 mgd) of water with only a small portion of this
water being treated. The plant discharges wastewater from five outfalls
(001, 002, 003, 004 and 0lO)***which, with the exception of 001, discharge
into the Monongahela River [ Figure 1]. Outfall 001 discharges to Turtle
Creek, a tributary of the Monongahela River.
In-plant monitoring was conducted during the period July 22 to August
5, 1975. This report discusses the findings of the survey and compares the
loads discharged during the above period with the waste load limitations
proposed by the USSC in their amended adjudicatory hearing request of
March 3, 1975. Production figures for the survey period are tabulated
below:
m. Ton (Ton) of Product 1
Plant Area 7/29 7/30 7/31 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5
Blast 4262 4934 5197 5320 5223 4971 5178 4447
Furnace (4699) (5440) (5730) (5865) (5758) (5492) (5709) (4903)
Basic Oxygen 4310 4663 6829 5990 7116 6578 6033 6183
Process (4752) (5141) (7529) (6604) (7846) (7253) (6651) (6817)
Slab Mill 3111 3537 6625 4512 6037 4651 5046 6183
(3430) (3900) (7304) (4975) (6656) (5128) (5563) (6817)
Ingot Mold 729 726 684 661 435 444 689 696
____________ (804) (800) (754) (729) (480) (490) (760) (767)
*According to company officials the plant was constructed about 100 years ago.
**The sintering plant has not operated since January 1975, because of fugitive
dust and other air pollution problems.
***Outfalls 005 through 009 apply to the Irvin Plant.
-------
CofnpresSOr
Figure L Flow Schematic — Edgar Thomson Plantt
I liato Ot tiOfl dencrtptio?16
Cooling wal
I .
C
Monongahela River
UOT TO
SCALE
-------
3
II. SUMMARY
1. Discharge 001 contains ingot mold cooling water, a source of waste-
water not previously reported to EPA. Daily maximum oil and grease concen-
trations ranged from 18 to 51 mg/l. Flow measurement was not possible on
this outfall because of surcharged conditions (i.e., river water surface
was higher than bottom of the outfall causing water to back up in the line).
2. Wastewaters originatthg in two areas of the plant are discharged
into the Monongahela River through 002, a submerged outfall. The NPDES
permit requires monitoring of the entire wastewater discharge. The company,
however, is only monitoring a portion (designated by NEIC as 002W) of the
discharge which contains the effluent from the No. 1 and 2 BE thickener and
cooling water from No. 2 BF and power station No. 2. The remaining part of
the discharge (002E) contains ingot mold foundry settling basin effluent,
cooling water from No. 1 BF and effluents from the Stirling boiler house
and No. 1 power station. The wastewater from the No. 1 power station had
not previously been identified to EPA.
Two intermediate discharge points designated as Outfalls 102 and
202 were monitored. Outfall 102 contains the No. 1 and 2 BE thickener
effluent. Outfall 202 is the ingot mold foundry settling basin effluent.
The USSC has proposed effluent limitations for Outfalls 102 and
The waste loads found during the survey and those proposed are corn-
be 1 ow:
USSC Proposed Limitations ________________________________
Daily Average Daily Maximum _____________ _____________
kg/day(lb/dayl kg/day(lb/day ) ___________________________
____________ (net discharge)
2578 7743 433 1230
(5678) (17,034) (955) (2720)
238 714 88 144
(524) (1572) (195) (317)
1082 3246 808 1160
(2383) (7149) (1783) (2550)
82 246.6 24 46
(181) (543) (52) (101)
3393 248 310
(7465) (548) (675)
202.
pared
Outfall 102
TsS
Total CN
Ammonia
Phenol
Survey
Daily Average
Data
Daily
Maximum
kg/day(lb/day)
kg/day(lb/day)
Outfall 202 (gross)
is s
10 , 1 79
(22,395)
-------
4
Waste loads through these outfalls were generally much less than
those proposed by USSC and in no case were the proposed limits exceeded.
The flow through Outfall 102 varied from 27,900 m 3 /day (7.4 mgd) to 53,600
m 3 /day (14.1 mgd)--average of about 38,200 m 3 /day (10.1 mgd). The company
estimates this flow to be 20,000 m 3 /day (5.4 mgd). Flows through Outfall
202 (two days) averaged 1100 m 3 /day (0.28 mgd) which is about 60% of the
company estimate of 1890 m 3 /day (0.5 mgd).
The discharge from Outfall 002W which the Company monitors as
002 ranged from 579,000 m 3 /day (153 mgd) to 738,000 m 3 /day (195 mgd); an
average of 649,000 m 3 /day (172 mgd). The company reported this flow to
be 341,000 m 3 /day (90 mgd). However, the total flow through 002 also
includes flows from Outfall OO2E which during two days of monitoring
averaged 134,500 m 3 /day (35.5 mgd). Thus the average flow through 002
(002W + OO2E) is about 784,000 m 3 /day (207 mgd) more than twice the
company’s estimate.
No effluent limitations have been proposed by USSC for the 002
discharge. The company plans only to estimate the flow and measure the
temperature.
3. Outfall 003 contains the effluent from one slab mill scale pit,
cooling water from the No. 3 and 5 blast furnaces and cooling water from
the turbo blower station and zeolite backwash. Flows through this outfall
ranged from 182,000 to 284,000 m 3 /day (48-75 mgd) compared to company
estimated flows of 124,900 to 166,500 m 3 /day (33-44 mgd). Large quantities
of oils and greases are used in the slab mill. This is reflected in the
high oil and grease concentrations (17 to 65 mg/l) found in the effluent.
The USSC has proposed limitations for total suspended solids and oil and
grease. These are tabulated below along with the survey findings for
comparison:
( JSSC Proposed Limitations Survey Data
Daily Average Daily Maximum Daily Average Daily Maximum
kg/day(lb/day) kg/day(lb/day) kg/day(1b/da J kg/day(lb/day )
TSS 44,448 133,464 14,700 20,000
(97,874) (293,620) (32,300) (44,000)
Oil and 2614 7842 8800 10,300
Grease (5750) (17,250) (19,400) (22,700)
On six of the seven monitoring days, the USSC proposed daily
maximum waste load limitations for oil and grease were exceeded. The daily
average load limitation for the seven day monitoring period exceeded
the USSC proposed daily limitations by 300 percent.
USSC plans to construct new wastewater treatment facilities con-
sisting of additional sedimentation, partial filtration, cooling and 90%
recycle. No completion dates were provided by USSC.
-------
5
4. Outfall 004 contains: a) the effluent from the No. 7 BF thickener
which receives underflow from the No. 1 and 2 BF thickener and wastewater
from the No. 3, No. 5, and No. 6 blast furnaces; b) the sintering plant
thickener which also receives the underflow from the No. 7 BF thickener;
and c) cooling waters from the No. 6 BE and oxygen plant. The No. 6 BE
was not operating during the survey and about midway through the monitoring
No. 5 BE was banked.
Two intermediate points designated as Outfalls 104 and 204 were
monitored. Outfall 104 contains the discharge from the No. 7 BF thickener.
Overflow from the sintering plant thickener discharges through 204. The
USSC has proposed effluent limitations for both these outfalls. These
limitations are compared below with the survey findings.
USSC Proposed Limitations Survey Data
ily Average Daily Maximum Daily Average Daily Maximum
kg/day(lb/dayj kg/day(lb/day) j gfday(1b/day) kg/day(lb/day)
Outfall 104 (Net)
TSS 4096 12,288 20.4 75
(9021) (27,063) (45) (166)
Total CN 70.4 211.2 104 442
(155) (465) (229) (977)
Ammonia 559 1677 92.4 287
(1232) (3696) (204) (632)
Phenol 43.1 129.3 4.6 7.7
(95) (288) (10.1) (16.9)
Outfall 204 (Net)
TSS 180 540 270 557
(396) (1188) (595) (1230)
Total CN 3.3 10 58 180
(7.3) (21.9) (128) (398)
Ammonia 48.6 146 124 257
(107) (321) (273) (566)
Phenol 2.3 6.9 2.2 4.5
(5.1) (15.3) (4.8) (9.9)
During the survey, the total suspended solids load through Outfall
104 was many times less than the proposed waste load limit. The total CN,
however, exceeded the USSC proposed daily maximum load limitation.
-------
6
The sintering plant has not operated since January 1975, thus the
sintering plant thickener receives only the underfiow from the No. 7 BE
thickener. The sludge from the former is normally sent to the sintering
plant, but during the survey was reported to be landfilled. The sintering
plant thickener effluent (Outfall 204) contained total suspended solids,
ammonia and total CN loads exceeding the USSC proposed daily average and
daily maximum limitations.
The company’s estimate of flow through Outfall 104 is 22,700
m 3 /day (6 mgd). During the survey, flows ranged from 1500 to 12,300
m 3 /day (0.38-3.3 mgd). These lower flows were due to the No. 6 BF not
operating and the banking of No. 5 BE about midway through the survey.
The flow from the sintering plant thickener (204) ranged from
4300 to 5300 m 3 /day (1.1—1.4 mgd) with an average of 4800 m 3 /day (1.26 mgd).
This latter figure corresponds closely to the company’s estimate of 4700
m 3 /day (1.24 mgd).
The USSC has not proposed numerical effluent limitations for
Outfall 004, but have proposed only to measure the flow and monitor the
temperature.
5. Outfall 010 contains the effluent from the Basic Oxygen Process
(BOP) thickener, the blowdown from two cooling towers and minor waste-
water flows from the BOP area. An intermediate point designated as 110
(BOP thickener discharge) was monitored during the survey. The USSC has
proposed effluent limitations for total suspended solids through this
outfall. These are tabulated below with the survey findings.
USSC Proposed Limitations Survey Data
Daily Average Daily Maximum Daily Average Daily Maximum
kg/day(lb/dayj kg/day(lb/day) kg/day(lb/dayj kg/day(lb/day )
TSS 585
(1287)
Flows through Outfall 110 ranged from 12,000 to
(3.2-3.7 mgd). The average daily flow during the survey
(3.4 mgd which is essentially the same as the company’s
13,200 mi/day (3.5 mgd).
The USSC has proposed measuring the flow from 010 and monitoring
the temperature without any numerical limits. At present, they estimate
this flow at 37,800 m 3 Jday (10 mgd). Actual flows during the survey were
somewhat lower, ranging from 2Q,700—30,200 m 3 /day (5.5-8.0 mgd) with a
daily average flow of 23,800 mi/day (6.3 mgd).
6. During the NEIC survey, flow measurements were made at all stations
except 001 and 202 using the dye dilution technique. Flow measurement and
representative sampling was not possible on Outfall 001 because of the sur-
charged condition. Instantaneous flow measurements using a Marsh McBirney
1755
313
492
(3861)
(690)
(1090)
14,000 m 3 /day
was 13,000 m 3 /day
estimated flow of
-------
7
portable flow meter were made on Outfall 202 each time a sample was
collected.
As discussed earlier, flows through Outfalls 102, 002 (002W and
002E) and 003 were greater, in one case by more than a 100%, then those
estimated by the Company. The flows through Outfalls 110 and 204 were
essentially the same as reported by the company. Lower flows than those
estimated by the company were measured from Outfalls 104 and 010.
7. Flows should be continuously measured and recorded on Outfalls
102, 202, 003, 104, 204 and 110. Flows should be continuously measured
and recorded two days each month on Outfalls 002 (002E + 002W), 004 and
010. All composite samples should be flow weighted.
Outfalls 001, 003, 004 arid 010 are subject to surcharging at high
river stage. Therefore representative samples cannot be collected. Modi-
fications to the present configurations of these outfalls are necessary to
allow accurate flow measurement and representative sample collection.
-------
8
III. MONITORING PROCEDURES
During June 23-25, 1975, a reconnaissance visit was conducted at the
Edgar Thomson Plant in order to observe process operations, waste treatment
systems and sampling locations. A report describing this visit is located
in Appendix F. The amount of intake water and wastewater discharged is not
measured but estimated by the company. Estimates are based on an intake
capacity of 210 mgd. The water use in various processing areas of the plant
are, according to company officials, estimated by the accounting department.
The wastewater flows are, in turn, estimated from the water use estimates.
However, definitive information on the water-wastewater accounting procedures
was not provided by USSC. The company recently retained a consultant firm,
Chester Engineers, to determine actual flows. This information has not been
provided to EPA.
In-plant monitoring was conducted at selected stations [ Table 1 and
Figure 1]. The parameters monitored, sample type and the number of days each
station was sampled are shown in Table 2. Details on the a) sampling procedures
and flow measurement techniques; b) analytical procedures and quality control;
and c) chain of custody procedures are contained in Appendices A, B, and C
respectively.
Waste loads discharged from each station are determined on either a
net or gross basis [ Table 1]. The company monitors the intake water at
the Central Pump House located immediately downstream from Outfall 003
[ Figure 1]. The water intake* located upstream of Outfall 002 is not
monitored by the company. To determine the net loads, the intake con-
centration is subtracted from the waste discharge concentration and the
result multiplied by the flow which is estimated as described earlier.
In conducting self-monitoring, the company personnel collects time-
weighted 24-hour composite samples comprised of six aliquots taken at
equally spaced intervals during the compositing period. Grab samples
for oil and grease analysis are collected once per eight hours.
During monitoring by NEIC, the effluent flows, except at Outfalls
001 and 002, were obtained using the dye dilution technique [ Appendix A].
Flow measurement at Outfall 001 was not possible because of surcharged
conditions. Instantaneous flow measures were made at Outfall 202 (ingot
mold foundry settling basin effluent), using a Marsh McBirney portable
flow meter.
Samples were collected for specific organic chemical pollutants from
selected stations [ Table 2]. No measureable levels were identified by the
combined gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method used.
*This intake provides cooling water for power station No. 1.
-------
9
TABLE 1
Description of Monitoring Stations
at the
LJSSC Edgar Thomson Plant
ussc
Proposed Limitations
Map Key* Description Net/Gross
001 Cooling water discharge into Gross
Turtle Creek
002W Discharge from No. 1 and 2 BE Gross
thickener and BE cooling water
102 Discharge from No. 1 and 2 BE Net
thickener
002E Discharge from ingot mold foundry Gross
and BE cooling water
202 Discharge from settling basin at Gross
ingot mold foundry
003 Discharge from slab mill settling basin Gross
004 Discharge from No. 7 BE and siritering Gross
plant thickeners and BE cooling water
104 Discharge from No. 7 BE thickener Net
204 Discharge from sintering plant thickener Net
010 Discharge from BOP thickener and Gross
cooling water
110 Discharge from BOP thickener Gross
CPH Central pump house water intake
*Fjgure 1 shows outfall location
-------
TABLE 2
SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
Number
Days
Station Description Sampled Type of Sample Parameter!’
Cooling water discharge 3 Grab O&G; phenol; TSS; dissolved and total iron.
from tar pumps (001) into
Turtle Creek
Discharge from No. 1 & 2 7 24 Hr. Comp. TSS; total and amenable cyanide; ammonia; total
BF thickener and BF and di olved iron qnd zinc, copper.
cooling water (002w) Grab phenol—’; organics. I.
Discharge from ingot mold 2 24 Hr. Camp. TSS.
foundry and BF cooling
water (002E)
Discharge from settling 2 24 Hr. Camp. TSS.
basin ingot mold Grab Organics. /.
foundry (202)
Discharge from No. 1 & 7 24 Hr. Comp. TSS; total and amenable cyanide; ammonia; total and
2 BF thickener (102) dissolvçd iron and zinc; copper.
Grab Phenol1
Discharge from settling 7 24 Hr. Comp. TSS
basin (003)(filter Grab O&G,d; organics /.
backwash, hot forming
slab scale pit BF cooling
water) and possible storm
sewer water
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
Number
Days
Station Description Sampled Type of Sample Parameter!’
Discharge from No. 7 SF
and Sinter Plant thickeners,
BF cooling water & possible
storm sewer water (004)
Discharge from No. 7
SF thickener (104)
Discharge from Sintering
Plant thickener (204)
Discharge from BOP
thickener and cooling
tower blowdown (010)
Discharge from BOP
thickener (110)
7
7
7
7
7
24 Hr. Comp.
Grab
24 Hr. Comp.
Grab
24 Hr. Comp.
Grab
24 Hr. Comp.
Grab
24 Hr. Comp.
ISS; total and amenable cyanide; ammonia; total
and di olved iron and zinc; copper
PhenoTh ’; organics. 2/.
ISS; total and amenable cyanide; amonia; total and
dissol d iron and zinc; copper.
Phenol—’.
ISS; total and amenable cyanide; arpmonia; total and
dissolX d iro ,ánd zirid/; copper. J.
Phenol.Y , 0&G J.
TSS; total and dissolved iron and zinc; total and
hexavalen chromium; copper.
Organicsl’.
TSS; total and dissolved iron and zinc; copper.
24 Hr. Comp.
Grab
1/ pH and Temperature were measured periodically at all stations.
0&G and Phenol samples were collected 3 times each day.
3/ Organics were sampled twice during survey.
4/ Analyzed one day only for this parameter.
TSS: total and amenable cyanide; ammonia; total and
dissolved iron and zinc; total and hexavalent chromium;
cop r.
O&G—/; phenol . ; organics. ’.
Central pump house
intake
7
-J
-a
-------
12
IV. FINDINGS OF IN-PLANT MONITORING
OUTFALL 001
Outfall 001, according to company officials, contains non-contact
cooling water from an air compressor located in the tar transfer area
[ Figure iii. This compressor is seldom used because the open-hearth
furnaces were shutdown. When operating, company personnel estimated
that 378.5 m 3 /day (0.1 mgd) of cooling water enters Turtle Creek through
Outfall 001. An oil boom was present in Turtle Creek at the point of
discharge. Company officials indicated that accumulated oil was not
removed. At the time of the reconnaissance, the oil boom was not operating
effectively and oil was entering the stream. Following the reconnaissance
and prior to the in-plant monitoring, the company installed a floating
pump to remove the oil. The surface oil was pumped into a filter box filled
with an absorbent. The discharge from the box entered Turtle Creek.
During NEIC monitoring, Outfall 001 which discharges intermittently
was checked routinely for flow. When positive flow occurred, grab samples
were collected for selected parameters [ Table 2]. However, because of the
surcharged conditions (i.e., river water surface was higher than the bottom
of the outfall causing water to back up in the line), these samples cannot
be considered representative. The analytical results [ Tables 3, 4 and 5]
of this grab sampling showed concentrations of 23-140 mg/i total suspended
solids; 2.7-6.6 mg/i iron; 18-51 mg/i oil and grease; and 2-4 ug/l phenol.
No waste loads could be calculated because flow measurement was not possible.
The self-monitoring data for this outfall [ Table 6] shows that the phenol
concentrations were many times greater than found during the NEIC survey
and ranged from 0.12-1.3 mg/i (120-1300 ig/1). Oil and grease concentrations
reported have ranged from 0-900 (average of 126) mg/l. The USSC has proposed
a daily maximum oil and grease load limitation of 32.7 kg (72 lb) for 001.
The company estimates the flow through this outfall at 378.5 m 3 /day (0.1 mgd).
At the proposed waste load limitation, this would allow an oil and grease
concentration of 86 mg/i.
On August 2, 1975, a brownish colored effluent containing oil was ob-
served. Company officials stated that this wastewater resulted from the
cooling of ingot molds in the slab mill, a source of wastewater not pre-
viously reported to EPA.
OUTFALL 002
The 002 waste sewer receives wastes from two separate lines [ Figure 11.
These wastewaters combine and discharge through a submerged outfall into the
Monongahela River. There is no point of access to Outfall 002 downstream
from the point where the two separate sewers combine. During the survey,
NEIC designated the two waste sewers as 002 East (002E) and 002 West (002W).
For self-monitoring purposes, USSC samples the latter sewer and reports the
data for Outfall 002. The 002E sewer which contains wastewater from the
ingot mold foundry settling basin (202), cooling water from the blast
-------
13
furnace No. 1, and effluents from the Stirling boiler house and No. 1 power
station* is not sampled.
Wastewater from four multi-wash dust collectors (2040 m 3 /min.--72,000
cfm capacity) in the ingot mold foundry is discharged into two parallel
settling basins at a rate of 132,500 ni /min. (350 gpm). Each basin is 9 m
(31 feet) long by 4 m (13 feet) wide by 3.1 m (10.2 feet) deep.
Composite samples were collected for two days from 002E and 202 for total
suspended solids analysis. Results [ Table 3] show that 002E contained from
1650 to 5280 kg/day (3630 to 11,700 lb/day) of total suspended solids (TSS).
Approximately 20% of these solids originated from the ingot mold settling
basin discharge (202).
The wastewater flow (002E) averaged 134,500 m 3 /day (35.5 mgd) which is
more than four times that estimated by the company; i.e., 30,300 m 3 /day (8 mgd)**.
The effluent flow from the settling basin averaged 110 m 3 /day (0.28 mgd) or
approximately 50% of the company’s estimates of 1890 rn /day (0.5 mqd)***.
Self-monitoring data [ Table 6] show that the total suspended solids con-
centration for Outfall 202 varies from 23 to 2850 (846 average) mg/l. USSC
has proposed total suspended solids limits for this discharge as follows:
ks/day lb/day
Daily Average 3,393 7,465
Daily Maximum 10,179 22,395
At the flow rate of 1100 m 3 /day, observed during the survey, the daily
concentration would have to exceed 11,700 mg/l before a violation of the USSC
proposed daily maximum criteria would occur.
Outfall 002W contains the No. 1 and 2 BE thickener effluent (102), No. 2
BE cooling water and No. 2 power station cooling water. The No. 1 and 2 BE
thickener, which receives wastewater from No. 1 and 2 blast furnaces, has two
levels and is 27 m (90 feet) in diameter by 5 m (16 feet) high with a conical
bottom of 2 m (6 feet) deep. The effluent is discharged to Outfall 002 with
the sludge (underfiow) receiving additional treatment in the No. 7 BE thickener
(104).
Composite sampling was performed for seven consecutive days on Outfalls
002W and 102 [ Table 2]. Grab samples were collected three times daily fo
phenol analysis. Elows ranged from 579,000 m 3 /da (153 mgd) to 738,000 ma/day
(195 rngd) for Outfall OO2W****, and from 27,900 mi/day (7.4 mgd) to 53,600 m 3 /day
*The No. 2 power station effluent had not previously been identified to EPA.
**Based on data submitted in permit application.
***From self-monitoring reports submitted to EPA for the period January 1 to
March 31, 1975.
****The variation in daily flows are probably due to varying demand for
cooling water in the No. 2 power station.
-------
14
14.1 mgd) for this date compared with daily flows of 27,900 m 3 --39,600 m 3
7.4-10.5 mgd) for the other six monitoring days. The sample for August 2,
1975, was composited based on this erroneous flow and the results reported
reflect this discrepancy [ Table 3].
On July 26, 1975, large globules of oil were observed in Outfall 002W.
Samples were collected from 002W and the Monongahela River for oil and grease
analysis [ Appendix C].
Monitoring results [ Tables 3 and 5] show that the No. 1 and 2 BE thickener
effluent (102) contained maximum net loads of 1230 kg/day (2720 lb/day) total
suspended solids; 1160 kg/day (2550 lb/day) ammonia; 144 kg/day (317 lb/day)
total CN; and 45.6 kg/day (101 lb/day) phenol. Self-monitoring data [ Table 6]
for the period February 24 to May 19, 1975, show that the concentrations of
parameters measured by USSC are similar in magnitude to those obtained during
the survey.
USSC plans to install a BE recycle wastewater treatment system 2 . Effluent
from the new facility will discharge through Outfall 004 eliminating the pre-
sent No. 1 and 2 BE thickener discharge through Outfall 002. Until this new
facility is in operation, USSC proposes the following net limitations for
Outfall 102:
Parameter Daily Average Daily Maximum
( Net Basis) kg/day(lb/day) kg/day(lb/day )
TSS 2578(5678) 7743(17,034)
Ammonia (N) 1082(2383) 3246(7149)
Total CN 238(524) 714(1572)
Phenol 82.2(181) 246.6(543)
During the survey, the calculated waste loads were well below the above
proposed waste load limitations [ Table 7]. For example, the average and
maximum total suspended solids loadings were 434 kg/day (956 lb/day) and
1230 kg/day (2720 lb/day) respectively, about 17% of the proposed limitations.
The company proposes only to estimate the flow and monitor Outfall 002W
for temperature with no numerical limits for the duration of the permit.
Survey results show that the net increase in pollutants for this discharge
results from the No. 1 and 2 BE thickener (i.e., Outfall 102). To determine
the total waste load discharged from Outfall 002 to the Monongahela River it
will also be necessary for USSC to monitor 002E.
OUTFALL 003
This outfall contains the effluent from slab mill scale pits; cooling
water from BE Nos. 3 and 5; cooling water from the turbo blower station and
zeolite backwash [ Figure 1]. The entire flow estimated by company officials
-------
15
as 166,500 m 3 /day (44 mgd) passes through a settling basin* prior to being
discharged into the Monongahela River through a submerged outfall. The
settling basin is equipped with an oil boom and a floating skimmer (drum
type) upstream of the weir. Large quantities of floating oils were present
in the basin along with oiiy accumulations on the sidewalls of the basin.
The company does not maintain records on the amount of oil removed or the
efficiency of the skimmer.
The water depth in the settling basin varies directly with the stage
of the Monongahela River. As a result, at high stages, the weir becomes sub-
merged. Although this condition did not occur during the survey, wastewater
samples collected during submerged periods would not be representative.
The slab mill is the major user of oils and greases. According to
company data for January 1 to June 30, 1975, average monthly usage was:
Sunoco Black Sunoco Mobil DTE
Lithium Grease Durasun 140 Heavy Medium
Slab Mill 37,870 kg 14,500 kg Not identified
(83,600 lb) (32,000 lb)
Other Areas 680 kg Not Used 4390 liters
of the Plant (1500 lb) (1160 gallon)
Company officials do not know the amount of these oils and greases that are
discharged into the river’.
Composite samples were collected for seven days and analyzed for total
suspended solids. Grab samples for oil and grease analysis were collect d
three times each day [ Table 2]. During the survey, 182,000 to 284,000 mi/day
(48-75 mgd) of wastewater were discharged from this outfall. Results [ Table 3]
show that the effluent contained total suspended solids loads ranging from
11,900 to 20,000 kg/day (26,200 to 44,000 lb/day). The oil and grease con-
centration [ Table 4] ranged from 17 to 65 mg/l, yielding calculated loads of
6210 to 10,280 kg/day (13,700 to 22,700 lb/day).
Self-monitoring data [ Table 6] for the period January 22 to June 16, 1975,
were similar for total suspended solids, but considerably less for oil and
grease. Company data show that the oil and grease concentrations ranged from
0.07 to 25.6 mg/i while the survey concentrations ranged from 17 to 65 mg/i.
The company estimated average flows of 124,900 to 166,500 m 3 /day (33 to 44
mgd)**were less than values recorded during the survey (e.g., the minimum
flow was 182,000 m 3 /day).
*The basin is 59 m (193 feet) in length and has tapered side walls giving a
width of 10 m (34 feet) at the top and 8 m (25 feet) at the bottom. The
maximum water depth is 3 m (11 feet).
**From self-monitoring reports submitted to EPA for the period January 1 to
March 31, 1975.
-------
ic
USSC has proposed the following gross limitations for the duration of
the permit with the flow to be estimated:
Daily Average Daily Maximum
Parameter kg/day (lb/day) kg/day (lb/day )
TSS 44,488 (97,874) 133,464 (293,620)
Oil & Grease 2,614 (5,750) 7,842 (17,250)
A comparison of survey data to these proposed limitations [ Table 7] show that
the daily maximum oil and grease limitation was exceeded six out of seven days.
The oil and grease average limitation was exceeded by 300 percent.
USSC plans to construct a recycle wastewater treatment facility 2 . These
facilities will include additional sedimentation, partial filtration, cooling
and 90% recycle. A construction schedule has not been provided.
OUTFALL 004
Outfall 004 contains the effluents from the No. 7 BE thickener (104),
the sintering plant thickener (204), cooling waters from No. 6 BE and the
oxygen plant.
The No. 7 BE thickener (104) receives sludge (underflow) from the No. 1
and 2 BE thickener and wastewater from BE No. 3, No. 5 and No. 6. The thick-
ener is 29 m (95 feet) in diameter by 3 m (10 feet) deep with a conical bottom
2 m (6 feet) deep’. The company estimates the thickener effluent to be
22,700 mi/day (6 mgd)*. The No. 6 BE was not operating during the survey,
thus the flows from 104 were about 40% of the USSC estimate the first part
of the monitoring period. However, about midway through the monitoring, the
No. 5 BE was banked. As a result, the flows dropped by 80% of that measured
at the beginning [ Table 31.
As indicated earlier, USSC plans to construct additional BE treatment
facilities with the effluent being recycled. Until these new treatment faci-
lities are constructed, USSC proposes the following net limitations on the
No. 7 BE thickener discharge (i.e., Outfall 104) with the flow to be measured.
Daily Average Daily Maximum
Parameter kg/day (lb/day) kg/day (lb/day )
TSS 4096 (9021) 12,288 (27,063)
Ammonia (N) 559 (1232) 1677 (3696)
Total CN 70.4 (155) 211.2 (465)
Phenol 43.1 (95) 129.3 (288)
*From self-monitoring reports for the period January 1 to March 31, 1975.
-------
17
Composite samples were collected for seven days and analyzed for total
suspended solids; total and amenable cyanide; ammonia; total and dissolved
iron and zinc and copper. Grab samples for phenol analysis were collected
three times each day [ Table 1].
During the survey, only the total cyanide proposed limitations were
exceeded [ Table 31. The proposed maximum load limitation, for example, was
exceeded by more than 200 percent.
Self-monitoring [ Table 6] for the period January 16 to May 19 show that
the total suspended solids, NH and phenol concentrations were similar to those
obtained during the survey [ Tables 3 and 4]. Reported total and amenable
cyanide concentrations averaged 6.22 and 4.58 mg/i respectively which are
significantly lower than the average values of 21.1 mg/i total CN and 19.3
mg/i amenable CN obtained during the survey.
The sintering plant has not operated since the first of the year because
of fugitive dust and other air pollution problems. Therefore, the sintering
plant thickener (204) was receiving only the underflow (sludge) from the No. 7
BF thickener. The final sludge is dewatered in disc filters and is normally
used in the sintering plant. During the survey, the sludge was reported as
being landfilled.
The sintering plant thickener has two levels and is 15 m 50 feet) in
diameter by 5 m (17 feet) deep. It treats an estimated 4700 m /day (1.24 mgd)
of wastewater’. Survey flows ranged from 4300 m 3 /day (1.1 mgd) to 5300 m 3 /day
(1.4 mgd). This discharge will also receive additional treatment in the pro-
posed new recycle BE wastewater treatment facility. Until the completion of
this system, USSC has proposed the following net effluent limitations for
Outfall 204.
Daily Average Daily Maximum
Parameter kg/day (lb/day) kg/day (lb/day )
TSS 180 (396) 540 (1188)
Ammonia (N) 48.6 (107) 146 (321)
Total Cyanide 3.3 (7.3) 10 (21.9)
Phenol 2.3 (5.1) 6.9 (15.3)
The effluent flow is to be measured.
Composite samples were collected for seven days and analyzed for total
suspended solids, total and amenable cyanide and ammonia. One composite
sample was analyzed for total and dissolved iron and zinc and copper. Grab
samples for oil and grease and phenol analyses were collected three times
each day. Results [ Tables 3 and 4] show that the proposed daily maximum
limitations for total suspended solids, ammonia and total cyanide were ex-
ceeded on 2, 3 and 6 out of the 7 samples respectively. In addition, the
proposed daily average for total suspended solids and ammonia load limitations
were exceeded by 150 and 260 percent respectively. The total cyanide load was
17 times greater than the daily limitation.
-------
18
Oil and grease concentrations [ Table 4] ranged from 9 to 100 mg/i with
12 out of 20 samples exceeding 30 mg/i. Althouqh no oil and grease limitation
was proposed for this discharge, these concentrations indicate that a limita-
tion for this parameter is necessary.
The company self-monitoring data [ Table 6] for the period January 16 to
May 19, 1975, are similar to NEIC survey results.
USSC proposes only to measure the flow and temperature of Outfall 004,
without ny numerical limitations. Company officials estimate this flow at
26,500 mi/day (7 m d)*. Survey flows were significantly higher ranging from
40,900 to 60,700 mi/day (10.8 to 16.0 mgd).
The net pollutant loads in Outfall 004 were approximately equivalent to
the sum of the loads discharged from the No. 7 BF thickener (104) and the
sintering plant thickener (204) [ Table 3].
OUTFALL 010
Outfall 010 contains the effluent from the basic oxygen process (BOP)
thickener (110), the blowdown from two cooling towers and minor wastewater
flows from the BOP area [ Figure 1]. Company officials estimate that 37,800
m 3 /day (10 mgd)* of wastewater are discharged to the Monongahela River through
Outfall 010. Actual flows varied from 20,700 to 30,200 m 3 /day (5.46 to 8.0
mgd), lower than the reported flow.
USSC has also proposed measuring the flow and temperature without numerical
limitations for Outfall 010. Composite samples for total suspended solids, total
and dissolved iron and zinc, total and hexavalent chromium and copper analyses
were collected for seven days [ Table 2]. During the survey, total suspended
solids and dissolved iron concentrations ranged from 37 to 190 mg/i and 0 to
0.07 mg/l respectively [ Tables 3 and 5]. These total suspended solids values
are somewhat higher than those reported in the self-monitoring data (i.e., 16
to 69 mg/i).
Company officials indicated that chromium is not used in the cooling
towers. The composite samples collected of the discharge substantiate this.
The chromium concentrations ranged from <0.01 to 0.04 mg/i [ Table 81.
Water used to scrub and cool the BOP exhaust gases passes through a
clarifier 7.6 by 0.7 m (25 feet by 2.29 feet)--the solids removed are dewatered
and landfiiled. A portion of the effluent is recycled to the gas cooling tower
with the rest discharged into the BOP thickener (110). The BOP thickener,
*From self-monitoring reports for the period January 1 to March 31, 1975.
-------
1
35 m (115 feet) in diameter, has a 2.3 m (7.5 feet) side water depth and
an estimated flow rate of 13,200 m 3 /day ( .5 nigd)* [ Figure 2]. Flows during
the survey varied from 12,000 to 14,000 m /day (3.2 to 3.7 mgd).
USSC has proposed gross total suspended solids limitations for the
duration of the permit of 585 kg/day (1287 lb/day) daily average and 1755
kg/day (3861 lb/day) daily maximum for Outfall 110. Results [ Table 3] show
that the daily average and daily maximum total suspended solids loads in the
thickener effluent were 313 kg/day (690 lb/day) and 492 kg/day (1090 lb/day)
respectively which are considerably less than the proposed limitations.
The self-monitoring data [ Table 6] for the period January 23 to June 30
show that the gross total suspended solids concentration ranged from 0 to 288
mg/i with an average of 34 mg/l. This data is comparable to the survey data
during which the gross total suspended solids concentration averaged 24 mg/i.
*From self-monitoring reports for the period January 1 to March 31, 1975.
-------
Fig. 2. Flow schematic for BOP Plant 3
-------
21
V. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
As noted earlier, USSC personnel collect time weighted, 24-hour composite
samples and estimate flow on all discharges from the Edgar Thomson Plant.
Grab samples for oil and grease analysis are collected once per eight hours.
Due to the variability of wastewaters, composite samples should be collected
on a flow-weighted basis. To accomplish this, flows need to be measured and
recorded continuously.
During the survey, the dye dilution technique was the only feasible
means of measuring wastewater flows because the discharge points were not
amenable to flow measurement using conventional methods such as flumes,
flow meters, etc. Moreover, to install the latter flow measurement devices
will require modification of the existing outfalls and discharge structures.
The dye dilution technique could be used to measure and record flow on
a continuous basis. The method requires an upstream dye injection point and
a sampling point downstream, a sufficient distance of all wastewater inputs
to allow adequate mixing. The sampled wastewater can be pumped through a
fluorometer with the results being recorded continuously. This method of
continuous flow measurement is both time consuming and costly. For example,
flow measurement at a discharge point would require a metering pump for
controlled dye injection, sampling pump, fluorometer and a strip recorder.
These items would cost from $2,700 to $3,000*. In addition, a suitable dye
such as Rhodamine WT would cost about $2.00/day per 3785 m 3 /day (1 mgd).
Due to the costs involved with the dye dilution method, conventional flow
measurements would seem to be preferable.
Wastewaters (primarily scrubber waters) from the blast furnaces, the
BOP plant and the sintering plant are treated in thickeners. Ingot mold
foundry and slab mill wastewaters are treated in settling basins. These
effluents combined with cooling waters from the blast furnaces, the BOP
plant, power plants, etc., and the combined flows are then discharged into
the Monongahela River through Outfalls 002 (002E and 002W), 003, 004 and 010.
USSC personnel presently sample the thickener and settling basin effluents
(102, 202, 104, 204, 110) and the combined discharges (002, 003, 004 and 010).
As mentioned previously, Outfall 002E is not monitored. Outfalls 002, 004
and 010 are currently monitored for p 1 - I and temperature which is not adequate.
For example, pH and temperature are not sufficient to detect the discharge
of untreated process wastewaters in the cooling waters.
The flows from Outfalls 102, 202, 003, 104, 204 and 110 should be con-
tinuously measured and recorded. This can be accomplished by: a) modification
*Thjs does not include maintenance which would be required on the pumps and
fluorometer. The UV lamps in the fluorometer, for example, cost about $9.00
and last approximately one week.
-------
22
of the overflow structures, or b) installation of in-line meters. Outfalls
002*, 004 and 010 should be sampled and the flow continuously measured twice
per month. These outfalls should be sampled on the same day that intake
water, thickener effluents and settling basin effluents are sampled to
determine net waste loads [ Table 9].
As noted earlier, USSC plans to construct two new wastewater treatment
systems. One will treat the effluents from the blast furnace and sintering
plant thickeners (102, 104 and 204). These thickeners will continue to
provide pretreatment of wastes. The final effluent will be discharged into
Outfall 004 eliminating the present discharge of process wastewater through
002W**. The second new wastewater treatment facility will treat the slab
mill wastes discharged through Outfall 003. The settling basin on 003 will
probably be used as a polishing basin for this new facility.
As discussed previously, process wastewaters are combined with cooling
waters and discharged through a common outfall into the Monongahela River.
During the survey, process wastewaters (Outfalls 102, 202, 104, 204 and 110),
except for the slab mill (Outfall 003), were sampled prior to mixing with cooling
water. Sampling locations do not exist for sampling cooling waters. Therefore, the
extent of contamination of cooling water by untreated process wastes cannot
be determined. In order for this to be done, access points will need to be
provided in Outfalls 002, 003, 004 and 010 such that representative sampling
and flow measurement can be accomplished prior to mixing with treated process
wastes.
During the survey, samples collected from Outfall 001 were not repre-
sentative because of surcharged conditions. In addition, flow measurement
was not possible. To obtain representative samples and accurate flow
measurement will require that access to Outfall 001 be provided at a point
where there is no interference due to surcharging and the flow is well mixed.
The settling basin on Outfall 003 is directly influenced by river stage.
As the river rises, the water level in the basin rises. Consequently, the
outfall weir becomes surcharged. During periods of submergence, representative
samples cannot be collected. Similarly under present discharge configurations,
Outfalls 004 and 010 are subject to surcharging from the Monongahela River
precluding representative sampling and flow measurement at high-river stage.
Changes on the present outfall configuration will be necessary to allow
accurate flow measurement and the collection of representative samples until
the new treatment facilities are operational. After completion, samples and
flow measurements should be taken on the treated discharge, which precludes
the above problem.
*Flow from Outfall 002 will require measuring the flow through OO2E and 002W.
**After completion of the new BF treatment facility, 002W should contain only
cooling waters.
-------
TABLE 3
S(Th74ARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL CATA’
USSC U)GAR TH01lS0 J PLANT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5. 1975
Flow
rn 3 /da pH
Station Description Date 2 X 10 3 (mgd) Range
Temp
°C
Range
TSS Total CN M,enable
Gross 3
Net mg/i kg/day_JibJday) mg/i kg/day (lb/day) mg/i ka/day
CN
A-ronia
( I)
(lb/day)
rg/1
k /dav
(lb/day)
738
579
609
613
666
689
(172)
(195)
(153)
(161)
(152)
(176)
(182)
7.0-7.8
7.2-8.8
7.4-7 8
7.1—7 6
7.1-7.6
7.0-7.7
7.0—7.6
35.3
27.9
34.4
53.6
39.6
39.6
36.3
(9.6)
(7.4)
(9.1)
14.1)
10.5)
(10.5)
(9.6)
Cooling water
discharge into
Turtle Creek
(001)
8/2
(0945)*
8/2
(1350)
8/3
8/4
8/5
7.7
8.8
8.5
39
31
37
G
S
5
5
5
29
36
23
140
0.02
0.02
<0.02
0.02
0.02
<0.02
0.29
0.52
0.55
Discharge from
No. 1 and 2 BE
thickener and BE
cooling water
(002w)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/26
8/3
8/4
8/5
28-34
32-37
34-37
36-39
35-38
34-37
34-36
5
6
6
G
5
6
6
15
18
15
10
25
32
77
9760
13,300
8680
6090
15.300
21,300
53,000
(21,500)
(29.300)
(18.140)
(13,400)
(33.000)
(47.000)
(117.000)
0.11
0.19
0.10
0.48
0.33
0.20
0.10
72
140
58
292
202
133
69
(158)
(309)
(128)
(645)
(446)
294)
152)
0.09
0.17
0.10
0.48
0.33
0.18
0.10
59
125
58
292
202
120
69
(129)
(277)
(128)
(645)
(446)
(264)
(152)
1.5
2.0
1.8
2.1
2.5
2 3
2.0
976
1460
1040
1280
1530
1530
1380
(2150
(3250
(2300)
(2820)
(3380)
(3400)
(3040)
Discharge from
No. 1 and 2 BE
thIckener (102)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
41-47
45-48
46-49
45-47
43-48
42—48
44—46
G
5
6
G
5
6
6
42
48
27
51
28
30
50
1530
1345
926
2730
1110
1190
1820
3360)
2960)
2050)
(6020)
(2440)
(2610)
(4000)
4.0
3.0
1.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
145
84
51
134
99
59
55
(321)
(185)
(114)
(295)
(218)
(131)
(120)
3.9
2.9
i.E
2.3
2.5
1.5
1.5
141
81
51
123
99
59
55
(313)
(176)
(114)
(272)
(218)
(131)
(120)
17
24
20
22
22
24
24
617
671
687
1174
874
951
374
(1360)
(1460)
(1523)
(2600)
(1920)
(2390)
(1920)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
12
29
15
23
1
0
0
435
811
516
1230
39
0
0
(960)
1780)
1140)
2720)
(87)
0
0
3.96
2.96
1.48
2.45
2.47
1.47
1.48
144
83
51
131
98
53
54
(317)
(183
112
289)
215)
129)
(118)
3 86
2.86
1.48
2.25
2.47
1.47
1.48
141
80
51
120
98
58
54
(309)
(178)
112)
266)
215)
(129)
(118)
16.37
23.30
19.24
21.67
21.18
23.06
23.18
596 (1310)
651 (1440)
662 (1460)
1160 (2550)
833 (1850)
908 (2010)
842 (1860)
7.0—7.5
7.1-7.6
7.1—7.3
6.9-7.3
6.5—7.0
6.6—7.5
6.5-7.1
sample collected
-------
TABLE 3 (cont.)
SUt 24ARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL DATA’
USSC EDGAR TH0 1S0N PLANT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5, 1975
Flow
mi/day pH
Station Description Date 2 X 10 3 (mgd) Range
Temp
°C
Rance
TSS Total CN knenable CN kron a (N)
Gross 3
Net mg/i kc/day (lb/day) mo/i ka/day (lb/day) ira/i kg/day (lb/day) re/i k iday (lb/day)
DiscJ arge from 8/1 127 (33) 8.6—9.6 36-40 8 13 1650 (3630)
ingot mold 8/2 142 (38) 8.3—9.2 37-43 8 37 5280 (11,700)
foLndry and BF
cooling water
(002E)
Distharge from 8/1 1.1 (0.29) 7.5-8.0 24-27 6 280 310 675)
settling basin 8/2 1.06 (0 28) 6.8-7.7 24-27 6 180 190 420)
at ingot mold
foundry (202) 8/1 N 268 295 (645)
8/2 N 152 160 (355)
Discharge from 7/30 227 (60) 7.4-8.7 32-38 8 58 13.200 29,000)
settling basin 7/31 219 (58) 7.3-8.8 32—35 6 55 12,070 26.600)
(003) 8/1 284 (75 8.1-9.4 34-38 6 60 17,000 (37.500
8/2 227 (60 7.5-9.3 32-38 C 64 14,500 (32.000
8/3 227 60 7.6-9.3 31-34 6 61 13,800 (30,500)
8/4 242 64) 7.6-9.4 30-35 6 49 11,900 (26,200)
8/5 182 48) 7.3-9.9 31-34 6 110 20.000 (44,000)
7/30 N 28 6360 (14.000)
7/31 N 36 7900 (17,400)
8/ 1 N 48 1360 (30.000)
8/2 N 36 8170 (18,000)
8/3 N 34 7720 (17.000)
8/4 N 0 0 (0)
8/5 N 60 10,900 (24,000)
Discharge from 7/30 60.7 (16.0) 7.3—8.4 33-45 G 23 1400 (3080) 5.0 303 (668) 4,4 267 (588) 1,0 61 (134)
No. 7 BE and 7/31 60.7 (16.0) 7.3—8.3 33-37 6 28 1700 (3750) 2.0 121 (267) 1.6 97 (214) 1.0 61 (134)
sintering plant 8/1 60.3 15.9) 7.8-8.4 32—37 6 25 1510 (3330) 1.5 91 (200) 1.3 78 (173) 8.7 524 (1150)
thickeners and 8/2 51.2 13.5) 7.9—8.6 34-39 8 38 1950 (4290) 7.0 360 (790) 6.1 313 (689) 8.3 425 (934)
BE cooling 8/3 41.5 11.0) 7.7—8.1 32-35 8 18 746 (1650) 1.0 41 (92) 0.8 33 73 5.7 237 521
water (004) 8/4 43.1 (11.4) 7.3—8.2 33-36 G 26 1120 (2470 0.5 21 (47) 0.5 21 47 7.0 302 665
8/5 40.9 (10.8) 7.3—8.3 32-35 6 71 2900 (6390 0.2 8.1 (18) 0.2 8.1 18 7.8 319 703
-------
TABLE 3 (cont.)
SUt ’ MARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL DATA 1
USSC EDGAR TH0 1SON PLANT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5. 1975
• — Flow
m )day
Station Description Date 2 X 10 3
(mad).
pH
Range
Temp
°C
Range
TSS Total CM
Gross 3
Net mg/i k3L y (1b/day) mg/i kg/day (lb/day) mg/i ka/day
(lb/day) rg/i k /day
(ib/ ay)
Discharge from
No. 7 SF
thickener (104)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2k
8/2k
8/3
8/4
8/5
9.8 2.6) 7.2-7.2 39-47
8.1 2.1) 7.1-7.6 41-43
12.3 3.3) 7.3-7.6 41-45
5.1 1.3)
1.2 0.32) 7.4-8.5 44-51
1.7 0.45) 7.4-8.1 42-45
1.6 (0.43) 7.3-7.9 41-44
1.5 . (0.38) 7.3-7.8 39—45
G
6
6
6
G
6
6
6
14
21
14
43
54
36
16
34
136
171
172
216
67
61
26
49
(300)
(375)
381)
476)
(147)
(134)
(57)
(107)
20 194
8 65
5 62
88 442
25 31
20 33
2 3.3
1 1.5
(428)
(143)
(135)
(977)
(68)
(74)
(7.1
(3.2
19 185
7.1 57
4.5 56
82 412
21 25
18 30
1.5 2.4
1 1.5
407) 2.6
127) 2.7
123) 24
(908) 29
(57) 32
(67) 46
(5 4) 52
(3 2) 53
26
22
295
146
39
77
84
75
(56)
(43)
(652)
(321)
(57)
(170)
(186)
(166)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
2
2
15
26
9
0
0
0
16
25
75
32
15
0
0
(0)
(36)
(54)
(166)
(70)
(33)
(0)
(0)
19.96 195
7.96 63
4.98 62
87.95 442
24.95 31
19 97 33
1 97 3.2
0.98 1.4
(428)
(139)
(135)
(977)
(68)
(71)
7 0)
3.1)
18.96 184
706 57
4.48 55
81.95 411
20.95 26
17.97 30
1.47 2.4
0.98 1.4
406) 1.97
126) 200
122) 23 24
(903) 23 67
(57) 31 67
(67) 45 18
(5.2) 51.06
(3 1) 52.18
19
16
227
144
39
76
83
75
(42)
(35)
(632)
(3 1S)
(35)
(168)
183)
164)
Discharge from
sintering plant
thickener (204)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
5.1
5.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
5.3
4.7
(1.3) 8.0-8.7 39-42
(1.3) 8.0-8.4 39-42
(1.1) 7.4—8.6 41-43
(1.2) 8.1-8.7 43-46
(1.3) 7.8-8.2 44-46
(1.4) 7.7—8.2 42—44
(1.2) 7.3-7.9 42-43
6
G
6
6
G
6
6
82
130
92
150
43
66
54
416
653
391
676
203
353
252
(917)
(1440)
(866)
(1490)
(449)
(778)
(556)
11 56
6.5 33
4.5 19
40 180
21 99
2.5 14
1.0 4.6
(123)
72)
42)
(398)
(219)
(29)
(10)
6.8 34
5.3 27
3 8 16
34 . 153
21 99
2.5 14
0.8 3 8
(75) 2 4
59) 2.4
36) 22
(333) 27
(219) 39
(29) 49
(8,2) 44
12
12
93
122
164
262
206
(27)
(27)
(206)
(263)
(407)
(578)
(452)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
52
111
80
122
16
16
4
263
557
339
548
75
86
19
(580)
(1230)
(749
(1210
(167)
(189)
(41)
10 96 56
6.46 33
4.48 19
39.95 180
20.97 99
2.47 13
0.98 4.5
(123)
(72)
(42)
(398)
(219)
(29)
(10)
6.76 34
5.26 27
3.78 16
33 95 153
20.97 99
2.47 13
0.78 3.6
(75) 1.77
(53) 1.70
(35) 21.24
(337) 26.67
(219) 38.18
(29) 48.06
(8.1) 43.18
8.6
86
90
120
181
257
201
(20)
(19)
(199)
(255)
(399)
(566)
(4- 5)
U i
-------
TABLE 3 (cont.)
SUt MARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL DATA’
USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5. 1975
Flow
m 3 / day pH
Station Description Date 2 X 10 (mgd) Range
Temp
°C
Range
TSS Total CM Ai enable CM &—rion,a (N)
Gross 3
Net mg/i kg/day (lb/day) mg/i kg/day (lb/day) mg/1 kg/day (lb/day) mg/i kg/day (lb/day)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
12.3
14.0
14.0
13.3
12.9
12.0
12.9
(3.3)
(3.7)
(3.7)
3.5)
3 4)
(3.2)
(3.4)
G
G
G
G
0
0
0
N 0 0 (0)
N 3 42 (93)
N 5 69 153)
N 8 106 235)
N 0 0 (0
N 0 0 0
N 0 0 0
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
25.0
26.1
30 2
22.7
20.7
21.1
20.8
(6.61)
6 89)
8.0)
6 01)
(5.46)
5.57
550
10.2—10.7
10. 6—10. 9
10 9-11 1
10 7-11.0
10. 3-10.9
10.4—11.0
8.8-11 .5
30-33
30-37
34-38
3 5-39
3 8-42
3 7-40
35-39
6
6
G
6
6
6
6
37 926
47 1226
42 1350
120 2730
47 968
190 4000
53 1110
(2340)
2700)
2790)
(6020)
(21 40)
(8830
(2430
Discharge from BOP
thickener and
cooling water
(010)
Discharge from BOP
thIckener (110)
Central pump
house water
In take
19 234 (516)
22 307 (676)
17 237 (523)
36 478 (1050)
20 260 (572)
41 492 (1090)
14 182 (400)
10.5-11.1 33-40
11.0-11.2 35-42
11.1—11.4 40-48
10.9-11.3 44-46
10.5-11.0 38-46
10.6-11.7 43—46
9.2-11.5 41-45
7.4-8.0 26-27
7.1-8.4 26-29
7.5-7.8 27-30
7.4-8.0 29—30
7.1-7.7 28-30
7.4-7.9 29 33
7.0-8.1 28—30
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
30
19
12
28
27
50
50
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.63
0.70
0.76
0.33
0.82
0.94
0.82
-------
TABLE 3 (cont.)
SUI’2IARY OF FIELD MEASURE? ENTS AND ANALYTICAL DATA 1
USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5, 1975
Flow
m /da pH
Station Description Date 2 X 10 ;3 (mgd) Range
Temp
°C
Range
TSS
Gross 3
Net mg/i kg/day (lb/day) mg/l kg/day (lb/day) mg/i kg/day
(lb/day)
mg/i
kg/day
(lb/day)
1A11 samples are 24 hour composites except where noted.
2 Date is day sample was composited (I.e., 24 hr composite 0600 July 29 to 0600 July 30 was dated July 30.)
3 Credit is given for intake concentrations where specified In the permit or adjudicatory hearing request.
Based on grab samples.
5 This is the average flow based on the last 6 days of sampling.
6 Oue to tampering with dye injection equipment, these results are not necessarily accurate (I.e.. composite sample proportioned from erroneous flow
data.) In addition the flow for this date is probably higher than the actual rate.
7 8ased on 12-hour composites as the thickener flow decreased due to taking a BF Out of service. Loads are for 12 hrs, not for the day.
- .4
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMfl RY OF OIL AND GREASE AND PHENOL DATA’
USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLN 1T
JULY 29-AUGUST 5. 1975
Iq 4j taneouszF1ow
m’ /Da
Station Description Date
Phenol Gross Phenol
Oil
and Grease (GrossI
Net
66
57
10
10
689
182
6
598
158
37
594
157 28
477
126) 15
477
617
655
126) 3
163) 25
(173) 26
670
177 28
636
168 40
540
587
169 100
(155) 69
666
(176) 26
749
198) 37
621
662
164) 53
(175) 73
discharge Into r
Turtle Creek (O0))
8/2
8/3
8/4
0945
1350
1035
0735
36
18
16
51
4
2
Discharge from No. 1
7/29
1120
2
and 2 SF thickener
and BF cooling water
1210
1515
( 002w)
7/30
7/31
8/1
0010
0310
1830
0010
0300
2105
0015
4.1
22.1
16.6
7.1
1.4
(9.1)
48.8)
36 7
15.8
(3.2)
8/2
8/3
8/4
1550
2105
0030
0315
1800
0005
0315
1810
0310
0910
1220
15.4
17.0
18.7
25 4
63 9
40 5
17.3
27 7
32.9
48 3
34.0
37.5
(41.3
(56 0
(141 .0
(GB 2
(38.2)
61 1)
72 5)
(107.0)
Discharge from No. 1
and 2 BF thickener
(102)
7/29
7/30
1055
1357
1645
0145
0505
32
40
46
26
34
(8.7)
(10.5)
12 2)
(6.7)
(9.1)
870
980
590
290
180
34.2
28 5
39.1
27.4
5 4
6.2
(75 3)
(62.8)
(86 1)
(60 3)
(16.2)
(13.6)
868
976
587
288
178
28.5
39.0
27.3
7.3
6.1
(62.8)
(86.3)
(60.0)
(16.01
N.)
-------
TABLE 4 (cent.)
SLJ ’MAP.Y OF OIL AND GREASE AMD PHENOL DATA’
USSC EDGAR THOflSOti PLAUT
,JULY 29-AUGUST 5, 1975
7/3 1
I stantaneouszF low
m /Da
Station Description Date Tine
011
and Grease (Gross)
Phenol Gross Phenol
Net
Discharge fro i No. 1
and 2 BF thickener
(102) (cont’d)
8/1
8/2
0135
0415
2245
0140
1645
1920
0145
39
27
21
31
34
33
35
(10.2)
(7.1)
(5.7)
(8.1)
(9.0)
(8.6
(9.2
530
600
190
47
210
370
660
20.5
16.1
4 1
1.5
7 1
12.0
23.1
(45.1)
(35 6
(9 1
(3 2
(15 8)
(26 5
(50 9
8/3
8/4
0445
1910
0100
0415
1910
0415
1025
1315
47
39
41
31
39
39
45
22
(12.5
(10 5)
(10.9)
(8.1)
(10 3)
(10 3)
(11.9)
(6 0)
1000
1700
800
240
650
800
1300
1200
47 5
67 3
32.9
7.4
25.3
31.1
58.6
27.2
(104.5)
(148 3)
(72 8)
(16 3)
(55.8)
(68.6
(129.0
Discharge fro n
settling basin
(003)
7/29
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
0915
1225
1530
0020
0330
1830
0025
0315
2135
0040
1530
1830
0040
0330
305
199
194
207
243
170
238
245
515
261
255
239
214
191
(80.6)
(52 6)
(51 2)
(54 6)
(64 2)
(45 0)
(62.8
(64.7
(136.0
(69 0)
(67.4)
(63 1)
(56.6)
(50.5)
65
39
17
47
59
21
35
37
25
26
23
25
31
31
19,800
7,760
3,290
9,710
14,300
3,570
8.320
g ,o6o
12,800
6,790
5.860
5.970
6,640
5,920
(43.700)
(17,100)
(7,260)
(21,400)
(31.600)
(7,880)
(18.330)
(20,000)
(28,300)
(15,000)
(12,900)
(13,200)
(14,600)
(13,100
(60.0)
598
186
16.1
(44.7)
(35.5
44
1.4
(2
209
367
7.1
11.9
(15 7)
652
22.8
(26 2
(53 3
994
47.0
1696
66.8
792
32.7
(148 0
238
7.4
(71.9
642
25.0
(16.2)
796
30.9
(55.1)
1299
0
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF OIL AND GREASE AND PHENOL DATA 1
USSC EDC .AR THO 1SOF! PLANT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5. 1975
I stantaneous F1ow
m /DaX
Station Description Date Time x 10 (mcd)
Oil
and Grease 4 (Gross)
Phenol Gross
Phenol
net ”
mg/i
kg/day (lb/day)
ig/l kg/day (lb/day) g/1 kg/day
(lb/day)
Discharge from
settling basin (003)
(cont’d)
8/3
8/4
0015
0335
1820
0325
0925
1225
220
239
262
188
170
193
(58.2) 30
(63.1) 34
(69.3) 35
(49.7) 28
(44.8) 59
(50.9) 61
6,610
8,120
9,180
5,260
10,000
11,746
(14,600)
(17,900)
(20,300
(11,600
(22.000)
(25,900)
Discharge from No. 7
BF and sinter plant
thickeners and BF
cooling water (004)
7/29
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
0955
1310
1735
0050
0420
1930
0050
0335
2200
0100
1505
1840
0100
0345
1830
0025
0325
1840
0340
0940
1240
38
52
79
68
63
53
50
53
79
51
76
46
43
47
38
32
40
47
36
45
42
(9 9)
(11 9)
(20 9)
(18 0)
(16 8)
(14.1)
(13.1)
(14.0)
(20.9)
(13.6)
(20.2)
(12 2)
(11.3)
(12.3)
(9 9)
(8 4)
(10.5)
(12 5)
(9.5)
11.8)
11 0)
110
160
130
300
350
74
65
100
150
180
240
32
47
37
30
72
52
44
51
86
88
4.1
8.4
10.3
20.4
22.3
3.9
3.3
5.3
11.8
9.3
18 3
1.5
2.0
1.7
1.1
2.3
2.1
2.1
1.8
4.2
3.7
(9.1)
(18.5)
(22.7)
(45.0)
(49 0)
(8 7
(71
(11 7)
(26 1)
(20 5)
(40 4)
(3 3)
(4.5)
(3 8)
(2 5
(5 1
(4.5)
(4 6)
(4.0)
(8.5
(8.1
(A)
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
SU 1ARY OF OIL AND GREASE AND PIIENOL DATA 1
USSC EDGAR THOnSON PLANT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5, 1975
7 7/29
I stantaneous F1ow
m /Da
Station Description Date Time x 10 (mgd)
Phenol Gross henci
Oil
and Grease (Gross)
Net
Discharge from No.
BE thickener (104)
Discharge from
sintering plant
thIckener (204)
11.0
12 3
7.8
9.9
8.7
6.7
8.1
8.1
12.3
12 9
9.2
26
1.5
4.1
1.7
19
1.5
1.7
15
15
1.3
(2.89)
(3 32)
(2 07)
(2.60)
(2 30)
(176)
(2 13)
(2 16)
(3 27)
(3 42)
(2 43)
(0.68)
(0.39)
(1 08)
(0 46)
(0 49)
O 39)
(0 46)
(0 39)
(0 38)
(0 33)
1045
1339
1530
7/30 0130
0450
1955
7/31 0120
0405
2230
8/1 0125
1630
1915
8/2 0130
0430
1855
8/3 0050
0400
1900
8/4 0405
1010
1310
7/29 1032
1620
7/30 0130
0450
2000
7/31 0120
0450
2230
490
500
400
1100
1200
270
370
490
740
880
890
810
1300
1300
930
1200
960
1100
1500
1600
1700
5.3
6.1
3.1
10 8
10.4
1.8
3.0
40
92
11.4
8.2
2.0
2.1
5.3
1.6
2.2
14
1.9
22
2.3
2.1
(10 1)
(13 5)
(6.9)
(23 8)
(23 0)
(3.9)
(6 6)
(8 8
(20 1
(25.1)
(18 0)
(4 3)
(4.5)
(11.7)
(3 6)
(4.9)
(3 1)
(4 3)
(4 8)
(51)
(4 7)
488
496
397
1098
1198
265
366
488
736
877
889
807
1292
1294
926
1192
958
1092
1496
1599
1687
5.3
6.1
3.1
10 8
10.4
1.8
29
4.0
91
11.3
8.2
2.1
2.0
5.3
1.6
22
1.4
1.6
21
2.3
2.1
(11 7)
(13.4)
(6 9)
(23.7
(23.0
(3.9)
(6 5)
(8.8
(20 0
(25.0)
(18 1)
(4.5)
(4 3)
(11.7
(3.6
(4 9)
(3 1)
(4.2)
(4 8)
(5.1)
(4.7)
5.6 (1 47)
5.3 (1.41)
6 3 (1.67)
56 (147)
6.1 (1.61)
3.0 (0 79)
5.8 (1.53)
4.6 (1.23)
20
37
30
26
42
44
33
100
110
198
189
145
256
131
191
464
(244)
(436)
(418)
(320)
(564)
(290)
(422)
(1020)
750
4.2
(9 2)
748
4.1
(9 2)
260
1.4
(31)
257
1.4
(3 0)
300
1.9
(4 2)
298
1 9
(4 1)
240
1.4
(2.9)
238
1.3
(2.9)
130
0.8
(1.7)
125
0 8
(1 7)
88
0.3
(0.6)
84
0.26
(0.5)
160
0.9
(2.1)
158
0.9
(2.1)
(A,
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF OIL AND GREASE AND PHENOL DATA
USSC EDGAR THO1 1SOU PLAUT
JULY 29-AUGUST 5. 1975
8/1
Iqstantaneous 1ow
m /Da
Station Description Date Time x 10 (mgd)
Oil
and
mg/i
Grease 3 (Gross)
kg/day (lb/day)
Phenol Gross Pheflol
ez’
Discharge from
slnter ng plant
thIckener (204)
(contd)
8/2
0130
1630
1915
0130
0430
4.4 (1.16)
6.0 (1 58)
5 1 (1.35)
5.0 (1.30)
3.9 (1.01)
68
9
12
37
10
297
54
61
183
39
(656)
(118)
(135)
(402)
150
120
170
24
0.7
0 7
0 9
0.1
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1 9)
(0.3)
147
119
167
16
0.7
0.7
0.9
0 1
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.9)
(0.2)
1855
4.8 (1.27)
29
139
(84)
32
D.1
(0.3)
26
0.1
(0.3)
8/3
0050
0400
5 1 (1.35)
4.7 (1.25)
55
43
182
203
(307)
(621)
330
760
1.5
3.9
(3 5)
(8.6)
326
752
1.5
3.9
(3 4)
(8 5)
1900
5.3
(1.41)
24
129
(499)
330
1.5
(3.4)
328
1.5
(3.4)
8/4
0400
5.0
(1.32)
48
240
(283)
640
3.4
(7 5)
632
3 3
(7 5)
1010
1310
4.6 (1.22)
4.9 (1.30)
54
34
249
166
(528)
(548)
(367)
720
1000
1100
3.6
4.6
5.4
(7.9)
(10.1)
(11.9)
716
999
1087
3 6
4 6
5.3
(7.9)
(10.1)
(11.7)
Central pump house
intake water
1240
30
2
1530
9
4
7/30
0030
12
3
0350
13
2
1830
9
2
7/31
0030
5
03156
4
2145
12
2
8/1
0035
10
4
1525
23
3
1835
16
1
8/2
0040
14
3
0330
11
8
1815
46
6
8/3
0320
42
4
0330
38
8
1820
21
2
8/4
0335
26
8
0925
38
4
1230
1
(A,
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF Ott. AND GREASE AND PHENOL DATA’
USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
JULY 29—AUGUST 5. 1975
IqstantaneousLFlow
m’/Da
Station Description Date Time x 10 (mgd)
Oil
and Grease (Gross)
Phenol Gross
Pherol
Net’
mg/l
kg/day (lb/day)
ig/l kg/day (lb/day) ugh kg/day
(lb/day)
1 All data based on grab samples.
2 Loads are calculated using instantaneous flows.
3 Freon Extractable Material.
‘Credit is given for Intake concentration where specified In permit or adjudicatory hearing request.
5 Muirbers In parenthesis are permit designations.
6 Sarnple for 0.1 and grease was not representative due to oil buildup in forebay of pump house.
-------
TABLE 5
SU6’iARY OF METALS DATA
IJSSC EDGAR ThOMSON PLANT
JULY 30 - AUG. 5, 1975
Flow Gross’ Total
Station rn /day
Description Date 1 X 10 mqd Net mg/i kg/day
Iron
Dissolved
Iron
Total Copper
.
(lb/day)
mg/i
kg/day
(lb/day) mg/i kg/day (lb/day) mg/i kg/day
(lb/day)
mg/i
kg/day
(lb/day)_
Cooling water
8/2
G
3.7
0.15
0.06
0 09
0.05
discharge into
8/3
8
2.7
0.39
0 09
0.01
Turtle Creek
8/4
8
6.6
0.09
0 06
0.10
0.02
(001)
Discharge from
No I & 2 SF
thickener and
cooling water
(002w)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2k
8/3
8/4
8/5
651
738
579
609
613
666
689
(172)3 8
(195) G
153) G
161) 8
162) 8
176) 8
182) 8
2.0 1300
1 3 960
1 2 690
1 1 670
1.4 860
1.6 1070
3.3 2270
2870)
2110)
1540)
(1470)
(1890)
(2340)
(5010)
0 12 78
— -
0.15 87
0 09 55
0.08 49
0.04 27
0 04 28
(172)
-
(191)
(121)
(108)
(59)
(61)
0 06 39
0.06 44
0 06 35
0 04 24
0 04 24
0 04 27
0.04 28
(86
(98
(77)
(54)
(54)
(59)
(61)
0 19 124
0.19 140
0 13 75
0.20 122
0 51 313
0 28 186
0 44 303
(273)
(309)
(166)
(269)
(659)
(411
(668
0 10 65
- —
0.06 35
0.08 49
0 32 196
0 16 107
0 20 138
(143)
—
(77)
(107)
(432)
(235)
(304)
Discharge from
No. I & 2 BF
thIckener (102)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2”
8/3
8/4
8/5
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2”
8/3
8/4
8/5
36 3
27.9
34.4
53.6
39.6
39.6
36.3
(9 6) 8
(7.4) 8
(9.1) 8
(14 1) 8
(10.5) 8
(10.5) 8
(9.6) 8
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
7.1 258
5 9 165
8.3 235
3.7 198
3.3 130
5 6 221
3.3 120
5 5 200
4.5 126
7.5 258
2.6 139
1.8 71
41 162
- -
(568
363
629
(436)
(288)
(489)
(264)
(440)
(278)
(568)
(307)
(157)
(358)
-
0.16 5 8
0.12 3 3
0 07 2.4
0 07 3 8
0 02 0.77
0 03 1 20
0 04 1.5
— —
0 0
0.07 2 4
0 07 3.8
0 0
0 0
0 0
(13
(7 4
(5.3
(8 2)
(1 7)
(2.6
(3 2
—
0
(5.3)
(8 2)
0
0
0
0 21 7.6
0.17 4 7
0 07 2.4
0.04 2.1
0.04 1.5
0.04 1.5
0.04 1.4
— —
0.14 3.9
0.05 1.7
0.01 0.5
0.01 0 4
0 0
— -
(16.8
(10.5
(5.3
(4 7)
(3.5)
(3.5)
(3.2)
—
(8.6)
3.8
1.2
0.9)
0
-
3.3 120
2 4 68
2 0 69
3 2 171
6 0 237
4.5 178
6.4 232
3 27 119
2.32 65
1.93 66
3.19 170
5 93 235
439 174
- -
(265)
(148)
(151)
(377)
(523)
(393)
(513)
(261)
(143)
(147)
(376)
(517)
(383)
-
1.9 68
1.1 32
0.59 21
1 3 70
4.6 182
3.3 131
5.2 189
— —
1 1 31
0 58 20
1 31 70
4 55 183
3.30 130
5.13 186
(150)
(59)
(.5)
(154)
(430)
(288’
(416)
—
(63)
(44)
(154)
(397)
(2S3)
(410)
Discharge from
Ho. 7 BF and
sintering plant
thlcker.fng and
SF cooling
water (004)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
60.7
60.7
60.3
51 2
41 5
43 1
40 9
(16.0) 6
(16 0) 6
15.9) 8
13.5) 8
10 9) 6
11.4) 8
(10 8) 6
3 0 182
2.5 152
3.2 193
2 1 108
1.6 65
2 1 91
3.4 139
(401)
(333)
(425)
237)
146)
200)
306)
0.24 15
0.18 11
0.16 9
0 36 19
0 11 4.5
0 06 2 6
0.05 2.1
(32)
(24)
21)
40)
10)
(5 7)
(4 5)
0 20 12
0.14 9
0.15 9
0.49 25
0.13 5.4
0 07 3 0
0.05 2 1
(27)
(19)
(20)
55)
12)
(6 7)
(4.5)
0.74 45
0 54 33
1.7 104
1.4 71
0 46 19
0.22 9
0.43 17
(99)
(72)
(226)
(158)
(42)
21)
39)
0 43 26
0 19 Ii
0 85 51
0 63 33
0 16 6.6
0 03 1 3
0.07 2.8
(57)
(26)
(113)
(71)
(15)
(2 8)
(6 3)
Discharge from
No. 7 BF
thickener (104)
7/30
7/31
8/1”
8/2
8/22
8/3
8/4
8/5
11 4
9.5
14.4
5.9
1.4
2.0
1 9
1.7
(3 0) C
(2.5) C
3.8) 8
1 55) 6
0.38) C
0 52) C
0.50) 8
0 44) 9
3 0 29
3 3 27
2.6 32
2.3 11
2 3 2 8
2.0 3 3
3.5 5.7
3.4 4.9
(64)
(59)
70)
26)
6 6)
7.5)
(13)
(10)
0.41 4.0
0.41 3.3
0.32 3.9
1 4 7.0
1.2 1.5
0.60 1.0
0.41 0.7
0.18 0.26
(8 6)
(7.4)
(8 6)
15)
3.3)
2.2)
1.5)
0.6)
0.05 0 5
0.07 0 6
0.05 0.6
0.10 0.5
0.04 0.1
0.07 0.1
0.05 0.1
0.04 0.1
(1.1)
(1.3)
(1 4)
(1.1)
(0.11)
(0 3)
(0.2)
(0.1)
2.8 27
2 8 22
4 8 58
1 2 6
2 1 2.6
1 8 3
0.81 1.3
2.6 3.8
(60)
(50)
(129)
(13)
(5 8)
(5 7)
(2.9)
(8 2)
2.1 21
2 1 17
2 6 44
0 97 4 9
0.54 0 7
1.2 2 0
0.44 0 7
1 4 2 0
(45)
(38)
(93)
(11)
1 5)
4 5)
(1.5)
(4 5)
-------
TABLE 5 (cont.)
SU 1ARY OF METALS DATA
USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
JULY 30 - AUG. 5. 1975
Flow Gross’ Total
ms/day
Date 1 X_10_ __mqd Net mg/i kg/day
Iron
Dissolved
Iron
Total Copper Total Zinc Dissolved Zinc
(lb/day)_mg/i
kg/day_(lb/day)_mg/i_kg/day_(lb/day) mg/i
• mg/i kg/day (lb/day)
Stati on
Descrint4nn
j/dav
(lb/day)
Discharge from
No 7 SF
thickener (104)
(cont’d)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/2
813
8/4
8/5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.2
0.54
2 00
-
14
15
22
6
1 S
0.9
3.3
-
(30)
(34)
(50)
14)
3.3)
1.9)
7.1)
-
- -
0.24 1.9
0.32 4 3
1 45 7.3
1 19 1.5
0 49 0.9
0.35 0.6
0 13 0.2
-
(4)
(9)
16)
3.3)
1 8)
(1.3)
(0 4)
-
0 04 0.3
0.03 0.3
0 07 0.3
0.01 0.01
0 04 0 1
<0.01 0
- —
-
(0.7)
0.9)
0.8)
0.03)
(0.2)
0
-
2.8 27
2.7 22
4.7 58
1.1 5.5
2.0 2.5
1.7 2.9
0.72 1 2
— —
(60)
(48)
(128
(13
(5.5
(6 3)
(2 6)
-
- -
2.1 17
3.6 44
0.95 4.8
0.53 0 7
1.2 2 0
0.43 0 7
1.4 2.0
-
(37)
(98)
(10)
(1.4)
(4 4)
(1.5)
(4.4)
Discharge from
sintering plant
thickener (204)
7/31
5.1
(1.3) 0
N
16
14.6
80
74
(177)
(162)
0 54 2.7
0.37 1.9
(6 0)
(4.0)
0.05 0.3
0.03 0.2
(0 5)
(0.3)
3 2 16
3.16 16
(36)
(35)
0.26 1.3
0.23 Li
(2.9
(2.3
Discharge from
60? thickener
and coolIng
water (010)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
25.0
26.1
30.2
22.7
20.6
21.1
20.8
(6.61) 0
(6.8.8) 6
(7.96) 0
(6.01) 6
(5.46) 0
(5.60) 6
(5.50) 0
5.5
2.5
4 8
1.6
2.1
39
4.8
137
65
145
36
44
822
100
(302)
(143
(319
(81)
(95)
(1808)
(220)
0 01 0 3
0 01 0.3
<0 01 0
0.06 1.4
0 03 0 6
0.04 0.9
0 07 1.5
(0 5)
(0 6)
0
(3)
1 4
1 9
3 2
0.04 1.0
0.07 1 8
0.04 1.2
0.04 0.9
0 04 0.9
0 15 3 2
0.04 0.9
2.2)
4 0)
2.7)
2 0)
1 8)
6 9)
1.8)
0.12 3 0
0 08 2.1
0 13 3 9
0.07 1.6
0 06 1 2
1 7 36
0.11 2.3
(6.6)
(4 6)
(8.7)
3.5)
2 7)
(79)
(5 1)
‘0 01
<0 01
<0 01
<0.01
‘0.01
<0.01
<0 01
Discharge from
SOP thickener
(110)
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
12.3
13.9
13.9
13.3
12.9
12 0
12.9
(3.2) 0
(37) 6
(3.7) 6
3.5) 0
3.4) 0
3.2) 6
3.4) 6
1.5
31
1.6
1.8
2.6
3 9
2.3
19
43
22
24
33
47
30
(41)
(95)
(45)
(53)
(75)
(103)
(66)
0.C9 1.1
003 0.4
0.05 0 7
0 06 0 8
0 01 0.2
0.10 1.2
0.01 0 2
(2 4)
(0.9)
(1.5)
1 8)
0.3)
2.7)
(0 3)
0 08 1.0
0.03 0.4
0 03 0 4
0 04 0.5
0.04 0 5
0 03 0 3
0 04 0.5
(2.1)
(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.3)
(1 1)
(0 8)
(1.1)
0.01 0.1
0.01 0.2
0.03 0.4
<0.01 -
<0.01 —
<0 01 -
<0.01 -
0.3
03)
0.9)
-
—
—
—
0 01 0.1
<0.01 —
0 03 0.4
<0 01 -
<0.01 —
<0 01 —
<0.01 -
(0.3)
—
(0.9)
—
—
•
-
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
813
8/4
8/5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
1.7
0 82
0 70
1.1
2 4
-
0
24
ii
9
15
28
-
0
(53)
(25)
21
32
63
-
- -
-------
TABLE 6
SUI 1ARY OF SELF MONITORING DATA
USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
PARAMETER
Station 2 Temp TSS NH CN-T CM-A Phenol O&G Iron TOC
Description Dates pH mg/i mq 1 mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i
Cooling Water Discharge 1/22- Range 6.2-10.4 8-22 0.004-0.033 0-0 007 0 12-1.3 0-899.8 4.3-22.2
into Turtle Creek (001) 5/5 Avg 0.013 0.002 0 29 126 10 3
#Sampies 6 4 8 7 8 8 6
Discharge from No 1 and 1/22 Range 6.9-7.6 2-40 0.005-0 097 0.003-0.074 0 018-1.225 2.9-12 7
2SF Thickener and BE 6/16 Avg 140 0.053 0029 0161 733
Coohng Water (002) if Samples 12 10 1 10 10 10 8
Discharge from No. 1 and 2/24— Range 3.0-169.0 0-40.0 0.137-16.68 0.062-16.30 0.018-3 44 5.7-14.0
2 BE Tiuckener (102) 5/19 Avg 39 7 12.9 3 1 2 9 0 44 9.8
if Samples i 19 19 19 19 2
Discharge from Settling 1/23— Range 23-2850
Basin at Ingot Mold 6/9 Avg 846 0.006 0 044 0 116
Foundry (202) P Samples 6 1 1
Discharge from Settling 1/22- Range 7.4—8.8 12—29 14-411 0.003-0.410 0—0.307 0.016-0 246 0.07—25.6 1.7—34.3
Basin (003) 6/16 Avg 106 0 157 0 109 0 068 8.1 12 8
if Samples 6 5 19 9 9 9 29 9
Discharge from No 7 1/15— Range 6.8-10.8 6—35 0.311-2.991 0.058-2 325 0.018-0 934 7.6—23.6
SF and Sinter Plant 6/23 Avg 1.12 0.889 0 266 16.1
Thickeners and BE if Samples 24 23 10 10 10 9
Cooling Water (004)
Discharge from No 7 1/16— Range 7.2-11.7 1-98 0-50 1.07-20.84 0.238-19.31 0.030-4 40 12.0-19.4
BE Thickener (104) 5/19 Avg 29 18 6 22 4 58 0 89 16 6
P Samples 2 25 23 24 21 23 3
Discharge from Slntering 1/16— Range 7.0—7.8 34-260 0-50 0.423-18.32 0.017—17.46 0.010-1.01 5.8-30.2
Plant Thickener (204) 5/19 Avg 104 18 4 95 4 39 0 15 18
if Samples 2 25 24 25 23 24 2
Discharge fron BOP 1/22— Range 6.8—11.5 6-50 16-69 0.004-2.991 0-2.325 0.001-0 492 0.03—0.30 1.1-23.8
Thickener and Cooling 6/16 Avg 42 0 341 0 259 0 080 0 09 7.3
Water (010) if Samples 15 13 2 9 9 9 8 9
Discharge from SOP 1/23- Range 6.8-11.7 6-25 0-288
Thickener (110) 6/30 Avg 34
P Samples 8 3 35
Central Pump House 1/15- Range 2.4-7.6 3-25 4-226 0-1.6 0-0.103 0-0 051 0-0.35 0.79 0-0 18 0.5-14.9
Intake Water 6/30 Avg 35 0 82 0.023 0.008 0 04 5.3 0.083 6 8
if Samples 26 21 41 32 32 29 33 36 10 12
1 Data prozn.d.ed by USSC tn Aug. 29, 1975. Trwismcttai to Inforcamant Director EPA Regi.on irr from Jamce £. Ha’rttlton, III .
2 Datc8 of Sample collection not provcded for all data; therefore, datea are there that were reported.
-------
TABLE 7
cONPAR SON OF USSC PROPOSED EFFLUENT UMITATIONS AND SURVEY DATA
(JSSC EDGAR THOI S0N PLANT
Total Suspended SolidS Total Cyanide 1. ronia Phenol Oil ard Grease
Daily Averale Oaii M xinuri Daily Averaqe Daily Kaximun Daily Averane Dali P4axisum Daily Avera9e Daily Manirun Daily Averoçe Daily axi..n
Station kg/day (ib/ aa) kc/day (lb/day) frIday (1bJ4a3 T Rg/day (lb/ T Rg [ d y (lo/ ay) g ay Tlb/d y) to/day (1b/ ay) kg/da. (Ib/doy) kolday (lb/aay) kG/cay (lb/day )
1O2 Proposed Lim1tationS 2578 (5678) 7743 (17.034) 238 (524) 714 (1572) lOd2 (2383) 324.6 (7149) 82 z (181) 246.6 (543)
Survey Data: 434 (956) 1230 (2720) 88 (195) 144 (3)7) 808 (1783) 1)60 (2550) 24 (52) 46 (101)
No. Days Lieu kittens
Exceeded 0/7 0/7 0/7 0/7
202 Proposed Limitations: 3393 (7465) 10.179 (22.365)
Survey Data: 248 (548) 310 (675)
No Days Limititions
Exceeded 0/7
003 Proposed Limitations: 44.448 (97.874) 133.464 (293.620) 2614 (5750) 7842 (17.250)
Sarvey 0ata 14.700 (32.300) 20.000 (44,000) 8800 (19,400) 10.300 (22.700
No. Days Limitations
Exceeded 0/7 6/7
104 Proposed Limitations: 4095 (9021) 12.288 (27.063) 70.4 (155) 211.2 (465) 559 (1232) 1677 (3696) 43.1 (95) 1.29.3 (288)
Survey Data 20.4 (45) - iS (166) (104) (229) 442 (977) 92.4 (204) 287 (632) 4.6 (10.1) 7.7 (16.9)
Ho. Daja Limitations
(acceded 0/7 2/7 0/7 0/1
ZO4 Proposed Li e uitsticns 180 (396) 540 (1188) 3.3 (7.3) 10 (21.9) 48.6 (107) 146 (321) 2.3 (5. )) 6.9 (15.3)
Survey Data 270 (595) 557 (1230) 58 (128) 180 (398} 124 (273) 257 (566) 22 (418) 4.5 (9.9)
P lo. Days Limitations
Exceeded. 2/7 6/7 3/7 0/7
1)0 Proposed Limitations: 585 (1287) 1755 (38.61)
Survey Data 313 (690) 4a2 (1090)
No. Days Limitations
Exceeded. 0/7
1 Loadle9s bued on sit disclsarg..
-------
38
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF TOTAL CHROMIUM DATA
USSC EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
DISCHARGE 010
JULY 23 - AUG. 5, 1975
Station
Description
Date
Flow
Total Chromium
3
m /day X
10
(mgd)
mg/i
kg/day
(lb/day)
Discharge from
thickener and
water (010)
BOP
cooling
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
25.0
26.0
30.2
22.7
6.61
6.88
7.96
6.01
<
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.5
—
0.6
0.4
(1.10)
—
(1.32)
(1.00)
.
8/3
8/4
8/5
20.7
21.1
20.8
5.46
5.57
5.50
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.6
0.9
0.4
(1.36)
(1.86)
(0.92)
Intake water
7/30
7/31
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
-
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
-
-------
TABLE 9
RECOMMENDED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1
EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
Measurement
Sanipi e
Outfall Parameter Frequency
Type
Discharge from Ingot Oil & Grease; TSS 1/month Grab
Mold Cooling & Tar Flow 1/month Continuously measured
Pumps (001) & recorded during day.
Discharge from Ingot TSS 2 2/month 24-hour composite
Mold Foundry and BF Flow 2/month Continuously measured
Cooling Water (OOZE) & recorded during day.
Discharge from Settling TSS 2/month 24—hour composite
Basin Ingot Mold Flow 2/month Continuously measured
Foundry (202) & recorded during day.
Discharge from No. 1 & 2 Total Cyanide 2/month 3 24-hour composite
BF thickener and BF Flow 2/month Continuously measured
Cooling Water (002W) & recorded during day.
Discharge from No. 1 & 2 TSS 4 1/week 24-hour composite
BF Thickener (102) Total Cyanide 1/week 24—hour composite
Phenol 1/week 24—hour composite
Ammonia 1/week 24-hour composite
Total Zinc 1/week 24—hour composite
Flow Continuous Continuously measured
& recorded during day.
Discharge from Settling TSS 3/week 24-hour composite
Basin (003)(filter 0&G 3/week 3 Grabs/24 Hours
backwash, hot forming Flow Continuous Measured & recorded
slab scale pit & BF
cooling water)
-------
TABLE 9 (cont.)
RECOMMENDED MONITORING REQU I REMENTS’
EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
Measurement
Sample
Outfall Parameter Frequency
Type
Discharge from No. 7 BF 5 Total Cyanide 2/month 24-hour composite
and Sinter Plant Thickeners Flow 2/month Continuously measured
BF Cooling water (004) & recorded during day
Discharge from No. 7 TSS 1/week 24-hour composite
SF Thickener (104) Total Cyanide 1/week 24-hour composite
Phenol 1/week 24-hour composite
Ammonia 1/week 24-hour composite
Total Zinc 1/week 24-hour composite
Flow Continuous Measured & recorded
Discharge from Sintering TSS 1/week 24-hour composite
Plant Thickener (204) Total Cyanide 1/week 24-hour composite
Phenol 1/week 24-hour composite
Ammonia 1/week 24-hour composite
Total Zinc 1/week 24-hour composite
O&G 1/week 3 grabs/24 hours
Flow Continuous Measured & recorded
Discharge from BOP Thickener TSS 1/week 24-hour composite
and Cooling Tower Blowdown Flow - 1/week Continuously measured
(010) & recorded during day
Discharge from BOP TSS 1/week 24-hour composite
Thickener (110) F1ow Continuous Measured & recorded
-------
TABLE 9 (cont.)
RECOMMENDED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 1
EDGAR THOMSON PLANT
Measurement
Sample
Outfall Parameter Frequency
Type
‘Temperature and pH to be monitored a minimum of 4 times each day samples are collected.
2 Discharge 002E and 202 are to be sampled the same day.
3 Discharge 002W is to be sampled on days when 102 is sampled.
In addition to these requirements, samples are to be collected the day a blast furnace Is either
taken out or put into service.
5 Discharge 004 is to be sampled on days when 104 and 204 are sampled.
Note: To determine total waste loads discharged, all sampling must be done the same day.
-------
42
REFERENCES
1 Letter dated August 29, 1975 with attachments from Mr. James L. Hamilton III,
Manager Environmental Control Water, United States Steel Corporation to Mr.
Stephen R. Wassersug, Director, Enforcement Division, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III.
2 Letter dated August 1, 1975, with attachments from Mr. James L. Hamilton III,
Manager Environmental Control Water, United States Steel Corporation to Mr.
Stephen R. Wassersug, Director, Enforcement Division, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III.
3 ”Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment for United States Steel Corporation
at Edgar Thomson Works,” preDared by Hydro-Technic Corporation, 641 Lexington
Avenue, New York, N. Y. , 1975.
-------
43
APPENDICES
A Study Methods
B Analytical Procedures and Quality Control
C Chain of Custody Procedures
0 Letter: Dye Injection Equipment
E Letter: Oil Spill
F Letter: Reconnaissance Visit - El Plant
-------
APPENDIX A
STUDY METHODS
A. Sampling and Compositing Techniques
Information was obtained through interviews with plant officials on
water pollution control practices and in-plant surveys.
Influent water samples from the Monongahela River, collected from the
forebay of the pumphouse, were time composited (i.e., equal portions from
each grab sample). Effluent samples, except Discharge 001, were flow
composited according to instantaneous flow readings obtained at the point
of collection. Aliquots for the composites were collected manually every
three hours. Discharge 001 was grab sampled four times during the survey.
Samples for chemical analyses were collected in clean containers. Each
time a sample was collected fie d measurements of pH, temperature and con-
ductivity were made. Samples were delivered to the NEIC mobile laboratory
(McKeesport, Pennsylvania) and analyzed for selected parameters (e.g., oil
and grease and total suspended solids). Appropriate preserved aliquots
were shipped to the NEIC laboratory (Denver, Colorado) and analyzed for
total and amenable cyanide, heavy metals, ammonia, phenolic materials and
organics. All samples collected were split with USSC.
B. Flow Measurement Techniques
Continuous flow monitoring of discharges is specified in the NPDES
permit proposed by Region III, EPA. Flow measurements of selected discharge
points by NEIC personnel commenced July 29, 1975.
The procedure used at these points, with the exception of Outfalls 202
and 001, was the tracer dilution method. The flow through Outfall 202 was
measured using a Marsh McBirney portable water meter to determine velocities
from which the flow was calculated. Outfall 001 was surcharged at the
point of discharge. Although positive flow to the river was obvious,
accurate flow measurement and representative sampling was not possible.
Rhodamine WI dye produced exclusively by duPont DeNemours, E. I.
and Company, was selected as the tracer because of its low sorptive tendency and
high stability to varying pH conditions.
Injection Procedure
Dye was injected upstream at a location which would allow thorough
mixing at the samp j q station. A metering pump* was used for dye
injection. Tygon tubing was used to connect the pump to the dye
*Model RPIBG7 pump manufactured by Fluid Metering Inc.
**Trade name.
-------
storage container and also for the discharge line. A hypodermic needle
was inserted into the end of the discharge line to provide back pressure
on the pump and prevent air bubble formation in the line. Dye injection
rates were measured twice per day to assure a uniform rate.
Fluorometric Analysis Procedure
All dye samples for flow measurements were analyzed using a G. K.
Turner Model III fluorometer. A calibration curve was developed for each
scale by plotting fluorescence readings against dye standards of known
concentration. The standards were measured each day to verify that the
relationship of fluorescence readings to known dye concentration remained
stable (Table 1).
Samples for fluorometric analyses were collected in a stainless steel
1.83 liter breaker (rinsed with a portion of the waste stream three times
before collection of the sample) and poured into a 125 ml polyethylene
sample container (also rinsed three times with sample before collection).
Samples for background fluorescence were collected upstream of each
injection location. Fluorescence readings at flow sampling points were
then corrected for the background fluorescence.
-------
TABLE 1
DAILY STANDARD CHECK
Standard Concen- Concentration
tration (Initial, Corrected Fluoro- (Calculated from
Date Time ppb) meter Reading fluorometer, ppb )
7/29/75 0820 10 36.9 10.2
7/30/75 0812 25 21.2 24.8
7/31/75 0852 25 22.0 25.5
8/1/75 1436 25 22.0 25.5
8/2/75 1500 25 21.2 24.6
8/3/75 1255 25 21.0 24.5
8/4/75 1035 25 21.2 24.6
-------
Gravimetri c
Distill ation,
Colorimetric
Automated Colori-
metric
Reference
EPA Methods for Chemical
Analyses of Water and Waste-
water, 1971, page 83
ibid., page 278
ibid., page 41
EPA Methods for Chemical
Analyses of Water & Wastes,
1974, page 243
ibid., page
Standard Methods 1
page
ibid., page
Samples for organic chemical pollutant analysis were collected in clean,
solvent rinsed one-gallon glass containers. These samples were air
freighted to Denver and extracted tith methylene chloride. The extract
was dried with anhyd. sodium sulfate, concentrated, exchanged into acetone,
and analyzed by hydrogen flame ionization gas chromatography. Those sam-
ples that showed adequate response were set aside for characterization by
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES AND QUALITY CONTROL
Samples collected during this survey were analyzed, where appropriate,
according to procedures approved by EPA for the monitoring industrial
effluents.]) The analytical procedures for characterizing trace or-
ganic chemical pollutants are described below. The remaining procedures
are listed in the following table.
Parameter Method _________
Al, Cr, Fe, Pb, Atomic Absorption
Sn, Zn, Cu
TsS
Cyanide
Phenol
Aninon a
Oil & Grease
BOD
Hexavalent Chromi urn
Automated Phenate
Freon Extraction
Serial Dilution
(Winkler-Azide)
Colorimetri c
168
3th Ed.,
254
489
ibid., page 429
-------
combined gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The GC/MS analyses
were carried out with a Finnigan Model 1015 Quadrapole Mass Spectrometer
and a Systems Industries Model 150 computerized data system. Mass spectra
were compared to data files in the NIH Computer System and also to listings
in the Eight Peak Index of Mass p ctra , Second Edition, 1974, compiled
by the Mass Spectrometry Data Center. All identifications are considered
preliminary until authentic standards of the suspected chemical compounds
can be obtained and analyzed under similar conditions to match the mass
spectrum and gas chromatographic retention time. This procedure does not
detect highly volatile organic chemical pollutants since their presence
is masked by the extraction solvent.
Reliability of the analytical results was documented through an active
Analytical quality Control Program. As part of this program, replicate
analyses were normally performed with every tenth sample to ascertain the
reproducibility of the results. In addition, where appropriate, every
tenth sample was spiked with a known amount of the constituents to be
measured and reanalyzed to determine the percent recovery. These results
were evaluated in regard to past AQC data on the precision, accuracy, and
detection limits of each test. On the basis of these findings, all ana-
lytical results reported for the survey were found to be acceptable with
respect to the precision and accuracy control of this laboratory.
11 Federal Register , Vol. 40, No. 111, June 9, 75.
-------
APPENDIX C
ENVIRONIME t 4TA1 PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Enforcement
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Building 53, Box 25227, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
July 24, 1974
CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURES
General :
The evidence gathering portion of a survey should be characterized by the
minimum number of samples required to give a fair representation of the
effluent or water body from which taken. To the extent possible, the quan-
tity of samples and sample locations will be determined prior to the survey.
Chain of Custody procedures must be followed to maintain the documentation
necessary to trace sample possession from the time taken until the evidence
is introduced into court. A sample is in your “custody if:
1. It is in your actual physical possession, or
2. It is in your view, after being in your physical possession, or
3. It was in your physical possession and then you locked it up in
a manner so that no one could tamper with it.
All survey participants will receive a copy of the survey study plan and will
be knowledgeable of its contents prior to the survey. A pre-survey briefing
will be held to re—appraise all participants of the survey objectives, sample
locations and Chain of Custody procedures. After all Chain of Custody samples
are collected, a de-briefing will be held in the field to determine adherence
to Chain of Custody procedures and whether additional evidence type samples
are required.
Sample Collection :
1. To the maximum extent achievable, as few people as possible should
handle the sample.
2. Stream and effluent samples shall be obtained, using standard field
sampling techniques.
3. Sample tags (Exhibit I) shall be securely attached to the sample
container at the time the complete saz ple is collected and shall
contain, at a minimum, the following information: station number,
station location, date taken, time ta en, type of sample, sequence
number (first sample of the day - sequence No. 1, second sample -
sequence No. 2, etc.), analyses requh’ed and samplers. The tags
must be legibly filled out in ballpoimt (waterproof ink).
-------
Chain of Custody Procedures (Continued)
Sample Collection (Continued )
4. Blank samples shall also be taken with preservatives which will
be analyzed by the laboratory to exclude the possibility of
container or preservative contamination.
5. A pre-printed, bound Field Data Record logbook shall be main-
tained to record field measurements and other pertinent infor-
mation necessary to refresh the sampler’s memory in the event
he later takes the stand to testify regarding his action’s
during the evidence gathering activity. A separate set of field
notebooks shall be maintained for each survey and stored in a
safe place where they could be protected and accounted for at
all times. Standard formats (Exhibits II and III) have been
established to minimize field entries and include the date, time,
survey, type of samples taken, volume of each sample, type of
analysis, sample numbers, preservatives sample location and
field measurements such as temperature, conductivity, DO, pH,
flow and any other pertinent information or observations. The
entries shall be signed by the field sampler. The preparation
and conservation of the field loybooks during the survey will
be the responsibility of the survey coordinator. Once the
survey is complete, field logs will be retained by the survey
coordinator, or his designated representative, as a part of the
permanent record.
6 . The field sampler is responsible for the care and custody of the
samples collected until properly dispatched to the receiving lab-
oratory or turned over to an assigned custodian. He must assure
that each container is in his physical possession or in his view
at all times, or locked in such a place and manner that no one can
tamper with it.
7. Colored slides or photographs should be taken which would visually
show the outfall sample location and any water pollution to sub-
stantiate any conclusions of the investigation. Written documenta-
tion on the back of the photo should include the signature of the
photographer, time, date and site location. Photographs of this
nature, which may be used as evidence, shall also be handled
recognizing Chain of Custody procedures to prevent alteration.
Transfer of Custody and Shipment :
1. Samples will be accompanied by a Chain of Custody Record which
includes the name of the survey, samplers signatures, station
number, station location, date, time, type of sample, sequence
number, number of containers and analyses required (Fig. IV).
When turning over the possession of samples, the transferor and
transferee will sign, date and time the sheet. This record sheet
-------
Chain of Custody Procedures (Continued)
allows transfer of custody of a group of samples in the field,
to the mobile laboratory or when samples are dispatched to the
NFIC - Denver laboratory. When transferring a portion of the
samples identified on the sheet to the field mobile laboratory,
the individual samples must be noted in the column with the
signature of the person relinquishing the samples. The field
laboratory person receiving the samples will acknowledge receipt
by si9ning in the appropriate column.
2. The field custodian or field sampler, if a custodian has not
been assigned, will have the responsibility of properly pack-
aging arid dispatching samples to the proper laboratory for
analysis. The uDispatch portion of the Chain of Custody Record
shall be properly filled out, dated, and signed.
3. Samples will be properly packed in shipment containers such as
ice chests, to avoid breakage. The shipping containers will be
padlocked for shipment to the receiving laboratory.
4. All packages will be accompanied by the Chain of Custody Record
showing identification of the contents. The original will accom-
pany the shipment, and a copy will be retained by the survey
coordinator.
5. If sent by mail, register the package with return receipt request-
ed. If sent by common carrier, a Government Bill of Lading should
be obtained. Receipts from post offices and bills of lading will
be retained as part of the permanent Chain of Custody documentation.
6. If samples are delivered to the laboratory when appropriate person-
nel are not there to receive them, the samples must be locked in
a designated area within the laboratory in a manner so that no
one can tamper with them. The same person must then return to the
laboratory and unlock the samples and deliver custody to the
appropriate custodian.
Laboratory Custody Procedures :
1. The laboratory shall designate a “sample custodian.” An alternate
will be designated in his absence. In addition, the laboratory
shall set aside a “sample storage security area.” This should be
a clean, dry, isolated room which can be securely locked from the
outside.
2. All samples should be handled by the minimum possible number of
persons.
3. All incoming samples shall be received only by the custodian, who
will indicate receipt by signing the Chain of Custody Record Sheet
-------
Chain of Custody Procedures (Continued)
accompanying the samples and retaining the sheet as permanent
records. Couriers picking up samples at the airport, post
office, etc. shall sign jointly with the laboratory custodian.
4. Immediately upon receipt, the custodian will place the sample
in the sample room, which will be locked at all times except
when samples are removed or replaced by the custodian. To the
maximum extent possible, only the custodian should be permitted
In the sample room.
5. The custodian shall ensure that heat-sensitive or light-sensitive
samples, or other sample materials having unusual physical
characteristics, or requiring special handling, are properly
stored and maintained.
6. Only the custodian will distribute samples to personnel who are
to perform tests.
7. The analyst will record in his laboratory notebook or analytical
worksheet, identifying information describing the sample, the
procedures performed and the results of the testing. The notes
shall be dated and indicate who performed the tests. The notes
shall be retained as a permanent record in the laboratory and
should note any abnormalities which occurred during the testing
procedure. In the event that the person who performed the tests
is not available as a witness at time of trial, the government
may be able to introduce the notes in evidence under the Federal
Business Records Act.
8. Standard methods of laboratory analyses shall be used as described
in the “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of
Pollutants,” 38 F.R. 28758, October 16, 1973. If laboratory
personnel deviate from standard procedures, they should be prepared
to justify their decision during cross-examination.
9. Laboratory personnel are responsible for the care arid custody of
the sample once it is handed over to them and should be prepared
to testify that the sample was in their possession and view or
secured in the laboratory at all times from the moment it was
received from the custodian until the tests were run.
10. Once the sample testing is completed, the unused portion of the
sample together with all identifying tags and laboratory records,
should be returned to the custodian. The returned tagged sample
will be retained in the sample room until it is required for trial.
Strip charts and other documentation of work will also be turned
over to the custodian.
-------
Chain of Custody Procedures (Continued)
11. Samples, tags and laboratory records of tests may be destroyed
only upon the order of the laboratory director, who will first
confer with the Chief, Enforcement Specialist Office, to make
certain that the information is no longer required or the samples
have deteriorated.
-------
EXHIBIT I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL EN FORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
V
I
EPA, NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
_________Metals
D.o.
Eact.
_________Other
Samplers:
N ___
Front
/
N
Back
-------
EXHIBIT II
SURVEY, PHASE , DATE _____
TYPE OF SAMPLE
ANAl YSES
R E Q U I P E D
NUMBER
STATIONDESCRIPTION
>
2
B
PRESERVATIVE
v)
T T
EMARXS
-------
EAnIDIT
FIELD DATA RECORD
TIME
TEMPERATURE
°C
CONDUCTIVITY
j.tmhos/cm
pH
S.U.
D.O.
mg/i
or F’ow
Ft. or CFS
STATION
NUMBER
DATE
Samplers:
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Enforcement
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER— DENVER
Building 53, Box 25227, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
SURVEY
SAMPLERS: (Signature)
STATION
NUMBER
STATION LOCATION
DATE
TIME
SAMPLE TYPE
Waler —
Air
Comp Grab
SEQ
NO
NO OF
CONTAINERS
ANALYSIS
REQUIRED
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Received by (Signature)
Dote/Time
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Received by. (Signature)
Date/Time
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Received by: (Signature)
Date/Time
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Received by Mobile Laboratory for field
analysis: (signature)
Date/Time
Dispatched by: (Signature) Date/Time Received for Laboratory by:
Date/Time
Method of Shipment:
Distribution: Orig — Accompany Shipment
Copy— Survey Coordinator Field Fibs GPO 854-809
-------
APPENDIX D
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTDN AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORC MEN1T
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER— DENVER
BI.JILDING 53, COX 25721, DENVER FEDERAL CEF’4TER
DENVER, COLORADO 30225
Chief, Field Operations Branch DATE: August 11, 1975
DM James 1. Hathe’.:ay
3JECT: Tampering with Dye Injection Equipment, August 1, 1975
Mr. Dan Gilligan, Coordinator of Environmental Surveys, the
Chester Engineers, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, was requested by U.S.
Steel to accompany the NEIC flow crew (t• essers. Walz and Folmsbee)
and evaluate our flow monitoring procedures. Mr. Gilligan collected
duplicate samples and requested information on the tracer solution
injection rates from Mr. Walz. Mr. Walz did not provide this infor-
mation but referred him to the writer.
While the flow crew was checking the samples on the fluorometer,
Mr. Gilligan indicated he was leaving. However, he returned to the
dye injection point(s) to personnally check, without our permission
or knowledge, the pump injection rate(s). To do this, it was necessary
for him to remove the injection hose from the discharge line. As a
result the flow calculated for the east discharge of the Mo. 1 and 2
blast furnace thickener increased from approximat&y 7 to 59 nigd because
of the reduced dye concentration in the outfall line. Mr. Gilligans
tampering invalidated this 1 low data point as well as the composite
sample for the entire day —
A flow increase of the calculated magnitude (i.e. from 7 to 59 rngd)
would have been readily noted by the flo i crew. The dye injection rate
was checked and determined not to have changed since it was previously
monitored at 2 a.m. August 1, 1975. U.S. Steel personnel were contacted
on August 3, 1975 and questioned about Mr. Gilligans activities. They
admitted that Mr. Gilligan had checked some of the dye injection rates.
Subsequently the writer contacted representatives of U.S. Steel and
Chester Engineers who agreed that this would not happen again.
On August 4, 1975, Mr. Gilligan phoned Mr. Walz at the Edgar
Thomson Plant and denied tampering with or measuring dye injection
rates. He seemed very upset that U.S. Steel personnel had informed us
of his activities.
zJ
James L. Hatheway
j/ The comoosite sample was flow Qroportjoned with a larger aliquot
hAinci iis d on the calculated 59 tnqd 1 10w.
-------
APPEFIDIX E
ENVIRO ME TAROTECTR AGENICY
OFFICE of: NFORCEMENIT
NATIONIAL FIELD I ’ -1VESTIG4TIO IS CENITER— DENIVER
BUILDING 53, BOX 2522], DE ’/ER FEDCRAI CEN ER
DENVER. COLORADO E0225
Chief, Field Operations Branch DATE August 8, 1975
FROM J. HathewaY
SUBJECT. Oil Spill from the U. S. Steel, Edgar Thomson Plant, July 26, 1975
On Saturday afternoOn, July 26, 1975, Messrs. Larry Walz and Craig
Edlund were determining the time of travel from the thickener serving
blast furnaces o. 1 and 2 to the Monongahela River (Discharge 002’)
using Rhodamine WT dye. As the outfall is submerged, samples were
collected from the discharge line next to the river and checked for
the presence of dye.
The sample collected at approximatelY 1600 hours contained large globules
of oil and grease. Mr. George Pitcairn, U. S. Steel, who was present at
the time the sample was collected, in nediatelY left to determine the source
of this oil and grease.
Mr. Walz notified the writer of the subject spill and collected samples 2
of the discharge at 1745 hours for oil and grease analysis. The NEIC
boat was launched and receiving water surface samples were collected
upstream and do .mstream of the discharge. An oil film was visually
observed on the Monongahela River for an estimated 3 miles downstream
of the discharge with at least 25 percent of the water- surface being
covered by the oily film. The U. S. Coast Guard was notified by U. S.
Steel personnel of the spill late the day the spill occurred.
Subsequent to the spill, U. S. Steel personnel stated that maintenance
had been required on the No. 1 blast furnace and a tar line from the furnace
was cleaned. The oily ,aste material ias allo’,:ed to enter a drain
instead of being discharged into 50 gallon drums as is the “norma1
procedure. The spill ias due to negligence on the part of a U. S. Steel
Corporation employee.
Results show that the discharge contained 31 mg/i of oil and grease 3
to the Monongahela River. The oil concentration on the River surface
was determined to be 2 mg/i upstream of the discharge increasing to
4800 mg/l downstream 5 .
J. HathewaY
-------
1002 containS the overflo’J from the thickener, cooling water
from blast furnace No. 2 and cooling water from the No. 2 po’.ler
station.
2Efflucnt samples were split with U. S. Steel personnel.
3 Freon extractable material.
kTiine was based on 1.5 hourS, e.g., 1615 to 1745 hours.
5 The downstream sample was collected approximatelY 300 yards
downstream of the 002 outfall.
-------
APPENDIX F
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFOI CEMENT
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER— DENVER
BUILDiNG 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENIER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
1. P. Gallagher, Director DATE July 8, 1975
HEIC-Denver
OM E. J. Struzeski, Jr.
Industrial Waste Consul a t
BJ(CT Inspection Visit Made to Edgar Thomson Plant of the Edgar Thomson-Irvin
Works, United States Steel Corporation — Pittsburgh Area, June 23 and
25, 1975.
Attendees on E. Thomson Plant Visit, June 23, 1975
IJSEPA: J. Vincent USSC: Fred Thomas
J. Hatheway Bob Dunham
E. Struzeski George Pitcairn
M. Miller Basil Procyk
Jeff Davis
Bob Suzanski (photographer),
Research, Monroevi lie
EPA, NEIC-Denver and Region III personnel made a detailed inspection
of the E. Thomson Plant on Monday, June 23. A follow-up meeting was
held with USSC on June 25 attempting to secure additional data on the
joint facilities but we were largely unsuccessful at the latter session.
Background, Production
The E. Thomson Plant is a basic steel production facility for USSC manu-
facturing iron and steel for ingots which in turn, are rolled into slabs
in a large-size hot rolling mill. These slabs, up to 44 inches in width,
are conveyed by rail to the Irvin Plant of USSC. The Irvin Plant in turn,
converts the slabs into various finished steel and tin products. The
Braddock primary steel mill is approximately 100 years old, with first
operations starting in 1875. Significant modernization has taken place
at the El Plant. A two-unit BOP shop has been recently instal ted, re-
placing an old 16-furnace open-hearth shop. Air pollution control equip--
nient on the BOP shop is reported as relatively modern for the industry.
In addition to the basic oxygen furnaces for producing steel ingots,
Edgar Thomson has five blast furnaces, the 44—inch slab mill cited
above, and an ingot mold foundry. Slabs are almost entirely shipped
to the Irvin finishing plant. The steel ingots not sent to the 44-
inch slab mill are shipped to other USSC mills or direct to consumers.
El produces 15 different ingot sizes. The El mill is principally located
in the Borough of North Braddock, a population center of about 10,000
people. Directly west is the Borough of Braddock with about 8,000 per-
sons. The following description is taken from the public-noticed NPDES
permit of July, 1974 for the E. Thomson Plant.
-------
1. P. Gallagher, Director July 8, 1975
The maximum single month production over the last five years is given
as:
8,800 TPD iron
6,900 TPD steel
6,700 TPD hot formed slab steel
Ingot mold foundry and sinter plant production figures were not available
at the time of permit writing. Two intake stations supply the ET facility
with up to 210 MGD water withdrawn from the Monongahela River. Some 0.1
MGD or less of spent waters are discharged to Turtle Creek through
outfall 001, and the remainder of wastewaters is released back into the
tionongahela through outfalls 002, 003, 004 and 010. The ET Plant is
located on the right bank of the Monongahela River facing downstream
approximately 11 miles upstream from the Monongahela River confluence
with the Alleghany, the two serving to form the Ohio River in the Pitts-
burgh area.
Description of Outfalls
Preliminary description of each of the “permitted” outfalls is described
below:
001 - NCCW from tar pumps, untreated, enters No. Versailles
storm sewer which in turn, runs into Turtle Creek.
002 - Includes “treated” process wastes from ingot mold foundry;
untreated NCCW from boiler house, power station and blast
furnaces; and treated process wastes from blast furnaces 1
and 2.
003 - Settling basin treatment provided to a combination of
process water from slab mill scale pit, NCCW from blast
furnaces, boiler house discharge, and Braddock Avenue
storm sewer flows. Additionally, backwashes from a
sand filter providing water supply to the BOP facility
enter the 003 sewer line.
004 - Receives untreated NCCW from blast furnaces, treated
process wastes from blast furnaces and sinter plant, and
13th Street storm sewer flows.
010 - Receives BOP effluents consisting of untreated NCCW and
treated process wastes.
A rough layout of the Edgar Thomson primary steel production plant is
shown in the enclosed schematic. To date, detailed plant overlays have
not been received from (JSSC, even though previously requested by the
USEPA. We were at a considerable disadvantage without the plant layout.
Current Status
Employment at the ET plant is currently around 2,500 persons. Peak
employment is about 3,200 and they normally drop to around 2,000
persons through the fall months. The Irvin plant will peak around
4,000 workers but as of the end of June, they i,cre down to 2,000
-------
1. p. Gallagher, Director July 8, 1975
and going lower. The E. Thomson plant is roughly 100 years old in
contrast to the much newer Irvin plant. We were told the El plant
was operating about 70%-75% of capacity. Based upon blast furnace
operations, of the 5 units available, only three, were running on
June 23, i.e. Nos. 1, 3 and 5. This gives roughly a 60% capacity for
June, 1975. The old No. 7 blast furnace had been demolished some time
ago. Although a blast furnace can be banked and temporarily taken out
of operation, about one week is normally required for complete and safe
shutdown of a blast furnace.
Steel Making — Basic Oxygen Furnaces, Water Intakes, Peripheral Operations,
and 004 and 010 Outfalls
We started our plant tour in the area of the BOP Shop, the Oxygen Plant,
and outfalls 004 and 010. The central plant water intake and a water
treatment plant are also located in this sector of the El mill property.
The central pump intake has 3 steam-powered and 3 electric-powered pumps
which reportedly have a maximum withdrawal capacity of 90 MGD or greater.
Discrepancies were inherent in the water intake figures given by various
Steel personnel. Plant personnel collect their NET samples for the NPDES
permit (on the intake) from the second wet well from the east side on the
pump intake structure. Two apparent discharges from the Central Pump In-
take station were noted by EPA personnel on June 21 (from the River cruise)
and again on June 23. The first of these was an excess water return back
to the Monongahela River and the second was described as trash screen wash
water from the water intake station also being returned back to the River.
We note NET waste loads even if applicable at Edgr.Thomson should be deter-
mined following water treatment-not before.
In addition to central pump water intake, the El plant maintains a
second intake works which is gravity flow situated at the east end of
Ii. S. Government Lock No. 2. This second intake has a reported maximum
capacity of 90 to 100 MCD. This intake is intended to principally
serve Power Plant #1 and sometimes Power Plant #2. In the support mater-
ials to the NPDES permit, USSC has stated that outfalls 001, 002, 003,
004 and 010 have a maximum combined discharge of about 208 MCD which
very much seems on the high side. These support materials furthermore,
do not recognize the existence of a No. 1 Power Station.
Central plant intake water is subjected to “some” chemical addition and
settling. Water treatment plant sludges are said by Steel to be diverted
to an ALCOSAN (Allegheny County Sanitary Authority) combined sewer on
(JSSc property. (Note: this information is in contrast to data contained
in the previous NPDES application) This particular sewer is believed to
intercept the 13th Street torm sewer which will serve to complicate the
EPA field sampling survey. The 13th Street storm sewer, if not inter-
cepted, finds it ways down into the 004 outfall of USSC. The 13th Street
storm sewer would need to be sampled close to the main gate near Braddock
Avenue to establish NET loads for the 004 outfall, if necessary (see
diagram on following page.) Again, the ALCOSAN sewer could serve to
complicate a circuit load balance.
-------
1. P. Gallagher, Director
July 8, 1975
Manholes
Suggested
Sampling
Manholes
Central plant water intake supplies a myramid of uses at the E. Thomson
plant including makeup to a double set of cooling towers serving the
BOP shop. The ET BOP shop has two basic oxygen steel-making units each
rated around 225 tons per heat. One BOP unit is presumed in continuous
use whereas the other serves as standby. Unspecified biocides are em-
ployed in both cooling water/recycle towers. All NCCW from the BOP shop
goes through these two cooling towers. Blowdown from both cooling towers
are discharged to outfall 010.
The BOP shop at Edgar Thomson is basically equipped with a wet air pollu-
tion control system. The USSC, BOF system is essentially a 2-stage water
scrubbing-cooling system with a quench water settling tank and a conventional
thickener. The air pollution treatment works for the El BOP shop does not
appear to incorporate any dry gas cleaning sub-systems. One cooling tower
for the BOP shop is principally utilized for “NCCW” resulting from gas cool-
ing, i.e. likely the direct-contact cooling tower, the venturi and the
quench assembly. The second double cell cooling tower is available for
cooling water from the oxygen lance(s). Overflow from the small quench water
settling tank is bled off to the ensuing 150 ft. ± diameter thickener.
Sludge underfiows from the quench water settling tank are thought to be
directed to the vacuum filter station. Continuous overflow from the
large 150 ft. diameter thickener is directed to the 010 sewer with the
Braddock Ave.
4J
C )
I -.
£70
-------
T. P. Gallagher, Director July 8, 1975
sludge underfiows pumped to the vacuum filter station. Mo polymers
are normally used in the thickener. There is reported no possible
access for sampling the thickener overflows prior to their release
to the 010 sewer. Sludges off the bottom of the thickener are re-
ported as having around 25-35% solids content and after filtration,
the sludges are brought up to about 60% solids content. This station
has two vacuum drum filters. Filtrates are returned to the thickener.
Filter sludges which may ordinarily go to the ET sintering plant are
currently being trucked to a dump.
Other waste flows from the BOP sector finding their way into the 010
sewer include: 1) some bottom pit water draining the ingot mold
pour area inside the BOP building; and 2) washdowns from the thickener
sludge truck washing station and/or vacuum filter station.
The BOP shop, besides the complex air pollution control systems des-
cribed above, is also equipped with a small baghouse for the railroad
car materials receiving station and a small baghouse covering transfer
conveyors at the BOP building. There are basically no controls for the
open area in the BOP house, i.e. figitive dust, et. al. We noted large
black puffs of smoke off the BOP shop in spite of these incorporated air
pollution controls.
Fred Thomas mentioned (some) previous attempts by USSC to divert storm
flows in the 13th Street sewer into the 11th Street storm sewer. They
seemed to be concerned that the 13th Street sewer storm f1o is could find
their way down the 010 outfall. This appears highly unlikely. We
asked USSC as to the possibilities of Steel area drainage to the 11th
Street sewer. The consensus of opinion was that area drainage from the
ET site could reach the 11th Street collection system. On June 23, we
noted little or no net flow from the 11th Street sewer into the Monon-
gahela River.
The oxygen plant was found to have spent cooling water discharge into
outfall 004. Furthermore, an unknown discharge was observed from the
River wall in the direct vicinity of the oxygen plant. Data is being
sought from USSC on the latter water stream. Previous NPDES permit
support materials indicated no discharges from the USSC, El oxygen
production plant. Outfalls 010 and 004 enter the River almost together.
USSC samples both outfalls from the bluff overlooking the River. Outfall
010 is sampled at a manhole at the dirt road close to the oxygen plant
a very short distance upstream of the mouth of the sewer. Outfall 004
is sampled just north but within the confines of the oxyqen production
plant and power distribution station, also from a manhole. NCCt! from
the oxygen plant enters this same manhole. The 004 sewer receives waste-
water from many diverse sources listed in this report. The Company’s
004 sampling point may not be downstream of the influence of all con-
tributory flows into this sewer. Flow determination at the 004 and 010
-------
i. p. Gallagher, Director July 8, 1975
manholes is impossible. Sampling and flow determinations are advised
for both outfalls 010 and 004 at their final points of discharge into
the River. Flow determination in any event, will be exceedingly diffi-
cult. Sewer 010 at the River was observed to be surcharging due to a
blocked screen inside the end of the pipeline. Steel reluctantly may
clean the sewer out if we demand. The 004 outfall is scarcely in better
shape. It may be best for the EPA to survey outfalls 010 and 004 from
the River by boat rather than from land. Both outfalls 010 and 004
have large flows, respectively reported by USSC as 10.0 MGD and 14.0
IIGD. On June 23, flows were observed larger in outfall 010 than
outfall 004.
Sinter Plant and 204 Thickener
The El Sinter plant has been shut down since January 1975 because of
fugitive dust and other air problems. USSC has decided at least for the
present, to keep the Sinter plant closed. The blast furnace flue dusts
when recovered, are being blended and added to incoming iron ores at ET
On the other hand, iron oxide from the BOP shop and other areas is currently
being dumped rather than reused. The 204 thickener, a double-decked unit
approximately 50 ft. in diameter, is located in the area of the Sinter
plant and is operative. The 204 thickener receives underflows from the
two blast furnace thickeners, i.e. the No. 7 thickener serving BF Units
No. 3, 5 and 6, and the so-called No. 1 and 2 thickener serving blast
furnaces No. 1 and 2. The 204 thickener overflows via sampling station
204 •tnto sewer 004. The effluent from the 204 thickener is sampled at
a drop box at ground level alongside the thickener unit. Sludges from
the bottom of the bottom of the 204 unit are sent to a drum filter, and
then routed to the iron ore stock piles. A circular unit was observed
on the north side of the Sinter plant, non-operative. We were told
this unit was a rotary drum cooler used in handling the sinter product.
The 004 sewer besides receiving 204 thickener overflow, also accepts
“NCCW” from the No. 6 blast furnace, overflows from the No. 7 thickener,
and storm flow via the 13th Street storm sewer.
Blast Furnace Operations
The next area visited was the No. 5 and 6 blast furnace operations. The
overflow from the No. 7 thickener entering into a side collection box is
known as sampling station 104. The No. 7 thickener is screen-covered on
top and has an estimated diameter of 125 feet. The effluent had a very
distinct aroma, i.e. “sweet smelling.” (This same scent was later noted
at the 102 and 002 (002W) sampling points) Flow determination at the
104 point will be almost impossible. Both the 104 and 204 thickener
overflows were observed as very warm.
USSC was reluctant to provide us with any useful information on the air
pollution control equipment on the various blast furnaces. Available
equipment on each of the blast furnaces apparently consists of a dry-
type settling chamber followed by wet gas scrubbing/cooling with a
venturi. No third stage was apparent. All blast furnace gases once
-------
1. p. Gallagher, Director
July 8, 1975
cleaned at El are completely reused in the boiler house, stoves and
other processes. Wet effluents from the venturi and gas scrubbing are
sent to conventional iron-steel industry thickeners.
At the Nos. 1 and 2 blast furnaces, gas cleaning effluents in the slurry
form enter into thickener No. 1 & 2. This thickener is approximately
120 feet in diameter. During our visit, we found USSC has been sampling
the 102 point at an intermediate point in the settling system rather than
the thickener plant effluent. The Company indicates they will immediately
shift the effluent sampling point to a final overflow box off the thickener.
All previous sampling data for the 102 point may be supposed to be
“too high.” We noted that a total of six stoves serve blast furnaces
Nos. 1 and 2. Large amounts of NCCW are associated with the blast furnaces.
The cooling water stream from blast furnace No. 2 was seen to join with
the thickener No. 1 and 2 overflows before entering sewer 002W. Cooling
water from BF No. 1 is routed to sewer 002E, and that from B.F. No. 3
to sewer 003.
Blast furnace slags produced at El are shipped via special railroad cars
to the Duquesne USSC mill for reclaiming. The slag loading area is just
west of the ingot mold foundry complex. BOP slag was reported to be
partially reclaimed on-site with the remainder stored at El and/or off-
site. Slag is discarded direct without conversion to granular slag.
Outfall 003 and Contributory Systems
In summary review of waste sources feeding the 003 sewer, we cite the
following:
1) Hot cooling water flows from blast furnaces Nos. 3 and 5.
2) Spent cooling waters (up to 2OMGD) from the turboblower station.
3) Scale pit effluent from the 44—inch slab mill (up to 19.5 MGD.)
4) Storm flows from the Braddock Avenue storm sewer (the EPA field
crew during June 23-25 was not able to locate an upstream
manhole on this storm sewer in the event NET load calculations
are necessary; selection of such manhole near Braddock Avenue
must be made prior to the July 75 field survey. Thomas indicated
this storm sewer appears to run just north of the ET slag pile
and immediately west of the mill gate in this sector.
5) Additionally, a second water treatment plant located adjacent
to the No. 2 power plant releases blowdown, treatment chemical
and ziolite backwashes and filter plant sludges, all into the
003 sewer.
At the very end of the 003 sewer is a large concrete settling
basin built directly into the River wall. This basin constructed in
1942 is 197 feet in length with V-sides in cross-section. The 003
flow enters the basin on the northeast corner and exits over a weir
-------
T. P. Gallagher, Director July 8, 1975
through the southwest corner of the large concrete chamber. Some solids
are removed in transit of the 40 MGD + flow down through the tank, but
the basin serves principally to remove floating oils and scums. An
under-sized floating skimmer (“Eaton” drum type) and an oil boom, were
observed at the far end of the basin. The skimmer ias not operating
during our visit. Large quantities of floating oils were present in
the basin together with oily settleable solids accumulations on the
side walls in certain sectors of the basin. The basin was in bad need
of a general cleaning. Most oils/scum are thought to find their way
to the River. The skimmer is believed functional a very small percent
of the time. Contents of the 003 basin are released via a submerged
pipe a short distance out into the River.
Some information was obtained on fuel sources. Coke oven gas from
Clairton is known to be used in many USSC operations including those
at the El mill. The power plants principally operate on blast
furnace gas plus coal. The Turboblower House utilizes coal as a
supplementary fuel source.
Outfall 002 and Contributory Systems
The 002 waste sewer at the Edgar Thomson Works may be divided into a
002 west and and 002 east subsystems. The two join together just
short of the River wall. Waste sources on each are summarized as follows:
002 W
Overflows from thickener No. 1 and 2.
Spent cooling water flows from blast furnace No. 2.
No. 2 power station hot flows (up to 118.7 MGD reported).
002 E
Scale pit effluent from ingot mold foundry.
Stirling Boiler House effluents.
Spent cooling water flows from blast furnace No. 1.
No. 1 power station hot flows (not shown on any previous
materials submitted by Steel to the EPA).
The Company is presently collecting 002 samples on the 002W line as
shown in the enclosed sketch of the Edgar Thomson mill. Thus, pollu-
tion loads from the ingot mold foundry are being excluded from Company
results. Samples for 002 are taken from an extremely small “ho1e a
few inches across and perhaps about 10 feet down into a very fast-
moving sewer.
A similar access to the end of the 002E sewer was found via a small
hole into the line. The access points for 002W and 002E are a short
distance apart. Flo , determinations are impossible. Although the
Company does not sample 002E (nor 002) , the NPDES permit does specify
sampling at 202 which is the effluent of the scale pit from the ingot
mold foundry.
-------
T. P. Gallagher, Director July 8, 1975
During our inspection of June 23, the 202 ingot mold scale pit was
clogged and the water level was considerably above the normal outlet.
Size of the two compartment basin was approximately 45 feet and 18
feet. We were told some of the scale pit wastewater is recycled back
through the ingot mold foundry. The basin has no skimming facilities.
Appearance of this scale pit was very dirty. The effluent was reported
to be primarily from •:et scrubbing of dust from air streams inside
the foundry. We were not able to obtain any useful information on air
pollution control equipment serving the foundry.
Slab Mill
We next visited the area of the 44-inch slab mill. This mill operating
on coke oven gas and natural gas was emitting black smoke intermittently.
Fred Thomas indicated the mix of natural and coke oven gases was probably
unbalanced. Air pollution control at the slab mill is minimal, but an
unspecified number of rotoclones, i.e. wet scrubbers for the air in the
mill are available. This scrub effluent discharges to the 003 sewer
by passing the slab mill scale pit. In passing through one part of the
mill, it was quite evident to us that fugitive dust levels, especially
inside the building, were quite high. The mill was not “rolling 1 ’ (luring
our pass-through. The El plant turns out a slab size of approximately
37 inches wide X 12 inches thick X 190 inches long. The scale pit
located “inside” the mill was less than impressive considering the amount
of scale being accumulated throughout the working areas. We estimate
the size of the pit to be roughly 14 feet wide X 50 feet long X 25 feet
deep. The scale pit effluent finds it way to the 003 sewer. USSC
personnel could not provide size or detention time of the scale pit.
They were also extremely reluctant to show us the slab nil I and the
scale pit. Viewing of the scale pit was difficult at best.
Outfall 001
We viewed Turtle Creek between the ingot mold foundry and the slab mill,
and again at the 001 discharge site. Turtle Creek is in extremely poor
shape from upstream waste sources carrying extreme amounts of floating
end emulsified oils and floating and suspended solids. USSC professes
to have no discharge via outfall 001 although observations at the far
end of the sewer show otherwise. The NPDES permit ascribes a maximum
of 0.1 MGD for 001 due to NCCW from USSC tar pumps. Appreciable oil
sheen was present directly adjacent to the outfall and a USSC oil boom
was moored around the outfall; the boom was ineffective due to lack of
maintenance and holes in the assemblage. Thomas indicated ET hdd previous-
ly used sonic absorbent “throw-away” pellets in hopes of minimizing oil
problems at 001. El personnel thought perhaps the storm sewer contribut-
ing to 001 and passing through the now-abandoned open hearth area, could
perhaps be releasing tars and oils from residual materials left in the
sewer, “but this was no problem of theirs.” The Company has been given
permission from the EPI\ not to sample outfall 001 and hence, no sampling
results are available from USSC. This point will also be a difficult
one to sample and gage.
-------
I. P. Gallagher, Director July 8, 1975
In order to better appreciate problems on the 001 sewer line, the tar
storage and handling sector was visited. This area is situated directly
north of the old open hearth building. We were previously told yard
sewers in the area had been cemented to preclude surface drainage from
the yards into the 001 sewer, but this was not found to be true. The
NCCW in question arises from an air compressor utilized for general plant
use, previously employed for open hearth operations. The term “tar”
is appropriate for this plant area since there is considerable tar over
the grounds generously embedded into about every available surface. This
tar is obtained from the Clairton Works by railroad and used as fuel
supplement at the El plant. Four storage tanks were seen at El. The
tar is fluidized by steam and mostly used in the El blast furnaces.
Since a public storm sewer is thought to contribute to outfall 001 at
its top end, a search was made for a control manhole upstream. Previous
materials from Steel and that contained in the NPDES permit sho i this l.ine
to be a storm sewer belonging to the Borough of North Versailles. How-
ever, according to E. McKeesport public officials, this is not true. A
manhole was selected in the middle of the intersection of Braddock Avenue
and O’Connell Street for possible sampling control on this sewer. This
location is directly north of the old open hearth area. This manhole
actually belongs to North Braddock and not to North Versailles or
East McKeesport.
Other Contacts Made
Borough of North Braddock — Mr. Patriska, Borough Engineer
Township of East McKeesport — Mr. Jesse Reed, Chief, Public Works
cc: Blackman
Benson
Ha theway
Penni ngton
Vincent
Will s
-------
EDGAR THOMSON STEEL MILL
•1
o
P-P)
a. ’ T
rz•I
a
Braddock Ave.
X Main
Stockpile Area
Furnace
DD
#6
003
Storm
Sewer
— MONONGAHELA RIVER
July, 1975
NEIC-Denver
E. J. Struzeskj, Jr.
------- |