-------
see st_A.e> process
Flow D\^G»f?A.kA
oo oo
nnn i
T».PPlM& SPOUT
cootiua
W/M&R
-ftpfeN HEA.RTU FURUA.CE
W^ST6 OPF C=*-S&=
'SCRAP CHKft&IMGi
pea&^eR^ifco i PuRcujk'sio scr^p
CHieiikia Dooe *
5K-EV/BACK. COOUO^WAIEE
ev- p*>ss
ST/kCK CA>P
OR DM>APER
¦—!
p—lit	!
DKMPSR
COOUU6 w« 6«?
y—SCRliBBfcR
n WA.TER
R&P(?fc.
-------
tn
00
-ELECTRIC FURNACE ROOFS
ON LARGER TONNAGE FURNACES
ARE HINGED AND PIVOT AWAY
FROM FURNACE FOR THE ADDITION
OF SCRAP CHARGE. SMALLER
TONNAGE FURNACES HAVE FIXED
ROOFS AND ARE CHARGED THRU
FURNACE DOORS
FUME f SMOKE FROM
PROCESS —
WATER SPRAYS
TRANSFORMER
WATER OR AIR
COOLED ELECTRIC
CABLES
CARBON OR GRAPHITE.
ELECTRODES
WATER COOLED ELBOW
OR 4THHOLE EXTRACTION
GAS COOLING
WATER SPRAY
BANKS
-COMBUSTION AIR
VAULT
WATER COOLED
rings, doors, EiETRooe
K
DOOR FRAMES/
ELECTRODE
HOT METAL
SCRAP STEEL
ROOF CHARGING
FERRO ALLOY
ADDITIVES
CHARGING
DOOR
OXYGEN LANCE
PURE
FURNACE
FLUXES
ifrFli •
zjo ct^]
SPRAY I
! CHAMBER ;
^ALTERNATE}
rBA6HOUSE
WASTE GASES
-PRECIPITATOR
WASTE GASES
BAG HOUSE
(ALTERNATE)
DRY
DUST
EFFLUENT
PRECIPITATOR
A TAPPING FUMES
T* SMOKE
GAP OR NATURAL
GAS BURNERS
-ELBOW COOUNC WATER'
TZCMIN6 LADLE
EFFLUENT
SEE INGOT TEEMING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SEE SLAG PROCESS
FLOW DIAGRAM
OXYGEN LANCING
MELT DOWN
REFINING
STACK
DRY
DUST

RD. 4/21/78


FIGURE 3E-I2




ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE
TYPE I-SEMI- WET
PROCESS F. LOW DIAGRAM
-------
— ELECTRIC FURNACE ROOFS
ON LARGER TONNAGE FURNACES
ARE HINGED AND PIVOT AWAY
FROM FURNACE FOR THE ADDITION
OF SCRAP CHARGE. SMALLER
TONNAGE FURNACES HAVE
FIXED ROOFS AND ARE CHARGED
THRU FURNAC6 DOORS.
SMOKE < FLUME
WASTE GASES
H
BAGHOUSE
FUME ~ SMOKE FROM
CHARGING OF SCRAP
in furnace
ALTERNATE HOOD SYSTEM
VAULT
DRY DUST
WATER OR AIR COOLED
ELECTRIC CABLES
HOT METAL
MUTER COOLED RIN6K
DOORS. ElECTROOE
CIAMPS.SCMW-
f / / BACKS DOOR
CARBON OR
GRAPHITE ELECTRODES
'
WASTE GASES
FRAMES #
LOCAL PERIPHERAL HOOD
ELECTRO
LEADS
SCRAP STEEL ^
SMOKE I FLUME
FURNACE
TAPPING FUMES
SMOKE
FERRO ALLOTS
ROOF CHARGING
HARGIN6 BOX
DOOR CHARGING
PUKE OXYGEM LANCE
ELECTRIC FURNACE
FLUXES
DRY
DUST
TEEMING LADLE
SEE INGOT TEEMING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE
TYPE H-DRY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SEE SLAG PROCESS
FLOW DIAGRAM
RD. 4/21/78
FIGURE m-13
-------
r-ELECTRiC FURNACE ROOFS
DISINTEGRATOR
SCRUBBING
WATER
SCRAP STEEL
ROOF CHARGING
DISINTEGRATOR
GAP
FLU XES
STACK
LADLE
EFFLUENT
^FREE WATER
DROP CARRY-OVER
SEE SLAG PROCESS
FLOW DIAGRAM
PELLETS
SEE INGOT TEEMING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE
TYPE HE-WET WASHER
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE HI" 14
-------
ELECTRIC FURNACE ROOFS
ON LARGER TONNAGE FURNACES
ARE HINGED AND PIVOT AWAY
FROM FURNACE FOR THE
ADDITION OF SCRAP CHARGE.
SMALLER TONNAGE FURNACES
HAVE FIXED ROOFS AND ARE
CHARGED THRU FURNACE DOORS.
OXYGEN LANCING
MELTDOWN
REFINING
TRANSFORMER
FUMES tSMOKE
FROM CHARGING
OF SCRAP IN
FURNACE
VAULT
WASTE
GASES
WATER OR AIR
COOLED ELECTRIC
CABLES
WATER COOLED
RINGS. DOORS.
/ / /ELECTRODE CLAMPS:
/ SCREMTBACK3. DOOR
_// / FRAMES t
EICjCI CI CrTDAM
CARBON OR
GRAPHITE ELECTRODES
HOT METAL
°i ELECTRODE
LEADS
WATER
COMBUSTION AIR
COOLED
ELBOW
INTAKE GAP
COOLING
WATER
u
SCRAP STEEL
SEPARATOR
COOLING
\ WATER
ELBOW
COOLING
WATER
ROOF CHARGING
—- - [CHARGING BOX I
DOOR CHARGING
FERRO ALLOY
SCRUBBER
PURE OXYGEN LANCE
COOLING
WATER
ELECTRIC FURNACE
CLASSIFIER
AND
PUMP TANK
FLUXES
EXHAUST
STACK
TEEMING
LADLE
STACK DRAIN
EFFLUENT
PELLETS
SEC INGOT TEEMING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEE SLAG PROCESS
flow diagram
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE
TYPE H-WET CYCLONE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
E
RD. 4/22/78
IGURE in-15
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
Introduction
In reviewing the BPT effluent limitations originally promulgated in
1974, and in developing the proposed BPT, BAT, and BCT limitations and
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS, the Agency evaluated the expanded data base to
assure that the above limitations and standards sufficiently
accommodated variations within the industry and each subdivision.
Although basic oxygen furnace, open hearth furnace, and electric arc
furnace remain as the major subdivisions within the steelmaking
subcategory, the segments within these subdivisions were revised to
provide a more accurate characterization of steelmaking operations.
These revisions are based upon differences in wastewater
characteristics and process water usage rates among the types of air
pollution control systems in use. One of the revisions involved the
development of suppressed and open combustion subsegments for the
basic oxygen furnace wet air pollution control system segment. Also,
a semi-wet air pollution control system segment was added to the open
hearth furnace subdivision. The original and revised segments and
subdivisions are presented below for the steelmaking subcategory.
Subcategories and Subdivisions Revised Subdivisions and
	( 1 974)	Segments	
Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF)	Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF)
a.	Semi-wet air pollution	a. Semi-wet air pollution
controls controls
b.	Wet air pollution controls	b. Wet air pollution controls -
suppressed combustion
c. Wet air pollution controls -
open combustion
Open Hearth Furnace (OH)	Open Hearth Furnace (OH)
a. Wet air pollution	a. Semi-wet air pollution
controls	controls
b. Wet air pollution controls
Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)	Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)
a.	Semi-wet air pollution	a. Semi-wet air pollution
controls controls
b.	Wet air pollution controls	b. Wet air pollution controls
Although the Agency considered many factors in evaluating variations
among and within the steelmaking subdivisions, all of the variations
were related to the type of air pollution control system used. As a
63
-------
result, the segments within the steelmaking subdivisions reflect this
observation.
Other factors considered in evaluating process differences include
final product, raw material, size and age, and geographic location.
The following discussions address these factors and substantiate the
segments developed.
Factors Considered in the
Subdivision of the Steelmaking Subcategory
Manufacturing Process and Equipment
The principal element of steelmaking manufacturing processes and
equipment, with regard to the development of effluent limitations, is
the type of gas cleaning system. The systems normally employed are
dry, semi-wet, and wet (see Section III). Since dry gas cleaning
systems result in no wastewater or sludge discharge, only semi-wet and
wet systems are addressed herein.
The semi-wet gas cleaning system uses a spark box chamber to reduce
the furnace off-gas temperature prior to cleaning in precipitators or
other dry dust collectors (i.e., baghouses). The gases are sprayed
with water to insure proper temperature reduction so that they may be
introduced to the dry collectors without causing damage. Most of the
water applied to the spark box is evaporated, however, due to
overspraying and the limited retention time involved, some water
remains, eventually leaving as a wastewater discharge.
Wet gas cleaning systems, on the other hand, normally use Venturi
scrubbers to remove particulates from the gas stream. Scrubber
systems are used in both the open combustion and suppressed combustion
methods of BOF gas collection. The open combustion method uses a gas
collection hood, opened to the atmosphere, placed just above the BOF
vessel. In contrast to open combustion, the hood in the suppressed
combustion method is fitted to the BOF vessel and is closed to the
atmosphere. The difference in gas collection methods results in
differences in the quantity and quality of wastewater generated. The
differences in the wastewaters generated by the various gas cleaning
systems, and the rationale for these differences, is presented in the
subsequent discussions regarding wastewater characteristics,
wastewater treatability and process water usage.
The open hearth furnace and electric arc furnace steelmaking processes
do not exhibit the variations in the types of wet air pollution
control systems noted above for BOF operations. However, semi-wet air
pollution control systems, as well as wet air pollution control
systems, are used for both of these steelmaking processes.
No manufacturing processes or equipment, other than the type of gas
cleaning system, affect the segmentation of the respective steelmaking
subdivisions.
64
-------
Final Products
As the final product of the various steelmaking operations is molten
steel, segmentation on the basis of final product is not appropriate.
Raw Materials
While the raw materials for BOF, OH, and EAF operations may be
somewhat different (different fluxes or scrap steel and molten iron
charges), the Agency concluded that further segmentation of the
steelmaking subdivisions, on the basis of raw materials, is not
appropriate. It must be noted that the segments already noted
sufficiently accommodate variations related to the raw materials.
A.	BOF Steelmaking
BOF steelmaking operations can produce different steel
compositions as a result of alloying. However, alloying is
generally accomplished in the steel teeming ladle, so that the
furnace product is similar. The only major difference in the
steels lies in the carbon content which may vary somewhat, but
remains less than 1%. However, the oxygen consumption rates
(SCF/ton of steel) and, consequently, the off-gas volumes are
approximately the same for the heats of steel regardless of the
final carbon content in the finished steel.
A survey of all BOFs indicates that only one shop of the
thirty-one wet discharge BOF shops in the United States can be
classified as a specialty steel producer. A specialty steel shop
produces less than 50% of its output as carbon steel while a
carbon steel shop produces 50% or more of its output as carbon
steel. The one specialty steel BOF shop was sampled as Plant
031, an open combustion system. Examination of the wastewater
flow and analytical data for this plant, in comparison with other
sampled open combustion plants, shows no significant variations.
These data are presented in Tables VI1-5 and VI1-6. Based upon
sample, DCP, and D-DCP data, BOF raw materials do not affect
wastewater quality or quantity and thus were not used as a basis
for segmentation.
B.	Open Hearth Steelmaking
Although variations in scrap content affect wastewater quality,
the type of scrap used in different open hearth furnaces is
generally the same. Many different steel compositions can be
produced, however, alloying is generally accomplished after the
heat of steel is made. Alloys are added to the steel bath just
before tapping, or to the ladle after tapping, and therefore, do
not effect the gas cleaning systems in which the wastewaters
originate.
A survey of all open hearth shops generating a wastewater
indicates that none can be classified as a specialty steel
producer. Therefore, all open hearth shops are considered carbon
steel producers. Based upon sampled plant and DCP data, OH
65
-------
process raw materials do not affect wastewater quality and
quantity to an appreciable extent and thus have not been used as
a basis for segmentation.
C. Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Raw materials, in the form of fluxes and cold scrap metal, are
charged to electric arc furnaces. Similar types and quantities
of fluxes are used in EAF steelmaking operations and thus do not
vary significantly among the shops. Although variations in scrap
could affect wastewater quality, as the types of scrap used in
the different furnaces are approximately similar, the wastewaters
are also similar.
Electric arc furnaces are generally used for the production of
special alloy steels ranging from high strength low alloy steels
to ferro-alloy products such as ferro-silicon and ferromanganese
steels. Over 95% of the special alloy furnaces employ dry
baghouse type systems, and thus have no wastewater discharges.
There are currently nine EAF plants (ten shops) in the United
States which have wet gas cleaning systems and three plants
(three shops) which have semi-wet systems. Two plants (0060D and
0860H) which have wet gas cleaning systems are primarily
specialty steel producers. While the remaining EAF shops produce
primarily carbon steel, varying amounts of specialty steel are
produced as well. The data obtained through the sampling visits,
DCPs, and D-DCPs indicate little difference in wastewater quality
and quantity between carbon and specialty shops. Hence, raw
materials do not affect the segmentation of the electric arc
furnace subdivision.
Wastewater Characteristics
As indicated in the discussion regarding manufacturing processes and
equipment, the type of gas cleaning system used has a pronounced
effect upon the quality of the wastewaters generated. The quantity of
particulates captured in the wastewater and the size of the
particulates vary with the type of gas cleaning system used.
A. BOF Steelmaking
Semi-wet system wastewaters are characterized by relatively small
quantities of large suspended particulate matter. The difference
between semi-wet and wet arise because of the design of the
semi-wet water system versus that of the wet system. A semi-wet
system is designed primarily to cool the hot gases in a spark box
before they enter the dry precipitators in which the particulates
are removed from the gas stream. However, due to the brief
contact between water and the particulate laden gases, only a
small portion of the particulate load, mainly the larger, slower
moving particulates, is captured by the process waters. On the
other hand, a wet scrubber system is specifically designed to
remove the particulates from the gas stream with the result that
higher concentrations of suspended matter are found in the
process wastewaters. Following are the average suspended
66
-------
particulate concentrations for the raw wastewaters for each of
the three BOF gas cleaning segments and subsegments.
The above data are based upon EPA surveys. The complete survey
results are presented in Tables VI1-2 through VI1-6. A
comparison of the semi-wet raw wastewater suspended solids level
with the levels in the wet systems illustrates the point that
semi-wet systems generate much lower raw wastewater suspended
solids loads than wet systems.
The wastewater characteristics of a wet gas cleaning system
differ with the type of gas collection method used (i.e.,
suppressed combustion or open combustion). The particulates
emitted by an open combustion system will be primarily Fe203 due
to the introduction of excess air to the system. Consequently,
combustion is more complete and 90% of the particulates are of
submicron size. Suppressed combustion, however, results in the
formation of larger size particulates consisting of FeO and
Fej04, as well as Fe203. Suppressed combustion systems provide
incomplete combustion as only small quantities of outside air
enter the system. As a result, only 30-40% of the particulates
are of submicron size. In addition, the suppressed combustion
configuration acts to contain the heavier particulates in the
furnace with, the result that wastewater suspended solids
concentrations are lower (refer to the above data).
Therefore, based upon mechanical considerations and actual
analytical data, wastewater characteristics substantiate the
segmentation of the BOF subdivision into the semi-wet,
wet-suppressed combustion, and wet-open combustion segments.
B. Open Hearth Steelmaking
The open hearth steelmaking process employs semi-wet and wet gas
cleaning systems similar to those described above for the BOF
steelmaking process. Following are the average raw wastewater
suspended solids concentrations for each of these two gas
cleaning systems.
Semi-wet	500 mg/1
Wet	1,100 mg/1
The Agency obtained the above data during its sampling surveys
(see Tables VII-7 through VII-9). The comparison of the semi-wet
raw wastewater suspended solids concentration with that of the
wet system illustrates the point that semi-wet systems generate
lower raw wastewater suspended solids concentrations than wet
systems.
Semi-Wet
Wet-Suppressed Combustion
Wet-Open Combustion
375 mg/1
1500 mg/1
4200 mg/1
67
-------
Based upon analytical data, the Agency believes that the
segmentation of the open hearth subdivision into semi-wet and wet
segments is appropriate.
C. Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
The electric arc furnace steelmaking process employs semi-wet and
wet gas cleaning systems similar to those described previously
for the BOF steelmaking process. Electrostatic precipitators or
filter cloth baghouses are employed in the dry systems.
Following are the average raw wastewater suspended solids
concentrations for each of the two types of gas cleaning systems.
Semi-wet	2,200 mg/1
Wet	3,400 mg/1
The Agency obtained the above data during its sampling surveys
(see Tables VII-10 through VI1-13). A comparison of the semi-wet
raw wastewater suspended solids concentrations with the wet
system concentrations illustrate the point that semi-wet systems
result in a much lower raw wastewater TSS concentration than wet
systems.
Based upon sampled plant data, the Agency believes it is
appropriate to segment the electric arc furnace subdivision into
semi-wet and wet segments based upon wastewater characteristics.
Wastewater Treatabi1ity
The treatability of wastewaters from each steelmaking operation is
similar. The various steelmaking operations use similar treatment
components and are thus able to achieve similar effluent qualities.
The major treatment components used in these operations are gravity
sedimentation devices and recycle systems. Coagulant aids are added
at many plants to enhance suspended solids removals. Vacuum filters
are used to dewater the sludges removed in the treatment process.
Because of these similarities in the treatability of steelmaking
process wastewaters, no further segmentation of the steelmaking
subdivisions, based upon wastewater treatability, is required.
Size and Age
The Agency considered the impact of size and age on the segmentation
of the steelmaking subdivisions. Possible correlations relating the
effects of age and size upon such elements as wastewater flow,
wastewater characteristics and the ability to retrofit treatment
equipment to existing facilities were analyzed. The Agency did not
find any relationships and, thus, determined that size and age have no
significant impact upon subdivision or segmentation.
Analysis of the data (refer to the Section III summary tables) failed
to yield any correlations between the size of a steelmaking shop and
any pertinent factors such as process water usage, wastewater
characteristics, or effluent flow. Figures IV-1 through IV-6
illustrate the comparisons of effluent flow (gal/ton) vs. shop size
68
-------
(tons/day capacity). No figure is provided for the open hearth -
semi-wet subdivision as there is only one shop in this subdivision.
These figures also depict treatment model sizes and effluent flows.
Effluent flow conveniently reflects the installation of recycle and,
thus, provides a representation of wastewater treatment. As can be
seen on these plots, the size of a steelmaking shop does not
significantly affect the ability to recycle and thus attain low
effluent flows. A review of EPA survey data (refer to the tables in
Section VII) also shows no relationship between shop size and the
characteristics of the wastewaters generated. Therefore, the Agency
concluded that it is not appropriate to further segment the
steelmaking subdivisions based upon the size of a steelmaking shop.
The Agency examined the age of a shop as a possible basis for the
segmentation of the steelmaking subdivisions. With regard to BOF
shops, however, age has little meaning, as the BOF process is a
relatively recent development. Referring to the data base (Section
III summary tables), the oldest BOF now in operation was installed in
1955 while most were built in the 1960s. Hence, there is little
variation in relative age among the BOF shops. The same consideration
applies to the three open hearth-wet shops, as their first years of
production fall within a period of six years. Following the same
concepts used in comparing effluent flow and shop size, Figures IV-7
through IV-12 illustrate the relationship of effluent flow vs. shop
age. As with the effluent flow and shop size plots, the age of a
steelmaking shop was found to have no significant effect on the
ability to recycle and thus attain a low effluent flow.
Further analysis indicates that the age of a steelmaking shop has no
affect on the quality or quantity of wastewaters generated. Within
the segments outlined by the different gas cleaning systems, older
shops were found to generate wastewaters similar in quality and
quantity to those of newer shops. Also the treatability of these
wastewaters was found to be similar in all instances.
The Agency also addressed the problem of retrofitting water pollution
control equipment as part of the shop age analysis. The ability to
retrofit pollution control equipment has been demonstrated at many
plants as shown in Tables IV-1 through IV- 3. These examples
illustrate the fact that water pollutipn control equipment can be
installed on existing plant facilities. In addition, the Agency
analyzed the cost of retrofit to determine whether older plants
incurred additional capital expenditures to install new water
pollution control equipment. D-DCPs were used to solicit retrofit
cost information. D-DCP responses for seven of thirteen steelmaking
shops indicate that retrofit costs were not applicable as the
wastewater treatment systems were installed in conjunction with the
installation of the furnaces. In addition, the responses for four
shops were inconclusive as retrofit costs were not available, included
capital expenditures for pollution control equipment, or included
components not related to the treatment of process wastewaters.
However, the data provided for two shops (one open hearth and one
electric arc furnace) indicate no retrofit costs were required. The
above data indicate that older plants will incur and have incurred
costs of equipment installation similar to that for newer plants. The
69
-------
retrofit issue as it pertains to industry-wide costs is addressed.in
Volume I.
Based upon the above, the Agency concludes that neither the size	nor
age of a steelmaking shop affects the ability to provide treatment	for
process wastewaters. Therefore, further segmentation of	the
steelmaking subdivisions based upon shop size or age is	not
appropriate.
Geographic Location
The Agency analyzed the relationships between location and pertinent
factors such as wastewater usage, wastewater characteristics, and
wastewater treatability. However, no discernible patterns were
revealed. All BOF shops, with the exception of one, are located east
of the Mississippi River and are concentrated in the steelmaking areas
of Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virgina. The remaining BOF shop, a semi-wet system, is located in
Colorado. The open hearth furnace wet subdivision shops are located
in Ohio, Texas, and Maryland, while the semi-wet subdivision shop is
located in Utah. The electric arc furnace wet subdivision shops are
located in Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, and California,
while the semi-wet subdivision shops are located in Ohio, Michigan,
and Texas.
With regard to the consumptive use of water in "arid" and "semi-arid"
regions, the geographic location of those steelmaking shops with wet
gas cleaning systems is of no consequence since the model treatment
system components would consume essentially no water. Therefore, the
geographic location of a steelmaking shop does not require further
segmentation of the steelmaking subdivisions.
Process Water Osage
Process water usage was a significant factor in establishing the
segments of the steelmaking subdivisions. As noted previously in this
section, the Agency found significant differences among and within the
types of gas cleaning systems in use. The differences in process
water flow support the segments developed previously in this section.
However, in reviewing the process water usage data, the Agency
concluded that further segmentation beyond those already established
is not appropriate.
70
-------
TABLE IV-1
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS WHICH HAVE DEMONSTRATED
THE ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Furnace Age
Plant	1st Year
Code	of Production
0112B	1964
0248A	1968
0396D	1959
0432C	1961
0584C	1968
0724A	1962
0860B	1965
Treatment Equipment
and Year Installed
Clarifier-1970
Vacuum Filter-1973
Primary Scale Pit, Polymer
Addition, Clarifier, Vacuum
Filter-1970
Clarifiers and other equip-
ment (Central Treatment)
1964, 1971
Breakpoint Chlorination,
Deep Bed Sand Filter, Dechlori-
nation with S0„, (Central
Treatment)-1977
Clarifier, Polymer Addition-1972
Clarifier-1974
Surface Skimming, Lagoon-1970
71
-------
TABLE IV-2
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS WHICH HAVE DEMONSTRATED
THE ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Furnace Age
Plant	1st Year
Code	of Produotlon
0060	1952
0112A	1957-1958
0492A	1953
0864A	194U
0948C	1952-1953
Treatment Equipment
and Year Installed
Clarifier, Neutralization with
caustic-1970.
Polymer Addition, Neutralization
with Lime, Clarifier-1978
Thickener-1971
Neutralization with Lime,
Clarifier-1972.
Polymer and Lime Additions,
Clarifier, Thickener-1962
Clarifier-1969
Clarifier-1976
Screening, Thickeners-1967
72
-------
TABLE IV-3
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS WHICH HAVE DEMONSTRATED
THE ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Furnace Age
Plant	1st Year
Code	of Production
0060D	1969
0060F	1951
0432C	1959
0528A	1949
Treatment Equipment
and Year Installed
Chemical Reduction-1977
Classifier, Clarifier,
Vacuum Filter-1963
Clarifiers and other
equipment (Central Treatment)
1964, 1971
Clarifiers and other equip-
ment (Central Treatment)
1954
73
-------
FIGURE 12- I
PLANT SIZE (PRODUCTION CAPACITY) vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE: SEMI "WET
450
375
g 300
£
225
h
Z
Ul
=>
_J
Ul
U.
LU
150 -
75
Treatment
Model
Size
T
T
2,000 4,000	6,000	8000
PLANT SIZE (TONS/DAY)
-*-i	
10,000
Treatment
Model
Effluent
Flow
74
-------
FIGURE IZ-2
PLANT SIZE (PRODUCTION CAPACITY) vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE: WET - SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
1750 -
1500 -
z 1250-
<
O
w
^ 1000-
o
li.
I-
z
^ 750-
_J
u_
ti-
ll]
500 -
250 -
2000 -|
Treatment
Model
Size
X
X
X
lx
"I TT
Treatment
Model
Effluent
IT Flow
0
—i	1	1		1		 ~
2,000 4,000	6,000	8,000 10,000
PLANT SIZE (TONS/DAY)
75
-------
ANT
BA
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
200-
0'-
FIGURE rr-3
SIZE (PRODUCTION CAPACITY) vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
IC OXYGEN FURNACE! WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
Treatment
Model
S
ze
X
X
XX
¦t-
I
3,000	6000 9,000 12,000
PLANT SIZE (TONS/DAY)
Treatment
Model
Effluent
Flow
15,000
76
-------
FIGURE 12-4
PLANT SIZE (PRODUCTION CAPACITY) vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE.' WET
400-
300-
z
e
<
CD
O
u.
h*
Z
LU
13
-J
Lu
U.
Ui
200
100
Treatment
Model
Size
Treatment Model_
Effluent" Flow"" "
2,000 4000 6,000 6,000
PLANT SIZE (TONS/DAY)
10,000
12,000
77
-------
FIGURE 12" 5
PLANT SIZE (PRODUCTION CAPACITY) vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE! SEMI-WET
300 -1
Treatment
Model
Size
250 -
O
I-
<
O
200
£ 150
O
-I
Hi 100
3
-J
u_
u.
UJ
50
1,000
2/>00
3,000
4,000
Treatment
Model
Effluent
	Flow
PLANT SIZE (TONS/DAY)
78
-------
FIGURE XZ-6
PLANT SIZE (PRODUCTION CAPACITY) vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE! WET
3,500 •
3,000 -
2,500
z
o
I-
s
< 2,000
<•>
*
o
_)
ll_
1,500
I-
z
UJ
3
_l
u_
uj 1,000
500
Treatment
Model
Size
X
X
1,000 2p00 3,000 4,000
PLANT SIZE (TONS/DAY)
Treatment
Model
Effluent
—	X Flow
5,000 5,500
79
-------
FIGURE IE-7
PLANT AGE vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE: SEMI-WET
450 n
375 •
O
h-
s
-J
<
CD
£
O
300 -
225
I-
Z
LI
3
_J
U.
Ul
Id
150
75

T
T
1959 I960 1961 1962
I	»	1—
1963 1964 1965
T
T
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
ModHT"'
.pgr*
PLANT AGE
80
-------
FIGURE H-8
PLANT AGE vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE*. WET "SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
2000 1
1750-
1500-
z
o
<
o
1250 -
£
o
1000
LxJ
3
-J
ll.
ll.
tu
750-
500 -
250 •
Treatment
Model
Effluent
— Flow
1955
I960
1965
1970
1975
I960
PLANT AGE
81
-------
FIGURE IY-9
PLANT AGE vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE: WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
2000
1750
1500
O
t; 1250
-J
<
CD
5t
o
-J 1000
u.
z
UJ
3
U.
Ul
750
500 H
250
X
X
Treatment Model Effluent Flow
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
PLANT AGE
82
-------
FIGURE EZMO
PLANT AGE vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE*. WET
400 -i
350
300 -
z
o
h-
<
-------
FIGURE IST-II
PLANT AGE vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE*. SEMI-WET
300 i
250
Z
o
C 200
-J !50
u_
h
Z
UJ
i 100
so
X	Treatment
Model
Effluent
	1	1	1	1	*— Flow
1956	I960	1962	1964	1966	1968
PLANT AGE
84
-------
FIGURE EZ-12
PLANT AGE vs EFFLUENT FLOW
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE: WET
3500

3000
_ 2500
Z
o
<
O
2000
£
o
»-
z 1500
txl
ZD
_J
U_
u.
Ui
1000 ¦
500
Treatment Model Effluent Flow
1949
1954
—I—
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
PLANT AGE
85
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
This section describes the water systems in use in the steelmaking
subdivisions and the types of wastewaters generated in each steelmakng
process. The description of the wastewaters is limited to those
waters which come into contact with, and are thus contaminated by, the
pollutants generated in the steelmaking processes. The various
noncontact cooling and nonprocess water systems are not considered in
this review. Wastewater characterization for the steelmaking
processes is based upon EPA survey data and data supplied by the
industry.
Water Use
The steelmaking processes generate fumes, smoke, and waste gases as
impurities are burned off and various elements in the molten steel are
vaporized. The wastewaters are generated when semi-wet or wet gas
collection systems are used to condition and clean the furnace
off-gases. The particulate matter carried by the gas stream is the
prinicpal source of pollutants which contaminate the process
wastewaters.
The steelmaking process gas cleaning systems vary from dry to semi-
wet, to wet. In the dry systems, baghouses or precipitators are used
in conjunction with evaporation chambers to clean and condition the
furnace off-gases, with the result that no process wastewaters or
sludges are generated. The semi-wet systems, which operate with
baghouses or precipitators and the "wet", high energy Venturi scrubber
systems generate process wastewaters which require subsequent
treatment. The selection of a gas cleaning system is dependent not
only upon capital and operating costs, but also upon individual plant
characteristics such as physical layout, resource availability, and
available wastewater pollution control facilities (e.g., central
treatment facilities).
Following are the four main water systems used in BOF steelmaking
operations.
a.	Oxygen lance cooling
b.	Furnace trunnion ring and nose cone cooling
c.	Hood cooling
d.	Fume collection scrubber and gas cooling
Open hearth furnace operations use two main water systems:
a.	Furnace cooling; checker reversal valve cooling
b.	Fume collection scrubber and gas cooling
87
-------
Electric arc furnace operations use two main water systems:
a.	Electric arc furnace door, electrode ring, roof ring, cable and
transformer cooling.
b.	Fume collection scrubber and gas cooling
Only the gas cleaning and cooling systems are considered henceforth as
the other systems use only noncontact cooling waters.
In the case of dry gas cleaning systems, waters are applied to the
process off-gases to condition (i.e., to lower the temperature) of
these gases prior to further cleaning in baghouses or electrostatic
precipitators. Initial gas cooling in BOF operations is accomplished
as the waste gases pass through a steam generating hood. This system,
which involves only noncontact waters, provides a means of recovering
waste heat. Waste gases are first cooled in open hearth operations as
they pass through the refractory checkers. In the case of EAF
operations, initial gas cooling is achieved in evaporation chambers.
These chambers are large, refractory lined structures in which water
is sprayed into the gas stream. An exact balance is maintained
between the water supplied to the chamber and the water evaporated in
cooling the hot gases, with the result that no process wastewaters are
generated. The cooled gases can then be introduced to the baghouses
or electrostatic precipitators. The precipitator systems in BOF
operations require a minimum of 100 percent excess air to insure
minimum noncombusted CO carry-over to the precipitators.
The semi-wet gas cleaning system also employs either a baghouse or
precipitator to clean the furnace gases, however, the furnace
off-gases are cooled in a spray chamber (for a baghouse system) or in
a spark box (for a precipitator system). In order to insure proper
temperature conditioning of the gases prior to cleaning, more water is
sprayed into the system than can be evaporated. This practice results
in the generation of a process wastewater which must then receive
treatment prior to discharge. The resulting wastewaters range in
temperature from 82°C to 88°C and contain solids comprised of iron
oxides, fluxing materials, and lime. Plate panel hoods with 200 to
300 percent excess air are employed with these systems in BOF
operations. The capital costs for spark box systems are less costly
than the capital costs for steam generating systems with spray
chambers.
With BOF operations, an alternate to the spark box spray or dry
evaporation chamber systems is the wetted wall evaporation chamber
system. A wetted wall evaporation chamber contains no refractory
lining, but uses a wetted steel surface as the heat resistant medium.
These chambers require large quantities of water to insure that the
steel surfaces are not overheated. After it was sampled during the
original guidelines survey, Plant "R" (0432A) converted this type of
chamber to water cooled plate panel walls, thus eliminating wetted
surfaces.
The wet fume collection systems for steelmaking operations make use of
high energy Venturi scrubbers. In BOF and open hearth operations, the
Venturi scrubber systems are generally coupled with low energy, fixed
88
-------
orifice quenchers which cool the gases to approximately 83°C. The
gases are hotter exiting from the hood on a BOF operation wet scrubber
system than on dry or semi-wet systems, because the maximum excess air
admitted to the system is approximately 50% versus the 100 to 200% for
precipitator systems. This decrease reduces horsepower requirements
while still maintaining a minimum residual of CO in the gases. In
some BOF operations, wet gas cleaning system horsepower requirements
are further reduced by the use of large self-contained closed contact
cooling towers, which reduce the gas temperatures from 83°C saturated
to 43°C saturated. As the gases are saturated, cooling is
accomplished solely by gas to water contact and heat transfer. The
cooling towers are refractory lined, enclosed cylindrical steel towers
with a packed bed of saddles, rings, etc. which provides intimate gas
and water contact. As these cooling systems are installed on the
clean gas side of the Venturi scrubbers, the cooling waters are
recycled after passing through induced draft cooling towers.
Chemicals are added to the recycled waters to prevent fouling of the
system and the cooling tower. Makeup water is added to compensate for
evaporative losses, blowdown, and cooling tower drift. The cooling
tower system could be "once-through" if large quantities of clean
water are available. In addition, waters in the gas stream will be
condensed as the gases are further cooled in these packed towers.
An alternative to the Venturi scrubber system is the wet gas washer
and disintegrator system. This system has limited use, however, as
the larger gas volumes handled in this system result in greater
horsepower requirements to operate the disintegrator.
In conjunction with the water systems described above, the recycle of
process wastewaters has become a common mode of operation in both the
semi-wet and wet gas cleaning systems. In semi-wet operations,
process wastewaters are recycled to the spark box, while in the wet
systems, treated wastewater is recirculated to the scrubber, the
effluent of which is then delivered to the quencher. Most steelmaking
operations use recycle to some degree, as shown in Tables V-l through
V-3. These tables show that several plants recycle more than ninety
percent of their process effluents. The use of recycle is considered
to be good water conservation practice as it not only reduces the
volume of fresh water needed by the gas cleaning system, but it also
reduces the volume of wastewater discharged.
Waste Characterization
The raw wastewaters from the semi-wet and wet gas cleaning systems of
each steelmaking subdivision are similar in waste characterization in
that toxic metals, fluoride, and significant quantities of suspended
solids are present in wastewaters from the three systems. Raw
wastewater pH values are also similar. The levels of the various
pollutants, however, vary among the systems. The toxic metals are
found in the process wastewaters as a result of the volatilization of
the metals from the molten steel. The presence of zinc, one of the
prominent toxic metal pollutants in steelmaking process wastewaters,
can be directly related to the use of galvanized scrap in the furnace
charge. Fluoride concentrations vary in relation to the amount of
fluorspar (a fluxing compound) used in the process. The use of
89
-------
different fuels for firing open hearth furnaces results in the
generation of nitrous and sulfur oxides, which subsequently depress
the pH of open hearth furnace wastewaters. The generation of
particulate matter has been previously discussed in Sections III and
IV.
Tables V-4 through V-13 summarize the concentration data for
wastewater pollutants picked up in each pass through the respective
steelmaking processes. These values provide a measure of the
pollutants contributed by the process. These concentration values
were calculated by subtracting out all "background" pollutant
concentrations.
As noted in Table V-12, raw wastewater samples could not be obtained
for Plant Z, as this plant (Plant 0584A) employes a closed system and
is inaccessible to sampling. Data for the one semi-wet EAF operation
sampled during the toxic pollutant survey (Plant 059B) are not
presented as there are insufficient data to properly evaluate the net
calculation. Data for EAF Plants AA and AB, sampled for the original
guidelines survey, are not presented. Plant AA was resampled as Plant
059A and hence appears in Table V-13. The toxic pollutant survey data
were given precedence as they are more complete and representative of
current operations. Plant AB was not included because the plant
configuration precluded the collection of representative raw
wastewater samples. The pollutants presented in these tables (other
than the previously limited pollutants) were selected on the basis of
their presence in the raw wastewaters at net concentrations of 0.010
mg/1 or more.
After reviewing the net and gross concentration values of those
pollutants considered for limitation in the steelmaking subcategories,
the Agency determined that the effect of makeup water on these streams
is not significant. Consequently, the proposed effluent limitations
and standards are based on gross values.
90
-------
TABLE V-l
RECYCLE RATES
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACES
Semi-Wet
Plant
Reference Code	% Recycle
0196A	0
0396D	90.5
0432A	100
0432C	0
0584C	0
0684B	0
0684G	0
06841	0
0920B	NA
0946A	93.7
Wet-Suppressed Combustion
0060	96.0
0384A	94.0
0528A	0
0684F	94.2
0684H	90.0
0856N	96.9
Wet-Open Combustion
0020B	71.9
0112A	66.8
0112B	0
0112D	46.3
0248A	0
0384A	89.1
0584F	75.2
0724A	80.0
0856B	0
0856R	90.9
0860B	84.4
0860B	88.4
0860H	18.0
0868A	89.2
0920N	34.4
91
-------
TABLE V-2
RECYCLE RATES
OPEN HEARTH FURNACES
Plant Reference Code	% Recycle
Semi-wet 0864A	93.8
Wet 0060	97.6
0112A	87.5
0492A	29.1
92
-------
TABLE V-3
RECYCLE RATES
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
Plant Reference Code	% Recycle
Semi-wet 0060F	0, >
0432C	0U;
0584A	(2)
Wet	0060D	72.0
006OF	89.7
0492A	29.0
0528A	0
0612	98.1
0856F	95•°/
0860H
0860H	48.0
0868B	91.1
0940	(2)
(1)	Process water is completely reused.
(2)	All waters are evaporated. Only wet sludges are removed
from the process.
(3)	Remaining percentage is reused.
93
-------
TAbLti V-H
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - SEMI-WET
Pick-up per pass concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewaters.
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
0432A
R
#1-#2
130
mg/1
197
NR
11.1
0396D
U
#1-#4
728
mg/1
396
2.4
11.8
Average^^ ^
429
mg/1
297
2.4
11.4-11.8
119	Chromium
120	Copper
122	Lead
123	Mercury
128	Zinc
0.03
1.26
0.0029
0.68
NR
0.05
1.05
0.04
1.26
0.0029
0.86
(1)	Negative values were not used in calculating the average.
NR:	Value not reported.
- :	Calculation yields a negative result.
+ :	Cannot be evaluated.
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
94
-------
TABLE V-5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
Pick-up per pass concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewaters.
Reference Code	0060
Plant Code	s
Sample Points	#1-#2
Flow, gal/ton	982
mg/1
Suspended Solids	337
Fluoride	NR
pH (Units)	8.8
120 Copper	+
122	Lead	3.40
123	Mercury	0.0004
128 Zinc	16
NR: Not Reported
+ : cannot be evaluated
NOTE: All values expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
95
-------
TABLE V-6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION

Pick-up per pass
concentrations
of pollutants
in raw wastewaters.

Reference Code
0 384A
0856N
0684F
Averages
Plant Code
032
034
038
Sample Points
B+C+D-G
B-C-A
B-C-E

Flows, (gal/ton)
1470
1150
569
1060


mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1

Suspended Solids
1450
333
645
809

Fluoride
NR
NR
NR
NR

pH (Units)
8.7
9.4
11.3
8.7-11.3
4
Benzene

0.000
-
0.000
22
Parachlorometa creaol
0.003
-
-
0.001
23
Chloroform
-
-
-
0.000
39
Fluoranthene
0.007
0.000
0.001
0.003
65
Phenol
0.000
-
0.008
0.003
84
Pyrene
0.005
0.000
-
0.002
86
Toluene
0.001
-
0.003
0.001
89-





105
Pesticides
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106-





112
PCB' s
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
113
Toxaphene
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
114
Antimony
NR
0.004
NR
0.004
115
Beryllium
-
NR
-
0.000
118
Cadmium
0.091
NR
0.032
0.062
119
Chromium
1.05
NR
0.156
0.602
120
Copper
0. 311
0.009
0.063
0.128
121
Cyanide
0.001
-
-
0.0003
122
Lead
26.5
0.699
NR
13.6
123
Mercury
-
0.0002
0.0000
0.00007
124
Nickel
0.327
-
0.021
0.116
125
Selenium
NR
0.003
NR
0.003
126
S i1ve r
0.019
NR
0.005
0.012
128
Zinc
8.33
NR
NR
8. 33
- : Calculation Yielded Negative Result
NR: Not Reported
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
Pick-up per pass concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewaters.
Reference Code	0112A	0584F	Average
Plant Code	T	V
Sample Points	#1-#2-#4	#5-#6-#7
Flow, (gal,ton)	633	259	446
mg/1	mg/1	mg/1
Suspended Solids	3739	5338	4539
Fluoride	10.8	+	10.8
pH (Units)	8.0	3.4	3.4-8.0
120 Copper	2.1	..+	2.1
122	Lead	+	+	+
123	Mercury	0.0019	0.0004	0.0012
128 Zinc	5.4	193	99.2
+ : Cannot be evaluated.
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
97
-------
TABLE V-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
STEELMAJCING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION

Pick-up per pass
concentrations
of pollutants in
raw process
wastewaters.

Reference Code
0020B
0856B
0868A
0112D
Averag<
Plant Code
031
033
035
036

Sample Points
B-A
C-A
L-A-M
O-Q

Flow, (gal/ton)
1058
2»41
1046
454
717


n«/l
mK/1
_s£/i_
ng/l
mK/1
Suspended Solids
367
7669
877
7087
4000
Fluoride
NR
NR
NF
8.6
8.6
pH
(Units)
8.1
11.7
8.4
11.3
8.1-11.
4
Benzene
0.000
0.000
0.003
_
0.001
10
1,2-Trans dichloroethane
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.002
23
Chloroform
0.032
_
0.042
_
0.018
39
Fluoranthene
0.000
0.034
_
o.ooo
0.008
73
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.000
0.007
0.007
0.000
0.004
76
Chrysene
-
0.026
0.003
o.ooo
0.007
84
Pyrene
0.000
0.032
-
0.000
0.008
n4
Antimony
0.017

NR
NR
0.008
115
Arsenic
0.048
0.072
NR
NB
0.060
117
Beryllium
NR
0.000
-
0.0067
0.002
118
Cadmium
0.261
NR
0.019
0.174
0. 152
119
Chromium
17.1
_
0.018
0.367
4.37
120
Copper
1.20
0.877
0.015
0.331
0.606
121
Cyanide
-
.
0.002
0.001
0.002
122
Lead
0.775
12.8
0.022
0.367
3-49
123
Mercury
0.033
0.0001
0.0002
0.0335
0.0167
124
Nickel
NR
~
-
0.047
0.024
125
Selenium
0.003
0.032
NR
NR
0.108
126
Silver
NR
~
0.000
0.013
0.026
127
Thallium
0.015
-
NF
NR
0.008
128
Zinc
3.26
48.7
3-33
2.001
14.3
NR: Not reported.
- : Calculation yielded negative result.
+ : Cannot be evaluated.
NOTE: All values are expressed In mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
98
-------
TABLE V-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
	OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - SEMI-WET 	
Pick-up per pass concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewaters.
Reference Code	0864A
Plant Code	043
Sample Points	B-C
Flow, gal/ton	1163
mg/1
Suspended Solids	480
Fluoride	222
pH (Units)	2.4
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform	0.014
86 Toluene	0.003
118	Cadmium
119	Chromium	0.075
120	Copper	0.070
121	Cyanides	0.036
122	Lead	+
124 Nickel	0.047
128 Zinc	0.43
+: Cannot be evaluated
-: Calculation yields a negative result
NOTE: All values expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
99
-------
TABLE V-10
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
	OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - WET	
Pick-up per pass concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewater.
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
0112A
W
#l-#2-#4
607
0060
X
#l-#2-#4
500
Averag
578
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
mg/1
22.4
3.7
mg/1
3894
16
6.2
mg/1
3894
19.2
3.7-6.
120	Copper
122	Lead
123	Mercury
128	Zinc
0.19
0.0007
3.4
NR
3.4
0.19
0.0007
+
(1) Negative values were not used in calculating the averages.
NR: No value was reported.
Calculation yields a negative result.
A representative sample was not obtained.
Cannot be evaluated.
NOTE: All values expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
100
-------
TABLE V-11
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
	OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - WET	
Pick-up per pass concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewaters.
Reference Code	0492A
Plant Code 0^2
Sample Points	C-A-D
Flow, gal/ton 506
mg/1
Suspended Solids	15.10
Fluoride	92
pH (Units)	6.7
23 Chloroform
128 Zinc	389
Calculation yields a negative result
101
-------
TABLE V-12
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - SEMI-WET
Pick-up per pass concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewaters.
Reference Code
0432C
0584A
Average
Plant Code
Y
Z

Sample Points
#1 - #2
NA

Flow, Gal/Ton
97
NA
97
Suspended Solids
1070
•
1070
Fluoride
-
»
+
pH (Units)
7.83
*
7.83
120 Copper
0.108
ft
0.408
122 Lead
15.3
•
15.3
128 Zinc
14.5
ft
14.5
* : No samples of the raw or treated wastewaters could be obtained during
the survey. This plant utilizes a closed system and is inaccessible
to sampling. The only sample obtained was of the sludge leaving the
system.
- : Calculation yields a negative result.
+ : Calculation cannot be evaluated.
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/l unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-13
SUMMARY OF ANALTYICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
	ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET	
Pick-up per pas3 concentrations of pollutants in raw wastewaters.
Reference Code
0612
0492A
0060F
Average
Plant Code
051
052
059A

Sample Points
B-E-D
B-A-D
F-G-I

Flow, Gal/Ton
720
1178
2300
1399
Suspended Solids
2761
886
6298
3308
Fluoride
NR
NR
44
44
pH (Units)
7.1
9.0
7.1
7.1 - 9.0
4 Benzene


0.022
0.007
24 2-Chlorophenol
_
0
0.016
0.005
39 Fluoranthene
_
0
0.056
0.019
58 4-Nitrophenol
0.007
0
0.031
0.013
64 Pentachlorophenol
0.003
0
0.038
0.014
84 Pyrene
-
0
0.050
0.017
114 Antimony
0.661
NR
NR
0.661
115 Arsenic
1.22
NR
NR
1.22
118 Cadmium
1.81
NR
NR
1.81
119 Chromium
3-76
NR
NR
3-76
120 Copper
1.25
NR
NR
1.25
122 Lead
21.5
NR
NR
21.5
123 Mercury
0.0009
+
NR
0.0009
124 Nickel
0.033
NR
NR
0.033
126 Silver
0.053
NR
NR
0.053
128 Zinc
80.0
+
+
80.0
NR
+
No value was reported
Calculation cannot be evaluated
Calculation yielded a negative result
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
103
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VI
WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Introduction
This section describes the selection, rationale for selection, and
process sources of those pollutants characteristic of wastewaters from
the various steelmaking processes. The initial task was to develop a
list, based upon data obtained from the DCP responses and during the
original guidelines survey, of pollutants considered to be
representative of each steelmaking process. This initial list was
then confirmed by and augmented with analytical data obtained during
the toxic pollutant survey. The final selection of pollutants for
each steelmaking operation was based upon a review of all analytical
data and consideration of each pollutant's impact and its ability to
serve as an indicator of wastewater contamination and treatment
performance.
Conventional Pollutants
The originally promulgated BPT limitations for the steelmaking
subdivisions contained limitations for suspended solids and pH. The
Agency established limitations for suspended solids based upon the
substantial quantities of fume particulates generated in the
steelmaking processes and carried away by process off-gases. As water
is used to condition and clean these gases, the fume particulates are
transferred to the process waters. Suspended solids levels provide an
indication of the degree to which the process wastewaters are
contaminated and of wastewater treatment performance. The removal of
suspended solids will also result in the removal of certain toxic
metals which are entrained in the suspended solids.
The Agency selected pH (a measure of a wastewater's acidity or
alkalinity) for limitation because of the detrimental environmental
impacts which can result from extremes in the pH of a wastewater
discharge, In addition, pH extremes can cause other problems, such as
corrosion or failure of the process and wastewater treatment equipment
and facilities. Basic oxygen furnace raw wastewater pH values are
typically in the alkaline range due to the composition of the furnace
gases. Open hearth raw wastewaters are typically acidic, again,
because of the nature of the gases. The acidity of the raw
wastewaters is primarily caused by the scrubbing of sulfur oxides,
which are found in the gases as a result of the various fuels which
are used to fire the furnace. The pH of electric arc furnace raw
wastewater is typically in the neutral range of pH values (6.0 to
9.0).
105
-------
Nonconventional, Nontoxic Pollutants
The presence of fluoride in steelmaking process wastewaters is related
to the use of fluorspar in the steelmaking process. Although not
included in the list of toxic pollutants, fluoride has exhibited
effects which are detrimental to the environment. Fluoride is
typically present in only moderate amounts in BOF raw wastewaters.
However, substantial amounts of fluoride can be found in open hearth
and EAF raw wastewaters since the use of fluorspar is related to the
amount of scrap used in the furnace charge.
Toxic Pollutants
This study also considered the discharge of toxic pollutants.
Initially, the Agency developed a list of pollutants "known to be
present" in steelmaking wastewaters based upon industry responses to
the DCPs, analyses performed during the screening phase of the
project, and knowledge of the character of steelmaking process
wastewaters. Tables VI-1 through VI-3 present lists of these
pollutants for each steelmaking subcategory.
Upon completion of the analytical tasks for steelmaking operations,
the Agency tabulated the data and calculated a net concentration value
for each pollutant detected in raw wastewaters at 0.010 mg/1 or
greater. "Pick-up per pass" raw concentrations were used for the
reasons noted in Section V. Those pollutants which were found at
average net concentrations of less than 0.010 mg/1 were excluded from
further consideration. The Agency then developed lists of selected
pollutants, including the conventional and nonconventional pollutants,
for the steelmaking subdivisions. The final lists of selected
pollutants are presented in Tables VI-4 through VI-6.
The toxic metal pollutants originate in the raw materials (primarily
the scrap) charged to the steelmaking furnaces. Subsequently, these
metals contaminate process wastewaters by the fume particulates which
are scrubbed from furnace off-gases. In all subcategories, zinc is
the predominant toxic metal found in the process wastewaters. Raw
wastewater zinc levels will increase significantly as galvanized steel
scrap comprises a larger portion of the furnace charge.
Although the Agency found a number of toxic organic pollutants in
steelmaking wastewaters, Tables VI-4 through VI-6 do not include all
of these pollutants. The Agency did not include many of those
pollutants (e.g., phthalates) because it believes that their detection
during the toxic pollutant survey results not from their presence in
the wastewaters but from the sampling and laboratory procedures. The
remaining organic pollutants (primarily in EAF operations) may
originate with the scrap charge to the furnaces and were included in
the pollutant list. In addition to the organic pollutants found on
the scrap steel as a result of machining and handling, the solvents
used in a number of instances to clean the scrap steel are also a
source of organic pollutants. However, the Agency is not proposing
limitations for these pollutants. The Agency believes that pollutants
do not tend to concentrate in recycle systems. Although the
concentration in recycle system blowdowns will be approximately the
106
-------
same as in once-through systems, the mass loadings of those pollutants
to the environment will be reduced proportionately to the degree of
recycle. Accordingly, the Agency believes that compliance with the
proposed BAT limitations indicates a comparable reduction in the
discharge of the toxic organic pollutants present in steelmaking
wastewaters.
Other pollutants (i.e., chloride, sulfate) are present at substantial
levels in the process wastewaters, but are not included in the list of
selected pollutants since they are nontoxic in nature and difficult to
remove. Treatment of these pollutants is not commonly practiced in
the wastewater treatment operations of any industry.
107
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
4.	Benzene
23.	Chloroform
65.	Phenol
85.	Tetrachloroethylene
86.	Toluene
115.	Arsenic
118.	Cadmium
119.	Chromium
120.	Copper
121.	Cyanide
122.	Lead
123.	Mercury
124.	Nickel
125.	Selenium
126.	Silver
127.	Thallium
128.	Zinc
108
-------
TABLE VI-2
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE
65.	Phenol
114.	Antimony
115.	Arsenic
118.	Cadmium
119.	Chromium
120.	Copper
121.	Cyanide
122.	Lead
123.	Mercury
124.	Nickel
128.	Zinc
109
-------
TABLE VI-3
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
4.	Benzene
39.	Fluoranthene
48.	4-Nitrophenol
64.	Pentachlorophenol
84.	Pyrene
114.	Antimony
115.	Arsenic
118.	Cadmium
119.	Chromium
120.	Copper
122.	Lead
124.	Nickel
126.	Silver
128.	Zinc
110
-------
TABLE VI-4
SELECTED POLLUTANTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISON
Semi-Wet
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
PH
120 Copper
122	Lead
123	Mercury
128 Zinc
Wet-Suppressed Combustion
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH
118	Cadmium
119	Chromium
120	Copper
122	Lead
124	Nickel
126	Silver
128	Zinc
Wet-Open Combustion
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH
23	Chloroform
115	Arsenic
118	Cadmium
119	Chromium
120	Copper
122	Lead
123	Mercury
124	Nickel
125	Selenium
126	Silver
127	Thallium
128	Zinc
111
-------
TABLE VI-5
SELECTED POLLUTANTS
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Semi-Wet
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH
119	Chromium
120	Copper
121	Cyanide
124 Nickel
128	Zinc
Wet
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
PH
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
112
-------
TABLE VI-6
SELECTED POLLUTANTS
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Semi-Wet
Wet
Fluoride
PH
Suspended Solids
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
120 Copper
pH
4 Benzene
122 Lead
128 Zinc
39 Fluoranthene
58 4-Nitrophenol
64 Pentachlorophenol
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
US Arsenic
118	Cadmium
119	Chromium
120	Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
113
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
A review of the control and treatment technologies currently in use or
available for use in the steelmaking subcategories provided the basis
for the selection and development of the BPT model and BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS alternative treatment systems. This review involved
summarizing the questionnaire and plant visit data to identify those
wastewater treatment components and systems in use at the various
steelmaking operations. Capabilities, either demonstrated in this or
in other operations (refer to Volume I) were used in evaluating the
various treatment technologies to determine which treatment components
are appropriate for the various levels of treatment. This section
presents a summary of the treatment practices currently in use or
available for use in the treatment of steelmaking process wastewaters.
This section also presents raw wastewater and treated effluent
analytical data for the plants sampled, as well as long-term effluent
analytical data provided in the D-DCPs. Also included are treatment
facility descriptions of each sampled plant.
Summary of Treatment Practices Currently Employed
A survey of the treatment components used within the steelmaking
subcategory indicates that all of the plants use gravity
sedimentation, usually as an initial treatment step. Most plants also
practice recycle, typically following sedimentation. In addition,
several steelmaking operations discharge process wastewaters to
central (i.e., multi-waste source or multi-operational waste source)
treatment facilities for further treatment.
Referring to Tables III—5 through 111-10, the following treatment
technologies have been noted as in use at many steelmaking operations.
A.	Neutralization with Lime
In the case of the open hearth furnace operations, lime is added
to the process wastewaters for the purpose of adjusting the pH of
the typically acidic process wastewaters to the neutral range
(6.0 to 9.0).
B.	Thickener
Sedimentation components are used in all steelmaking
subcategories to remove the substantial amounts of particulate
matter generated in the process and transported by the process
wastewaters.
115
-------
C. Coagulant Aid Addition
Coagulant aids (i.e., polymeric flocculants) are added to the
process wastewaters in all of the steelmaking subdivisions to
enhance suspended solids removal.
D.	Vacuum Filter
Vacuum filters are used in all of the subdivisions to dewater the
sludges removed from the sedimentation components. By dewatering
the substantial quantities of solids which are removed from the
process wastewaters, the costs of sludge handling and disposal
are reduced.
E.	Recycle
In the semi-wet air pollution control system segments, the entire
effluent of the sedimentation component is recycled to the
process. However, in the wet air pollution control system
segments, most of the clarified effluent is recycled. The
remainder of the effluent is discharged in the wet segments.
Makeup water is added to replace water lost through evaporation
in the gas cleaning system or as moisture in the dewatered
sol ids.
F.	Neutralization with Acid
In the case of the BOF wet air pollution control system segments,
acid is added to the recycle system blowdown to adjust the pH of
the typically alkaline wastewaters to the neutral pH range (6.0
to 9.0).
The above components have been included in the BPT model treatment
systems on the basis of their widespread use at the various
steelmaking processes.
Control and Treatment
Technologies for BAT, NSPS, PSES. and PSNS
The presence of nonconventional and inorganic toxic pollutants in
process wastewaters from steelmaking operations with wet air pollution
control systems led the Agency to consider advanced levels of
treatment for use in the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS treatment systems.
The Agency did not give such a consideration to the semi-wet gas
cleaning systems because the BPT model treatment systems provides for
the recycle of all process wastewaters. Following is a brief
discussion of each of the treatment steps considered by the Agency.
Filtration is a common and effective means of removing suspended
solids and, in particular, those pollutants (especially the toxic
metals) entrained in these solids. A BOF discharging to a central
treatment facility has this technology in place. Filtration is well
demonstrated in many other wastewaters treatment applications in other
subcategories. Generally, the filter bed is comprised of one or more
filter media (i.e., sand, anthracite, garnet), while a variety of
116
-------
filtration systems are available (flat bed, deep bed, pressure, or
gravity). The primary reason for applying this technology to the
treatment of steelmaking process wastewaters is the removal of toxic
metals.
Lime precipitation is effective for removing various pollutants.
Significant reductions in fluoride levels and loads are achieved with
lime precipitation as a result of the formation of calcium fluoride
precipitates. Lime addition also achieves additional toxic metals
removals through the formation of metal hydroxide precipitates. Lime
addition, for the purpose ot precipitating fluorides from process
wastewaters, has been demonstrated in the steelmaking subdivisions, in
this industry, and in other industries. In order to remove the solids
and precipitates added and formed as a result of lime addition to
steelmaking wastewaters, an inclined plate separator is included in
the treatment system in conjunction with lime addition. Inclined
plate separators are gravity sedimentation devices with effective
settling areas much larger than the actual equipment size. The number
of mechanical components is also reduced with these devices. Inclined
plate separator capabilities have been demonstrated in numerous
applications in this subcategory (Plant 0684F), in this industry, and
in other industries.
Systems using a sulfide compound addition to the wastewater stream
have been shown to be capable of reducing effluent metals
concentrations to levels below those achieved with lime precipitation.
Some of the toxic metals which can effectively be precipitated with
sulfide are zinc, copper, nickel, lead, and silver. The increased
removal efficiencies can be attributed to the comparative solubilities
of metal sulfides and metal hydroxides. In general, the metal
sulfides are less soluble than the respective metal hydroxides.
However, it is important to note that an excess of sulfide in a
treated effluent can result in objectionable odor problems. A
decrease in wastewater pH will aggravate this problem, and if
wastewater treatment pH control problems result in even a slightly
acidic pH, operating personnel can be adversely affected. One method
of controlling the presence of excess sulfide in the treated effluent
involves using an iron sulfide slurry as the sulfide source. Ferrous
sulfide will not readily dissociate in the waste stream, with the
result that the free sulfide level is kept well below objectionable
levels. However, the affinities of the other metals in the waste
stream for sulfide are greater than that of iron, and consequently
other metal sulfide precipitates are formed preferentially to iron
sulfide. Once the sulfide requirements of the other metal
precipitates are satisfied, the remaining sulfide remains as a ferrous
precipitate and the excess iron from the sulfide is precipitated as a
hydroxide. With the use of filtration following sulfide addition,
additional toxic metal reductions can be achieved.
The Agency considered vapor compression distillation, in which a
wastewater with a high dissolved solids content (the treatment system
blowdown) is concentrated to a slurry consistency, as a possible means
of attaining zero discharge in the steelmaking subcategories. The
resulting slurry would be dried by various means while the distillate
quality effluent would be recycled to the process. However, the
117
-------
Agency excluded this technology from further consideration due to
excessive costs and energy requirements.
Summary of Analytical Data
Raw wastewater and effluent analytical data for the basic oxygen
furnace operations visited during the original and toxic pollutant
surveys are presented in Tables VI1-2 through VI1-6. Similar data for
the open hearth furnace and electric arc furnace operations are
presented in Tables VII-7 through VII-9 and Tables VII-10 through
VII-13, respectively. Plant AA, an electric arc furnace operation,
was resampled as Plant 059A dating the toxic pollutant survey. Table
VII-1 presents the legend for the treatment technologies used in the
above tables and in other tables throughout this report.
The concentrations presented in the above tables represent, except
where footnoted, averages of measured values. In some cases, these
data represent the values of central treatment systems. As indicated
on the tables, the effluent waste loads (lb/1000 lb) for central
treatment systems represent apportioned loads. In these central
treatment systems, the percentage contribution of an individual
operation to the total treatment system influent load was determined
and subsequently applied to the total effluent load. This procedure
was repeated for each pollutant. By using this procedure, an
assessment was made of the effects of treatment on the waste loads of
an individual process which discharges to a central treatment
facility.
As a supplement to the sampled plant data, effluent data from plant
D-DCP responses are presented in Tables VII-14 and VII-15 for the BOF
operations, in Tables VII-16 and VII- 17 for open hearth operations,
and in Table VII-18 for EAF operations. Tables VII-19 through VII-21
summarize the typical process wastewater characteristics for the
various steelmaking processes as determined from the data noted above.
Plant Visits
Brief descriptions of the visited plants follow below, while treatment
system flow schematics are presented at the end of this section.
A. Basic Oxygen Furnace - Semi-wet
Plant R (Figure VII-1 )
Process wastewaters undergo sedimentation, with the aid of
polymer addition, in a dragout tank. All wastewaters are
recycled to the process.
Plant U (Figure VII-2)
A thickener and polymer addition are used to treat BOF
wastewaters. The overflow from the thickener is discharged
directly to a river with the exception of a side stream which is
used for slag quenching. The thickener underflow is dewatered
118
-------
with a vacuum filter and the filtrate is returned to the
thickener influent.
B. Basic Oxygen Furnace - Wet-Suppressed Combustion
Plant S (Figure VII-3)
This plant uses a classifier and thickener for primary and
secondary suspended solids removal. The thickener underflow is
dewatered using vacuum filtration. Ninety-five percent of the
treated effluent is recycled while the remaining five percent is
discharged.
Plant 032 (Figure VII-4)
Hydroclones and classifiers are used for primary solids removal
in this wastewater treatment system. The effluent is then
discharged to the thickener distribution box where it is mixed
with the discharge from the secondary ventilation scrubbers. The
thickener overflow, after pH adjustment, . is recycled, from a
holding tank, to the process. Seven percent of the thickener
overflow is blowndown to a clarifier. The overflow from the
clarifier is pumped to a central treatment facility and is
subsequently discharged. The underflows from the thickeners and
clarifier are discharged to settling lagoons.
Plant 034 (Figure VII-5)
Wastewaters from both Venturi scrubbers are combined in	a
distribution box. At this point polymer is added to aid	in
solids removal in a thickener. The thickener overflow	is
diverted to a holding tank where 96% of the thickener effluent	is
recycled to the process. The blowdown from the holding tank	is
clarified prior to discharge. The clarifier underflow	is
returned to the thickener influent while the thickener underflow
is discharged to lagoons.
Plant 038 (Figure VII-6)
Wastewaters from the BOF quenchers are combined in a distribution
box feeding two desiltors in which heavy solids are removed. The
effluent from the desiltors is then discharged to two thickeners
for secondary solids removal. Ninety-four percent of the
thickener effluent is recycled to the system. The underflow from
the thickeners is dewatered by vacuum filtration while the
filtrate is returned to the inlet of the thickeners. The
blowdown from the recycle system undergoes chemical flocculation
and precipitation (with lime) and then sedimentation in "Lamella"
separators. The effluent of the separators is discharged
directly to the river while the underflow is returned to the
thickeners.
119
-------
C. Basic Oxygen Furnace - Wet-Open Combustion
Plant T (Figure VII-7)
A Grizzly, a cyclone and a classifier are used in this plant to
accomplish primary solids removal. The effluent from these
primary solids removal steps flows to a thickener where further
solids removal is provided. The underflow from the thickener is
transferred to sludge disposal. The overflow from the thickener
flows to a holding tank. Seventy-six percent of the thickener
effluent is recycled and the balance discharged. Industrial
water is used as makeup to this process.
Plant V (Figure VII-8)
A classifier and thickener are used in this plant for primary and
secondary suspended solids removal. Chemical addition is used to
aid in secondary suspended solids removal. The thickener
overflow is collected in a clearwell from which 87% of the
thickener effluent is recycled. The remaining thirteen percent
is discharged to a sewer. The thickener underflow is dewatered
by vacuum filtration and the filtrate is returned to the
thickener influent.
Plant 031 (Figure VII-9)
In this plant, spray wastewaters flow to a settling tank where
primary suspended solids removal is accomplished. The overflow
from this settling tank discharges into a dirty water sump where
it is combined with Venturi scrubber water. This wastewater is
then combined with other mill wastewaters in an equalization tank
prior to chemical addition (lime and polymer) and clarification.
The clarifier effluent is pumped to a final polishing lagoon
which discharges directly to the river. The clarifier underflow
is dewatered using vacuum filters and the filtrate is returned to
the clarifier influent.
Plant 033 (Figure VII-10)
The wastewaters from the scrubber are discharged to a classifier
for the purpose of achieving primary suspended solids removal. A
portion of the classifier effluent is recycled to the process
while the remaining (thirty percent) effluent flows to a
thickener for secondary suspended solids removal. The overflow
from the thickener is discharged. The thickener underflow is
discharged to centrifuges for dewatering and the centrate is
returned to the thickener influent.
Plant 035 - (Figure VII-11)
Wastewaters from the scrubbers and quenchers flow directly to a
desiltor in which primary suspended solids removal is provided.
The overflow from the desiltor is discharged to a clarifier for
additional solids removal. Ninety percent of the clarifier
effluent is recycled with the balance being discharged along with
] ?n
-------
other plant wastewaters to a terminal treatment lagoon. The
underflow from the clarifier is dewatered by vacuum filtration
and the filtrate is returned to the clarifier inlet. Sludges
from the desiltor and vacuum filter are further dewatered on
drying beds.
Plant 036 (Figure VII-12)
BOF wastewaters are transferred to cyclones, where primary
suspended solids removal is accomplished. The concentrated
solids from the cyclones are discharged to classifiers where
further solids concentration is accomplished. The overflow from
the cyclones combined with the effluent from the classifiers make
up the feed to the two thickeners. The overflow from the
thickeners flows to a holding tank and then to the recycle tank.
Overflows from the holding tank and recycle tank account for a
blowdown of about 54%. The underflow from the thickeners flows
to two centrifuges, the effluents of which are also discharged.
D.	Open Hearth Furnace - Semi-wet
Plant 043 (Figure VII-13)
Each furnace has its own spray chamber which is manifolded to a
central precipitator gas cleaning system. A common wastewater
treatment system serves all of the spray" chambers. The major
component in the wastewater treatment system is a thickener. The
thickener overflow is recycled, while a 0.3% blowdown is
discharged to a final polishing lagoon. The thickener underflow
is conveyed to a settling lagoon. The dry precipitator dust is
slurried and removed from precipitator hoppers by pneumatic
conveyors with water jet ejectors. This wastewater is discharged
to another thickener. This thickener overflow is recycled to the
water jet ejectors while the underflow is discharged to the
settling lagoon.
E.	Open Hearth Furnace - Wet
Plant W (Figure VII-14)
This gas cleaning system is a central system with manifolded
ductwork which serves all of the furnaces in the shop. The
central gas cleaning system is a parallel design of dry
precipitators and wet scrubbers. The dry precipitators were
installed first on the system and the Venturi scrubbers were
added later. Each system is designed to clean approximately one
half of the total gas volume from the open hearth shop.
The scrubber discharges empty into primary separators. A portion
of the separator effluent is pumped to a thickener for final
sedimentation, while the remaining effluent is combined with the
thickener overflow in a recycle tank and returned to the Venturi
scrubbers. Nine percent of the thickener overflow is discharged
to a receiving stream.
121
-------
Plant X (Figure VII-15)
This gas cleaning system is comprised of individual Venturi
scrubbers for each open hearth furnace, although scrubber
discharges are combined for treatment.
Wastewater treatment involves lime neutralization followed by
sedimentation in a thickener. The thickener underflow is
dewatered by vacuum filters and the filtrate is returned to the
thickener inlet. Seventy-nine percent of the thickener overflow
is recycled to the scrubbers. The remaining twenty-one percent
is discharged to the plant sewer or treated further in a deep bed
filter.
Plant 042 (Figure VII-16)
This gas cleaning system is a manifolded system in which all
furnaces are exhausted through common ductwork to three clusters
of hydroscrubbers, with each cluster being able to serve a set
number of furnaces through the manifolded ductwork. The
principle of the hydroscrubber involves the use of steam or air,
and a water jet ejector for cleaning open hearth off-gases.
Waste heat boilers furnish the steam for this process.
Wastewater treatment is provided in a joint system serving both
the electric arc furnace shop and the open hearth shop. The
wastewaters are neutralized, flocculated with polymers and then
discharged to clarifiers where they undergo sedimentation. A
portion of the clarifier overflow is recycled, while a 71%
blowdown is discharged to final polishing lagoons. The clarifier
underflow is dewatered by vacuum filters.
F. Electric Arc Furnace - Semi-wet
Plant V (Figure VII-17)
The wastewater treatment system provides for the treatment of
scrubber discharges in a dragout tank, to which polymer is added.
The only effluent from this system is a sludge which is collected
in a sludge basin and then hauled away. The overflow from the
dragout tank is completely recycled to the process.
Plant Z (Figure VII-18)
This plant closely controls the water spray of its gas cleaning
system to produce a sludge of sufficient solids concentration to
allow direct solids disposal. Solids captured by the gas
cleaning system collect in water sealed tanks with drag-link
conveyors. There is no aqueous discharge from this system.
Plant 059B (Figure VII-19)
This treatment system uses a clarifier to provide sedimentation
for process wastewaters. The clarifier effluent is either reused
122
-------
in other operations in this plant or discharged, while the
underflow is dewatered with vacuum filters.
G. Electric Arc Furnace - Wet
Plant AB (Figure VII-20)
Wastewaters from the Venturi scrubbers and primary quenchers are
collected in a recirculation sump. Ninety-five percent of the
wastewater in the sump is recirculated back to the scrubbers and
quenchers. The remaining five percent flows to a thickener for
sedimentation, and then to lagoons for final polishing prior to
discharge. Vacuum filters dewater the sludge removed from the
thickener.
Plant 051 (Figure VII-21)
Sedimentation is provided in a thickener. Vacuum filters are
used to dewater the thickener underflow while the filtrate is
returned to the inlet of the thickener. More than ninety-eight
percent of the overflow is recycled to the scrubbers while the
remainder is reused in other mill operations.
Plant 052 (Figure VII-22)
Open hearth and electric arc furnace wastewaters are co-treated
in a combined treatment system. Systems of the EAF and open
hearth shops discharge to a pump station which delivers the
wastewaters to a flocculation and neutralization tank. Both lime
and polymer are added prior to discharge to a clarifier. Vacuum
filters dewater the clarifier underflow. Twenty-nine percent of
the clarifier overflow is recycled back to the gas cleaning
system, while the remaining seventy-one percent receives
additional treatment in combined plant wastewater settling ponds.
Plant 059A (Figure VII-23)
Scrubber effluent wastewaters are discharged to conical bottom
separator tanks. Most of the wastewater is recirculated to the
scrubbers, while the remainder is discharged to clarifiers which
provide further sedimentation. Approximately one half of the
clarifier overflow is returned to the gas cleaning system while
the other half is discharged to a settling pond.
123
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
Symbols
Operating Modes
1.	OT	Once-Through
2.	Rt,s,n	Recycle, where t = type waste
s = stream recycled
n = % recycled
t: U = Untreated
T = Treated
p
Process Wastewater
%
of
raw waste
flow
F
Flume Only
%
of
raw waste
flow
S
Flume and Sprays
%
of
raw waste
flow
FC
Final Cooler
%
of
FC flow

BC
Barometric Cond.
%
of
BC flow

VS
Abs. Vent Scrub.
%
of
VS flow

FH
Fume Hood Scrub.
%
of
FH flow

REt,n
Reuse, where
t
=
type

3.
n = % of raw waste flow
t: U = before treatment
T = after treatment
4.	BDn	Blowdown, where n = discharge as % of
raw waste flow
Control Technology
10.	DI	Deionization
11.	SR	Spray/Fog Rinse
12.	CC	Countercurrent Rinse
13.	DR	Drag-out Recovery
Disposal Methods
20.	H	Haul Off-Site
21.	DW	Deep Well Injection
124
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 2
C.	Disposal Methods (cont.)
22. Qt,d	Coke Quenching, where t = type
d = discharge as %
of makeup
t: DW = Dirty Water
CW = Clean Water
23.
EME
Evaporation, Multiple
Effect
24.
ES
Evaporation on Slag

25.
EVC
Evaporation, Vapor Compression
Treatment
Technology

30.
SC
Segregated Collection

31.
E
Equalization/Blending

32.
Scr
Screening

33.
OB
Oil Collecting Baffle

34.
SS
Surface Skimming (oil,
etc. )
35.
PSP
Primary Scale Pit

36.
SSP
Secondary Scale Pit

37.
EB
Emulsion Breaking

38.
A
Acidi fication

39.
AO
Air Oxidation

40.
GF
Gas Flotation

41.
M
Mixing

42.
Nt
Neutralization, where
t = type
t: L = Lime
C =	Caustic
A =	Acid
W =	Wastes
0 =	Other, footnote
125
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 3 	
Treatment Technology (cont.)
43.	FLt	Flocculation, where t = type
t: L = Lime
A = Alum
P = Polymer
M = Magnetic
0 = Other, footnote
44.	CY	Cyclone/Centrifuge/Classifier
44a. DT Drag Tank
45.	CL	Clarifier
46.	T	Thickener
47.	TP	Tube/Plate Settler
48.	SLn	Settling Lagoon, where n = days of retention
time
49.	BL	Bottom Liner
50.	VF	Vacuum Filtration (of e.g., CL, T, or TP
underflows)
51.	Ft,m,h	Filtration, where t = type
m = media
h = head
t	m	h
D = Deep Bed	S = Sand	G * Gravity
F = Flat Bed	0 = Other, P = Pressure
footnote
52.	CLt	Chlorination, where t = type
t: A = Alkaline
B = Breakpoint
53.	CO	Chemical Oxidation (other than CLA or CLB)
126
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 4		
D.	Treatment Technology (cont.)
54. BOt	Biological Oxidation, where t = type
t: An = Activated Sludge
n = No. of Stages
T = Trickling Filter
B = Biodisc
0 = Other, footnote
55.	CR	Chemical Reduction (e.g., chromium)
56.	DP	Dephenolizer
57.	ASt	Ammonia Stripping, where t = type
t: F = Free
L = Lime
C = Caustic
58. APt	Ammonia Product, where t = type
t: S = Sulfate
N = Nitric Acid
A = Anhydrous
P ¦ Phosphate
H = Hydroxide
0 = Other, footnote
59. DSt	Desulfurization, where t = type
t: Q = Qualifying
N * Nonqualifying
60.	CT	Cooling Tower
61.	AR	Acid Regeneration
62.	AU	Acid Recovery and Reuse
63.	ACt	Activated Carbon, where t - type
t: P * Powdered
G = Granular
64.	IX	Ion Exchange
65.	RO	Reverse Osmosis
66.	D	Distillation
127
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENx
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 5		
Treatment Technology (cont.)
67.	AA1	Activated Alumina
68.	OZ	Ozonation
69.	UV	Ultraviolet Radiation
70.	CNTt,n	Central Treatment, where t = type
n = process flow as
% of total flow
Same Subcats.
Similar Subcats.
Synergistic Subcats.
Cooling Water
Incompatible Subcats.
71.	On	Other, where n = Footnote number
72.	SB	Settling Basin
73.	AE	Aeration
74.	PS	Precipitation with Sulfide
128
-------
TABLE VII-2
SUMMARY OF ANALTYICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
	BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - SEHI-WgT	
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code
Plant Code
Saaple Points
Flow, gal/ton
0H32A
R
tl
130
0396D
U
#1
728
Average
429
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
M/l
235
MR
lbs/1000 lbs
0.176
NR
11.2
J6LL.
ne
3-1
11.8
lbs/1000 lbs
1.27
0.00940
¦g/1
372
3.1
lbs/1000 lbs
0.723
0.00940
11.2-11.8
to
10
120	Copper
122	Lead
123	Mercury
129	Zinc
0.05
1.8
0.0042
1.01
0.000027
0.000970
0.000002
0.000546
0.03
1.0
0.001
1.08
0.000091
0.00303
0.000030
0.00328
0.04
1.4
0.0026
1.04
0.000059
0.00200
0.000016
0.00191
Effluent
Reference Code	0432A	0396D
Plant Code	R	u
Saaple Points	f2	#2
Flow, gal/ton	0	728
CATT	Settling tank, FLP, RTP 100	T.FLP.0T
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
¦K/l
lbs/1000 lbs
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
125
MR
0
MR
11-3
38
3-8
0.115
0.0115
11.9
120 Copper
122	Lead
123	Mercury
128	Zinc
0.02
0.53
0.0023
0.32
#
1.0
0.0027
1.6
#
0.00303
0.000008
0.00485
NR: Value not Reported
# : Values for Determination are Qualified
NOTE: For a definition of CATT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VII-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
122 Lead
128 Zinc
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
C&TT
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
122 Lead
128 Zinc
Raw Wastewaters
0060
S
#1
982
mg/1
359
NR
3-52
17
8.8
lbs/10000 lbs
1.47
NR
0.0144
0.0696
Effluent
0060
S
#2
52
Classifier,
T,FLP,VF, RTP94.7
mg/1
22
NR
0.12
0.9
9.3
lbs/1000 lbs
0.00478
NR
0.0000261
0.000196
NR: Not Reported
NOTE: For a definition of C4TT codes, refer to Table V1I-1
130
-------
TABLE VII-4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code

0384A

0856N
0684F






Plant Code

032

034

038





Overal1, .
Sanple Points

B+C+D

a

B

Average


A tl)
Ave rage
Flow, gal/ton

1470

1150

569


1060


1043

ag/1
lbs/1000 lbs
mg/ 1

lbs/1000 lbs
mg/ 1
lbs/1000 lbs
*8/1

lbs/1000 lbs
mg/ 1
lbs/1000
Suspended Solids
1468
8.97
381

1.82
674
1.6
841

4.13
720
3.46
Fluoride
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
1R

NR
NR
NR
pH (Units)
8
. 7

9.4

11.3

8.
.7-11.3

8.
7-11.3
118 Cadmium
0.098
0.00060
NR

NR
0.040
0.00009
0.069

0.00035
0.069
0.00035
119 Chroaiua
1.06
0.00646
NR

NR
0.167
0.00040
0.612

0.00343
0.612
0.00343
120 Copper
0.321
0.00196
0.080

0.00038
0.073
0.00017
0.237

0.0008
0.237
0.0008
122 Lead
26.8
0.164
1.50

0.0072
0.234
0.00055
9.5

0.057
8.0
0.047
124 Nickel
0.338
0.00206
0. 546

0.00261
0.032
0.00008
0.305

0.0016
0.305
0.0016
126 Silver
0.030
0.00018
NR

NR
0.016
0.00004
0.023

0.00011
0.023
0.00011
128 Zinc
8.42
0.0515
0.611

0.00292
1.17
0.00277
3.401

0.0191
6.80
0.0317
Effluent
Reference Code
Plant Code
Staple Points
Flow, gal/ton
CiTT
0384A
032
H
98
Classifier,T,CL
RTP 93
0856N
034
D
47
T,CL,FLP,
RTP 96
0684F
038
D
33
Desiltors,T,VF,
TP, FLP, FLL,
RTP 94.2
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
PH

118
Cadmium
119
Chromium
120
Copper
122
Lead
124
Nickel
126
Silver
128
Zinc
rcg/1
55
NR
8.8
0.008
0.013
0.009
0.4tS
0.010
0.015
0.227
lbs/1000 lbs
0.0224
NR
0.000003
0.000005
0.00000 3
0.00019
0.000004
0.000006
0.000093
47
NR
NR
NR
0.10
0.82
0. 69
NR
0. 28
lbs/1000 lbs
0.00920
NR
NR
NR
0.000020
0.00016
0.0001m
NR
0.000055
mg/1
13
NR
7.5
0.010
0.010
0.010
NR
0.010
0.010
0.10
lbs/1000 lbs
0.00177
NR
0.000001
0.000001
0.000001
NR
0.000001
0.000001
0.000014
(1) Average of ail values on Tables VII-3 and VII-4.
NR : Not Reported.
NOTE: For a definition of C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VI1-5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM PLANTS SAMPLED
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
0112A
T
#1
633
0584F
V
#5
259
Averages
446
mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs
Suspended Solids 3812 10.1
Fluoride	26	0.0686
pH	8.0
120 Copper
123 Mercury
128 Zinc
5375 5.80
+ +
3.4
4594 7.9
26	0.0686
3.4-8.0
2.4	0.00633	+	+	2.4	0.00633
0.0031 0.000008 0.0016 0.000002 0.0023 0.000005
6.0	0.0158	195	0.211	100	0.1134
Effluent
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
C&TT
0112A
T
n
150
0584F
V
#6
33
Classifier,T,FLP,RTP76 Classifier,T,FLP,RTP87
mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs	mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs
Suspended Solids 81	.0506	40	0.00551
Fluoride	20	0.0125	NR	NR
pH (units)	9.4	6.4
120 Copper
123 Mercury
128 Zinc
0.12
0.0013
0.50
0.000075
0.000001
0.000313
+
0.0012
2.8
0.000000
0.000386
NR: Not Reported
+ : Cannot be evaluated
NOTE: For a definition of C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
132
-------
TABLE VI1-6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code

0020B

0856B
0868A

0112D

Averages


Plant Code

031

033
035


036



Overal1
(1)
Sample Points

B

C
A


0



Averages
Flow,
, (gal/ton)

1059

241
1046


454

717

626



mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
"8/1 lbs/1000 lbs
m g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
me/1 lbs/1000 lbs
Suspended Solids
409
1.80
7769
7.79
922
40.2
7087

13.4
4047
6.75
4229
7.15
Fluoride
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
8.5

0.015
8.5
0.015
17.2
0.0418
pH (units)
8.
, 1
11
.7
8.4

11.3

8.1-11
.7
3.4-11
.7
23
Chloroform
0.052
0.00023
0.013
0.000013
0.056
0.00025
0.053

0.00010
0.044
0.00015
0.044
0.00015
115
Arsenic
0.054
0.00024
0.075
0.000075
NR
NR
NR

NR
0.064
0.00016
0.064
0.00016
118
Cadmium
0.291
0.00128
1.80
0.00181
0.021
0.000091
0.174

0.000329
0.572
0.00109
0.572
0.00109
119
Chromium
17.4
0.0766
2.95
0.00297
0.024
0.000105
0.367

0.000694
5. 19
0.0201
5.19
0.0201
120
Copper
1.21
0.00535
0.924
0.000928
0.021
0.000091
0.334

0.000632
0.622
0.00175
0.978
0.00267
122
Lead
1.74
0.00766
13.6
0.0137
0.041
0.000179
0.367

0.000694
3.94
0.00556
3.94
0.00556
123
Mercury
0.034
0.00015
0.0001
0.000000
0.0005
0.000002
0.0335
0.000063
0.0170
0.000054
0.02!
0.000038
124
Nickel
1.00
0.00442
0.712
0.000715
0.005
0.000022
0.047

0.000089
0.441
0.00131
0.441
0.00131
125
Selenium
0.008
0.00004
0.037
0.000037
NR
NR
NR

NR
0.022
0.000038
0.022
0.000038
126
Si lver
0.501
0.00221
0.182
0.000182
0.001
0.00004
0.043

0.000081
0. 182
0.00619
0.182
0.00619
127
Tha1lium
0.080
0.00035
0.130
0.000130
NR
NR
NR

NR
0.105
0.000240
0.105
0.000240
128
Zinc
3.34
0.0147
49. 1
0.0493
3.79
0.0165
2.00

0.00379
14.6
0.0211
43.2
0.0518
-------
TABLE VII-6
S0HMAKY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
f AGE 2	 		
Effluent
t-*
U>
A
Itfernce Code
Plant Code
S«fle Points
Flow, gel/ton
CAT!
0020B
031
(B/B*C)D
1059
OK.ET,
FLL,FLP,CL,SL,VF,OT
0856B
on
D
241
Claa»ifier,CY,T,
CT,RUP(UNK)
0868A
015
M
111
Desiltor,CL,VF,
KTF90
Oil 2D
016
r
244
CY.T.CT, RTP46
lbe/1000 lb* mjj/1
lb»/1000 U>» mk/1 lb*/1000 lb.
Suspended Solid*
19
0.05
52
0.052
47
0.022
1,242
1.27
Fluoride
9.0
NR
MR
NR
NK
NK
4.4
0.004
pH {units}

7.9
il
.6
8.
6
11
.9
23 Chloroform
0.089
0.00055
0.022
0.00002
0.015
0.00001
0.122
0.00012
115 Arsenic
0.006
0.00001
0.017
0.00002
ME
NK
NR
NR
118 Cadaiua
0.488
0.00152
NR
NK
0.010
0.00001
0.010
0.00001
119 Chroaiua
1.04
0.0122
30.1
0.0302
0.009
0.00001
0.04
0.00004
120 Copper
0.476
0.0013S
0.069
0.00007
0.009
0.00001
0.364
0.00037
122 Lead
0.455
0.00015
0.942
0.00095
NR
NK
0.155
0.00016
123 Mercury
0.0001
0.00000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0003
0.00000
0.0001
0.00000
124 Nickel
1.05
NR
2.02
0.00203
0.010
0.00001
0.010
0.00001
125 Seleniua
0.008
0.00000
0.031
0.00003
NR
NR
NR
NR
126 Silver
# I HE)
nr
NK
HK
0.010
0.00001
0.339
0.00035
127 Thalliua
0.060
0.00036
0.080
0.00008
NR
NR
NR
NR
128 Zinc
2.14
0.00050
0.317
0.00032
0.706
0.00033
0.706
0.00072
(1) Average of ell values on Tables VI1-5 and VII-6.
U; Not reported
ti Values for determination are qualified
NOTES For a definition of C4TT code*, refer to Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VI1-7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
	OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - SEMI-WET	
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
ptf (units)
119	Chromium
120	Copper
121	Cyanides
124	Nickel
128	Zinc
mg/1
511
255
0.080
0.083
0.039
0.053
0.500
0864A
043
B
1163
2.7
lbs/1000 lbs
2.48
1.24
0.000388
0.000402
0.00019
0.00026
0.00242
Effluent*
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, Gal/Ton
C&TT
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (units)
119	Chromium
120	Copper
121	Cyanide
124	Nickel
128	Zinc
0864A
043
C
3.7
CL,FLL,FLP,RTP 99.7
mg/1
30
32
0.010
0.013
0.006
0.009
0.07
10.8
lbs/1000 lbs
0.00046
0.00049
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000001
*: The effluent quality data was considered as the clarifier overflow, although the
blowdown undergoes further treatment, along with other wastewaters, in a terminal
treatment lagoon. This was done because the clarifier overflow is more in-
dicative of the effluent from the open hearth treatment system and does not include
the pollutant contributions of other sources.
NOTE: For a definition of the C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
135
-------
TABLE VI1-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
	OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - WET	
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point!
Flow, Gal/Ton
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
0112A
W
#1
607
m a/1
0.52
0.6
27
lba/1000 Ib»
779	1.97
161	0.407
3.7
0.0013
0.002
0.068
¦an/1
3994
67
3.6
NR
*
0060
X
#1
550
6.2
Averaaea
lba/1000 lba
9.15
0.15
0.0082
NR
•k
578
ro/1
lba/1000 lba
2387	5.56
114	1.36
3.7-6.2
2.1
0.6
27
0.0048
0.002
0.068
Effluent
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point(s)
Flow, Gal/Ton
C4TT
0112A
W
#3
51.4
T, RTP 46, RUP 45
0060
X
#2
118
T, FLL, VF, RTP 79
Suapended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
ng/1
80
148
2.6
lba/1000 lba
0.017
0.0317
an/1
52
65
6.1
lba/1000 lbs
0.026
0.032
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
0.40
0.21
26
0.000086
0.000045
0.0056
0.21
NR
0.00010
NR
NRl No value was reported.
* : A representative sample could not be obtained.
NOTE) For a definition of CSTT codea, refer to Table VII-1.
136
-------
TABLE VI1-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - WET
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, Gal/Ton
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
128 Zinc
»g/l
1519
101
391
Raw Wastewaters
049 2A
042
C
506
Overall
Average
554
(1)
6.7
lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs
3.20
0.212
0.823
2097 4.77
110 0.256
3.7-6.7
209 0.446
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, Gal/Ton
C&TT
Effluent*
0492A
042
(C/B + C)D
359
CL, NL, FLP, VF, RTP 67
m&/l
Suspended Solids 15
Fluoride	27
pH (Units)
128 Zinc	4.4
9.1
lbs/1000 lbs
0.036
0.074
0.013
(1) Average of all values on Tables VII-8 and VI1-9.
NOTBl For a definition of C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
137
-------
TABLE VII-10
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - SEMI-WET
Raw Wastewater
Reference Code

0432C

0584A


Plant Code

Y

Z


Sample Points

#1

NA

Average
Flow, Gal/Ton

97

NA

97

mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
Suspended
2165
0.884
*
*
2165
0.884
Solids






Fluoride
30
0.012
*
*
30
0.012
pH (units)
7.
8


7
.8
120 Copper
2.40
0.000979
*
*
2.40
0.000979
122 Lead
32.9
0.0134
*
*
32.9
0.0134
128 Zinc
125
0.510
*
*
125
0.510
Effluent
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, Gal/Ton
C&TT Code
Suspended
Solids
Fluoride
pH (units)
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
0432C
Y
n
0
DR,FLP,RTP 100
528
28
6.7
0.96
8.5
53.3
lbs/1000 lbs
0
0
0
0
mg/1
•k
*
*
*
0584A
Z
NA
0
DR,RTP 100
lbs/1000 lbs
0
0
0
0
0
*: No samples of the raw or treated wastewaters could be collected during the survey,
however, this plant was confirmed as having a closed system with no wastewater
discharge.
NOTES For definition of C&TT Codes, refer to Table VII-1.
138
-------
TABLE VII-11
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - SEMI-WET
Raw Wastewater
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, Gal/Ton
0060F
059B
K-O-H
23.7
Overall Average
60.4
(1)
mg/1
lb/1000 lbs
lbs/1000 lbs
Suspended Solids	192,300
Fluoride	2210
pH (units)
120 Copper	NR
122 Lead	NR
128 Zinc	833
16.6
0.191
NR
NR
0.0719
97.230	8.74
1120	0.102
7.8
2.40	0.000979
32.9	0.0134
479	0.290
Effluent
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, Gal/Ton
C&TT
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
0060F
059B
K-O-H .
K L
20.6
CL,VF,OT,RET(Unk)
mg/1
119
64
NR
NR
3.3
8.1
lb/1000 lbs
0.039
0.020
NR
NR
0.00078
(1) Average of all values on Tables VII-10 and VII-11.
* : A representative sample could not be obtained.
NR: Not Reported
NOTE: For a definition of C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
139
-------
TABLE VII-12
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point(s)
Flow, Gal/Ton
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
*
*
*
*
*
Raw Wastewater
0868B
AB
n-m
3060
mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
*
*
*
*
*
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point(s)
Flow, Gal/Ton
C&TT
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
mg/1
148
12
0.59
1.0
3.2
Effluent
0868B
AB
#4
162
T,VF,SL,RTP95
7.8
lbs/1000 lbs
0.0999
0.0081
0.00040
0.00068
0.0022
*: A representative sample of the raw waste could not be obtained.
NOTE: For a definition of the C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
140
-------
TABLE VII-13
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
	ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET
Raw Wastewater
Reference Code

0612


0492A
0060F

Average
(2)
Overall Average
Plant Code

051


052

059A





Sanple Points

B-D,,.

B

F





Flow, Gal/Ton
1141

1178

2300


1540

1920

¦g/1

lbs/1000 lbs
-sa

lbs/1000 lbs
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
ssa
lbs/1000 lbs
ng/1
lbs/1000 11
Suspended Solids
2843

13.5
885

4.34
6320
60.6
3349
26.1
3349
26.1
Fluoride
NR

NR
30

0.15
49
0.47
40
0.031
40
0.031
pH (units)

7.1


8.9

7.1

7.
1-9.0
7.1-
-9.0
4 Benzene
0.010

0.000047
0.007
0.00003
0.025
0.00024
0.014
0.00011
0.014
0.00011
39 Fluoranthene
0.003

0.000014
0

0
0.058
0.00056
0.020
0.00019
0.020
0.00019
58 4-Nitrophenol
0.007

0.000033
0

0
0.031
0.00030
0.013
0.00011
0.013
0.00011
64 Pentachlorophenol
0.003

0.000014
0

0
0.040
0.008
0.014
0.00013
0.014
0.00013
84 Pyrene
0.003

0.000014
0

0
0.053
0.00051
0.019
0.00017
0.019
0.00017
114 Antimony
0.671

0.00318
NR

NR
NR
NR
0.67
0.00318
0.67
0.00318
115 Arsenic
1.23

0.00586
NR

NR
NR
NR
1.23
0.00586
1.23
0.00586
118 dxfein
3.33

0.0158
NR

NR
NR
NR
3.33
0.0158
3.33
0.0158
119 Chroaiua
4.31

0.0205
NR

NR
NR
NR
4.3
0.0205
4.31
0.205
120 Copper
1.33

0.000633
NR

NR
NR
NR
1.33
0.00633
1.33
0.00633
122 Lead
23.3

0.111
NR

NR
NR
NR
233
0.111
23.3
0.111
124 Nickel
0.043

0.000204
NR

NR
NR
NR
0.043
0.000204
0.043
0.000204
126 Silver
0.063

0.000299
NR

NR
NR
NR
0.063
0.000299
0.063
0.000299
128 Zinc
100

0.475
2.00

0.00982
190
1.82
97.3
0.768
97.3
0.768
-------
TABLE VII-13
SUMMARY OF ANALTYICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET
PAGE 2	
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow, gal/ton
C4TT
0612
051
E
17.3
CL,T,VF,RTP98.S
Effluents
0492A
052
B ^
(B+C) D
836
CL,FLP,HL,VF,RTP29
0060F
059A
G
238
CL,VF,RTP&RUP89.7
k/1
lba/1000 lb»
fig/l
lbs/lQOO lbs me/I
lbs/1000 lb«
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
pH (Units)
86
NR
7.6
0.00621
MR
IS
27
9.1
0.0468
0.049
38
34
0.038
0.034
7.4
h-1
IO
4
Benzene
0.028
39
Fluoranthene
0.005
SB
4-Nitrophenol
0
64
Pentachlorophenol
0
84
Pyreoe
0.005
114
Antimony
0.006
11S
Arsenic
0.011
118
Cadaiuu
1.50
119
Chrawiua
0.5S
120
Copper
0.080
122
Lead
1.50
124
Nickel
0.005
126
Silver
0.001
128
Zinc
20
0.000002
0.000000
0
0
0.000000
0.000000
0.000001
0.000108
0.000040
0.000006
0.000108
0.000000
0.000000
0.00144
0.007
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4.4
0.000034
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00205
0.012
0.010
0
0.014
0.15
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
38
0.000012
0.000010
0
0.000014
0.00015
NR
NR
NR
NR
m
NR
NR
NR
0.038
(1)	Applied flow does not include 22 GPT which is evaporated at the quencher.
(2)	Average of all values on Tables VII-12 and VII-13.
NR: Not Reported
NOTE: For a definition of C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VII-14
ANALYSIS OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION


Plant
0384A


Plant
0856N


No. of


Std.
No. of


Std.
Parameter
Analyses
Avg.
Max.
Dev.
Analyses
Avg.
Max.
Dev.
Suspended Solids
75
16
47
9
3
34
43
8.2
Fluoride
*



3
38.3
40
1.53
pH (Units)
76
9.3
10.3
NA
3
7.93
9.95
NA
118 Cadmium
*



3
ND
0.005
ND
119 Chromium
*



3
ND
0.010
ND
120 Copper
*



3
0.008
0.014
0.005
122 Lead
*



3
0.070
0.110
0.037
124 Nickel
*



3
ND
0.010
ND
126 Silver
*



3
ND
0.005
ND
128 Zinc
*



3
0.036
0.048
0.012
u
* i No data provided.
ND: Not detected, i.e., below the limits of detection.
NA: Not Applicable
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE VII-15
ANALYSIS OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION


Plant
0020B


Plant 0860B


No. of


Std.
No. of

Std.
Parameter
Analyses
Avg.
Max.
Dev.
Analyses
Avg. Max.
Dev.
Suspended Solids
106
41.1
1310
127.6
*


Fluoride
106
20.2
44
7.6
*


pH (Units)
120
7.5
9.5
NA
5
9.6 10.4
NA
119 Chromium
99
0.083
1.55
0.172
*


*i No data provided
£ NA: Not Applicable
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE VII-16
ANALYSIS OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - SEMI-WET
Plant 0864A
Parameters	No. of Analyses	Value
Suspended Solids	1	36
Fluoride	1	22.5
pH (Units)	1	10.0
119	Chromium	1	0.020
120	Copper	1	0.023
121	Cyanide	1	0.031
124 Nickel	1	0.040
128 Zinc	1	0.050
NOTE: All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
145
-------
TABLE VII-17
ANALYSIS OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - WET
Parameters
Plant 0112A
No. of
Analyses
AV£.
Max.
Std.
Dev.
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
16
163
455
109.5
146
-------
TABLE VII-18
ANALYSIS OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET
Plant 006OD
Plant 0612
Plant 0868B

No. of


Std.
No. of

No. of

Std.
Parameters
Analyses
Avg.
Max.
Dev.
Analyses
Value
Analyses Avg.
Max.
Dev.
Suspended Solids
18
54.1
84
18.7
1
62
*


Fluoride
20
22.7
42
9.8
*

*


pH (Units)
20
7.0-9
.0
NA
1
6.8
*


115 Arsenic
*


*

1 <0.02
NA
NA
118 Cadmium
*


1
3.0
1 <0.02
NA
NA
119 Chromium
19
1.9 6.3
1.5
1
0.32
1 <0.01
NA
NA
120 Copper
*


1
0.11
1 <0.01
NA
NA
122 Lead
*


1
2.5
1 0.06
NA
NA
124 Nickel
*


1
0.09
1 <0.1
NA
NA
126 Silver
*


*

2 0.015
0.02
0.002
128 Zinc
*


1
48
2 0.145
0.17
0.036
*: No data provided.
NA: Not Applicable
NOTE: All values are expressed in og/1 unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE VII-19
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
(All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted)
Parameters	Concentrations
Semi-Wet


Suspended Solids
375

Fluoride
10

pH (Units)
10-12
120
Copper
0.040
122
Lead
1.5
123
Mercury
0.003
128
Zinc
1.0
Wet-Suppressed Combustion


Suspended Solids
1500

Fluoride
15

pH (Units)
8-11
118
Cadmium
0.10
119
Chromium
0.50
120
Copper
0.25
122
Lead
15.00
124
Nickel
0.50
126
Silver
0.025
128
Zinc
5.00
Wet-Open Combustion


Suspended Solids
4200

Fluoride
15

pH (Units)
8-11
23
Chloroform
0.05
115
Arsenic
0.05
118
Cadmium
0.50
119
Chromium
5.00
120
Copper
0.50
122
Lead
1.00
123
Mercury
0.01
124
Nickel
0.50
125
Selenium
0.025
126
Silver
0.20
127
Thai1ium
0.10
128
Zinc
5.00
148
-------
TABLE VII-20
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
	OPEN HEARTH FURNACE	
(All values expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted)
Parameters	Concentrations
Semi-Wet
Suspended Solids	500
Fluoride	260
pH (Units)	2-3
119	Chromium	0.80
120	Copper	0.80
121	Cyanide	0.040
124 Nickel	0.05
128 Zinc	0.50
Wet
Suspended Solids	1100
Fluoride	110
pH (Units)	3-7
120 Copper	2.0
122	Lead	0.60
128 Zinc	200
149
-------
TABLE VII-21
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
(All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted)
Parameters	Concentrations
Semi-Wet

Suspended Solids
2200

Fluoride
30

pH (Units)
6-9
120
Copper
2 .
122
Lead
30
128
Zinc
125
Wet



Suspended Solids
3400

Fluoride
50

pH (Units)
6-9
4
Benzene
0.015
39
Fluoranthene
0.020
58
4-Nitrophenol
0.015
64
Pentachlorophenol
0.015
84
Pyrene
0.020
114
Antimony
0. 70
115
Arsenic
2.0
118
Cadmium
4.0
119
Chromium
5.0
120
Copper
2.0
122
Lead
30.0
124
Nickel
0.050
126
Silver
0.060
128
Zinc
125
150
-------
process:
STEELMAKING <8.0. F.)
plant: r
PRODUCTION: 7760 metric tons steel/day
(8556 TONS STEEL/DAY)
SECONDARY SPRAYS WATER
CASCADE
SPRAYS
WATER
PRIMARY
SPRAYS
WATER—
* |«
OC |U|
< f
-HOOD a DAMPER
COOLING WATER
-------
process: STEELMAKING (BOF)
plant: u
PRODUCTION: 2691 METRIC TONS STEEL
PER DAY
(2967 TONS STEEL PER DAY)
B.O.F.
DIRTY GAS
SERVICE
WATER 'NLET
CONTACT WATER OUT
94.6 f/|EC. (1500 GPM)
A
m
tower
COOLER
SCRUBBED GAS
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
.POLYELECTROLYTE ADDITION
25.6m (64 FT.) DIAMETER THICKENER
APPROX. IOHRS. DETENTION
OVERFLOW RATE IJ0/m2/MIN.
(0.27 GAL-/ FT.v MIN.)


VACUUM
FILTERS
N/
w
EXHAUST STACK
INDUCED DRAFT FAN
126.2 ff/SEC. (2000 GPM) NON-CONTACT COOLING
DIRECT TO RIVER
THICKENER OVERFLOW
DIRECT TO RIVER
94.6 fi/SEC. (1500 GPM)
RIVER OUTFALL
220.8 fi/SEC. (3500'GPM)
FILTRATE
APPROX. 3.2 A/SEC:
(50 GPM)
ESTIMATED
SLUDGE
A-SAMPLING POINTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RD.4/26/7E
FIGURE 331*2
-------
PROCESS
STEELMAKING (BOF)
PLANT!	S
PRODUCTION: 6755.8 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(6546 TONS STEEL/OAY)
MISC. COOLING WATER
12 l/SEC (192 6PM)
251 l/SEC
(3978 6PM)
263J l/SEC
(4170 GPM)
284.6 l/SEC
(4510 GPM)
22 l/SEC
(350 GPM)
273 l/SEC-
(4326 GPM)
EVAPORATION
4 l/SEC (65 GPM)
FILTRATE & WASHINGS
4.4 l/SEC (70 GPM)—'
MAKE-UP WATER
II.S l/SEC(163 GP»
THICKENERS'2
i r
~ TO SEWER
14.5 l/SEC
(230 GPM)
270 l/SEC
(4280 GPM)
A FROM RIVER
IIUTPB IMTAtf
281.6 l/SEC (4463 GPM)
<1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUOY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW OIAGRAM
FILTER CAKE
WITH 063 l/SEC
(10 GPM) MOISTURE
A sampling point
DISTRIBUTION
BOX
VACUUM
FILTERS
FILTER MASHING
AND
VACUUM PUMPS
CLASSIFIER
GAS
CLEANING
SYSTEM
-------
Evaporation
PROCESS: BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
PLANT:032
PRODUCTION: 4,001 Metric Tons Steel/Day
(4,410 Tons Steel/Day)
256.1 l/sac
(4,060 gpm)
TWO
HYDROCLONES
3.1 l/MC
(49 gpm)
QUENCHER
QUENCHER
f
I 130.8 l/see
j (2,073 gpm)
125.4 lAec^^A
I ,, / B\
TWO
CLASSIFIERS
Grit a
Water
(1,987 gpm)
QUENCHER
SEAL TANK
QUENCHER
SEAL TANK
B.O.F.
. 27.3 l/tec
(433 gpm)
P. A. VENTUR1
P. A. VENTURI
THICKENER
THICKENER
SECONDARY
VENTILATION
SYSTEM
4L7 IA«c
(2,246 gpm) «
Sludge	/E\
Disposal
141.7 l/sec
(2,246 gpm)
Raw Water
Make-up
26.5 l/sec 1
(420 gpm)JAv»
291.1 l/tec
(4.613 gpm)
162.6 l/MC
(2,577 gpm)
38.2 l/sec[
(606 gpm)]"0*-
128.5 l/sec
(2,036 gpm)
18.9 l/sec
(300 gpm)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CLARIFIER
D«i.l2/2l/77
Swage Disposal
Rev 8/29/78
Evaporation
3.1 l/sec (49 gpm)
B. 0. F.
— —	OGas
Evaporation
1.3 l/tecl.
(21 gpm)J *
3.5 l/sec)
(55 gpm)j
/\ SAMPLING POINT

CENTRAL
J
TREATMENT
PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 3ZH-4
-------
PROCESS'BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET
PLANT'034
PRODUCTION: 6353 Metric Tons Steel/Day
(7,666 Ton* Steel/Day)
Polymer Food-
1
I 38!
+ 16.1
385 l/sec—
,100 gpm)
Basic Oxygen
Furnace Wosles
	
DISTRIBUTION
"L" Venturi
	~
BOX
-z^sL-#
•/ \
THICKENER
*—3
THICKENER
L—T
Make-up
Water —

33.4 l/sec
(530 gpm)
t.
-/cV"
Thickener
Overflow
-Thickener
Underflow
J- V.
-El
1
HOLDING
TANK
FINAL
CLARIFIER
J
Sludge to
Landfill
Clarifier
Underflow
CENTRIFUGES
(Not in Use)
Recycle Water
(Venturies Only)
385 I/Sec'2'
(6,100 gpm)
(I)
j—15.8 l/sec'
/ (250 gpm)
—^ftrr-^To Discharge
NOTES'-
(1)	Measured flow value.
(2)	Flow based upon recycle
pump data.
A
SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
DWAi. 6-20-77
FIGURE IZHr 5
i
-------
B.0.F~2 furnace
QUENCHER
cn
cn
City Water
B.O.F. I FURNACE
QUENCHER
—2^
c 3—3.8 l/sec
(60 gpm)
, Motor & Fan
Cooling
Motor S
Fan Cooling
"tack Drain
, Mist
liminotor
SUMP
SUMP
tack Drain
Mist
limmator
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
QUENCHER
TANK
QUENCHER
TANK
Open Trough
. Open Trough
198.8 l/sec
13,151 gpm)
DISTRIBUTION
PIPE
DESILTOR
DESILTOR
Blowdown
THICKENER
THICKENER
SLUDGE
BIN
Grit a
Sludge
DRUM
FILTER
DRUM
FILTER
RECYCLE
TANKS
rsfc1*"
Sludge
Sludge
Make-up to Recycle Tanks
FILTRATE
SUMP
RECYCLE PUMPS
209.5 IAec(3,320 gpm)
To River
OWN 1-9-78
RE* 8/25/73
PROCESS' BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
PLANT: 038
PRODUCTION: 7,234 Metric Tons Steel/Day
(7,976 Tons Steel/Day)
-11.4 I/Sec
(181 gpm)
To River
LAMELLA
LAMELLA
TANK
¦«	1
I	*
CHE A
FEED
	!
AICAL
TANK
1	
A
FILTRATE

MILL TREAT

MILL USE
MAKE-UP

FILTERED

ROLLING


SUMP

WATER

MilLS
Raw
River
Water
iSAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM	
figure 3zn-6
-------
PROCESS'. STEELMAKING (BOF)
'l QUENCH
JACKET
plant: t
PRODUCTION:
7216 METRIC TONS STEEL
PER DAY
(7956 TONS STEEL PER DAY)
I QUENCHER
DIRTY
GAS
INLET
246.1 9/SEC. (3900 GPM) OFF BLOW
.(2700GPM)
3500 GPM AVG.
170.4 0/SEC. (27
PM ON BLOW
2 QUENCH
JACKET
SCUPPER
GRIZZLY
h.*2 QUENCHER
„ 6.3 J?/SEC. (IOOGPM)r CYCLONE
*	I SEPARATOR
252.4 4/SEC.
(4000 GPM)
CLASSIFIER
239.8 J>/SEC. (3800 GPM) OFF BLOW
VENTURI
164.1 P/SEC. (2600 GPM) ON BLOW
3400 GPM AVG.
211.4 0/SEC
SOLIDS TO
DUMP BOX
100.96 S/SEC.
(1600 GPM)
EACH LINE
13350 GPM)
INDUSTRIAL
WATER FOR	fc
MAKE-UP
94.6 P/SEC
(1500 GPM)
(AVG. FLOW)
AVG. FLOW)
302.9 P/SEC.
(4800 GPM)
THICKENER
HOLDING
SEPARATOR
16.8 v/SEC.
(267 GPM)
~
TANK
75.7 9/SEC
(1200 GPM)
(AVG. FLOW)
BLOWDOWN
TO
SEWER
/SEC.—d>
GPM) T
~r< *
16.8 5/SEC.
(267
SLURRY
PUMPS
230.3 J//SEC.
(3650 GPM)
(AVG. FLOW)
AUXILIARY
RECYCLE
PUMPS
INDUSTRIAL WATER
FOR MAKE-UP
50.5
(800 GPM
QUENCHER
PUMPS
22.1 i/SEC.
(350 GPM)
SLURRY HANDLING
RECYCLE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TANK
252.4 fl/SEC
(4000 GPM)
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT STSYEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
VENTURI
PUMPS
RD.4/27/78
FIGURE 3ZH-7
SAMPLING POINTS
-------
process: steelmaking (b.o. k)
plant: v
PRODUCTION: 9877 METRIC TONS STEEL/OAY
(10,890 TONS STEEL/DAY)
BOILER WASTE
TREATMENT
SYSTEM SPENT
HOT SOFTENER
REGENERANTS
.3 l/SEC
(5 GPM AVG.)
THICKNER INFLUENT
123.9 l/SEC (1965 GPM AVG.)
i r
THICKENER EFFLUENT
124.3 l/SEC (1970 GPM)
THICKENER
SERVICE WATER
28 l/SEC (450 GPM AVG.)
CLEARWELL
EVAPORATION
13.2 l/SEC. (210 GPM AVG.)
-FILTRATE
WATER
2 l/SEC (33 GPM)
SCRUBBER
SUPPLY	< >
108.5 l/SEC
!I720 GPM AVG),,
THICKENER
UNDERFLOW
2 l/SEC (33 GPM)
CLEARWELL
OVERFLOW	¦
15.7 l/SEC (250 GPM AVG)
123.6 l/SEC
(I960 GPM)
	SCALE
0.1 T/HR. (91 Km/HR.)
~ TO SEWER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUOY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FILTER CAKE
7.5 T/HR. (6.8 M.T./HR.)
RQ.
-------
H*
in
vo
CUPOLA
GAS SCRUBBER
27.1
(430 gpm)
l/Secf	cp
aom) I—
1416 IAec<»—
-
J L.
¦f-
Filtrate
CLARIFIER
273.1 l/sec"'
(4,330 gpm)
T
1
VACUUM
FILTER
Clarifier
Underflow
FINAL
POLISHING
LAGOON
I—'.
-~Solids to
Disposal
-~To River
273.1 l/sec'"
(4,330 gpm)
A
SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE-CUPOLA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
0«a6/2
-------
process: basic oxygen furnace-wet
033
GAS FLOW
GAS FLOW
PfiGOUCTION: 7554 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(7825 TONS STEEL/DAY)
FROM QUENCHER
GAS
' SEPARATED
WATER
GAS
COOLING
TOWER
VENTURI
SECTION
LEGEND:
CLASSIFIER
	A~
138.8 l/SEC
(2200 GPM)
MAKE-UP
WATER
iCOOLINGi
ITO*ER
1—82 6 l/SEC
(1310 GPM) MEASURED
CENTRIFUGATE
7.9 l/SEC (125 GPM)
(DESIGN) WHEN RUNNING
t i
0-5.1 l/SEC
(0-80 GPM)
(DESIGN)
THICKENER
EH VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THICKENER
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
-18.9 l/SEC
(300 GPM)
UNDERFLOW
DISCHARGE TO SEWER
82.6 l/SEC (1310 GPM)
MEASURED
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
TOWER
SLOWDOWN
MAKE-UP
WATER
DWN.I/9/78
-------
PROCESS: basic oxygen furnace
plant: 035
PRODUCT ION; 5606 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(6400 TONS STEEL/DAY)
TO NON"CONTACT
^COOLING USES
BLAST FURNACE MAKE'UP
jc9.fi l/SEC
^ (l*5t GPM)
r-9.8 l/SEC
(155 GPM)
STACKS
EVAPORATION
i.6 l/SEC
(25 GPM)
EVAPORATION
Ij6 l/SEC
(25 GPM)
COOLING
RING
COOLING
		lO'lENCHtR
«
QUENCHER-
DUST
COLLECTOR
DUST
FANS
COLLECTOR
PUMP SEALS AND
MMISC. NON-CONTACT
WATER USES
%
4-277.0 l/SEC
(4390 GPM)
38.4 l/SEC
(610 GPM)
16.9 l/SEC
(300 GPM)
DESILTOR^
25' 6
312 l/SEC
(4950 GPM)
PRIME INDUSTRIAL
WATER
31.7 l/SEC
(502 GPM )~"\
H-zW
CLARIFIER
120' 0 x 19*
LEGEND:
	GAS FLOW
WATER FLOW
r
-SLUDGE TO
^DRYING BED
/XSAMPLING POINT
SLUDGE TO
DRUM
FILTER
YING BED
ALL OTHER
PLANT
WASTEWATER
ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
TO RECEIVING4
STREAM	^
TERMINAL
TREATMENT
LAGOON
789 l/SEC
(12,500 GPM]
CMN 1/9/76
FIGURE SDH I
REV. 9/7/78
-------
PROCESS: BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
PLANT:
PRODUCTION: 11,224 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(12,375 TONS STEEL/DAY)
BASIC
OXYGEN
FURNACES
TWO (2)
036
QUENCHER
ELBOW
STANDPIPE
SCUPPER
SEPARATOR
vCOOLING
\tower
CENTRIFUGES
TWO( 2 )
GRIZZLY
246 l/SEC
(3900 GPM)
CLASSIFIERS
TW0(2)
VENTURI
CYCLONES
F0UR(4)
OVERFLOW TO
INDUSTRIAL SEWER
SPLITTER
BOX
THICKENER
THICKENER
RECYCLE
[ TANK
OVERFLOW TO
INDUSTRIAL SEWER
LAKE WATER
MAKE-UP
132 l/SEC
i (2100 GPM) .
SAMPLING POINT
COOLING
TOWER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SLOWDOWN TO
INDUSTRIAL SEWER
132 l/SEC(2IOO GPM)
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
LAKE WATER
MAKE-UP
50 l/SEC
(800 GPM)
HOLDING
TANK
~WN.3/6/7 8
-------
(MAIM OAS COLLECTION FLUE SERVING ALL TEN OPEN HEARTH FURNACES)
PROCESS: OPEN HEARTH
PLANT:	043
fr
PRODUCTION: 5322 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(5067 TONS STEEL/DAY)
309 l/SEC
(4898 6PM)
SCRUBBER
TOWERS
(TYB)

299 l/SEC.
PNEUMATIC CONV.
(4739 GPM)
RECYCLE TO
SCRUBBERS
EJECTOR
18.2 l/SEC.
(288 GPM)
14.4 l/SEC
(1228 6PM)
3.97 l/SEC
(60 6PM)
TO SLUDGE
SETTLING
BASIN
47 6PM)
?I4 l/SEC
(221 6PM)
UNDERFLOW
SLUDGES TO
SETTLING BASIN
B SINTER PLAN!
~
IJT
TO ALL USERS
THROUGHOUT PLANT
CLEAR
WELL
S.2 l/SEC
(83 GPM)
PUMP HOUSE
OFF-PLANT
MAKE-UP
SOURCES
MAKE-UP TO OPEN
HEARTH SYSTEMS
FLOWS FROM
OTHER SOURCES
WITHIN PLANT
A "SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r- TOTAL PLANT
\EFFLUENT
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
MAIN STORAGE
RETENTION POND
LAGOON
DmlI/9t78
TO OTHER
PLANT USES
FIGURE 2H-I3
-------
PROCESS: STEELMAKIN6 (O.H.)
plant:
PRODUCTION: 9150.7 METRIC tons steel/day
00,089 TONS STEEL/DAY)
67.8 l/SEC
(1075 6PM)
67.8 l/SEC
(1075 QPM)
70.99 l/SEC
(1125 6PM)
277.6 l/SEC
(4400 GPM)
70.99 l/SEC
(t 125 GPM)
VENTURI
ADDED MAKE-UP
WATER 35.3 l/SEC
(560 GPM)
EVAPORATION-
35 l/SEC (50 GPM)
138.8 l/SEC
(2200 GPM)
< >- 138.8 l/SEC
^ (2200 GPM)
SERVICE WATER
MAKE-UP SAMPLED
AT B.O.E
SEPARATOR
148.3 l/SEC (2350 GPM)
74.1 l/SECO 175 GPM)
59.9 l/SEC
(950 GPM)
242.3 l/SEC
(3840 GPM)
145.1 l/SEC
(2300 GPM)
74.1 l/SEC (1175 GPM)
59.9 l/SEC
(950 GPM)
122.4 l/SEC
(1940 GPM)
22.9 m DIA. THICKENER
(75 FT. DIA.)
RECYCLE TANK
VENTURI
PUMPS
OVERFLOW, RATE
21.2 l/«n2/MIN.
in *9 ftAI /FT 2/li
HOLDING
TANK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
transfer
PUMPS
BLOW DOWN
22.7 l/SEC (360 GPM AVG.)
A SAMPLING POINT
SLURRY
PUMPS
SLOWDOWN RATE
~ DEPENDS ON DENSITY
3.2 l/SEC (50 GPM AVG.)
- IGURE 3ZH-14
-------
process:
STEELMAKING (0.H)
plant:
PRODUCTION: 33253 METRIC tons steel/day
(3667 TONS STEEL/DAY)
MINOR
INTERMITTENT
FLOWS
37.9 l/SEC
(600 6PM)
~ 1
' r
THICKENER
88.3 I/SE!c
(1400 6PM)
88.3 l/SEC
(1400 6PM)
107.3 l/SEC
(1700 6PM)
SLOWDOWN
18.9 l/SEC
< r (300 6PM)
TO SEWER
OR DEEP BED
FILTER
EVAPORATION
18.9 l/SEC
(300 6PM)
FILTRATE
i1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
water flow diagram
^SAMPLIN6 POINT
RO 4/27/78
FIGURE m-15
6AS
SCRUBBER
VACUUM
FILTERS
MAKE-UP
SOFTENER
. FILTERED WATER
CLARIFIER
BASEMENT SUMP
LIME FEED
(MAINTAIN pH 6.0)
MAKE-UP
(BLOWDOWN FROM
C00LIN6 TOWER)
FILTRATE FLOOR DRAIN
VACUUM PUMP C00LIN6 WATER
SPRAY WATER TO CLEAN FILTER MEDIA)
-------
(2) ELECTRIC

FURNACES

SCRUBBER

SYSTEM

28.4 l/SEC
(490 6PM)
LIME
SLURRY
28.4 l/SEC
(450 6PM
[polymer;
PUMP
STATION
process: electric furnace a open hearth
plant: 042 8 052
production:
ELECTRIC FURNACE - 499 METRIC TONS/DAY
(550 TONS/DAY)
OPEN HEARTH^ M^RI^S/DAY	
(5) OPEN

HEARTHS

SCRUBBER

SYSTEM

69.4 l/SEC-
(1100 6PM)
FLOCCULATION
a
NEUTRALIZATION
TANK
SPLITTER
BOX


f
^ 69.4 l/SEC
/ a 100 6PM)
CLARIFIER
ARIFIER
SERVICE WATER
MAKE-UP
PUMP
STATION
VACUUM
FILTERS
97.8 l/SEC
(1550 6PM)-,
FILTRATE
- FLUSHING
WATER
CLEARWELL
69.4 l/SEC
(1100 6PM)
SLOWDOWN TO
MILL SETTLING
PONDS
SOLIDS TO STOCKPILE
FOR FUTURE RECLAMATION
A
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE-OPEN HEARTH
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 3Zrr-16
-------
PROCESS: STEELMAKING (EF)
CITY WATER
SUPPLY
PLANT". Y
PRODUCTION: 1810.4 METRIC TONS STEEL
PER DAY
(1996 TONS STEEL PER DAY)
- NON-CONTACT
COOLING WATER
CITY WATER
SUPPLY
NON-CONTACT
COOLING WATER
17.7 9/SEC
(280 GPM)
c r
14.1 S/SEC
(224 GPM)
14.1 j?/SEC.
(224 GPM)
9.1 Ji/SEC
(145 GPM)
MAKE-UP WATER ^
8.5 fl/SEC.
(135 GPM)
MAKE-UP WATER
c r
J \
1-8 .P/SEC.
(28 GPM)
19.4 JI/SEC
(308 GPM)
DRAG LINK
CONVEYOR
—
TO SEWER
TO SEWER
SETTLING TANK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
/\ SAMPLING POINTS
FIGURE 2ffi7
TRANSFORMER
VAULT
POLYMER
SLUDGE
BASIN
TRANSFORMER
VAULT
FLAME
TRAP SUMP
FLAME TRAP
-------
STEELMAKING (E.E)
PROCESS:
PLANT
PRODUCTION: I34l.5 METRIC TONS STEEL/OAY
(1479 TONS STEEL/OAY)
3-100 6PM PUMP at 350PSI
2 RUNNING I-STANDBY
HOT GAS
HOT GAS
COOLED GAS TO
BAGHOUSE
COOLED GAS TO
BAGHOUSE
< 5- 681 l/OAY
A (180 GAL/DAY)
< ^681 l/DAY
(180 GAL/DAY
WATER SEALED TANK
WITH BOTTOM DRAG
TYPE CONVEYOR
WATER SEALED TANK
WITH BOTTOM DRAG
TYPE CONVEYOR
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
	WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
A9AMPLING POINT
FIGURE m-lfi
-------
I—onw
\ asa
XL
SPRAY COOLING WATER
l/SEC
em)
0.24 l/SEC-
(3.74 6PM)
0.24 l/SEC -
(3.76 6PM)
EVAPORATION
0.21 l/SEC
(3.33 6PM)
SPARK
0.074 l/SEC -
(1.18 6PM)
EVAPORATION
0.21 l/SEC
(3.35 6PM)
0 l/SEC
(0 6PM)

.026 l/SEC -

0030 l/SEC-
(a49 6PM)
EVAPORATION
0.066 l/SEC
(1.00 6PM)

t
0J3 l/SEC-i ai5 l/SEC-i 0.27 l/SEC-> 028 l/SEC
(0.41 6PM)/ (2D 6PM)/ (241 6PM)/ (4.3 GPMy

SPARK
PROCESS: ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
PLANT:	0S9B
PRODUCTION: 3217 METRIC tons steel/day
(3546 TONS STEEL/DAY)
EVAPORATION
00)28 l/SEC
(0.44 6PM)
3
-ft
NON-CONTACT
C00LIN6 WATER
7.9S l/SEC
(126 6PM)
DRINKIN6 WATER
1.20 l/SEC
(19 6PM)
uio i/acu-i 274 l/SEC-j vau<-i
[4.43 6PMV (43.4 6PM)/ (43.4 QPUf
2
PANEL ft SPRAY LEAKA6E
3.11 l/SEC
(49.3 6PM)
DISCHAR6E
12.3 l/SEC
(195.7 6PM)
SPARK
274 l/SEC
CLARIFIER
(195.7 6PM)
12.3 l/SEC
(195.7 6PM)
^8AMPUN6 POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A6ENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM 	
3ML3/26/78
REV. 9/10/78
FIGURE 3ZEE-I9
-------
(1200-1300 GPM)
76-82 l/SEC
process: steelmaking (e.e)
plant:
AB
PRODUCTION: I45l.2 METRIC tons steel/day
(1600 TONS STEEL/DAY)
(1900-2000 GPM)
120-126 l/SEC
1'
(200 GPM)
12.5 l/SEC
(350 GPM)
22 l/SEC
TREATED
MAKE-UP
WATER
(25 GPM)
1.5 l/SEC
(3300-3500 GPM)
200-221 l/SEC
(225 GPM)
14 l/SEC
(200 GPM)
12.5 l/SEC
I2£m DIA. THICKENER
(40 FT. DIA.)
3.2m DEEP AT WALL
(ltf-6" DEEP)
OVERFLOW RATE
6.5 l/m2/MIN.
(0.16 GAL/FTVMIN.)
9.5-12.5 l/SEC
(150-200 GPM)
TO PLANT
DISCHARGE
(AVG. ISO GPM)
AVG. 11.3 l/SEC
LAGOONS FILLED 8 DRAWN OFF ALTERNATELY
PROVIDING 2 DAY DETENTION TIME IN EITHER LAGOON
2,180,000 I
(576,000 GAL EACH)
SOLIDS
OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
	WATER FLOW DIAGRAM	
/\ SAMPLING POINT
(25 GPM)
1.5 l/SEC
FIGURE m-20
VACUUM
FILTERS
QUENCHERS
2-200 TON 24" DIA.
HEROULT FURNACES
VENTURI SCRUBBERS
2 ELECTRIC FURNACE
200 TONS EACH
RECIRCULATION
SUMP
LAGOON
LAGOON
-------
316 l/SEC
(5000 6PM)
COOLING
TOWER
FILTERED
63 l/SEC
(1000 6PM)
PROCESS: ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
PLANT:	051
PRODUCTION: 2783 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(3068 TONS STEEL/DAY)
MAKE-UP
WATER
ELECTRIC\ DIRTY
ARC >A,R
FURNACE
INTERMITTENT
0-0.3 l/SEC
(0-15 6PM)
ENT I
c 4	 r
COLLECTION
SUMP
UNDERFLOWS FROM
TWO OTHER FURNACES.
(INACTIVE DURING SURVEY)
I
ORIEO SLUDGES TO*.
SANITARY LANDFILL
QUENCHER
AIR FLOW
35.7 l/SEC
(565 6PM)
97 l/SEC
(1535 6PM)
FILTRATE
RETURN LINE
96.2 l/SEC
(1525 6PM)
FILTER
AIR FLOW _ T0
STACK
3.6-4.4 l/SEC
(60-70 GPM)
RAW MAKE-UP
FROM MAIN SYSTEM
STATION
-99 l/SEC
(1565 GPM)
BLOWDOWN TO
REUSE IN MAIN
SYSTEM(SIX
HOT F0RMIN6
MILLS, ETC.)
1.47 t/SEC
(23.3 6PM)
2.52 l/SEC
(40 6PM)
A
8AMPLIN6 POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A6ENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
	WATER FLOW DIAGRAM 	
¦ymz/ztm
K3URE mrZ\
-------
(2) ELECTRIC

FURNACES

SCRUBBER

SYSTEM

28.4 l/SEC
(450 opm;
-28.4 l/SEC
(450 6PM)
IPOLYMER]
PROCESS: ELECTRIC FURNACE a OPEN HEARTH
plant: 042 a 052
production:
ELECTRIC FURNACE- 499 METRIC TONS/DAY
(580 TONS/DAY)
OPEN HEARTH - 2841 METRIC TONS/DAY
	(3133 TONS/DAY)	
PUMP
STATION
69.4 l/SEC
(2) OPEN

HEARTHS

SCRUBBER
"1
SYSTEM

FLOCCULATION
a
NEUTRALIZATION
TANK
SPLITTER
BOX


-FILTRATE
r
69.4 l/SEC
(1100 GPM)
LARIFIER
SERVICE
MAKE-UP
VACUUM
FILTERS
97.8 l/SEC
(1550 6PM
3
¦FLUSHING
WATER
CLEAR WELL
69.4 l/SEC-
(1100 6PM)
BLOWDOWN TO
MILL SETTLIN6
PONDS
SOLIDS TO STOCKPILE
FOR FUTURE RECLAMATION
/^SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC FURNACE-OPEN HEARTH
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
OMnl 1/29/77
FIGURE 3ZH-22
-------
process:
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
VENTURI
S5.S l/SEC
(880 6PM)
VENTURI
55.5 l/SEC
(860 6PM)
EVAPORATION
EVAPORATION
PLANT
059A
PRODUCTION: 1000 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(1102 TONS STEEL/DAY)
i i
J \
J \
/ \.
/\ SAMPLING POINT
^WELL WATER
SEPARATOR
SEPARATOR
' i
VACUUM
PUMP
SEAL
WATER
/-row sti
, y WATER
/runt* st#
(_/ WATER
24.7 l/SEC
(392 6PM)
24.7 l/SEC
BEARINGS t392 GPI,1
FAN
BEARINGS
"LI
CLARIFIER
WATER
ACCUMULATOR
CLARIFIER
13.0 l/SEC
(206 6PM)
.	19.9 l/SEC
1315 6PM)
FROM C00LIN6 TOWER
COLD WELL
~f ~
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
	WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
BLOWDOWN TO WEST POND
11.5 l/SEC
(182 6PM)
FIGURE 2E-23
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACT
Introduction
This section presents the incremental costs incurred in the
application of the alternative treatment systems for steelmaking
operations. The analyses also include the energy requirements, the
nonwater quality impacts, and the techniques, magnitude, and costs
associated with the application of the BPT model and BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS alternative treatment systems. In addition, the solids
generation rates, the BCT cost comparison, and the consumptive use of
water are addressed.
Actual Costs Incurred by the
Plants Sampled or Solicited for this Study
The water pollution control costs supplied by the industry for those
steelmaking operations sampled during the original and toxic pollutant
surveys or through the D-DCPs are presented in Tables VIII-1 through
VIIi-7. These costs have been updated from the costs provided by the
plants, to July 1, 1978 dollars. In several instances, the costs
reported by the industry represented total expenditures for combined
wastewater treatment systems or for entire gas cleaning and wastewater
treatment systems. Where possible, these costs were analyzed and
apportioned to determine the costs attributable to wastewater
treatment. However, this could not be done in all cases. In those
instances, the costs were not used in the cost analysis or comparison.
The usable capital cost data from the steelmaking plants noted above
were compared with the estimated expenditures, factored on the basis
of production from the treatment model costs, for these plants. This
comparison demonstrates that costs for the treatment models are
sufficient to account for the various site-specific and other
incidental costs. A tabulation of the usable cost data reported by
the industry (refer to Tables VIII-1 through VII1-7), and the
estimated expenditures of these steelmaking plants follows.
175
-------


Actual
Estimated
Process
Plant No.
Costs
Costs
BOF - Semi-wet
0432A
$ 692,000
$ 1,614,000

0396D
1,917,000
909,000
BOF - Wet-Suppressed
0060
2,994,000
3,144,000
Combustion
0384A
5,875,000
2,212,000

0684H
3,329,000
3,064,000
BOF - Wet-Open
0856B
2,848,000
3,822,000
Combustion
0868A
7,248,000
4,442,000
Open Hearth - Semi-
0864A
2,488,000
2,863,000
wet



Open Hearth - Wet
0060
3,331,000
4,903,000
0112A
1,134,000
5,401,000

0492A
866,000
3,515,000
EAF - Semi-wet
0432C
590,000
584,000

0584A
231,000
287,000
EAF - Wet
0060F
586,000
1/927,000

0492A
406,000
1,527,000

0612
910,000
5,148,000

0868B
2.163.000
2.377.000
TOTAL

$37,608,000
$47,739,000
Referring to the above data, for 71% of the plants the Agency's
estimated costs are greater than the actual costs reported by
industry. The most noteworthy comparison, however, is that the total
estimated cost for the steelmaking operations listed is about 25%
higher than the total actual cost, indicating that EPA costing for the
steelmaking subcategory is sufficiently generous to account for
site-specific and retrofit costs. Reference is made to Volume I for
further verification of the applicability of the treatment model
costs.
Control and Treatment Technologies (C&TT)
Reviews of the treatment components included in the BPT model and BAT
alternative treatment systems are presented in Tables VII1-8 through
VIII-10. It should be noted that the proposed limitations do not
require the installation of the model treatment systems; any treatment
system which achieves the proposed limitations is acceptable. The
following items are described in Tables VIII-8 through VIII-10.
1.	Status and reliability
2.	Problems and limitations
3.	Implementation time
4.	Land requirements
5.	Environmental impacts other than water
6.	Solid waste generation
176
-------
Cost. Energy, and Nonwater Quality Impacts
General Introduction
The installation of BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model and
alternative treatment systems will involve additional funding (both
investment and operating) and energy requirements, and also requires
consideration of any air pollution, water consumption, and solid waste
disposal impacts associated with each treatment system. The Agency's
estimates of the costs and energy requirements are based upon the
alternative treatment systems developed in Sections IX through XIII of
this report and are presented in the tables and text of this section.
Estimated Costs for the
Installation of Pollution Control Technologies
A. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BPT Limitations
The first step in determining the estimated costs of compliance
involved the development of model treatment systems upon which
cost estimates could be based. The Agency developed the model
sizes (tons/day) based upon the average production capacities for
all plants within each segment of the steelmaking subdivisions.
The applied flow for each model treatment system was determined
in the same fashion. The components and effluent flows discussed
in Sections IX and X were incorporated to complete the
development of the treatment systems. The unit costs for each
treatment model component were then developed. Tables VIII-15
through VII1-21 present the estimated capital and annual costs
for the BPT model treatment systems in each steelmaking segment.
The capital requirements needed to achieve the proposed BPT
limitations for the steelmaking segments were determined by
applying the treatment component model costs, adjusted for size,
to the treatment equipment requirements of each plant. Estimates
of expenditures required to bring these operations from current
(January 1, 1978) treatment levels to the BPT model treatment
levels were necessary to assess the cost of the various effluent
limitations to the industry. Tables VII1-22 through VII1-28
summarize the estimated in-place and required expenditures for
each plant within the steelmaking segments. The estimated
capital requirements and annual costs of BPT for all plants
within each segment of the three steelmaking subdivisions are
presented below.
177
-------
	Estimated Expenditures	
Estimated
Steelmaking	Annual
Subdivision	In-place Required	Cost
BOF-Semi-Wet	$ 8,400,000 $ 4,150,000 $ 2,980,000
BOF-Wet-	16,360,000 2,560,000 2,590,000
Suppressed Combus-
tion
BOF-Wet-	64,650,000 11,210,000 19,050,000
Open Combustion
Open Hearth-Semi-wet 2,860,000 640,000	850,000
Open Hearth-Wet 13,820,000 2,380,000	3,810,000
EAF-Semi-wet 1,350,000 570,000	420,000
EAF-Wet 20.360.000 2,500.000	8.330.000
TOTAL $127,800,000 $24,010,000	$38,030,000
The estimated annual costs were determined by multiplying the
treatment model annual costs for each segment by the number of
plants in that segment.
B.	Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BAT Limitations
The Agency considered three alternative treatment systems in each
wet air pollution control system segment. As the BPT model
treatment system for each semi-wet segment provided for the
elimination of process wastewater pollutant discharges to
navigable waters, the Agency did not consider additional BAT
alternative treatment systems in these segments. The
descriptions, rationale, and additional details for the various
alternatives are provided in Section X. The additional
investment and annual expenditures involved in applying each of
the BAT alternatives to the BPT model treatment system are
presented in Tables VII1-29 through VII1-32. The additional
capital requirements for each segment within the steelmaking
subdivisions were determined by multiplying the unit costs for
each component (as developed in the treatment model) by the
number of plants within each segment which require that
component. Total annual costs for BAT in each segment were
derived by multiplying each segment's model annual costs by the
number of plants within that segment. The estimated investment
and annual costs for each steelmaking segment's BAT alternative
treatment system are presented in Table VII1-33.
C.	BCT Cost Test
The BCT cost analyses for the steelmaking wet segments are
presented in Tables VIII-34 through VIII-37. Refer to Section XI
for a detailed review of BCT.
178
-------
D.	Cost Required to Achieve NSPS
As the BPT model treatment systems for the semi-wet air pollution
control system segments involve no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable waters, only a single
treatment model (identical to the BPT model treatment system) was
developed in each semi-wet segment for those new semi-wet
facilities constructed after the proposal of New Source
Performance Standards. The Agency did not develop a model
treatment system for the open hearth - semi-wet segment since new
open hearth furnaces are not likely to be constructed in this
country. The NSPS treatment model costs for the remaining
semi-wet segments are presented in Tables VII1-38 and VII1-39.
It should also be recognized that either dry or wet air pollution
control systems will be selected for most new steelmaking
operations, both of which offer advantages over semi-wet systems.
The Agency developed three NSPS alternative treatment systems for
each wet segment except for the open hearth wet segment. The
NSPS alternative treatment systems for each wet segment are
identical to the respective BPT and BAT alternative treatment
systems. The NSPS treatment model costs for the remaining three
wet gas cleaning system segments are presented in Tables VII1-40
through VIII-42. The model sizes used for the BAT alternative
treatment systems were retained for use in the NSPS alternative
treatment systems, as the average sizes of those plants built in
the last decade in each wet segment were within ten percent of
the BAT treatment model sizes.
E.	Costs Required to Achieve the Pretreatment Standards
Pretreatment standards apply to those plants which continue or
elect to discharge to POTW systems. The pretreatment alternative
treatment systems for the semi-wet and wet air pollution control
system segments are identical to the respective BPT and BAT
alternative treatment systems in each segment (refer to Section X
for a review of the alternatives). These systems provide for
reductions in effluent flows and in the effluent levels and loads
of those pollutants of concern in POTW systems. Refer to Section
XIII for additional information pertaining to pretreatment
standards. The pretreatment model costs for the semi-wet systems
are identical to the BPT model costs for these systems (refer to
Tables VIII-15, VIII-18, and VIII-20). The model costs for the
wet BOF and EAF pretreatment systems are the same as the costs
for the respective NSPS treatment systems (refer to Table VII1-40
through VIII-42). The pretreatment model costs for the wet open
hearth segment are presented in Table VIII-43.
Energy Impacts Due to the
Installation of the Incorporated Technologies
Moderate amounts of energy will be required by the various levels of
treatment in the steelmaking segments. The major energy expenditures
in each segment will be required at the BPT level of treatment while
the BAT alternative treatment systems require only minor additional
179
-------
energy expenditures. The vacuum filters incorporated in the BPT model
treatment systems require significantly greater amounts of energy than
any other treatment component. This relationship, in turn, is
responsible for the difference in energy expenditures between the BPT
and BAT treatment systems in each segment. Energy requirements at
NSPS and PSNS will be similar to those for the corresponding BPT and
BAT systems. PSES energy requirements are included in the BPT and BAT
energy requirements.
A.	Energy Impacts at BPT
Table VIII-44 presents the estimated annual energy requirements
associated with the proposed BPT limitations for all plants
within each segment. This table also presents the relationships
between these energy requirements and the 57 billion kilowatt
hours of electricity used by the steel industry in 1978.
B.	Energy Impacts at BAT
Table VIII-44 also presents the estimated annual energy
requirements, and their comparison to the power usage for the
industry, needed to upgrade from the BPT model treatment system
to the BAT alternative treatment systems for all plants within
each segment. In reviewing these data, the Agency concludes that
the energy requirements are reasonable when compared to total
industry power consumption and that the effluent reduction
benefits justify any negative impacts of the additional energy
consumption.
C.	Energy Impacts at NSPS and Pretreatment
Following are the energy requirements for the semi-wet gas
cleaning system NSPS, PSES, and PSNS alternative treatment
systems.
Segment	kwh per Year
BOF - Semi-wet	0.34 million
Open Hearth - Semi-wet 1.29 million*
EAF - Semi-wet	0.38 million
*: Energy requirement at the PSES level only.
Table VII1-45 presents the energy requirements for the wet gas
cleaning systems NSPS and Pretreatment alternative treatment
systems. The Agency did not calculate the total impacts for NSPS
and Pretreatment since projections of the number of new
steelmaking operations were not made as part of this study. As
noted earlier, only one steelmaking operation is discharging
wastewaters to a POTW. The energy impacts of this facility are
included in those for BPT and BAT.
180
-------
Nonwater Quality Impacts
In general, the nonwater quality impacts associated with the
alternative treatment systems are minimal. The three impacts which
were evaluated are air pollution, solid waste disposal, and water
consumption.
A.	Air Pollution
The Agency does not expect that any adverse air pollution impacts
will occur as a result of the use of any of the BPT model
treatment system components.
As sulfide addition is incorporated in the BAT Alternative No. 3
treatment systems, atmospheric discharges could occur in the
event of treatment process control upsets. However, as the
steelmaking process wastewaters would not typically be acidic at
the point of sulfide addition, the possibility of atmospheric
sulfide discharges, which are aggravated at an acidic pH, would
be minimized. In addition, atmospheric sulfide discharges could
be controlled by using a ferrous sulfide slurry as the source of
sulfide for toxic metals precipitation.
As the Agency has not selected BAT Alternative No. 3 as the BAT
model treatment system for any of the segments and the components
which are incorporated in the selected BAT model treatment
systems (refer to Section X), will not result in any adverse air
pollution impacts, the Agency believes that implementation of the
proposed BAT limitations will have no significant adverse air
pollution impacts.
B.	Solid Waste Disposal
The treatment steps included in the BPT model and BAT alternative
treatment systems will generate quantities of solid wastes which
must be disposed of properly. These solid wastes will consist
essentially of the solids removed from the processes, although
treatment chemicals will comprise a small portion of the total
solid waste load. It should be noted that the solids generated
in the process can be reclaimed in sintering or pelletizing
operations, and, thus, the impact of solid waste disposal can be
significantly reduced. Moreover, nearly all of these solid
wastes are generated at the BPT level of treatment. Almost all
steelmaking operations are presently achieving this level and
disposing of these solid wastes. Consequently, the Agency
believes that the incremental effect of this proposed regulation
will be minimal. Table VI11-14 presents a summary of the solid
waste generation rates by the BPT model and BAT alternative
treatment systems for all of the plants in each segment of the
steelmaking subdivisions. As noted on this table, the quantities
of solid wastes generated by the BAT alternative treatment
systems are significantly less than the amounts generated at the
BPT level.
181
-------
The estimated quantities of solid wastes generated by the NSPS
and Pretreatment models are presented on Table VII1-46. As noted
previously in this section, the NSPS and Pretreatment models are
identical to the corresponding BPT model and BAT alternative
treatment systems. The solid wastes generated at the NSPS and
Pretreatment levels are of the same nature and present the same
possibilities for reuse, and the same disposal requirements, as
the solid wastes generated by the BPT and BAT treatment systems.
C. Water Consumption
Evaporative cooling is n<~t included as a treatment step in the
steelmaking segments, and those treatment steps which are
included are essentially not water consumptive. As a result, the
Agency does not believe that there will be any significant
adverse impacts with respect to water consumption at any level of
treatment.
Summary of Impacts
In summary, the Agency concludes that the pollutant reduction benefits
described below for the steelmaking subcategory justify any adverse
energy and nonwater quality environmental impacts:
	Effluent Discharges (Tons/Year)	
Raw Waste Proposed BPT Proposed BAT & BCT
Flow, MGD	284 13.5	13.5
TSS	1,258,000	1029	315
Toxic Metals	25,130	127	25
Fluoride	16,420	638	252
NOTE: PSES discharges are included in those for BPT and BAT.
182
-------
TABLE VIII-1
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - SEMI-WET
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 dollars.)
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
Other (sludge, etc.)
TOTAL
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal. Treated
R
0432A
Original Survey
$692,000
$ 29,7635}}
69,216
683,508
Incl.
Not Available
$782,487
0.251
1.93
U
0396D
Original Survey
$1,917,000
$
82,44lJ}J
191,724
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
$ 274,165
0.253
0.348
(1)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (Initial
Investment).
(2)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula: (0.10) x (Initial
Investment).
183
-------
TABLE VIII-2
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 dollars.)
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Coat of Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy, Power,
Chemicals, etc.
Other (Sludge, etc.)
Other (equipment rental,
contract labor, freight,
etc.)
S
0060
Original Survey
$2,994,000
128,724^
299,359
124,939
91,361
032
0384A
Toxica Survey
$5,907,000
254,012
590,726
474,418
400,979
(1)
(2)
D-DCP
$5,875,000
252,625
587,518
519,633
374,247
158,493
43,056
(1)
(2)
034
0856N
Toxics Survey
$13,264,000l3)
D-DCP
$13,390,000
(3)
038
0684F
Toxics Survey
$9,690,000(4)
0684H
D-DCP
$3,329,000
143,163***
160,063
247,878
29,657
26,850
TOTAL
$ 644,383
$1,720, 135
$1,935,572
$ 607,611
CD
4^
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal. Treated
0.278
0.271
1.07
0.728
0. 782
2.77
0.261
1.02
(1)	Cost of capital vas calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (Initial Investment).
(2)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following foriaula: (0.10) x (Initial Investment).
(3)	Costs include expenditures for hoods and gas cleaning systems. Expenditures for water pollution control facilities cannot be separated.
(4)	Treatment ia provided prisurily in a central treatment system. This investment cost represents the estimated portion of the total cost
required by the BOF process. A detailed estimate could not be obtained.
(5)	Depreciation was based upon 20 year straight line.
-------
TABLE VIII-3
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 dollars)
Plane Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment Cost
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power,
Chemicals, etc.
TOTAL
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal Treated
T
0112A
Original
Survey
13,943
222,892
236,385
Original
Survey
9,313,000
V
0584F
(1)
D-DCP
9,723,000
(1)
031
0020B
Toxics
Survey
829,000
35,653^'
82,915
143,891
22,145
284,604
0.364
0.344
D-DCP
Plant Code
033
Reference Code
0856B

Toxics

Survey
Initial Investment Cost
2,848,000
Annual Cost

Cost of Capital
122,479'
Depreciation
284,836
Operation & Maintenance
457,884
Energy & Power,

Chemicals, etc.
1,027,474
TOTAL
1,892,673
9/Ton
0.663
$/1000 Gal/Treated
2.75
(2)
(3)
035
0 8 68A
Toxic*
Survey
7,248,000
311,647
724,760
607,597
264,504
1,908,508
0.816
0.734
(2)
(3)
036
0112D
Toxic* -
Survey
16,827,000
(4)
0724A
D-DCP
0860B
D-DCP
19,615,000
(5)
(1)	Cost*, ** preaented, represent expenditure* for the entire BOF «hop. Wastewater treatment
cost* could not be separated.
(2)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula:
(0.043) x (initial investment)
(3)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula:
(0.10) x (initial invesment)
(4)	BOF wastewater treatment expenditures could not be determined because the data, as reported, represented
capital expenditures for wastewater treatment and/or gas cleaning facilities.
(5)	The data, as provided, represents combined expenditures for gas cleaning (hoods, etc.)
and wastewater treatment facilities.
*:
Confidential information.
Not available.
185
-------
TABLE VIII-4
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
OPEN HEARTH - SEMI-WET
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 dollars.)
Plant Code
Reference Code
043
0864A
(3)
D-DCP
Toxics Survey
Initial Investments
2,212,000
2,488,000
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
2zi, zuu
846,090
590,604
TOTAL
1,753,010
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal. Treatment
0.733
0.733
(1)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (Initial
Investment).
(2)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula: (0.10) x (Initial
Investment).
(3)	Operating costs were not reported.
186
-------
TABLE VII1-5
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
OPEN HEARTH - WET
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 dollars.)
Plant Code
Reference No.
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
Sludge Handling
Chemical Costs
W
0112A
Original Survey
1,685,000
72'472(2)
168,539
13,184
223,098
D-DCP
1,134,000
(3)
560,013 £
236,592
856,353
494,134
6,920
X
0060
Original Survey
3,331,000
143,234fJJ
333,102
239,681
10,712
D-DCP
3,323,000
37,252(1)
(5)
042
049 2A
Toxics Survey
866,000
(7)
37,252{J}
86,633^'
66,332
TOTAL
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal. Treated
447,293
0.113
0.213
2,154,012
0.545
1.025
726,729
0.362
0.165
377,986
0.270
1.598
(1)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (Initial Investment).
(2)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula: (0.10) x (Initial Investment).
(3)	Capital recovery based on 15 year life at 102 cost of capital.
(4)	Straight line depreciation over 18 year life.
(5)	No annual costs were available.
(6)	Annual costs include the costs for 2 High energy scrubber systems which cannot be separated from the total.
(7)	The costs for this plant were obtained by apportioning the combined open hearth and EAF wastewater treatment
costs.
-------
TABLE VII1-6
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES - SEMI-WET
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 dollars.)
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal. Treated
Y
0432C
Original Survey
590,000
25 373^^
' (2)
59,009
9,682
27,295
121,359
0.17
0.61
Z
0584A
Original Survey
231,000
:(D
9,916
23,062
5,356
1,030
39,364
0.07
*
(2)
(1)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (initial
investment).
(2)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula: (0.10) x (initial
investment).
*: Cannot be determined, as the flow to the treatment system could not be measured.
188
-------
TABLE VIII-7
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES - WET
(All cos t s are expressed in July, 1978 dollars.)
CO
VO
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy and Power
TOTAL
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal. Treated
AA/059AtU
0060F
Original Survey
586,000
(3)
25,188"
58, 57 6
154,397
Incl.
238,161
0.59
0.26
AB
0868B
Original Survey
2, 163,000
93,009
216,300
595,134
(3)
(4)
904,443
1.55
7.64
Toxics Survey
1,610,000
051
0612
39,130
91,000
120,510
20,600
271,240
(3)
(4)
0.38
0.16
D-DCP
10,000
(2)
052
0492A
Toxics Survey
406,000<5)
17,477
40,644
76,632
27,089
161,842
0.86
0.68
(3)
(4)
0060D
D-DCP
4,347,000
(6)
(1)	Cost data was obtained during the original guidelines survey. No cost data was provided for the toxic pollutant survey.
(2)	This figure represents the company's estimate of water pollution control costs. The company reported that operating costs could
not be separated between water and air pollution control costs.
(3)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (Initial Investment).
(4)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula: (0.10) x (Initial Investment).
(5)	The costs for this plant were obtained by apportioning the combined open hearth and EAF wastewater treatment costs.
(6)	The data presented in the D-DCP response represents an apportionment performed by the respondent, of a combined
treatment system. The respondent stated that these costs would not be representative of an EAF wastewater treatment system.
-------
TABLE VIll-8
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISION
O
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
A. Thickener - This component
provides a substantial reduction
(via gravity sedimentatioo) in
the wastewater suspended solids
load.
B. Coagulant Aid Addition -
Coagulant aids (polymeric floccu-
lants, etc.) are added to the
process wastewater influent to
the thickener to enhance the
sedimentation of suspended parti-
culate matter.
Status and
Reliability
Very widely used in the
various segments of this
subdivision and in waste-
water treatment applications
in the other steelmaking sub-
divisions, in this industry,
and in other industries.
Widely used in this sub-
division, in other subcate-
gories in this industry, and
in other industries.
Problems
and Limitations		
Hydraulic surges must 15 to 18
be controlled. Routine months
or continuous sludge
removal must also be
provided in order to
prevent excessive solids
accumulations which
could damage the rake
drive and hinder the
removal of sludge.
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
Refer to
Table VIII-11
Dissolved solids
levels may be in-
creased.
6 months
Refer to
Table VIII-11
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Refer to Table
VIII-14 for the
solid waste
generation rates
for the various
treatment models.
These solids con-
sist primarily of
the various metal
oxides (princi-
pally iron oxide)
generated in the
steelmaking pro-
cess.
Results in a minor Solid waste genera-
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
The solids removed
from the thickener
and delivered to
the vacuum filter
must ultimately
receive proper
disposal, although
these solids could
be processed
(pelletising,
etc.) for reuse.
increase in the
quantities of
solids which must
subsequently re-
ceive proper
di sposal.
tion rates for this
step are included
in the values pre-
sented on Table
VIII-14. The solid
waste constituents
of this step are
similar to the
solid waste con-
stituents of Step
A.
C. Vacuum Filter - Used to de-
water the sludges removed in
Widely used in this subdivi-
sion and in other wastewater
water tne siuages removea in	sion ana in otner wastewater
Step A, thus reducing the mass and	treatment applications in this
volume of solids requiring further	industry and in other
handling or disposal. The filtrate	industries,
is returned to the thickener.
Routine maintenance of 15 to 18
vacuum pusps and filter months
mechanical equipment
is required. The
filter media must be
replaced periodically.
Refer to
Table VIII-11
The dewatered
solids must re-
ceive proper
disposal.
Refer to the solid
waste generation
rates presented
on Table VI11-14.
The nature of the
solids in the
filter cake is the
same as that of
the solids removed
in Step A.
-------
TABLE VIII-8
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PAGE 2
k£>
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
D. Recycle - la the semi-wet
treatment aodel, all of the
thickener effluent is returned
to the process. In the wet-
suppressed combustion and wet-
open combustion treatment models,
a major portion of the thickener
effluent is returned to the
process.
E. Neutralization with Acid -
Acid is added to the typically
alkaline BOF process wastewaters
to adjust the wastewater pH to
the neutral range (6.0 to 9.0).
F. Filtration - Used to provide
additional suspended solids re-
moval capability. Additional
suspended solids removal will
also provide additional removal
of those pollutants (i.e., toxic
metals) entrained in the sus-
pended solids.
Status and
Reliability
Used widely in the seg-
ments of this subdivision
and in other subcategories in
this industry. Treatment model
recycle rates are defined by
the treatment model applied
and effluent flows, which in
turn, are based on actual per-
formance in each segment
(refer to Sections IX and X).
Acid addition for the purpose
of pH control is demonstrated
in this subdivision and in
many applications in this in-
dustry and in other industries.
Used in this subdivision.
In addition, the capabilities
of this technology are well
demonstrated in other sub-
categories in this industry
and in other industries.
Problems
and Limitations
The potential exists
for scaling and plug-
ging due to the in-
creased dissolved
solids concentrations
associated with the
recycle of process
wastewaters.
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
12 to 14
months
Refer to
Table VIII-11
Extreme caution must 8 to 10
be used in handling months
the acid. The acid
feed and pH control
systems require routine
maintenance. Dissolved
solids concentrations
will be increased.
Hydraulic overloads 15 to 18
must be controlled. months
Poor backwashing will
impede efficient filter
operation.
Refer to
Table VIII-
11
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
None
Sol id Waste
Generation and
Primary
Cons ti tuents
None
Acid fumes must None
be exhausted from
the workplace atmos-
phere.
Refer to
Table VIII-11
The backwashed
solids must even-
tually receive
proper disposal.
Solid waste
generation values
for this step are
included in the
values presented
in Table VlII-14.
The nature of the
backwash solids is
the same as that
of the solids re-
moved via gravity
sedimentation in
the thickener.
-------
TABLE VII1-8
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PAGE 3	
VO
to
Treatment and/or
Cootrol Methods Employed
G. Flocculation with Lime - Lime
not only precipitates
a portion of the fluoride waste
load (as calcium fluoride),
but also results in
an additional reduction
of the toxic metals load in the
recycle system blowdown.
Status and
Reliability
Lime flocculation is employed
in wastewater treatment opera-
tions in this subdivision, in
the other steelmaking subdivi-
sions, in this industry, and
in other industries.
H. Inclined Plate Separator -
This step provides for the gravity
sedimentation of the suspended
particulate matter added by and/or
generated in Step G (flocculation
with lime).
Problems
and Limitations
Dissolved solids
levels in the effluent
will be increased.
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
12 months Refer to
Table V1II-11
This technology is employed in
this subdivision and is also
used widely in other subcate-
gories in this industry and in
other industries.
Abrupt process upsets
must be controlled.
Sludge accianulation
must be closely moni-
tored to insure that
adequate sludge with-
drawal is maintained.
10 to 12
months
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Additional solids
generated as a
result of this
step must receive
proper disposal.
Lime dusts must
be exhausted from
the workplace
atmosphere.
Refer to
Table VIII-11
The solids
generated and/or
added in Step G,
and then removed
in this step,
must receive
proper disposal.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Solid waste
generation values
for this step are
included in the
data presented in
Table VIII-14. The
solids generated
as a result of in-
corporating this
step would be re-
moved in Step H.
This step's solid
wastes would con-
sist of lime solids,
calcium fluoride
precipitates, and
metallic hydroxide
precipitates. As
they settle, solids
may also capture
some of the process
wastewater suspended
particulate matter.
Solid waste genera-
tion values for
this step are in-
cluded in the values
presented on Table
VIII-14. The compo-
sition of the solid
wastes removed in
this step is des-
cribed above in
Step G.
-------
TABLE VIII-8
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PAGE 4 			
(-*
v£>
u>
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
I. Sulfide Precipitation - A
sulfide source is added to the
wastewater streaa in order to
form Metallic sulfide precipitates
which are subsequently removed via
filtration (refer to Step F).
Status and
Reliability
Probleas
and Limitations
lapleaen-
tation
Time
Land
Requireaents
Used in a variety of industrial Care snist be exercised 6 aonths Refer to
wastewater treatment applica-
tions -for the purpose of pro-
viding additional toxic aetals
removal capabilities.
in the handling and use
of the feed solutions.
Tight treataent process
control is essential.
Table VIII-U
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
The resultant
metal sulfide
precipitates re-
quire proper
disposal. Sulfide
odors can result
if adequate
treatment process
control is not
provided.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Solid waste
generation values
for this treat-
ment component
are included in
the values pre-
sented on Table
VIII-14. The
solid wastes
generated in
this step con-
sist of the
sulfide pre-
cipitates of
iron and the
toxic metals.
NOTE: Steps A through D are common to the semi-wet, wet-suppressed combustion, and wet-open combustion treataent models.
Steps E through I apply to the wet-suppressed combustion and wet-open combustion treatment models only.
-------
TABLE VIII-9
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
A. Thickener - This component
provides a substantial reduction
(via gravity sedimentation) in
the wastewater suspended solids
load.
B. Coagulant Aid Addition -
Coagulant aids (polymeric floccu-
lants, etc.) are added to the
process wastewater influent to
the thickener to enhance the
sedimentation of suspended parti*
culate matter.
Status and
Reliabili ty
Very widely used in the
segments of this subdivi-
sion and in wastewater treat-
ment applications in the other
steelmaking subdivisions, in
this industry, and in other
industries.
Widely used in this sub-
division, in other subcate-
gories in this industry, and
in other industries.
C. Neutralization with Lime -
Lime is added to the typically
acidic open hearth furnace process
wastewaters to adjust the
wastewater pH to the neutral
range (6.0 to 9.0).
Lime addition for the purpose
of pH control is employed in
this subdivision and in many
wastewater treatment
applications in this industry
and in other industries.
Problems
and Limitations
Hydraulic surges must
be controlled. Routine
or continuous sludge
removal must also be
provided in order to
prevent excessive
solids accimulations
which could damage
the rake drive and
hinder the removal of
sludge.
Dissolved solids
levels may be in-
creased.
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
15 to 18 Refer to
months Table VIII-12
6 months
The 1ime feed and pH
control systems require
routine maintenance.
Dissolved solids con-
centrations will be
increased.
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Refer to
Table VIII-12
The solids removed Refer to Table
from the thickener VIII-14 for the
and delivered to solid waste
the vacuum filter generation rates
must ultimately for the various
receive proper treatment models,
disposal, although These solids con-
these solids could sist primarily of
be processed	the various metal
(pelletizing,	oxides (princi-
etc.) for reuse. pally iron
oxide) generated
in the steel-
making process.
Results in a minor Solid waste genera-
increase in the
quantities of
solids which must
subsequently re-
ceive proper
disposal.
12 months Refer to
Table VIII-12
The solids which
result from this
step must receive
proper disposal.
Lime dusts must
be exhausted from
the workplace
atmosphere.
tion rates for this
step are included
in the values pre-
sented on Table
VIII-14. The solid
waste constituents
of this step are
similar to the
solid waste con-
stituents of Step
A.
The solids which
are added and/or
generated as a
result of this
step are removed
in Step A. The
solid waste
generation values
for this step are
included in the
values presented
in Table VIII-14.
This step's solid
wastes will con-
sist of lime
solids, or fluo-
ride or metallic
precipitates.
-------
TABLE VII1-9
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PACE 2	
VP
Treatment and/or
Control Method# Employed
Status and
Reliabili cy
Problems
and Limitatiooa
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
D. Vacuus Filter - Used to de-	Widely used in this subdivi-
water the sludges removed in	sion and in other wastewater
Step A, thus reducing the mass and treatment applications in this
volume of solids requiring further industry and in other
handling or disposal. The filtrate industries,
is returned to the thickener.
Routine maintenance of 15 to 18
vacuum pumps and filter months
mechanical equipment
is required. The filter
media must be replaced
periodically.
E. Recycle - In the semi-wet
treatment model, all of the
thickener effluent is returned
to the process. In the vet
treatment model, a major
portion of the thickener
effluent is returned to the
process.
F. Filtration - Used to provide
additional suspended solids re-
moval capability. Additional
suspended solids removal will
also provide additional raoval
of those pollutants (i.e., toxic
¦etals) entrained in the sus-
pended solids.
Used widely in the sub-	The potential exists
divisions of this subcategory	for scaling and plug-
and in other subcategories in	ging due to the in-
this industry. Treatment model	creased dissolved
recycle rates are defined by	solids concentrations
the treatment model applied	associated with the
and effluent flows, which in	recycle of process
turn, are based on actual per-	wastewaters,
formance in each subdivision
(refer to Sections XX and X).
The capabilities of
this technology are well
demonstrated in other sub-
categories in this industry
and in other industries.
Hydraulic overloads
must be controlled.
Poor backwashing will
impede efficient filter
operation.
Refer to
Table VIII-12
12 to 14
months
Refer to
Table VIII-12
15 to 18
months
Refer to
Table VIII-
12
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
The dewatered
solids must re-
ceive proper
disposal.
None
The backwashed
solids must even-
tually receive
proper disposal.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Consti tuents
Refer to the solid
waste generation
rates presented
on Table VIII-14.
The nature of the
solids in the
filter cake is the
same as that of
the solids removed
in Step A.
None
Solid waste
generation values
for this step are
included in the
values presented
in Table VIII-14.
The nature of the
backwash solids is
the same as that
of the aolida re-
moved via gravity
sedimentation in
the thickener.
-------
TABLE VIII-9
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PAGE 3
VO
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
G. Flocculation with Line * Line
addition not only precipitates
a portion of the fluoride waste
load (as calcium fluoride),
but also results
in an additional reduction of the
toxic metals load in the
recycle system blowdown*
Status and
Reliability
Lime flocculation is employed
in wastewater treatment opera-
tions in this subdivision, in
the other steelmaking sub-
divisions, in this industry,
and in other industries.
H. Inclined Plate Separator -
This step provides for the gravity
sedimentation of the suspended
particulate matter added by and/or
generated in Step G (flocculation
with lime).
This technology is widely
employed in this industry
and in other industries.
Problems
and Linitations
Dissolved solids
levels in the effluent
will be increased.
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
12 months Refer to
Table VIII-
12
Abrupt process upsets
must be controlled.
Sludge accisnulation
must be closely moni-
tored to insure that
adequate sludge with-
drawal is maintained.
10 to 12
months
Refer to
Table VIII-12
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Additional solids
generated as a
result of this
step must receive
proper disposal.
Lime dusts must
be exhausted from
the workplace
atmosphere.
The solids
generated and/or
added in Step G,
and then removed
in this step,
must receive
proper disposal.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Solid waste
generation values
for this step are
included in the
data presented in
Table VIII-14. The
solids generated
as a result of in-
corporating this
step would be re-
moved in Step H.
This step's solid
wastes would con-
sist of lime solids,
calcium fluoride
precipitates, and
metallic hydroxide
precipitates. As
they settle, solids
may also capture
some of the process
was tewater suspended
particulate matter.
Solid waste genera-
tion values for
this step are in-
cluded in the values
presented on Table
VIII-14. The compo-
sition of the solid
wastes removed in
this step is des-
cribed above in
Step G.
-------
TABLE VIII-9
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PAGE 4
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
I. Sulfide Precipitation - A
sulfide source is added to the
wastewater stream in order to
form metallic sulfide precipitates
which are subsequently removed via
filtration (refer to Step F).
Status and
Reliability
Problems
and Limitations
Implemen-
tation
Time
Used in a variety of industrial Care must be exercised 6 months
wastewater treatment applica-
tions for the purpose of pro-
viding additional toxic metals
removal capabilities.
in the handling and use
of the feed solutions.
Tight treatment process
control is essential.
Land
Requirements
Refer to
Table VIII-12
Env i r onment a1
Impact Other
Than Water
The resultant
metal sulfide
precipitates re-
quire proper
disposal. Sulfide
odors can result
if adequate
treatment process
control is not
provided.
vD
-J
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Consti tuents
Solid waste
generation values
for this treat-
ment component
are included in
the values pre-
sented on Table
VIII-14. The
solid wastes
generated in
this step con-
sist of the
sulfide pre-
cipitates of
iron and the
toxic metals.
NOTE: Steps A through E are common to the semi-wet and wet treatment models.
Steps F through I apply to the wet segment treatment model only.
-------
TABLE VIII-10
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
ELECTRIC ARC FURKACE SUBDIVISION
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
A. Thickener - This component
provides a substantial reduction
(via gravity sedimentation) in
the wastewater suspended solids
load.
Status and
Reliability
Very widely used in the
various segments of this
subdivision and in waste-
water treatment applications
in the other steelmaking sub-
divisions, in this industry,
and in other industries.
Problems
and Limitations
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
Hydraulic surges must 15 to 18
be controlled. Routine months
or continuous sludge
removal must also be
provided in order to
prevent excessive solids
accumulations which
could damage the rake
drive and hinder the
removal of sludge.
Refer to
Table VIII-13
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
The solids removed
from the thickener
and delivered to
the vacuum filter
must ultimately
receive proper
disposal, although
these solids could
be processed
(pelletizing,
etc.) for reuse.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Consti tuents
Refer to Table
VIII-14 for the
solid waste
generation rates
for the various
treatment models.
These solids con-
sist primarily of
the various metal
oxides (princi-
pally iron oxide)
generated in the
steelmaking pro-
cess.
v£>
CD
B. Coagulant Aid Addition -
Coagulant aids (polymeric floccu-
lants, etc.) are added to the
process wastewater influent to
the thickener to enhance the
sedimentation of suspended parti-
culate matter.
Widely used in this sub-
division, in other subdivi-
sions in this industry, and
in other industries.
Dissolved solids	6 months Refer to	Results in a minor Solid waste genera-
levels may be in-	Table VIII-13 increase in the
creased.	quantities of
solids which must
subsequently re-
ceive proper
disposal.
tion rates for this
step are included
in the values pre-
sented on Table
VIII-14. The solid
waste constituents
of this step are
similar to the
solid waste con-
stituents of Step
A.
C. Vacuum Filter - Used to de-	Widely used in this subdivi-
water the sludges removed in	sion and in other wsstewater
Step A, thua reducing the mass and treatment applications in this
volume of solids requiring further industry and in other
handling or disposal. The filtrate industries,
is returned to the thickener.
Routine maintenance of
vacuum piasps and filter
mechanical equipment
is required. The filter
media must be replaced
periodically.
15 to 18
months
Refer to
Table VIII-13
The dewatered
solids must re-
ceive proper
disposal.
Refer to the solid
waste generation
rates presented
on Table VIII-14.
The nature of the
solids in the
filter cake is the
same as that of
the solids removed
in Step A.
-------
TABLE VIII-10
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PAGE 2	
Treatment and/or
Control Hethoda Employed
D. Recycle - In the semi-wet
treatment model, all of the
thickener effluent is returned
to the process. In the wet
segment treatment model
a major portion of the
thickener effluent is
returned to the process.
Status and
Reliability
Used widely in the seg-
ments of this subdivision
and in other subdivision in
this industry. Treatment model
recycle rates are defined by
the treatment model applied
and effluent flows, which in
turn, are based on actual per-
formance in each subdivision
(refer to Sections IX and X).
Problems
and Limitations
The potential exists
for scaling and plug-
ging due to the in-
creased dissolved
solids concentrations
associated with the
recycle of process
wastewaters.
Implemen-
tation
Time
12 to 14
months
Land
Requirements
Refer to
Table VI1I-13
Enviromiental
Impact Other
Than Water
None
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
None
10
vO
E. Filtration - Used to provide
additional suspended solids re-
moval capability. Additional
suspended solids removal will
also provide additional removal
of those pollutants (i.e., toxic
metals) enLrained in the sus-
pended solids.
The capabilities of
this technology are well
demonstrated in other sub-
categories in this industry
and in other industries.
Hydraulic overloads
must be controlled.
Poor backwashing will
impede efficient filter
operation.
15 to 18
months
Refer to
Table VIII-
The backwashed
13 solids must even-
tually receive
proper disposal.
Solid waste
generation values
for this step are
included in the
values presented
in Table V1II-14.
The nature of the
backwash solids is
the same as that
of the solids re-
moved via gravity
sedimentation in
the thickener.
-------
TABLE VIII-10
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PACE 3	
JO
o
o
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
F. Flocculation with Lime - Lime
addition not only precipitates
a portion of the fluoride waste
load (as calcium fluoride),
but also results in an
additional reduction of the
toxic metals load in the
recycle system blowdown.
Status and
Reliabili ty
Lime flocculation is employed
in wastewater treatment opera-
tions in this subdivision, in
the other steelmaking subdivi-
sions, in this industry, and
in other industries.
Problems
and Limitations
Dissolved solids
levels in the effluent
will be increased.
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requi rements
12 months Refer to
Table VIII-13
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Additional solids
generated as a
result of this
step must receive
proper disposal.
Lime dusts must
be exhausted from
the workplace
atmosphere.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Solid waste
generation values
for this step are
included in the
data presented in
Table VIII-14. The
solids generated
as a result of in-
corporating this
step would be re-
moved in Step G.
This step's solid
wastes would con-
sist of lime solids,
calcium fluoride
precipitates, and
metallic hydroxide
precipitates. As
they settle, solids
may also capture
some of the process
wastewater suspend-
ed particulate
matter.
G. Inclined Plate Separator -
This step provides for the gravity
sedimentation of the suspended
particulate matter added by and/or
generated in Step P (flocculation
with lime).
This technology is widely
employed in this industry
and in other industries.
Abrupt process upsets
must be controlled.
Sludge accumulation
must be closely moni-
tored to insure that
adequate sludge with-
drawal is being
maintained.
10 to 12
months
Refer to
Table VIII-13
The solids
generated and/or
added in Step F,
and then removed
in this step,
must receive
proper disposal.
Solid waste genera-
tion values for
this step are in-
cluded in the values
presented on Table
VIII-14. The compo-
sition of the solid
wastes removed in
this step is des-
cribed above in
Step F.
-------
TABLE VIII-10
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE SUBDIVISION
PAGE 4	
to
O
I-1
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
H. Sulfide Precipitation - A
sulfide source is added to the
wastewater stream in order to
form metallic sulfide precipitates
which are subsequently removed via
filtration (refer to Step E).
Status and
Reliability
Problems
and Limitations
Implemen-
tation
Time
Used in a variety of industrial Care must be exercised 6 months
wastewater treatment applica-
tions for the purpose of pro-
viding additional toxic metals
removal capabilities.
in the handling and use
of the feed solutions.
Tight treatment process
control is essential.
Land
Requirements
Refer to
Table VIII-13
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
The resultant
metal sulfide
precipitates re-
quire proper
disposal. Sulfide
odors can result
if adequate
treatment process
control is not
provided.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Consti tuents
Solid waste
generation values
for this treat-
ment component
are included in
the values pre-
sented on Table
VIII-14. The
solid wastes
generated in
this step con-
sist of the
sulfide pre-
cipitates of
iron and the
toxic metals.
NOTE: Steps A through
Steps E through
D are common to the semi-wet and wet treatment models.
H apply to the wet treatment model only.
-------
TABLE VIII-11
LAND REQUIREMENTS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISION
BPT and BAT Treatment Models
Semi-Wet
Wet-
Suppressed Combustion
Wet-
Open Combustion
C&TT STEPS
A	BCDE	F	G	H	I
(T)	(FLP)	(VF)	(RTP) (HA)	(Filter) (FLL)	(TP)	(PS)
85* x85'	10'xlO' 25'x25' 10'xl5'	*****
160'xl60' 10*x20' 30'x55' 15'x25' 10'xl5' , 15'x20' 12,xl2' 25'x25' lO'xlO'
1301x2551 201x201 50'x85' 15'x30' 15'x20' 25'x40' 12,xl2' 35'x35' 10'xlO'
*: These steps are not incorporated in this segment's treatment model.
NOTE: For a definition of the C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VIII-12
LAND REQUIREMENTS
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
BPT and BAT Treatment Models
C&TT STEPS
A	BCDEF	G	H	I
(T)	(FLP) (NL) (VF) (RTP) (Filter)	(FLL)	(TP)	(PS)
Semi-Wet 160'xl60'	10'x20' 30*x30' 45'x45' 15'x25' *	*	*	*
Wet 150'x295'	20'x20' 30'x40' 40'x90' 20'x30* 30'x40'	20'x20'	30'x30'	15'x20'
*: These steps are not incorporated in this segment's treatment model.
NOTE: For a definition of the C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VIII-13
LAND REQUIREMENTS
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE SUBDIVISION
BPT and BAT Treatment Models
	C&TT STEPS				
A	BcDEFgH
(T)	(FLP)	(VF)	(RTP) (Filter) (FLL)	(TP)	(PS)
Semi-Wet	50'x50'	10'xlO' 30'x30' 10'x10'	*	*	*	*
Wet	115'xll5' 10'xl2' 40'x75' 20'x20' 20'x25' 15*xl5'	15'xl5' 10'xlO'
*: These steps are not incorporated in this segment's treatment model.
NOTE: For a definition of the C&TT codes, refer to Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VIII-1A
SOLID HASTE GENERATION SUMMARY
BPT AND BAT TREATMENT LEVELS
STEELHAKING SUBCATEGORY
BPT/BAT Feed
BAT Alternative Ho. 1
(1)
Pounds
Per,
Ton
(2)
Tons
Per
Day
(3)
Tons
Per
Year
BAT Alternative Ho. 2
(X)
BAT Alternative No. 3
(1)
(4)
Pounds
Per,
Ton
(2)
Tons
Per
Day
(3)
Tons
Per
Year
(4)
Pounds
Per,
Ton
(2)
Tons
Per
Day
(3)
Tons
Per
Year
(4)
Pounds
Per,
Ton
(2)
Tons
Per
Day
(3)
Tons
Per
Year
(4)
Baa ic Oxygen Furnace
Semi-Wet	0.982	2.60	9,490	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Wet-Suppressed Combustion	12.11	44.81	98,130	0.015	0.056	118	0.059	0.218	482	0.015	0.056	121
Wet-Open Combustion	38.09	173.3	885,600	0.019	0.086	441	0.077	0.350	1,785	0.020	0.091	459
Open Hearth Furnace
Seai-Wet
Wet
5.16
18.41
17.03
61.67
6,220
67,530
*
0.032
*
0.107
*
118
*
0.385
*
.29
*
1,411
*
0.032
*
.07
118
Electric Arc Furnace
fo
O
Seai-Wet
Wet
2.69
58.71
4.17
52.84
4,570
173,600
*
0.015
*
0.014
*
43
*
0.068
*
0.061
201
*
0.015
*
0.014
*
45
*i In these segments, the BPT level of treatment provides for the elimination of process wastewater pollutant discharges.
Therefore, no BAT treatment models were developed.
(1)	The BAT solid waste generation values are additional to the BPT/BAT Feed solid waste generation values.
(2)	Pounds of solid waste per ton of production based on the treatment model.
(3)	Tons of solid waste per day based on the treatment model.
(4)	Model solid waste generation data expanded to reflect solid waste generation for all plants in each segment.
-------
TABLE VIII-15
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Semi-Wet
Carbon
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
5300
365
C&TT Step
a(3)
B

c(3)
D
Total
_3
Investment $ x 10
724
32

332
374
1462
Annual Cost $ x 10






Capital
31.1
1.
,4
14.3
16.1
62.9
Depreciation
72.4
3.
,2
33.2
37.4
146.2
Operation and Maintenance
25.3
1.
,1
11.6
13.1
51 .1
Sludge Disposal , .
Energy and Power ^
-
-

15.5

15. 5
1.6
1.
,1
5.9
9.8
8.6
Chemical Costs
-
21.
,0
-
-
21.0
TOTAL
Less Credit
130.4
27.
8
80.5
66..6(2)
305.3



7.8

7.8
Net Total



72.7

297.5
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH, Units
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
120	Copper
122	Lead
123	Mercury
128	Zinc
Raw
Waste
Load
360
10-12
375
10
0.040
1.5
0.003
1.0
BPT
Effluent
Level
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(A) Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
A:
B:
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
Clarifier/Thickener
Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Recycle 100Z
206
-------
TABLE VIII-16
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet)
Suppressed Combustion
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
7400
365
C&TT Step
(3)
,(3)
Total
Investment $ x
Annual Cost $ x
10
10
-3
TOTAL
Less Credit
Net Total
(4)
1772
35
559
7 56
48
321.1
88.4
456.2
581.4
-125.2
134.6
(2)
12.2
3170
Capital
76.2
1.5
24.0
32.5
2.0
136.2
Depreciation
177.2
3.5
55.9
75.6
4.8
317.0
Operation and Maintenance
62.0
1.2
19.6
26.5
1.7
111.0
Sludge Disposal ^^
Energy and Power
-
-
337.6
40.8(2)
-
337.6
5.7
0.7
19.1
0.7
26.2
Chemical Costs
-
81.5
-
-
3.0
84.5
1012.5
581.4
431.1
Raw	BPT
Waste	Effluent
Wastewater Parameters	Load	Level
Flow, gal/ton	1000	50
pH, Units	8-11	6-9
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids	1500	50
Fluoride	15	15
118	Cadmium	0.10	0.10
119	Chromium	0.50	0.10
120	Copper	0.25	0.15
122	Lead	15.00	3.50
124	Nickel	0.50	0.25
126	Silver	0.025	0.25
128	Zinc	5.00	1-00
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener	D: Recycle 95%
B: Coagulant Aid Addition	E: pH Adjustment with Acid
C: Vacuum Filter
207
-------
TABLE VIII-17
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wee)
Open Combustion '
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD :
Oper. Days/Year:
Turns/Day	:
9100
365
3
C&TT Step
,"3
„-3
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capi tal
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Energy and Power1,
Chemical Costs

TOTAL
Less Credit
Net Total
(4)
A^
B
C(3)
D
E
Total
2557
66
1651
743
200
5217
109.9
2.8
71.0
32.0
8.6
224.3
255.7
6.6
165.1
74.3
20.0
521.7
89. 5
2.3
57.8
26.0
7.0
182.6
-
-
1277.5

-
1277.5
8.2
1.3
112.4
40. 8
1.8
123.7
-
109.7
-
*
11.0
120. 7
463.3
122.7
1683.8
132. 3(2)
48.4
2450.5


1090.0


1090.0


593.8


1360.5
Wastewater Parameters
Raw
Waste
Load
BPT
E£f lueat
Level
Flow, gal/ton
pH, Units
Concentrations, mg/1
1100
8-11
50
6-9

Suspended Solids
4200
50

Fluoride
15
15
23
Chloroform
0.05
0.05
115
Arsenic
0.05
0.05
118
Cadmium
0.50
0.30
119
Chromium
5.00
1.00
120
Copper
0.50
0.25
122
Lead
1.00
0.50
123
Mercury
0.01
0.01
124
Nickel
0.50
0.30
125
Selenium
0.025
0.025
126
S ilver
0.20
0.15
127
Thallium
0.10
0.10
128
Zinc
5.00
1.00
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener	D: Recycle 95Z
B: Coagulant Aid Addition	E: pH Adjustment with Acid
C: Vacuum Filter
208
-------
TABLE VIII-18
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Open Hearth Furnace
Semi-Wet
Carbon
Model Size-TPD : 6600
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day	: 	3
C&TT Step
_3
Investment $ x 10 __
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capi tal
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Sludge Disposal . .
Energy and Power
Chemical Costs
TOTAL
Less Credit
Net Total
(4)
A^
1838
79.0
183.8
64.3
3.3
330.4
B
34
1.5
3.4
1.2
0.7
'80.2
87.0
C^
244
10. 5
24.4
8.6
9.5
38. 7
91.7
D
E
586
797
25.2
34.3
58.6
79.7
20. 5
27.9
124.1
-
18.8
32.7
247.2
141.9'
49.6

197.6

(2)
(2)
Total
3499
150.5
349.9
122.5
124.1
32.3
118.9
898.2
49.6
848.6
Wastewater Parameters
Raw
Waste
Load
BPT
Effluent
Level
Flow, gal/ton
pH, Units
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
1100
2-3
500
260
121 Cyanide
119
120
124
128
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.60
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener	D:
B: Coagulant Aid Addition	E:
C: Neutralization with Lime
Vacuum Filter
Recycle 100%
209
-------
TABLE VIII-19
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Open Hearth Furnace
Wet
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD : 6700
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day	: 	3
Less Credit
Net Total
251.9
238.2
C&TT Step
a(3)
B

c(3)
D
E

Total
_3
Investment $ x 10
3030
76

444
1020
945

5515
Annual Cost $ x 10








Capi tal
130.3
3.
.3
19.1
43.9
40.
,6
237.2
Depreciation
303.0
7.
.6
44.4
102.0
94.
.5
551.5
Operation and Maintenance
106.0
2.
,7
15.5
35.7
33.
.1
193.0
Sludge Disposal , .
Energy and Power
-


-
270.1
-
/ O \
270.1
6.5
1.
,0
17.6
38.4
65.
3
63.5
Chemical Costs
-
139.
. 3
67.9
-
-

207.2
TOTAL . ,
i A i
545.8
153,
.9
164.5
490.1
168.
2(2)
1522.5
251.9
1270.6
Wastewater Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH, Units
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
Raw
Waste
Load
1900
3-7
1100
110
2.00
0.60
200
BPT
Effluent
Level
110
6-9
50
100
0.25
0.50
5.00
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in'tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Neutralization with Lime
D: Vacuum Filter
E: Recycle 94%
210
-------
TABLE VIII-20
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Electric Arc Furnace
: Semi-Wet
: Carbon
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
3100
365
C&TT Step
a(3)
B

C(3)
D
Total
_3
Investment $ x 10 .
384
36

283
267
970
Annual Cost $ x 10






Capi tal
16.5
1.
.6
12.2
11.5
41.8
Depreciation
38.4
3.
6
28.3
26.7
97.0
Operation and Maintenance
13.4
1.
,3
9.9
9.3
33.9
Sludge Disposal , .
Energy and Power
-
-

31.0

31.0
1.6
0.
7
7.3
3.3U;
9.6
Chemical Costs

5.
1
-
—
5.1
TOTAL (u)
Less Credit
69.9
12.
,3
88. 7
47.5(2)
218.4



7.3

7.3
Net Total



81.4

211.1
Wastewater Parameters
Raw
Waste
Load
BPT
Effluent
Level
Flow, gal/ton
pH, Units
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
150
6-9
2200
30
0
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
2
30
125
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener	C: Vacuum Filter
B: Coagulant Aid Addition	D: Recycle 100%
211
-------
TABLE VIII-21
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Electric Furnace
Wet
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
1800
365
3
C&TT Step

B
c(3)
D
Total
-3
Investment $ x 10
1189
55
911
534
2689
Annual Cost $ x 10





Capital
51.1
2.3
39.2
23.0
115.6
Depreciation
118.9
5.5
91 .1
53.4
268.9
Operation and Maintenance
41.6
1.9
31.9
18. 7
94.1
Sludge Disposal , .
Energy and Power
-
-
385. 7
20.4<2)
385. 7
4.1
1.0
35. 7
40.8
Chemical Costs
-
41.4
-
-
41.4
TOTAL
Less Credit
215. 7
52.1
583.6
95.1(2)
946. 5


21.3

21.3
Net Total


562.3

925.2
Raw	BPT
Waste	Effluent
Wastewater Parameters	Load	Level

Flow, gal/ton
2100
50

pH, Units
6-9
6-9
Concentrations, mg/ 1



Suspended Solids
3400
50

Fluoride
50
50
4
Benze ne
0.015
0.015
39
Fluoranthene
0.020
0.020
58
4-Nitrophenol
0.015
0.015
64
Pentachlorophenol
0.015
0.015
84
Pyrene
0.020
0.020
114
Antimony
0. 70
0.10
115
Arsenic
2.0
0.10
118
Cadmium
4.0
2.0
119
Chromium
5.0
0.50
120
Copper
2.0
0.25
122
Lead
30.0
2.5
124
Nickel
0.05
0.05
126
S ilver
0.06
0.06
128
Zinc
125
30
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing proceas
water requironents.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener	C: Vacuum Filter
B: Coagulant Aid Addition	D: Recycle 98
212
-------
TABLE VIII-22
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
-3
Subdivision: Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-Wet) Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars X 10
: Carbon Facilities	: Facilities In Place as of 1/1/78
Plant
C&TT Step
In
Code
TPD
A
B
C
D
Place
Required
Total
0396D
2400
450
20
206
233
909
0
909
0432A
9600
1034
46
-
534
1614
0
1,614
0432C
6585
824
37
378
426
1239
426
1,665
0584C
6900
848
38
389
438
848
865
1,713
0684B
7120
432-432
39
396
447
471
1275
1,746
0684G
4536
659
30
-
341
659
371
1,030
06841
4500
656
29
-
339
656
368
1,024
0920B
4800
682
-
-
-
682
0
682
0946A
3480
281-281
25
258
274-17
813
323
1,136
to
t-1
OJ
7891*
3628*
11,519*
*: Totals do not include confidential plants
NOTE: Underlined costs represent facilities in place. Where two figures appear in the
same column, the underlined portion is in place; the non-underlined portion remains
to be installed.
Legend
A: Classifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Recycle 100%
-------
TABLE VIII-23
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
Subdivision: Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet)	Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars X 10~^
: Suppressed Combustion	: Facilities In Place as of 1/1/78
: Carbon
Plant

Code
TPD
0060
7599
0384A
6000
0528A
6000
0684F
9800
0684H
7168
0856N
7700
1801
1563
1563
2098
1739
1815
B
35
31
31
41
34
35
C&TT Step
568
493
493
662
549
573
740-28
649-18
667
895
742
775
to
t-1

In


E
Place
Required
Total
48
3,144
76
3,220
42
2,212
584
2,796
42
1,563
1233
2,796
56
3,752
0
3,752
47
3,064
47
3, 111
49
2,625
622
3,247

16,360
2562
18,922
NOTE: Underlined costs represent facilities in place. Where two figures appear in the same
column, the underlined portion is in place; the non-underlined portion remains to be
installed.
Legend
A: Classifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Recycle 95Z
E: pH Adjustment with Acid
-------
TABLE VIII-24
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
-3
Subdivision: Basic Oxygen Furnace (Wet)	Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars X 10
: Open Combustion	: Facilities In Place as of 1/1/78
: Carbon




C&TT Step





Plant






In


Code
TPD
A
B
C
D
E
Place
Required
Total
0112A
9,167
2568
66
1659
680-66
201
3,314
1,926
5,240
0112B
14,400
3367
86
2175
979
263
5,542
1,328
6,870
0112D
12,050
3026
78
1954
879
237
6,174
0
6,174
0248A
2,400
1149
29
742
334
90
2,010
334
2,344
0384A
11,200
2896
74
1871
797-45
227
3,693
2,217
5,910
0584F
11,690
2971
76
1919
864
232
5,830
232
6,062
0724A
3,500
1441
37
931
352-67
113
2,761
180
2,941
0856B
7,750
2322
59
1500
675
182
3,822
916
4,738
0856R
7,500
2276
58
1470
662
178
3,746
898
4,644
0860B*
27,400
6530
168
4216
1713-185
511
12,459
864
13,323
0860H
11,200
2896
74
1871
52-790
227
5,120
790
5,910
0868A
7,440
2264
58
1462
658
177
4,442
177
4,619
0920N
8,550
2463
63
1591
716
193
4,054
972
5,026






**
62,967
10,834
73,801
* •
** •
Includes two shops
Totals do not include confidential plants
NOTE: Underlined costs represent facilities in place. Where two figures appear in the same column, the underlined
portion is in place; the non-underlined portion remains to be installed.
Legend
A: Classifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Recycle 95%
E: pH Adjustment with Acid
-------
TABLE VIII-25
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
Subdivision: Open Hearth Furnace (Semi-Wet)
: Carbon Facilities
Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars x 10 ^
: Facilities In Place as of 1/1/78
C&TT Step
Plant
Code
TPD
A
B
C
D
In
E	Place Required Total
0864A
6600 1838 34
244
586
747-50 2863	636	3499
2863
636
3499
NOTE: Underlined costs represent facilities in place. Where two figures appear
in the same column, the underlined portion is in place; the non-underlined
portion remains to be installed.
Legend
A: Classifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: pH Adjustment with Lime
D: Vacuum Filter
E: Recycle 100%
216
-------
TABLE VIII-26
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
...	-3
Subdivision: Open Hearth Furnace	Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars X 10
: Wet	: Facilities In Place as of 1/1/78
: Carbon




C&TT Step




Plant






In

Code
TPD
A
B
C
D
E
Place
Required
0060
5,507
2,693
68
395
907
840
4,903
0
0112A
10,822
4,093
102
592
1,360
1260
5,401
1,952
0492A
3,835
2,167
55
318
730
245-431
3,515
431
Total
4,903
7,353
3,946
13,819	2,383	16,202
IO
M
-J
NOTE: Underlined costs represent facilities in place. Where two figures appear
in the same column, the underlined portion is in place; the non-underlined
portion remains to be installed.
Legend
A: Classifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: pfl Adjustment with Lime
D: Vacuum Filters
E: Recycle 94%
-------
TABLE VIII-27
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
-3
Subdivision: Electric Arc Furnace Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars X 10
: Semi-Wet	: Facilities In Place as of 1/1/78
: Carbon
C&TT Step
Plant





In


Code
TPD
A
B
C
D
Place
Required
Total
006 OF
3900
440
41
324
306
764
347
1111
0432C
2280
319
30
235
222
584
222
806
0584A
1903
NA
NA
-
-
0
0
0
1348	569	1917
Le gend
A: Classifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Recycle 100%
-------
TABLE VIII-28
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
Subdivision
Electric Arc Furnace
Wet
Carbon
Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars X 10 ^
: Facilities In Place as of 1/1/78
C&TT Step
Plant





In


Code
TPD
A
B
C
D
Place
Required
Total
006OF
1100
885
41
678
364-33
1,927
74
2,001
0492A
900
784
36
601
106-246
1,527
246
1,773
05 28A
1400
1022
47
783
459
1,852
459
2,311
0612
5500
2323
107
1781
1044
5,148
107
5,255
0856F
1600
1108
51
849
483-15
1,591
915
2,506
0860H*
2448
1430
66
1096
315-327
2,841
393
3,234
0868B
1560
1091
50
836
450-40
2,377
90
2,467






17,263
2284
19,547
*: This plant has two EAF shops. The process wastewaters are co-treated.
-------
TABLE VIII-28
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
PAGE 2 	
Subcategory
Electric Arc Furnace
Wet
Specialty
Plant
Code
0060D
TPD
2564
C&TT Step
A
1470
B
67
C
1126
D
506-154
In
Place
3102
Required
221
Total
3323
3102
221
3323
to
SJ
o
NOTE: Underlined costs represent facilities in place. Where two figures appear in the same
column, the underlined portion is in place; the non-underlined portion remains to be installed.
Legend
A - Classifier/Thickener
B - Coagulant Aid Addition
C - Vacuum Filter
D - Recycle 98Z
-------
TABLE VIII-29
ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Basi,c Oxygen Furnace-Wet
Suppressed Combustion
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
7400
365
Alternative
C&TT Steps
-3
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10 J
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy and Power
Chemical Costs
TOTAL
BAT No. 1
L Total
108
4.7
10.8
3.8
1.6
108
4.7
10.8
3.8
1.6
20.9 20.9
BAT No. 2
F &
H
4.1 9.5
9.5 22.0
3.3
1.5
2.0
7.7
0.8
Total
95 220 423
18.3
42.3
14.8
3.9
2.0
20.4 40.0 81.3
BAT No. 3
F &
I Total
63 171
2.7 7.4
6.3 17.1
2.2
0.8
2.3
6.0
2.4
2.3
14.3 35.2
Wastewater
Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
BAT
Feed
Level
50
6-9
BAT No.1
Effluent
Level
50
6-9
BAT No.2
Effluent
Level
50
6-9
BAT No.3
Effluent
Level
50
6-9

Suspended Solids
50
15
15
15

Fluoride
15
15
10
15
118
Cadmium
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
119
Chromium
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
120
Copper
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
122
Lead
3.50
2.00
0.30
0.15
124
Nickel
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.10
126
Silver
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
128
Zinc
1.00
0.90
0.30
0.25
(1)
Costs are all power
unless
otherwise noted.


KEY TO C&TT STEPS
F:	Filtration
G:	Lime Addition
H:	Clarifier (Tube Plate Settler)
I:	Sulfide Precipitation
221
-------
TABLE VIII-30
ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS

Subcategory:
Basic Oxygen Furnace-Wet
Model Size
-TPD : 9100




Open Combustion
Oper. Days
/Year: 365




Carbon and
Specialty
Turns/Day
: 	3


Alternative

BAT
No
1
BAT No. 2

BAT No
3
C&TT Steps

F

Total F &
C H
Total
F & I
To tal
-3
Investment $ x 10

252

252
90 236
578
84
336
Annual Cost $ x 10








Capi tal

10.8

10.8
3.9 10.1
24.8
3.6
14.4
Depreciation

25.2

25.2
9.0 23.6
57.8
8.4
33.6
Operation and Maiyt
e nance
8.8

8.8
3.2 8.3
20.3
2.9
11.7
Energy and Power

4.1

4.1
2.4 1.2
7.7
1.2
5.3
Chemical Costs

-

-
3.2
3.2
3.7
3.7
TOTAL

48.9

48.9
21.7 43.2
113.8
19.8
68. 7

BAT


BAT No. 1

BAT No. 2

BAT No

Feed


Ef f luent

Effluent

Eff lue
Wastewater Parameter
Level


Level

Level

Leve
Flow, gal/ton
65


65

65

65
pH
6-9


6-9

6-9

6-9
Concentrations, mj?/1








Suspended Solids
50


15

15

15
Fluoride
15


15

10

15
23 Chloroform
0.05


0.05

0.05

0.05
115 Arsenic
0.05


0.05

0.05

0.05
118 Cadmium
0.30


0.30

0.10

0.10
119 Chromium
1.00


0.80

0.25

0.10
120 Copper
0.25


0.15

0.10

0.10
122 Lead
0.50


0.30

0.25

0.15
123 Mercury
0.01


0.005

0.005

0.005
124 Nickel
0.30


0.30

0.10

0.10
125 Selenium
0.025


0.025

0.025

0.025
126 Silver
0.15


0.15

0.15

0.15
127 Thallium
0.10


0.10

0.10

0.10
128 Zinc
1.00


0.90

0.30

0.25
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted








KEY
TO
C&TT STEPS





F: Filtration

H: Clarifier (Tube Plate Settler)



G: Lime Addition

I: Sulfide Precipitation



222
-------
TABLE VIII-31
ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Open Hearth Furnace Model Size-TPD : 6700
: Wet Oper. Days/Year: 365
: Carbon and Specialty	Turns/Day	: 	3
»
Alternative	BAT No. 1	BAT No. 2	BAT No. 3
C&TT Steps	F Total F & _G	H_ Total F & I Total
-3
,-3
Investment $ x 10~3o	287 287	269 231 787	96 383
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital	12.4	12.4	11.6 9.9	33.9	4.1 16.5
Depreciation	28.7	28.7	26.9 23.1	78.7	9.6 38.3
Operation & Maintenance	10.1	10.1	9.4 8.1	27.6	3.3 13.4
Sludge Disposal ,	. -	-	- 29.1	29.1	- -
Energy and Power	4.9	4.9	2.50.5	7.9	1.66.5
Chemical Costs	-	-	203.6 -	203.6	4.6 4.6
TOTAL	56.1	56.1	254.0 70.7	380.8	23.2 79.3
Wastewater
Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
BAT
Feed
Level
110
6-9
50
100
BAT No.1
Effluent
Level
110
6-9
15
100
BAT No.2
Effluent
Level
110
6-9
15
20
BAT No.3
Effluent
Level
110
6-9
15
100
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
0.25
0.50
5.00
0.15
0.25
4.50
0.10
0.15
0.30
0.10
0.15
0.25
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
F:	Filtration
G:	Lime Addition
H:	Clarifier (Tube Plate Settler)
I:	Sulfide Precipitation
223
-------
TABLE VIII-32
ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS: BASIS	7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Electric Furnace	Model Size-TPD :	1800
: Wet	Oper. Days/Year:	365
: Carbon and Specialty	Turns/Day : 	3
Alternative
C&TT Steps
-3
Investment $ x 10 _
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maint^na
Energy and Power
Chemical Costs
BAT No. 1
L. Total
102
4.4
10.2
3.6
0.5
BAT No. 2
102
4.4
1C.2
3.6
0.5
E & _F	G_
45 92
1.9
4.5
1.6
0. 7
0.5
4.0
9.2
3.2
0.6
Total
239
10.3
23.9
8.4
1.8
0.5
BAT No. 3
E & H Total
24 126
1.0 5.4
2.4 12.6
0.9
0.3
0. 6
4.5
0.8
0.6
TOTAL
18.7 18.7
9.2 17.0 44.9
5.2 23.9
Wastewater
Parameters
Flow, gal/ton
pH (Units)
Concentrations, mg/1
BAT
Feed
Level
50
6-9
BAT No.1
Effluent
Level
50
6-9
BAT No.2
Effluent
Level
50
6-9
BAT No.3
Effluent
Level
50
6-9

Suspended Solids
50
15
15
15

Fluoride
50
50
20
50
4
Benzene
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
39
Fluoranthene
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
58
4-Nitrophenol
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
64
Pentachlorophenol
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
84
Pyrene
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
114
Antimony
0.10
O.iO
0.10
0.10
115
Arsenic
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
118
Cadmium
2.0
1.9
0.10
0.10
119
Chromium
0.50
0.40
0.15
0.10
120
Copper
0.25
0.15
0.10
0.10
122
Lead
2.50
1.50
0.30
0.15
124
Nickel
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
126
Silver
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
128
Zinc
30
25
0.35
0.25
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
E:	Filtration
F:	Lime Addition
G:	Clarifier (Tube Plate Settler)
H:	Sulfide Precipitation
224
-------
TABLE VIII-33
INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS OF BAT
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BAT No. 1	BAT No. 2	BAT No. 3
Steelmaking	Investment	Annual	Investment	Annual	Investment	Annual
Subdivision	Costs	Costs	Costs	Costs	Costs	Costs
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Wet-Suppressed Combustion	648,000	125,000	2,538,000	488,000	1,026,000	211,000
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Wet-Open Combustion	3,528,000	685,000	8,092,000	1,593,000	4,704,000	962,000
Open Hearth
Wet	861,000	168,000	2,361,000	1,142,000	1,149,000	238,000
Electric Arc Furnace
Wet	918,000	168,000	2,151,000	404,000	1,134,000	215,000
-------
TABLE VII1-34
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-SUPPRESSED COMBUSTION
A.	BCT Feed
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 50 mg/1
Flow = 0.37 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 56,316
B.	BCT-1
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants m 15 mg/1
Flow =0.37 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 16,895
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
56,316 - 16,895 - 39,421
Annual Cost of BCT-1 = $20,900	$/lb = 0.53 PASS
C. BCT-2
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 15 mg/1
Flow =0.37 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 16,895
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
56,316 - 16,895 = 39,421
Annual Cost of BCT-2 = $60,900*	$/lb - 1.54 FAIL
* Includes all of the C&TT Steps except lime addition.
226
-------
TABLE VI11-35
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE - WET-OPEN COMBUSTION
A. BCT Feed
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants * 50 mg/1
Flow ¦ 0.46 MGD
Days/Year * 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged ¦ 69,253
B. BCT-1
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants ¦ 15 mg/1
Flow - 0.59 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged ¦ 27,009
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
69,253 - 27,009 - 42,244
Annual Cost of BCT-1 - $48,900	$/lb - 1.16 PASS
C. BCT-2
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants * 15 mg/1
Flow -0.59 MGD
Days/Year " 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged ¦ 27,009
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
69, 253 - 27,009 - 42,244
Annual Cost of BCT-2 - $92,100*	$/lb - 2.18 FAIL
* Includes all of the C&TT Steps except lime additibn.
227
-------
TABLE VIII-36
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - WET
A. BCT Feed
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 50 mg/1
Flow = 0.737 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 112,175
B. BCT-1
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 15 mg/1
Flow = 0.737 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 33,653
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
112,175 - 33,653 = 78,522
Annual Cost of BCT-1 = $56,100	$/lb = 0.71 PASS
C. BCT-2
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 15 mg/1
Flow = 0.737 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 33,653
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
112,175 - 33,653 = 78,552
Annual Cost of BCT-2 = $126,800*	$/lb = 1.61 FAIL
* Includes all of the C&TT Steps except lime addition.
228
-------
TABLE VII1-37
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - WET
A. BCT Feed
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 50 mg/1
Flow =0.09 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 13,698
B. BCT-1
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 15 mg/1
Flow =0.09 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 4,110
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
13,698 - 4,110 = 9,588
Annual Cost of BCT-1 = $18,700	$/lb = 1.95 FAIL
C. BCT-2
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants = 15 mg/1
Flow =0.09 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged = 4,110
lbs/Year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
13,698 - 4,110 = 9,588
Annual Cost of BCT-2 - $35,700*	$/lb = 3.72 FAIL
* Includes all of the C&TT Steps except lime addition.
229
-------
TABLE VII1-38
NSPS MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Semi-Wet
Carbon
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
5300
365
C&TT Step
a<3>
B
C(3)
_3
Investment $ x 10 _
724
32
332
Annual Cost $ x 10



Capi tal
31.1
1.4
14.3
Depreciation
72.4
3.2
33.2
Operation and Maintenance
25.3
1.1
11.6
Sludge Disposal
Energy and Power
-
-
15.5
1.6
1.1
5.9
Chemical Costs
-
21.0
-
TOTAL
130.4
27.8
80.5
Less Credit
Net Total
(4)
D
374
16.1
37.4
13.1
9.8
66.6
(2)
(2)
7.8
72.7
Total
1462
62.9
146.2
51.1
15.5
8.6
21.0
305.3
7.8
297.5
Wastewater
Parameters
Raw Waste
Load
NSPS
Effluent
Level
Flow, gal/ton
360
0
pH (Units)
10-12
-
Concentrations, mg/1


Suspended Solids
375
—
Fluoride
10
-
120 Copper
0.04
—
122 Lead
1.50
-
123 Mercury
0.003
-
128 Zinc
1.00
-
(1)	Cos18 are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Recycle 100Z
230
-------
TABLE VIII-39
NSPS MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Electric Arc Furnace
Semi-Wet
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
3100
365
C&TT Step
, (3)
,(3)
Total
_3
Investment $ x 10 -
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Sludge Disposal ,
Energy and Power
Chemical Costs
TOTAL
Less Credit
Net Total
(4)
384
16.5
38.4
13.4
1.6
69.9
36
1.6
3.6
1.3
0.7
5.1
12.3
283
12.2
28.3
9.9
31.0
7.3
88.7
7.3
81.4
26 7
11.5
26.7
9.3
3.3
(2)
47.5
(2)
970
41.8
97.0
33.9
31.0
9.6
5.1
218.4
7.3
211.1
Wastewater
Parameters
Raw Waste
Load
Flow, gal/ton	150
pH (Units)	6-9
Concentrations, mg/1
Suspended Solids	2200
Fluoride	30
120 Copper
122 Lead
128 Zinc
2
30
125
NSPS
Effluent
Level
0
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Recycle 100Z
231
-------
TABLE VI1I-40
USPS, PSES, AND PSNS HODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory
Basic Oxygen Furnace ~ Wet
Suppressed Combustion
Carbon and Specialty
Model Size :
Ope r.Days/Year:
Turns/Day	:
NSPS Alternative No. 1
NSPS Alt. Ho. 2, PSES, AND PSNS NSPS Alternative No. 3
to
to
to
C&TT Step

Alii
B

D
E
F Total
A-F G
H Total
A-F
I
Total
Investment S x 10 ^

1772
35
559
756
108
48 3278
95
220 3593

63
3341
Annual Cost $ x 10












Capital

76.2
1 . 5
24.0
32.5
4. 7
2.0 140.9
4. 1
9.5 154.5

2.7
143.6
Depreciation

177 .2
3.5
55.9
75.6
10.B
4.8 327.8
9.5
22.0 359.3

6.3
334. i
Operation L Maintenance

62.0
1.2
19.6
26.5
3.8
1.7 114.8
3. 3
7.7 125.8

2.2
117.0
Sludge Disposal^

-
-
337.6
( 7 \
-
337,6
-
337.6

-
337.6
Energy & Power

5.7
0. 7
19.1
40.8
1.6
0.7 27.8
1. 5
0.8 30.1

0.8
28.6
Chemical Costs

-
81 .5
-
-
-
3.0 84.5
2.0
8b.5

2.3
86.8
TOTAL

321.1
88.4
456.2
m.6(2)
20.9
12.2 1033.4
20.4
40.0 1093.8

14.3
1047.7
(A)
Less Credit



581 .4


581 .4

581 .4


581 .4
Net Total



-125.2


452.0

512.4


466. 3









NSPS No. 2,




Raw





NSPS No.1

PSES, and PSNS

NSPS No. 3

Waste





Effluent

Effluent

Effluent
Wastewater Parameters
Load





Level

Level


Level
Flow, gal/ton
1000





50

50


50
pH
8-11





6-9

6-9


6-9
Concentrations, mg/l












Suspended Solids
1500





15

15


15
Fluoride
15





15

10


15
118 Cadmiim
0. 10





0.10

0.10


0. 10
119 Chromium
0. SO





0.10

0. 10


0. 10
120 Copper
0.25





0.15

0.10


0.10
122 Lead
15.0





2.00

0. 30


0. 15
124 Nickel
0. 50





0.25

0.10


0. 10
126 Silver
0.025





0.025

0.025


0. 025
128 Zinc
5.00





0.90

0. 30


0.25
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandeai.
(4)	Credit Cor recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener	D. Recycle 95Z	G: Lime Addition
B: Coagulant Aid Addition	E: Filtration	H; Clarifier (Tube Plate Settler)
C: Vacuum Filter	F: pH Adjustment with Acid	I: Sulfide Precipitation
-------
TABLE VII1-41
USPS, PSES, AMD PSMS MODEL COSTS:	BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Basic Oxygen Furnace - Wet	Model Site : 9100
: Open Combustion	Oper.Days/Year: 365
: Carbon and Specialty	Turns/Day : 	3
USPS Alternative Mo. 1
NSPS Alternative No. 2, PSES. and PSKS
USPS Alternative Mo.3
C4TT Step
Investment $ x 10
Annual Coat $
,-3
10
-3
Lest Credit
Met Total
(4)
B
66
D
743
Capital
109.9
2,
.8
71.
.0
32.
.0
Depreciation
255.7
6.
.6
165.
1
74.
3
Operation 4 Maintenance
89.5
2.
.3
57.
8
26.
0
Sludge Disposal i
Energy 6 Power
-
-

1277.
.5
-
I
8.2
1.
.3
112.
.4
40.
8
Chemical Costs
-
109.
.7
-

-

TOTAL
463.3
122
.7
1683.
.8
132,
. 31
(2)
(3)
1090.0
593.8
E
F
Total
A-F
C
H
Total
252
200
5469

90
236
5795
10.8
8.6
235.1

3.9
10.1
249.1
25.2
20.0
546.9

9.0
23.6
579.5
8.8
7.0
191.4

3.2
8.3
202.9
-
-
1277.5

-
-
1277.5
4.1
1.8
127.8

2.4
1.2
131.4
-
11.0
120.7

3.2
-
123.9
48.9
48.4
2499.4

21.7
43.2
2564.3


1090.0



1090.0


1409.4



1474.3
84
Total
5553
3.6
238.7
8.4
555.3
2.9
194.3
-
1277.5
1.2
129.0
3.7
124.4
19.8
2519.2

1090.0

1429.2
NJ
U>
U>
Raw
tfaate
NSPS No.1
Effluent
NSPS No. 2,
PSES, and PSMS
Effluent
NSPS No. 3
Effluent
Wastewater Parameters
Load
Level
Level
Level
Flow, gal/ton
1100
65
65
65
pH
8-11
6-9
6-9
6-9
Concentrations, mc/1




Suspended Solids
4200
15
15
15
Fluoride
15
15
10
15
23 Chloroform
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
115 Arsenic
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
118 Cadmium
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.10
119 Chromium
5.00
0.80
0.25
0.10
120 Copper
0.50
0.15
0.10
0.10
122 Lead
1.00
0.30
0.25
0.15
123 Mercury
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.005
124 Nickel
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.10
125 Selenium
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
126 Silver
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
127 Thallium
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
128 Zinc
5.00
0.90
0.30
0.25
(1)	Coats are all pover unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C6TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener	D. Recycle 95Z	Gs Lime Addition
B$ Coagulant Aid Addition	E: Filtration	H: Clarifier (Tube Plate Settler)
C: Vacuus Filter	F: pH Adjustment with Acid	I: Sulfide Precipitation
-------
TABLE VI11-42
NSPS, PSES AMD PS MS HO DEL COSTS; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Electric Furnaces Hodel Size-TPD :	180Q
: Wet Oper. Days/Year:	365
Turns/Day	: 	3
C&TT Stepa
rt-3
Investment $ * 10
Annual Costa $ * 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation 4 Maintenance
Sludge Disposal^
Energy & Power
Chemical Costs
TOTAL
Less Credit
Net Total
(4)


NSPS Alternative 1


NSPS Alternat
ive 2, PSES,
and PSNS
NSPS Alternative 3

B

D
E
Total
A-E ?
C
Total
A-E H
Total
1189
55
911
534
102
2791
45
92
2928
24
2815
51.1
2.3
39.2
23.0
4.4
120.0
1.9
4.0
125.9
1.0
121.0
118.9
5.5
91.1
53.4
10.2
279.1
4.5
9.2
292.8
2.4
281.5
41.6
1.9
31.9
18.7
3.6
97.7
1.6
3.2
102.5
0.9
98.6
-
-
385.7
" («i \
-
385.7
-
-
385.7
-
385.7
4.1
1.0
35.7
20.4
0.5
41.3
0.7
0.6
42.6
0.3
41.6
-
41.4
-
-
-
41.4
0.5
-
41.9
0.6
42.0
215.7
52.1
582.6
95.1(2)
18.7
965.2
9.2
17.0
991.4
5.2
970.4


21.3


21.3


21.3

21.3


562.3


943.9


970.1

949.1
Wastewater
Parameters
Waate
Load
NSPS No.1
Effluent
Level
NSPS No. 2, PSES and PSNS NSPS No J
Effluent Effluent
	Level	Level
Flow, gal/ton
PH
Concentrations, mg/1
2100
6-9
50
6-9
50
6-9
50
6-9
Suspended Solids
Fluoride
3400
50
15
50
15
20
15
50
4
Benseoe
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
39
Pluoranthene
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
58
4-Nitrophenol
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
64
Fentacblorophenol'
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
84
Pyrene
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
114
Antiaony
0.70
0.10
0.10
0.10
115
Arsenic
2.0
0.10
0.10
0.10
118
Cadmium
4.0
1.9
0.10
0.10
119
Chromium
5.0
0.40
0.15
0.10
120
Copper
2.0
0.15
0.10
0.10
122
Lead
30.0
1.50
0.30
0.15
124
Nickel
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
126
Silver
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
128
Zioc
12$
25
0.35
0.25
-------
TABLE V1II-42
HSPS, PSES, AND PSNS MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
ELECTRIC FLfRNACES - WET
PAGE 2	
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Totsl does not include power cost ss a credit is supplied for process water requirements.
(3)	Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Clarifier/Thickener
C:	Vacuum Filter
E: Filtration
G: Tube Plate Settler
B:	Coagulant Aid Addition
D:	Recycle 98Z
F:	Lime Precipitation
H:	Sulfide Precipitation
to
U>
Ul
-------
TABLE VIII-43
PSES MODEL COSTS; BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
C&TT Steps
Investment $ * 10
Annual Costs $ * 10~
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal..
Energy & Power
Chemical Costs
TOTAL
Less Credit
Net Total
(4)

Subcategory:
Open Hearth
Furnace
Model
Size-TPD :
6700



:
Wet

Oper.
Days/Year:
365






Tons/Day :
	3


B
C

E
F
G
H
Total
3030
76
444
1020
945
269
231
287
6302
130.3
3.3
19.1
43.9
40.6
11.6
9.9
12.4
271.1
303.0
7.6
44.4
102.0
94.5
26.9
23.1
28.7
630.2
106.0
2.7
15.5
35.7
33.1
9.4
8.1
10.1
220.6
-
-
-
270.1
" / n \
-
29.4
-
299.2
6.5
1.0
17.6
38.4
65. 3
2.5
0.5
4.9
71.4
-
139.3
67.9
-
-
203.6
-
-
410.8
545.8
153.9
164.5
490.1
168.2(2)
254.0
70.7
56.1
1903.3



251.9




251.9



238.2




1651.4
Raw	PSES
to	Wastewater	Haste	Effluent
gj	Par—eters	Load	Level
Flow, gal/ton	1900	110
pH	3-7	6-9
Concentration. Jtt/A
Suspended Solids	1100	15
Fluoride	110	20
120 Copper	2.0	0.10
122 Lead	0.6	0.15
128 Zinc	200	0.30
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power costs as a credit is supplied for process water requirements.
(3)	Treatment ccaponents are used in tandea.
(4)	Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A:	Clarifier/Thickener
B:	Coagulant Aid Addition
C:	Neutralization with Lime
D:	Vacmm Filter
H: Filtration
F: Liae Precipitation
C: Tube Plate Settler
-------
TABLE VII1-44
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Semi-Wet
Wet-Suppressed Combustion
Wet-Open Combustion
SUBTOTAL
Open Hearth
Semi-Wet
Wet
SUBTOTAL
Electric Arc Furnace
Semi-Wet
Wet
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AT BPT AND BAT
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY	
(Energy requirements are expressed in millions of kilowatt
hours per year for all plants within each segment)
	BPT	 	BAT No. 1	 	BAT No. 2	 	BAT No. 3	
Percent of	Percent of	Percent of Percent of
Energy Industry	Energy Industry	Energy Industry Energy Industry
Requirement Usage	Requirement Usage	Requirement Usage Requirement Usage
3.16	0.006
6.29	0.011
69.27	0.12
78.72	0.14
*	*
0.38	0.0007
2.30	0.004
2.68	0.005
*	*
0.94	0.002
4.31	0.008
5.25	0.009
*	*
0.58	0.001
2.97	0.005
3.55	0.006
1.29	0.002
7.62	0.013
8.91	0.016
* *
0.59	0.001
0.59	0.001
* *
0.95	0.002
0.95	0.002
* *
0.78	0.001
0.78	0.001
0.83	0.001
13.22	0.023
14.05	0.025
101.68	0.18
*	*
0.16	0.0003
0.16	0.0003
3.43	0.006
*	*
0.58	0.001
0.58	0.001
6.78	0.012
*	*
0.26	0.0005
0.26	0.0005
4.33	0.008
*: No BAT treatment alternatives were needed for these segments.
-------
TABLE VIII-45
ENERGY REQUIRMENTS AT NSPS AND PRETREATMENT
STEELMAKING - WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
(Energy requirements are expressed in millions of
kilowatt hours per year for the treatment models)
NSPS
No. 1 Energy
Requirements
NSPS
No. 2 Energy
Requirements
NSPS
No. 3 Energy
Requi rements
Pretreatment
Energy
Requirements
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Wet-Suppressed Combustion
Wet-Open Combustion
Open Hearth Furnace
1.11
5.11
1.20
5.26
1.14
5.16
1.11
5.11
Wet
Electric Arc Furnace
NA
NA
NA
2.86
Wet
1.65
1.70
1.66
1.70
NA: Not applicable
-------
TABLE VII1-46
SOLID WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY
NSPS AND PRETREATMENT
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
(The values presented below are based on the various treatment models)
NSPS No. 1
NSPS No. 2
NSPS No. 3
PSES and PSNS
Pounds/Ton Tons/Year Pounds/Ton Tons/Year Pounds/Ton Tons/Year Pounds/Ton Tons/Year
Basic Oxygen Furnace
Wet	0.982	950	*
Wet-Suppressed Combustion	12.12	16,370	12.17
Wet-Open Combustion	38.11	63,290	38.17
*
16,440
63,390
*
12.13
38.11
16,380
63,290
0.982
12.12
38.11
950
16,370
63,290
Open Hearth
Semi-Wet
Wet
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"k
*
•k
•k
5.16
18.79
6,220
22,980
Electric Arc Furnace
Semi-Wet
Wet
2.69
58.72
1,520
19.290
*
58.76
*
19,300
*
58.72
19,290
2.69
58.76
1,520
19,300
*: No treatment models were provided in these segments.
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
With the exception of the cases discussed below, the Agency is
proposing Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
limitations (BPT) for the various steelmaking operations which are
identical to those originally promulgated in June, 1974.1 Due to flow
and raw wastewater quality differences, the Agency concluded that
further segmentation of the wet air pollution control system segment
of the basic oxygen furnace subdivision is appropriate to reflect
suppressed combustion and open combustion operations. Also the
original limitations made no distinction as to the types of air
pollution control systems used for open hearth furnace operations.
Therefore, in order to reflect actual operations in the industry, a
segment for open hearth furnace operations with semi-wet air pollution
control systems has been established. Also, the originally
promulgated BPT effluent limitations for open hearth furnace
operations (now called the wet air pollution control system segment)
have been modified to reflect the additional effluent flow data
provided in the DCPs and D-DCPs.
The subdivisions and segments established for the steelmaking
subcategory are as follows:
Basic Oxygen Furnaces
Semi-wet Air Pollution Control Systems
Wet Air Pollution Control Systems - Suppressed Combustion
Wet Air Pollution Control Systems - Open Combustion
Open Hearth Furnaces
Semi-wet Air Pollution Control Systems
Wet Air Pollution Control Systems,
Electric Arc Furnaces
Semi-wet Air Pollution Control Systems
Wet Air Pollution Control Systems
As the June, 1974 development document2 described the methods used in
developing the original limitations, the discussion in this section
^Federal Register; Friday, June 28, 1974; Part II, Environmental
Protection Agency; Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category;
Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Pages 24114-24133.
2EPA-440/I-74-024-a, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steel Making
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category
241
-------
focuses upon the achievability of those limitations and, where
necessary, the demonstration of the basis for and substantiation of
any adjustments to the limitations. A review of the treatment
processes and effluent limitations associated with the steelmaking
subdivisions follows.
Identification of BPT
The BPT model treatment system for the semi-wet air pollution control
system segments of the basic oxygen furnace and electric arc furnace
subdivisions include thickeners, coagulant aid addition, vacuum
filters, and complete recycle. The newly developed semi-wet segment
of the open hearth furnace subdivision also includes all of these
components while adding an initial pH adjustment (with lime) step. In
these models, all of the thickener effluent is recycled. Figure IX-1
depicts the treatment systems described above.
The BPT model treatment system for the wet air pollution control
system segments of each of the three subdivisions incorporate the
following components: thickeners, coagulant aid addition, vacuum
filters, and recycle of most of the thickener effluent. In addition,
the basic oxygen furnace wet segment models provided for the pH
controlled addition of acid to the system blowdown (effluent). Also,
the controlled addition of lime was included as an initial treatment
step in the open hearth furnace BPT model treatment system. The use
of lime for pH adjustment purposes in treatment and recycle systems is
demonstrated within this steelmaking subdivision. Figure IX-2 depicts
the treatment systems described above.
The proposed limitations do not require the installation of the model
treatment system; any treatment systems which achieve the proposed
limitations are acceptable. Table IX-1 summarizes the characteristics
(for the BPT limited pollutants) of the various steelmaking process
wastewaters. EPA survey data were used to determine the raw
wastewater characteristics noted on this table. The proposed BPT
effluent limitations, which represent 30-day average values, are
presented in Table IX-2 for the steelmaking segments. As in the
originally promulgated BPT effluent limitations, the proposed maximum
daily effluent limitations are three times the average values.
Rationale for BPT
Treatment System
As noted in Section VII, each of the treatment system components
incorporated in the BPT model treatment systems is in use at many of
the plants in each of the steelmaking segments. Based upon that fact,
the Agency believes that the use of each model treatment system, and
each component therein, is substantiated.
The semi-wet segment of the open hearth furnace subdivision applies
the treatment technologies incorporated in the semi-wet segments of
the basic oxygen furnace and electric arc furnace subdivisions, i.e.,
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
Table IX-3 presents a summary of the flow, recycle rate, and
242
-------
operational data for wet open hearth furnace operations. These data
not only demonstrate the need for an adjustment of the originally
developed open hearth treatment model effluent flow (50 gal/ton), but
also provides the basis for developing the adjusted treatment model
effluent flow (110 gal/ton). This table also provides support for the
treatment model recycle rate of 94% (defined by the model applied and
effluent flows).
Justification of BPT Effluent Limitations
Tables IX-4 through IX-6 present sampled plant and D-DCP effluent data
which support the proposed BPT effluent limitations for the various
steelmaking segments. In reviewing these tables, it should be noted
that the proposed effluent limitations are achieved by some plants
that use treatment system components which differ from those included
in the various BPT model treatment systems (in particular, lower
recycle rates and higher effluent flows). In addition, although
separate segments (suppressed combustion and open combustion) have
been established for BOF shops with wet air pollution control systems,
the same proposed BPT effluent limitations apply (as demonstrated by
the effluent justifications presented in Table IX-4).
Generally, the remaining sampled plants were unable to achieve the
respective proposed effluent limitations due to the absence of or the
use of insufficient recycle. By reducing effluent flows
(incorporating greater recycle rates) to a level approximating the
respective model effluent flows, these plants would be able to achieve
the appropriate proposed BPT effluent limitations. The data presented
in Tables IX-4 through IX-6 justify the proposed effluent limitations
for the steelmaking subcategory.
243
-------
TABLE 3Z-I
BPT MODEL TREATMENT SYSTEM RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
to
OPERATIONS
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS (mg/l)
PH
(units)
BASIC
Semi-Wet
375
10-12
OXYGEN
Wet- Suppressed Combustion
1500
8-11
FURNACE
Wet: Open Combustion
4200
8-11
OPEN HEARTH
Semi-Wet
500
2-3
FURNACE
Wet
1100
3-7
ELECTRIC ARC
Semi - Wet
2200
6-9
FURNACE
Wet
3400
6-9
-------
TABLE 1X1-2
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
INJ
en
OPERATION
UNITS
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
PH
(units)
BASIC
OXYGEN
furnace
Semi - Wet
Ib/IOOO lb
No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
mg/l
Wet:Suppressed Combustion
Ib/IOOO lb
0.0104
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
mg/i
50
Wet: Open Combustion
ib/IQOO ib
0.0104
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
mg/l
50
OPEN
HEARTH
FURNACE
Semi - Wet
Ib/IOOO Ib
No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
mg/l
Wet
Ib/IOOO Ib
0.0229
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
mg/l
50
ELECTRIC
ARC
FURNACE
Semi-Wet
Ib/IOOO Ib
No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
mg/l
Wet
Ib/IOOO Ib
0.0104
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
mg/l
50
-------
TABLE IX-3
SUMMARY OF FLOWS AND RECYCLE RATES
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE - WET
Plant
Applied
Discharge
* Operating
Code
Flow (gal/ton)
Flow (gal/ton)
Mode
0948C
2679
80*
RTP-97.0
0060
4392
105*
RTP-97.6
0112A
914
114*
RUP and RTP-I
0492A
506
359
RTP-29.1
Bas ia
DCP
D-DCP
D-DCP
VISIT
*: Effluent flows which approach or are lower than the BPT treatment
model system effluent flow of 110 gal/ton.
246
-------
TABLE IX-4
Semi-Wet
JUSTIFICATION OF BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Suspended
Solids (lb/1000 lb)
pH
(Units)
C&TT Components
Proposed BPT
Limitations
No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
FLP,T,VF,RTP-100
Plants
R(0432A)
0920B
Wet
(2)
No discharge
No discharge, applied
waters are completely
evaporated
DR,FLP,RTP-100
NA
Proposed BPT
Limitations
0.0104
6-9
FLP,T,VF,RTP-95,NA
Plants
S(0060)*
V(0584F)**
0.00478
0.0055
9.3
6.4
Classifier,FLP,T,VF,
RTP-94.7
Cla8sifier,FLP,T,VF,
RTP-87.3
038(0684F)*
0384A(3)*
(3)
0856N *
0.00177
0.00534
0.00553
7.5
9.3
7.9
Desiltors,T,VF,TP,
FLP,FLL,RTP-94.2
Classifier,T,CL,
RTP-94.0
T,CL,FLP,RTP-96.9
(1)	Based on the DCP response (refer to the General Summary Tables).
(2)	These effluent limitations pertain to both the suppressed and open combustion
subsegments.
(3)	Based on D-DCP analytical data.
NA:	Not Applicable
* : Suppressed Combustion Operation.
**: Open Combustion Operation.
247
-------
TABLE IX-5
Wet
Plants
JUSTIFICATION OF BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Suspended
Solids(lb/1000 lb)
pH
(Units)
C&TT Components
Proposed BPT
Limitations
0.0229
6-9
NL,FLP, T, VF,RTP-94
Originally
Promulgated BPT
Limitations (6/74)
0.0104
6-9
NL,FLP,T,VF,RTP-9 7
W(0112A)
0.017
2.6
T,RTP and RUP-91
248-
-------
TABLE IX-6
JUSTIFICATION OF BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
	ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE SUBDIVISION
Suspended	pH
Solids(lb/1000 lb)	(Units)	C&TT Componenta
Semi-Wet
Proposed BPT
Limitations	No discharge of process	FLP,T,VF,RTP-100
wastewater pollutants
to navigable waters
Plants
Z(0584A)	No discharge	-	DR,RTP-100
Wet
Proposed BPT
Limitations	0.0104
Plants
051(0612)	0.0062
6-9	FLP,T,VF,RTP-98
7.6	CL,VF,RTP-98.5
249
-------
Recycle 100%
THICKENER
Filtrote
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SEMI-WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
BPT TREATMENT MODELS
(I) pH controlled oddition of lime is
incorporated only in the semi-wet
open hearth model.
Solids
Own. 6/3/80
FIGURE IX-
LIME
COAGULANT
VACUUM
FILTER
PROCESS
-------
Recycle
To Discharge
Susp. solids 50mg/l
pH	6-9
THICKENER
Filtrate
ACID
LIME
PROCESS
COAGULANT
VACUUM
FILTER
Solids
(1)	pH controlled addition of lime is incorporated only in the open hearth model.
(2)	Recycle percentages'- 95% 'Basic Oxygen Furnace
94% "Open Hearth Furnace
98% "Electric Arc Furnace
(3)	pH controlled addition of acid is incorporated only in the basic oxygen furnace model.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
BPT TREATMENT MODELS
Own 6/4/80
FIGURE JX-2
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
This section identifies three BAT alternative treatment systems
considered by the Agency, and the resulting effluent levels, for the
steelmaking subdivisions. In addition, the rationale for selecting
treatment technologies, discharge flow rates, and effluent pollutant
concentrations are discussed. Finally, the proposed BAT effluent
limitations for each segment are presented.
Identification of BAT
Based upon the information presented in Sections III through VIII, the
Agency developed the following treatment technologies (as add-ons to
the BPT model treatment systems) to attain BAT for the steelmaking
subdivisions.
As the proposed BPT effluent limitations for the semi-wet air
pollution control system segments provide for no process wastewater
pollutant discharges, the proposed BAT effluent limitations for these
segments also provide for no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
Following are the treatment
steelmaking operations equipped
systems.
A. BAT Alternative No. 1
technologies developed for those
with wet air pollution control
In the first BAT alternative, filtration of the BPT treatment
system blowdown is provided to reduce the effluent levels of
those toxic metals entrained in the suspended solids. In the
case of the basic oxygen furnace subsegments, the final treatment
step involves the addition of acid to control the treated
effluent pH. This step, a component of the BPT model treatment
system, has been relocated within the treatment sequence.
B. BAT Alternative No. 2
In this treatment alternative, lime addition and gravity
sedimentation are provided prior to the filtration component
outlined in the first alternative. Lime addition is incorporated
for the purpose of providing additional toxic metals and fluoride
removal. Sedimentation of the solids generated in this process
is provided in inclined plate separators. As noted above, pH
253.
-------
adjustment of the treated effluent is provided as the last
treatment step in the basic oxygen furnace subsegments.
C. BAT Alternative No. 3
In this treatment alternative, sulfide precipitation is included
prior to the filtration component retained from the first
treatment alternative. Sulfide precipitation techniques are
included to provide greater reductions in toxic metals. loads.
As noted previously, pH adjustment is relocated from the BP?
model treatment system in the basic oxygen furnace subsegments.
Figure X-l illustrates the three BAT alternative treatment systems for
the steelmaking subdivisions. The treatment technologies shown
represent those technologies in use at one or more plants, or
demonstrated in other wastewater treatment applications, and
considered to be capable of attaining the respective BAT effluent
levels. The applicability of each of the treatment methods presented
above is reviewed below.
The proposed limitations for the pollutants considered for limitation
at BAT are presented in Table X-l. Section VI presents the rationale
for the selection of those toxic metal pollutants considered for
limitations. As noted in Volume I, treatment of those toxic
pollutants found at high levels in the process wastewaters will result
in a similar or greater degree of treatment for those similar toxic
pollutants found at lower levels. Although several toxic metals are
found in the wastewaters of the various steelmaking processes, the
Agency is proposing limitations and standards for only three metals at
the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels of treatment ih each wet air
pollution control system segment. The Agency selected those
pollutants for which limitations and standards are being proposed
based upon the following considerations: the relative levels, loads,
and environmental impacts of each pollutant; the ability of the
selected toxic metal pollutants to serve as indicators of overall and
toxic metals treatment performance; and, the need to develop practical
monitoring requirements for the industry. Although not found to be
significant in open hearth-wet segment wastewaters (refer to Section
VI), chromium was added to the list of pollutants proposed for
limitation in this segment in order to establish comparable lists of
limited pollutants in each wet steelmaking segment. Recognition is
thereby provided of the cotreatment possiblities among these segments
and with other compatible wastewaters. Control of the toxic metals
listed on Table X-l will also result in control of the other toxic
metals. Investment and annual costs for the various BAT treatment
systems are presented in Tables VI11-29 to VI11-32.
Rationale for the
Selection of the BAT Alternatives
The following discussion presents the rationale for the selection of
the BAT alternative treatment systems, for the determination of the
effluent flows, and for the determination of the effluent
concentration levels of the limited pollutants.
254
-------
Treatment Technologies
As noted in Section IX, data obtained since the development of the
original basic oxygen furnace effluent limitations led the Agency to
conclude that further segmentation of the basic oxygen furnace wet air
pollution control segment is appropriate. The indicated segments
reflect the distinctions between open combustion and suppressed
combustion operations. All of the BAT alternative treatment system
components are applied to the blowdown of the BPT model treatment and
recycle systems.
Filtration is included in all of the BAT alternative treatment systems
as a means of reducing the effluent toxic metals loads. Although in
use at only one BOF shop, filtration has been included in the
steelmaking BAT alternative treatment systems because of its widely
demonstrated capabilities in various steel industry wastewater
treatment applications. This transfer of technology is primarily
based upon the observation that steelmaking process wastewaters will
respond to filtration in a manner basically similar to that of the
reference wastewaters. The similarities arise from the fact that some
toxic metals are entrained within the particulate matter suspended in
the process wastewaters and that the suspended matter are principally
discrete particles. When properly designed (media selection, mode of
filter operation, system design) and properly operated (correct
backwash sequence, flows, and duration, avoidance of fouling)
substantial reductions in suspended solids (and those pollutants
entrained therein) effluent levels and loads can be achieved.
The lime precipitation and gravity sedimentation treatment components
of the second treatment alternative are provided to remove toxic
metals and fluoride. The toxic metals level reductions accomplished
in the second treatment alternative for each subcategory result not
only from the filtration step retained from the first alternative, but
also from the formation of hydroxide precipitates and from the
entrainment of particulate matter, which contains toxic metals, in the
solids and precipitates formed as a result of lime addition. As noted
above, these solids and precipitates are removed by sedimentation and
filtration. The capabilities of lime addition and precipitation with
respect to toxic metals removal have been demonstrated in wastewater
treatment applications in this subcategory, in this industry, and in
other industries. Widely used in the steelmaking subcategories, lime
addition also provides a convenient source of calcium for the
formation of calcium fluoride precipitates. The use of lime in
fluoride precipitation procedures has also been demonstrated in a
variety of industrial wastewater treatment applications.
Sulfide precipitation is incorporated in the third treatment
alternative of each segment for the purpose of removing toxic metal
pollutants. Although not employed in this subcategory, the
effectiveness of this treatment technology has been demonstrated in
the electroplating industry, in pilot studies in this subcategory, and
in wastewater treatment applications in other metals manufacturing
operations.
255
-------
Flows
Following are the applied and effluent flows incorporated in the BAT
alternative treatment systems of each segment.
Applied	BAT Effluent
Operation	Flow (gal/ton) Flow (gal/ton)
Basic Oxygen Furnace-
Wet-Suppressed Combustion 1000	50
Basic Oxygen Furnace-
Wet-Open Combustion	1100	65
Open Hearth Furnace-
Wet	1900	110
Electric Arc Furnace-
Wet	2100	50
No recycle steps additional to those of the BPT model systems are
included in any of the BAT alternative treatment systems. Refer to
Tables X-2 through X-4 for data which support the above treatment
model effluent flows.
Referring to Table X-2, the BOF - wet-suppressed combustion effluent
flow is achieved by two of the total of six plants in this subsegment.
It is important to note that the effluent flows at these two plants
are based upon data either obtained during a sampling visit or
provided in a D-DCP response (thus representing long-term data). The
effluent flow for the BOF - wet-open combustion BAT model was
established on the basis of analytical data provided in the D-DCP
response from one of the plants in this subsegment. D-DCP data are
significant because these data relate to periods of at least a year.
Referring to Table X-3, of the four plants in the wet segment of the
open hearth furnace subdivision, two plants have effluent flows less
than the model BAT effluent flow and one plant's effluent flow closely
approaches that of the BAT model treatment system. The data for two
of the three plants which support the model treatment effluent flow
are based upon D-DCP responses. Referring to Table X-4, two of the
ten plants in the wet segment of the electric arc furnace subdivision
support the effluent flow used in the BAT treatment model for this
segment. The effluent flow of 45 gal/ton for Plant 0612 was
established on the basis of D-DCP data. The data noted above support
the ability of all steelmaking wet gas cleaning system operations to
reduce effluent flows to the levels incorporated in the respective
segment treatment models.
Wastewater Quality
The average and maximum effluent concentrations for the various
pollutants considered in each BAT alternative treatment system are
summarized for the wet segments on Table X-l.
256
-------
A. Nonconventional Pollutants
As noted previously in this section, fluoride (a nonconventional
pollutant) was levels and loads were considered in the
development of the BAT alternative treatment system for the
steelmaking subdivisions. It must be recognized that fluoride,
although not included in the list of toxic pollutants, has been
demonstrated to be environmentally detrimental at elevated
concentrations. However, it will receive adequate treatment in
the BAT alternative treatment systems. The fluoride effluent
level and load reductions provided in the second treatment
alternative, as a result of precipitation with lime, were
established on the basis of capabilities demonstrated in various
industrial wastewater treatment applications in this and in other
subcategories. The treatment capabilities, with respect to
effluent fluoride levels, of this technology were also confirmed
by a review of the technical literature pertaining to this
subject. However, the Agency is not proposing BAT effluent
limitations for fluoride.
B. Toxic Metals Pollutants
Refer to Table X-l for a summary of the toxic metals effluent
levels and loads provided in the various BAT alternative
treatment systems.
1.	BAT Alternative No. 1
To determine the effluent concentrations for the toxic metal
pollutants in the first BAT alternatives, the Agency
evaluated analytical data from a variety of sources. Pilot
study data in this subcategory were reviewed to determine
the toxic metal pollutant removal capabilities of filtration
systems used in wastewater treatment applications in this
subcategory. In addition, the steelmaking analytical data
were reviewed to determine the toxic metals removal
performance to be achieved as a result of controlling
suspended solids levels and loads. Reference is made to
Volume I, Appendix A, for the derivation of toxic metals
performance standards.
2.	BAT Alternative No. 2
The toxic metals removals incorporated in the second BAT
alternative treatment system result from lime precipitation
and subsequent suspended solids removal. The toxic metal
pollutant levels in the second alternatives are reduced
(significantly in some instances) beyond the levels
accomplished in the first alternatives. The toxic metals
treatment capabilities of this alternative's treatment
technologies were established on the basis of pilot studies
in this subcategory and on the basis of samled plant
analytical data. Refer to Volume I, Appendix A for details
and data of the pilot study.
257
-------
3. BAT Alternative No. 3
The third BAT alternatives incorporate sulfide precipitation
systems along with the filtration systems provided in the
first BAT alternatives. The capabilities of this technology
were established on the basis of pilot studies performed at
an electric arc furnace-wet operation. Refer to Volume I,
Appendix A for the details of this study. The toxic metals
effluents which can be achieved with this treatment
technology were developed on the basis of a review of
various sources of data (refer to Volume I). As steelmaking
process wastewaters contain a number of the same toxic metal
pollutants found in the wastewaters in the data review and
the dissolved metals and metal hydroxide precipitates will
behave in a similar manner, the transfer of sulfide
precipitation technology is valid and appropriate.
Effluent Limitations for BAT Alternatives
The Agency calculated effluent limitations for the BAT alternative
treatment systems by multiplying, along with the appropriate
conversion factors, the effluent flows by the effluent concentration
of each pollutant. The bases for the effluent flows and
concentrations have been previously discussed and substantiated in
this section. Accordingly, the Agency believes that the resultant
effluent limitations are justified. Table X-l presents the effluent
limitations associated with the alternative treatment systems.
Selection of a BAT Alternative
The Agency selected BAT No. 2, in each of the wet steelmaking
segments, as the model treatment systems upon which the proposed BAT
effluent limitations for each segment are based. The selection
process involved a review of the toxicity levels of each pollutant
considered for limitation at BAT, the effluent levels of these
pollutants in each treatment alternative, and the annual costs of each
alternative. On the basis of these considerations, the Agency
determined that the selected BAT alternatives noted above provide the
most significant benefits with regard to reductions in toxic pollutant
effluent loads.
While the third alternatives in each wet air pollution control system
segment incorporate sulfide precipitation, this technology is not
currently used in steelmaking operations, and does not provide
significant additional pollutant removals.
The proposed BAT effluent limitations are presented on Table X-l in
the column for the second treatment alternative.
The proposed chromium limit for the open hearth-wet segment is based
upon the concentration value noted for the selected BOF-wet-suppressed
combustion alternative applied to the open hearth - wet segment model
treatment system effluent flow. As the BOF - wet-suppressed
combustion model treatment raw waste chromium concentration was lower
than the BOF - wet-open combustion or EAF - wet model concentrations,
258
-------
the effluent level for this system was considered to be the most
appropriate level for the purpose of facilitating combined treatment
of compatible wastes. As noted previously in this section, chromium
was not found in open hearth - wet process wastewaters at levels
considered to be signficant.
It must be noted that the sampled plant analytical data indicate that
the proposed BAT limitations can be attained by treatment systems
which do not include all of the BAT model treatment components. In
particular, Plant 0684F achieved the proposed limitations for its
segment with only the lime addition and inclined plate separator
components of the BAT model treatment system. Therefore, the Agency
believes that the proposed BAT limitations can be achieved at less
cost than projected for BAT.
259
-------
TABLE X-l
BAT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY

BAT ALTERNATIVE No. 1
BAT ALTERNATIVE No. 2
BAT ALTERNATIVE No. 3
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg of Product)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg of Product)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg of Product)
SUBDIVISION
SEGMENT -

BASI C
OXYGEN
FURN ACE
WET =
SUPPRESSED
COMBUSTION
DISCHARGE FLOW (gal/ton)
50

50

50




CHROMIUM
Ave.
0.10
0.000021
0.10
0.000021
0.10
0.000021
Ma*.
0.30
0.000063
0.30
0.000063
0.30
0.000063
LEAD
Ave.
2.00
0000417
0.30
0.000063
0.15
0 000031
Max.
6.00
0.00125
0.90
0.000188
0.45
0.000094
ZINC
Ave.
0.90
0.000188
0.30
a000063
0.25
0.000052
Max.
2.70
0.000563
0.90
0.000188
0.75
0.000156
WEP
OPEN
COMBUSTION
DISCHARGE FLOW (gal/ton)
65

6 5

6 5




CHROMIUM
Ave.
0.80
0.000217
0.25
0.000068
0.10
0.000027
Max.
2.40
0.000651
0.75
0.000203
0.30
0.000081
LEAD
Ave.
0.30
0.000081
0.25
0.00006 8
0.15
0.000041
Max.
0.90
0.000244
0.75
0.000203
0.45
0.000122
ZINC
Ave.
0.90
0.000244
0.30
0.000081
0.25
0.000068
Max.
2.70
0.000732
c
n
O
0.000244
0.75
0.000205
OPEN
HEARTH
FURNACE
WET AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
DISCHARGE FLOW (gal/ton)
110

no

110




CHROMIUM
Ave.
0. 10
0.00004 6
0.10
0.00004 6
0.10
0.000046
Max.
0.30
0.000138
0.30
0.000138
0.30
0.000138
LEAD
Ave.
0.25
0.000115
0. 15
0.000069
0.15
0.000069
Max.
0.75
0.000344
0.45
0.000 206
0.4 5
0 000206
ZINC
Ave.
4.50
0.00206
0.30
0.000138
0.25
0.000115
Max.
13.5
0.00619
0.90
0.000413
0.75
0.000344
ELECTRIC
ARC
FURNACE
WET AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
DISCHARGE FLOW (gal/ton)
50

5 0

50




CHROMIUM
Ave.
0.40
0.000083
0.15
0.000031
0.10
0.000021
Max.
1.20
0.000250
0.45
0.000094
0.30
0.000063
LEAD
Ave.
1.50
0.000313
0.30
0.000063
0.15
0.000031
Max.
4 50
0.000938
0.90
0.000188
0.45
0.000094
ZINC
Ave.
25
0.00521
0.35
0.000073
0.25
0.000052
Max.
75
0.0156
1 05
0.000219
0.75
0.000156
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations are bated upon BAT Alternative No. 2 (the selected alternative).
-------
TABLE X-2
SUMMARY OF FLOWS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BASIC OXYGEN FURNACES - WET
Plant
Code
Suppressed Combustion
0684F
0856N
0060
0384A
0684H
0528A
Applied Flow
(gal/ton)
569
1278
1897
1327
1129
1818
Effluent Flow
(gal/ton)
33
39
75
80
113
1818
Basis
VISIT
D-DCP
DCP
D-DCP
D-DCP
DCP
Open Combustion
0584F
0384A
0868A
0856R
0860B
0920N
0860B
0112D
0724A
0112A
0020B
0860H
0856B
0112B
0248A
262
977
1114
1296
1263
227
1285
454
1558
1315
2264
1946
241
1824
2072
65
99
113
118
146
149
201
244
312
437
637
1596
241
1801
1934
D-DCP
DCP
VISIT
DCP
D-DCP
DCP
DCP
VISIT
D-DCP
DCP
D-DCP
DCP
VISIT
DCP
DCP
261
-------
TABLE X-3
SUMMARY OF FLOWS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
OPEN HEARTH FURNACES - WET
Plant
Code
0948C
0060
0112A
0492A
Applied Flow
(gal/ton)
2679
4392
914
506
Effluent Flow
(gal/ton)
80
105
114
359
Basis
DCP
D-DCP
D-DCP
VISIT
262
-------
TABLE X-4
SUMMARY OF FLOWS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES - WET
Plant
Applied Flow
Effluent Flow

Code
(gal/ton)
(gal/ton)
Basis
0940

0
DCP
0612
2412
45
D-DCP
0856F
2092
104
DCP
006 0D
829
232
D-DCP
0868B
2625
234
D-DCP
0060F
2300
238
VISIT
0860H
2353
776
DCP
049 2A
1178
836
VISIT
0860H
2330
1212
DCP
0528A
3512
3512
DCP
263
-------
BPT
Recycle
BAT - I
the effluent quality and loads.
, COAGULANT .
1 AID 1
I '
ACID'
~ "1
FILTERS
To Discharge
I CLARIFIER 1
1 OR 1
k THICKENER J
Filtrate |
BAT ~2
I	T vacuum")
, FILTER
T	
LIME
C To Dischorge
Solids
Solids to
Vacuum Filter
(II pH controlled addition of lime is incorporated
only in the open hearth models.
(2)	Recycle percentages; 95 %" Basic Oxygen Furnace
94%"Open Heorth Furnace
98%* Electric Arc Furnace
(3)	pH controlled addition of acid is incorporated
only in the basic oxygen furnace models. This
step is a 8PT component which has been
relocated in the sequence of treatment steps.
BAT-3
(PH)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
BAT TREATMENT MODELS
[>wn. 6/25/80
FIGURE X-
SULFIDE
FILTERS
FILTERS
PROCESS
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XI
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(4)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in Section
304(g)(4) - BOD, TSS, fecal coliform and pH - and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional." On July
28, 1978, EPA proposed that COD, oil and grease, and phosphorus be
added to the conventional pollutant list (£3 Fed. Reg. 32857). Only
oil and grease was added.
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. BCT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a
"cost-reasonableness" test, which involves a comparison of the cost
and level of reduction of conventional pollutants from the discharge
of POTWs to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a
class or category of industrial sources. As part of its review of BAT
for certain "secondary" industries, EPA proposed methodology for this
cost test. (See £3 Fed. Reg. 37570, August 23, 1978).
Methodology
The BCT methodology is described in Volume I.
Development of BCT Limitations
For the steelmaking subdivisions, the BCT cost test was applied to the
costs incurred and conventional pollutant load removals achieved in
proceeding from BPT to the levels of treatment provided in each BCT
alternative treatment system for the wet air pollution control system
segments. As the proposed BPT and BAT effluent limitations for the
semi-wet segments are identical, the BCT effluent limitations for
these segments will also be identical (i.e., no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable waters).
The BCT cost test was applied to the BCT alternative treatment systems
for each wet air pollution control system segment. The conventional
pollutant treatment costs determined by applying the BCT cost test to
the various alternatives are shown below:
265
-------
Segment
Conventional Pollutant
Treatment Costs ($/lb)
BOF - Wet-Suppressed
*BCT-1 (BAT-1 and 3)
BCT-2 (BAT-2)
0.53
1 .54
BOF - Wet-Open
*BCT-1 (BAT-1 and 3)
BCT-2 (BAT-2)
1.16
2.18
Open Hearth - Wet
*BCT-1 (BAT-1 and 3)
BCT-2 (BAT-2)
0.71
1 .61
EAF - Wet
BCT-1 (BAT-1 and 3)
BCT-2 (BAT-2)
1 .95
3.72
*: Selected alternatives.
As the costs for the selected alternatives in the BOF and open hearth
wet sments are lower than the reference POTW conventional pollutant
treatment cost of $1.34/lb, these alternatives pass the BCT cost test
and were, therefore, selected. However, as the treatment costs for
the alternative in the EAF segment are greater than the reference
treatment cost, these alternatives do not pass the BCT cost test.
Figure XI-1 illustrates the BCT alternative treatment systems for the
wet segments of the steelmaking subdivisions.
The suspended solids effluent level of 15 mg/1 incorporated in the
treatment models for the wet segments of the BOF and Open Hearth
subdivisions was developed on the basis of a statistical review of
long-term analytical data from several wastewater filtration
operations. Refer to Appendix A of Volume I for a detailed review of
the statistical procedures used to develop the 15 mg/1, 30-day average
suspended solids performance standards for filtration operations.
As BCT controls pertain only to the removal of conventional
pollutants, the proposed BCT effluent limitations for the steelmaking
subdivisions apply to suspended solids and pH only. The BCT effluent
limitations for the BOF and open hearth wet air pollution control
system segments, presented on Table XI-1, are based upon the suspended
solids effluent levels achieved by the BCT model treatment systems for
these segments.
The proposed BCT limitations for the electric arc furnace wet air
pollution control system segment (refer to Table XI-1) are the same as
the proposed BPT limitations. This action is taken because
conventional pollutant treatment costs of the BCT model treatment
system for this segment did not compare favorably with the
conventional pollutant treatment costs of a POTW.
Proposed BCT limitations for the semi-wet segments are also equal to
the respective proposed BPT limitations (i.e., no discharge of
wastewater pollutants to navigable waters).
266
-------
TABLE XL-1
PROPOSED BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SUBDIVISION
SEGMENT
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS (kg/Mq of product)
P«
BASIC
OXYGEN
FURNACE
SEMI-WET
No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable water*.
WET"SUPPRESSED
COMBUSTION
Ave.
0.00313
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Max.
0.00834
WET-OPEN
COMBUSTION
Ave.
a00407
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Max.
0.0108
OPEN
HEARTH
FURNACE
SEMI-WET
No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
WET
Ave.
0.00688
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Max.
0.0183
ELECTRIC
ARC
FURNACE
SEMI-WET
No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable waters.
WET
Ave.
0.0104
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Max.
0.0312
-------
BPT
Recycle'2'
I	
I
| Sjme^— -j
1 -T- 1
(PH)
PROCESS
I
Filtrate I
I
fcoagulant"!
AID 1
I '
I CLARIFIER «
I OR ¦
k THICKENER J
r
i
i.
i	
f vacuum~1
, FILTER
T	
i
Solids
(1)	pH controlled addition of lime is incorporated
only in the open hearth models.
(2)	Recycle percentages195 % - Basic Oxygen Furnace
94 % - Open Hearth Furnace
98 %- Electric Arc Furnace
BCT-I
Refer to Table XI" I for the
effluent quality and loads.
FILTERS

\ m
\
J
To Discharge
BCT-2
FILTERS
' To Discharge
Solids to
Vacuum Filter
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
BCT TREATMENT MODELS
DWU2/I5/80
FIGURE 2T-I
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
A new source is defined as any source constructed after the proposal
of new source performance standards (NSPS). NSPS is to consider the
degree of effluent reduction achievable through the application of the
best available demonstrated control technology (BADCT), processes,
operating methods, or other alternatives, including where practicable,
a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. Although proposed
for the semi-wet air pollution control system segments, zero discharge
of process wastewater pollutants to a receiving stream is not a
feasible treatment alternative for the wet air pollution control
system segments. As discussed in Section VII, there are no apparent
technologies, except evaporative systems, which could be generally
applied to those steelmaking operations with wet air pollution control
systems to achieve "zero discharge". However, evaporative systems
were found to be neither an economical nor a demonstrated means of
attaining "zero discharge" for wet air pollution control systems.
Identification of NSPS
Due to economic and environmental disadvantages, open hearth furnace
capacity has been and will continue to decrease, while being replaced
with BOF or electric arc furnace steelmaking production capacity.
Because the Agency does not expect any new open hearth furnaces to be
built, no NSPS alternative treatment systems were developed or
effluent standards proposed for the semi-wet and wet segments of the
open hearth furnace subdivision.
In addition, economic and energy consumption advantages favor the
construction of either wet or dry air pollution control systems over
semi-wet systems and of wet-supressed combustion systems over wet-open
combustion systems. However, since these trends are not as
Predominant as those noted above for open hearth furnace operations,
NSPS treatment alternatives and effluent standards were developed for
all steelmaking segments other than open hearth operations.
NSPS for Semi-wet Air Pollution Control System Segments
The NSPS model treatment systems for the semi-wet air pollution
control system segments of the BOF and EAF subcategories are identical
to the BPT model treatment systems. The initial step of the treatment
system provides gravity sedimentation of the process wastewaters in a
thickener. A coagulant aid is added to the raw wastewaters at the
thickener inlet to enhance suspended solids removal capabilities.
Sludges generated in the treatment process are dewatered by vacuum
filtration. Subsequently, all of the thickener effluent is recycled
269
-------
to the process, with the result that no process wastewater pollutants
are discharged.
NSPS for the Wet Air Pollution Control System Segments
A.	NSPS Alternative No. 1
The first NSPS alternative treatment system uses the BPT model
and BAT Alternative No. 1 treatment systems discussed in Sections
IX and X. The initial treatment step involves the gravity
sedimentation of the process wastewaters in a thickener.
Coagulant aid is added at the thickener inlet to enhance
suspended solids removal. Sludges generated in the treatment
process are dewatered by vacuum filtration. Most of the
thickener effluent is recycled to the process, while a blowdown
is delivered to a filter. In the EAF wet segment, the filter
effluent is discharged, while in the BOF wet segments acid is
added to the filter effluent (as required) to adjust the pH of
these typically alkaline wastewaters to the neutral range (6.0 to
9.0) prior to discharge.
B.	NSPS Alternative No. 2
This alternative treatment system includes the components of the
BPT model and BAT Alternative No. 2 treatment systems. This
alternative is similar to the system described above, however,
lime addition and gravity sedimentation are incorporated prior to
the filtration component noted in the first alternative. As
discussed in Section X, lime addition serves to reduce toxic
metal and fluoride effluent levels. Gravity sedimentation of the
process wastewaters in this instance is accomplished in an
inclined plate separator (as discussed in Section X).
C.	NSPS Alternative No. 3
This alternative treatment system includes the BPT model and BAT
Alternative No. 3 treatment systems. The third NSPS alternative
treatment system is similar to the first NSPS alternative
treatment system with the exception that sulfide precipitation is
incorporated prior to filtration* Sulfide precipitation is
incorporated for the purpose of providing additional toxic metal
pollutant removals (refer to the discussion in Section X).
The NSPS alternative treatment systems described above are depicted in
Figures XII-1 and XII-2. As NSPS treatment for the semi-wet air
pollution control system segments provides for the recycle of all
wastewaters, the proposed effluent standards for these segments are no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants. The effluent standards
for the wet air pollution control system segments are presented in
Table XII-1. Cost data for the NSPS alternative treatment systems are
presented in Tables VII1-38 through VII1-42.
270
-------
Rationale for Selection of NSPS
The NSPS alternative treatment systems for the various segments of the
steelmaking subdivisions are similar to the BPT model and BAT
alternative treatment systems described in Sections IX and X.
?here?ore! the ^Snale* presented in these sections is also
applicable to new sources and is not repeated.
The NSPS alternative treatment systems for the wet air pollution
c^tro? lys!™	are addressed below The same considerations
also apply to the semi-wet segment treatment systems.
Treatment Technologies
The	of aravitv sedimentation, lime addition, filtration, and
sulfide oreciDitation treatment technologies in the wet air pollution
laments have been previously documented in Section X.
These technologies are either demonstrated within this subcategory or,
I? not SseS w??Mn ?his subcategory have been	fro. oUmjt
suhratenories or industries on the basis of demonstrated treatment
capabilities In light of the above factors, the recommended
treatment technologies are reliable and demonstrated and,
subsequently, are applicable for NSPS.
Th* resuitina effluent wastewater quality for the NSPS alternative
treatment svstems of the wet air pollution control system segments are
,	Table XII-l. AS noted in Sections X and XI, the critical
and effluent levels were based upon, the demonstrated
caiihfof the various wastewater treatment technologies. The
Ml?5£i^s l!it!d on ms table Include only those pollutants limited
at BAT and "SPS prefer to Section X for a review of the factors
considered in selecting these pollutants).
The treatment components used in the alternative treatment systems for
the semT-wet air pollut ion control system segments have been
documented in Sections VII and IX As these technologies are
jaj «*f 4 4-h i ri th68@ S6Qltl6ntS^ tn6 r6COmiR6ndGd trSSibRlGnt
are rei?able and demonstrated and, subsequently, are
an£i?r»h?i for NSPS As noted previously, the NSPS level of treatment
iSP	SegS deludes no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to a receiving stream.
Flows
The annlied and effluent flows (or, in the case of the semi-wet
seaments no effluent flow) developed for the proposed BPT and BAT
limitations (refer to Sections IX and X) are applicable to the various
NSPS treatment systems as well. Plants within each segment have not
^m«£«?;ated the ability to reduce effluent flows to the levels
incorporated in the NSPS treatment systems, but have also demonstrated
the recycle rates defined by the treatment model applied and discharge
flow rates.
271
-------
Selection of an NSPS Alternative
The proposed NSPS for the semi-wet air pollution control system
segments are based upon the BPT model treatment system, (i.e., no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters).
With regard to the wet air pollution control system segments, the
Agency selected NSPS Alternatives No. 2 as the model treatment systems
upon which the proposed NSPS for the BOF and EAF wet segments are
based. These alternatives were selected for the reasons noted in the
discussion in Section X pertaining to the selection of a BAT
alternative.
The proposed NSPS are presented in Table XII-1 in the column for the
second alternative.
272
-------
TABLE 2H-I
NSPS EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY

r
NSPS ALTERNATIVE N* 1 1
NSPS ALTERNj
WIVE N* 2
NSPS ALTERNATIVE N* 3 1

CONCENTRATION
BASIS (jng/1)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
kg/kkg of Product)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
kg/kkg of Product]
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
kg/kkg of product)
SUBDIVISION
SEGMENT
hMUifuS# M Alul	i A	1	i
B ASIC
OXYGEN
FURNACE
WET-
SUPPRESSED
COMBUSTION
umwkoc ruiHwa/rani
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS |
KW3I
oo
15
000313
ou
15
000313
DO
IS
0.00313
37X1
40
O00834
40
OjOOB34
40
O.0O834
OH I
Within the ranae 6j0 to SjO
Within the ranae &0 to 9.0
Within the ranae 6.0 to 9.0 1
CHROMIUM
AVE.
0.10
0.000021
0.10
0.000021
0.10
0.000021 I
MAX.
0.30
0.000063
0.30
0.000063
0.30
<0
O
8
o
o
LEAD
AVE.
2.00
OJ0004I7
0.30
0u000063
0.15
0.000031
rr.v«
6.00

3.00125
0.90
0.000188
0.45
M0Q094
ZINC

0.90

xoooisa
a.30
0JD00063
0.25
0000052

2.70
0JD00563
0.90
OjOOOI88
0.75
0.000156
WET-
OPEN
COMBUSTION
1 DISCHARGE FLOW (oal/ton)
65
	 •
65
——
65

TOTAL SUSPENOED SOUDS

IS
000407
IS
0XX3407
15
0.00407
I'M
40
0.0108
40
0u0T08
40
OX) 108
1 pH 1 Within the ranae 6X> to 9.0
1 within the ranae &0 to 9.0
1 Within the ranae 6£> to 9.0 1
CHROMIUM

0.80
a0002t7
0.25
0.000068
0.10
0.000027
LLLM-f
2.40
0.000651
6.75
0.000203
0.30
0.000081
LEAD
LK=i
0.30
ooooobi
0.25
O000068
0.15
OJ00004I
I.F.v<
0.90
Q000244
0.75
OJ0OO2O3
0.45
0A00I22

r.via
0.90
OJ000244
0.30
Q00008I
0.25
Q000068
1,'W
2.70
	—K75	
0.000732
0.90
e r\
0JD&D244
0.75
' FX	 "
0X300203
ELECTRIC
ARC
FUR NACE
WET AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
ukammac. rLuwiaai/roni	
TOTAL SUSPENOED SOLIDS

15
0D03I3
d W
15
0.00313
OU
15
0.00313
1''.V|
40
0.00834
40
0.00834
40
0.00834
pH
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
Within the range
6.0 to 9.0
CHROMIUM
I/'i*
0.40
0000063
Ol IS
0.00003 i
0.10

rw
I.EO
0.000250
0.45
0.000094
0.30
0.000063
LEAD
LSi*
1.50
0.000313
0.30
OJ000063
0.15
0000031
r.r.w
4.50
0000938
0.90
GOOOI88
0.45
0.000094
ZINC

25
O0052I
0.35
0.000073
0.25
0.000052

75
0.0156
1.05
Q0002I9
Q.75
0,000156
Proposed NSPS art based upon NSPS Alternative No. 2 (the selected alternative).
-------
THICKENER
Filtrofr
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A0ENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
8TEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SEMI-WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
NSPS TREATMENT MODELS	
Solid*
FIGURE m-1
COAGULANT
AID
PROCESS
VACUUM
FILTER
-------
K)
ui
HSPS-I
r^vTr.-i
Solids to
Filter
NSPS-3

M FILTERS
|:9S%'8mk Oq(M rmww
96%~Eloetrie Are Fwmm
(2) pH controlled addition of acid is incorporated
only in the basic oxygen furnace models.
Refer to Table ZB-t for
the effluent quality and load*.
To Discharge
To Oisctargt
0 ^ To Discharge
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL IMMISTRY STUDY
STEELMAKMG SUBCATEGORY
WET AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
NSPS TREATMENT MODELS
>m.G/2£/SO
FIGURE SK-2
-------
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGES TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
This section discusses the control and treatment technologies
available for steelmaking operations which discharge wastewaters to
Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Only one of the plants in the
wet segments of the steelmaking subdivisions discharges process
wastewaters to a POTW. Separate consideration has been given to the
Pretreatment of wet subdivision process wastewaters from new sources
and from existing sources.
The general pretreatment and categorical pretreatment standards
Applying to steelmaking operations are discussed below.
{general Pretreatment Standards
por detailed information on Pretreatment Standards refer to 43 FR
27736-27773, "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution/' (June 26, 1978). In particular, 40 CFR Part
403 describes national standards (prohibited and categorical
standards), revision of categorical standards through removal
allowances, and POTW pretreatment programs.
In establishing pretreatment standards for steelmaking operations, the
Agency gave primary consideration to objectives and requirements of the
General Pretreatment Regulations. The General Pretreatment
Regulations set forth general discharge prohibitions that apply to all
non-domestic users of a POTW to prevent pass-through of pollutants,
interference with the operation of a POTW, and municipal sludge
contamination. The regulations also establish administrative
mechanisms to ensure application and enforcement of prohibited
discharge limits and categorical pretreatment standards. In addition,
the Regulations contain provisions relating directly to the
determination of and reporting on Pretreatment Standards.
POTWs are usually not designed to treat the toxic pollutants present
in steelmaking process wastewaters. Instead, POTWs are designed to
treat biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS),
fecal coliform bacteria, and pH. Whatever removal obtained by POTWs
for toxic pollutants is incidental to the POTW's main function of
conventional pollutant treatment. POTWs have, historically, accepted
large amounts of many pollutants well above their capacity to treat
them adequately. As the issue of municipal sludge use has become more
important, pretreatment ¦ standards must address toxic and
honconventional pollutant removal, rather than transfer these
Pollutants to POTWs where many pollutants concentrate in the sludges.
277
-------
Pretreatment standards for total suspended solids, oil and grease, and
pH are not proposed because these pollutants, at the levels found
after pretreatment in this subcategory, are compatible with POTW
operations and can be effectively treated at POTWs.
Due to the presence of toxic pollutants in wastewaters from
steelmaking operations, pretreatment must be provided to ensure that
these pollutants do not interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be
incompatible with POTW operations or damage the treatment facilities'
The following discussions identify the pretreatment pollutant removals,
the rationale for these technologies, and, finally, the development of
pretreatment model upon which the proposed categorical PSES and PSNS
are based.
Identification of Pretreatment
The model pretreatment systems (PSES and PSNS) for semi-wet systems
are identical to those for BPT. Hence, the proposed PSES and PSNS
provide for no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
Semi-wet systems will not exert any impacts (from toxic metals, etc.)
on POTWs.
The pretreatment systems developed for both New and Existing Sources
in the wet segments of the BOF, open hearth, and EAF subdivisions are
identical to the BPT model and BAT Alternative No. 2 treatment systems
for these segments (refer to Section IX and X). As these treatment
systems are identical to the NSPS treatment model, the need for
separate New Source and Existing Source Pretreatment Standards is
obviated. 		¦ —
Only those treatment systems selected for use as the basis for the
proposed BAT effluent limitations and NSPS were retained for use as
pretreatment systems.
The primary goal of the pretreatment systems is the removal of toxic
metal pollutants. In the initial steps of the pretreatment model
systems for all of the wet segments, that substantial portion of the
toxic metal pollutants load entrained in the suspended solids is
removed by gravity sedimentation in a thickener. A coagulant aid is
added at the thickener inlet to enhance solids (and, in turn, toxic
metals) removal performance. The sludges removed from the thickener
are dewatered by vacuum filtration. Most of the thickener effluent is
then recycled while a small system blowdown undergoes additional
pretreatment. The recycle system blowdown then undergoes treatment
consisting of lime precipitation, sedimentation (in an inclined plate
separator), and filtration. The goal of this system is to reduce
toxic metals effluent levels and loads. In the case of BOF
operations, acid is added to the filter effluent to lower the pH of
the typically alkaline wastewaters to the neutral range.
Figure XIII-1 illustrates the pretreatment systems described above.
Table XIII-1 presents the proposed PSES and PSNS. Refer to Tables
VII1-40 through VII1-43 for pretreatment model cost information.
278
-------
Rationale for the Selection
of Pretreatment Technologies
The effluent flows and, in turn, the recycle components incorporated
in the pretreatment systems described above have been reviewed in
Section X. Recycle is necessary in these pretreatment systems in
order to minimize the hydraulic impact of process wastewater
discharges to a POTW. Excessive flows to a POTW must be restricted
not only for reasons of physical limitations (i.e., hydraulic
constraints), but also for reasons of process limitations (the
"washing out" of the biological treatment media). The pretreatment
system effluent flows are identical to those of the BAT and NSPS
models.
Sedimentation, recycle, lime precipitation, further sedimentation, and
filtration are included in the pretreatment systems in order to reduce
toxic metal pollutant levels and loads. Pretreatment standards must
be provided for toxic metal pollutants as they can adversely affect a
POTW in the following ways: (1) inhibit the POTW treatment process,
(2) pass through the POTW during treatment, and, (3) contaminate the
POTW sludges.
Various studies' have demonstrated that the toxic metal pollutants
found in wet air pollution control system wastewaters inhibit the
biological treatment process when found at levels typical of these
steelmaking operations. Inclusion of the above technologies in the
Pretreatment systems will ensure that the toxic metal pollutants
Present in the wastewater discharges of these segments will not
adversely affect the treatment process.
Other studies4 involving the electroplating industry (with similar
levels of the same toxic metals) indicated that from fifty percent to
ninety percent of the toxic metal pollutants entering a POTW will pass
through the system. The possibility therefore exists that a POTW
could discharge undesirable levels of toxic metal pollutants when
accepting industrial process wastewaters.
The toxic metal pollutants which do not pass through a POTW are
concentrated in the POTW sludges. Generally, land application is the
roost advantageous, yet least expensive, method of POTW sludge disposal
as the sludge can be used to replace soil nutrients. However,
excessive amounts of toxic metal pollutants in the sludges could
inhibit plant growth, thus rendering the sludge unfit for use as. a
soil nutrient supplement. In addition, these metals could enter
®ither the plant or animal food chain or could leach into the
Groundwater. For the above reasons, the Agency believes that the
'EPA-430/9-76-017a, Construction Grants Program Information; Federal
Guidelines State and Local Pretreatment Programs.
4Federal Reaister* Friday, September 7, 1979; Part IV, Environmental
Protection Agency; Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Electroplating
Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources -
Pages 52597-52601.
279
-------
control of toxic metal pollutant discharges to a POTW is essential.
The Agency did not develop pretreatment standards for fluoride in the
steelmaking subcategory as fluoride, in the amounts present in
steelmaking wastewaters, will not adversely affect POTW operations.
280
-------
TABLE Xm-I
PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY

CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
Ikg/kkg of product)
SUBDIVISION
SEGMENT

BASIC
OXYGEN
FURNACE
WET-
SUPPRESSED
COMBUSTION
DISCHARGE FLOW (gal/ton)
50
	
CHROMIUM
rm
0.1°
0.000021
rm
0.3O
0.000063
LEAD
1 Ave. 1 0.30 1
0.000063

919
O.OQOI88
ZINC
un
0.30
0.000063
rm
0.90
0.000IBB
WET-
OPEN
COMBUSTION
DISCHARGE FLOW (gal/ton)
65

CHROMIUM
! Ave.
0.25
(1000068
rai
0.75
0.000203
LEAD
rm
0.25
0.000068
rm
0.75
0.000203
ZINC
Are.
0.30
O.OOOOBI
Max.
0.90
0.000244
OPEN
HEARTH
FURNACE
WET AIR
POLLUTION
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
DISCHARGE FLOW («a l/ton)
110
	
CHROMIUM
Ave.
O.IO
0.000046
Max.
0.30
a000138
LEAD
Ave.
O.I5
0.000069
m
0.45
0.000206
ZINC
¦J'M
0.30
O.OOOI38

0.90
0.000413
ELECTRIC
ARC
FURNACE
UfPT AID
DISCHARGE FLOW (gal/ton)
50

nC 1 AlrC
POLLUTION
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
L	
CHROMIUM
Ave.
0.15
0.000031
Max.
0.45
0.000094
LEAD
I Ave.
0.30
0.000063
rrm
0.90
O.OOOI88
ZINC
rmi
0.35
0.000073
n?i
l-OT
0.000219
-------
to
00
to
Recycle*2^
LIME'
0)
(i)
COAGULANT
AID
CLARIFIER
OR
LIME



<5
i
VACUUM
FILTER
Solid*
Solids
(1)	pH controlled addition of lime it incorporated
only in the open hearth model.
(2)	Recycle rates: 95%"Basic Oxygen Furnace
94%-Open Hearth
98%~Electric Arc Furnace
(3) pH controlled addition of acid is incorporated
only in the basic oxygen furnace model.
ACID
FILTERS
To POTW
Refer to Table "7TTT -1 for the
effluent quality and loads.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
STEELMAKING SUBCATEGORY
PRETREATMENT MODELS
Dwn. 7/8/80
FIGURE 311-1
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION I
PREFACE
The USEPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the steel industry. The proposed regulation contains effluent
limitations guidelines for best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT), and best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) as well as pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources (PSNS and PSES) and new source performance standards
(NSPS), under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean Water
Act.
This part of the Development Document highlights the technical aspects
of EPA's study of the Vacuum Degassing Subcategory of the Iron and
Steel Industry. Volume I of the Development Document discusses issues
pertaining to the industry in general, while other volumes relate to
the remaining subcategories of the industry.
283
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
Thi? report highlights the technical aspects of EPA's study of the
Vacuum Degassing Subcategory of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Category.
Based on this current study and a review of previous studies,
reached the following conclusions.
EPA has
1.	The Agency has decided not to subdivide the vacuum degassing
subcategory based upon the type of steel processed, the type of
degassing system employed, wastewater characteristics, size, age,
or geographical location.
2.	The proposed BPT effluent limitations are identical to those
originally promulgated in 1974. The proposed BPT effluent
limitations regulate pH and the discharge of total suspended
solids (TSS). Sampled plant and long-term analytical data
substantiate the appropriateness of the originally promulgated
effluent limitations for this subcategory.
3.	Several responses from the industry to EPA questionnaires
indicate that recycle components in use at vacuum degassing
plants present no scaling, fouling, or plugging problems.
4.	Sampling and analysis of vacuum degassing process wastewaters
revealed significant concentrations of five toxic metal
pollutants. Discharges of these toxic pollutants can be reduced
by available economically achievable technologies. A summary of
the pollutant discharges at the proposed BPT and BAT levels of
treatment are shown below.
Flow, MGD
TSS
Toxic Metals
Effluent Discharges (Tons/Year)
Raw Waste Proposed BPT Proposed BAT
57
6950
976
1
78
1 .8
1
23
0.7
5. Based upon facilities in place as	of January 1,	1978
estimates the following costs	are required to
proposed BPT and BAT effluent limitations	for
degassing subcategory.
the Agency
achieve the
the vacuum
285
-------
Costs (Millions of July 1. 1978 Dollars)
Total	In-Place Required
Investment Costs
Annual
Costs
BPT
30.3
9.9
20.4
7.7
BAT
1 .6
0.6
1 .0
0.2
NOTE: PSES costs are included in BPT and BAT costs.
6.	The Agency evaluated the "cost reasonableness" of controlling the
conventional pollutant, TSS, and concludes that control costs
based upon the BCT model treatment system are greater than the
costs experienced by publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
Hence, the proposed BPT limitation for suspended solids is also
proposed as the BCT effluent limitation for suspended solids.
7.	Proposed NSPS for vacuum degassing operations are equivalent to
the proposed BAT effluent limitations and are based on the same
model treatment systems.
8.	EPA has proposed pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources (PSNS and PSES) which limit the amounts of toxic
pollutants which can be discharged to POTWs. These standards,
which are based upon the filtration of a treatment and recycle
system effluent, are intended to minimize the impact of those
pollutants (the toxic metals) which interfere with, pass through,
or otherwise are incompatible with POTW operations.
9.	With regard to the "remand issues," the Agency concludes that:
a.	The incorporation of cooling towers in the BPT model
treatment system (retained in the BAT model treatment
system) will result in a minor increase in water
consumption. It is estimated that implementation of the
above treatment technologies will result in the consumption
of an additional 0.13 MGD of water for the subcategory.
However, as this total represents only 0.23% of the
estimated total water application in this subcategory, the
Agency considers the impact of the consumptive use of water
to be minimal, in particular, since the cooling components
allow higher recycle rates. In turn, higher recycle rates
serve to reduce the total volume of water used in and
discharged from the process, thereby minimizing the
discharge of pollutants. It must also be recognized that
water condensed from the steam used in the degassing process
will replace at least a portion of the water consumed in the
treatment process.
b.	The estimated cost to install the model treatment systems is
not significantly affected whether the system is an "initial
fit" or a "retrofit". Moreover, the ability to implement
various wastewater treatment practices at a plant is not
affected by the plant's age. The comparison of costs
reported by the visited plants and in the D-DCPs with the
286
-------
Agency's estimated expenditures (based on the application of
model costs) of these plants, indicates that the estimated
subcategory treatment costs are sufficiently generous to
cover site-specific and other incidental costs.
c. The following references pertain to the remand concerning
the TSS levels used in developing the original BAT
limitations and NSPS. Not only do the BAT and NSPS
alternative treatment systems presented in this report
differ substantially from the treatment model presented in
the 1974 document, but the suspended solids levels, upon
which the proposed effluent limitations are based, now
represent an analysis of additional extensive analytical
data. Therefore, the suspended solids levels incorporated
in the treatment models are applicable and justified. It
should be noted that suspended solids effluent limitations
are not established at BAT, but are now proposed at BCT.
10.	The Agency found vacuum degassing operations which achieve zero
discharge. The Agency is soliciting comments on whether zero
discharge limitations should be promulgated at the BAT, BCT,
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels based upon the demonstrated
performance of plants in this subcategory. These plants are
currently achieving zero discharge with BPT model treatment
system components. Hence, no additional costs beyond those
required for BPT would be necessary to achieve zero discharge.
11.	Table 11—1 presents the treatment model flow and effluent quality
data used to develop the proposed BPT effluent limitations for
the vacuum degassing subcategory, and Table 11-2 presents these
proposed limitations. Table I1-3 presents the treatment model
flow and effluent quality data used to develop the proposed BAT
and BCT effluent limitations and the proposed NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS for the vacuum degassing subcategory; Table I1-4 presents
these proposed limitations and standards.
287
-------
TABLE II-l
BPT TREATMENT MODEL PLOW AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average .. *
Pollutant	Concentration (mg/1)
Flow, gal/ton	25
TSS	50
pH, Units	6.0 to 9.0
(l)t Daily maximum concentration is three times the above monthly
average concentration.
288
-------
TABLE II-2
PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
18 S
pHf Units
Effluent Limitations
(kg/kkg of Product)
0.0052
Within the range
of 6.0 to 9,0
(1)
<1>I Daily maximum effluent limitations are three times the above
monthly average effluent limitations.
289
-------
TABLE II-3
TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average Concentrations (mg/1)^^

Pollutant
BAT
BCT
NSPS
PSES
PSNS

Flow, gal/ton
25
25
25
25
25

TSS
-
50
15
-
-
119
Chromium (Total)
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10
122
Lead
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10
128
Zinc
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10

pH, Units
-
6.0 to 9.0
6.0 to 9.0
-
-
(1): Daily maximum concentrations are the above monthly average concentrations
multiplied by the following factors:
Pollutants	Factors
TSS (at the BCT level), Chromium, Lead, Zinc	3.0
TSS (at the NSPS level)	2.67
290
-------
TABLE II-4
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
Effluent Limitations and Standards (kg/kkg of Product)^^

Pollutant
BAT
BCT
NSPS
PSES
PSNS

TSS

521
156
_

119
Chromium (Total)
1.04
-
1.04
1.04
1.04
122
Lead
1.04
-
1.04
1.04
1.04
128
Zinc
1.04

1.04
1.04
1.04

pH, Units

Within the range
6.0 to 9.0


(1): The proposed limitations and standards have been multiplied by 10
to obtain the values presented in this table. Daily maximum limita-
tions and standards are the above monthly average limitations and
standards multiplied by the following factors:
Pollutants
TSS (at the BCT level), Chromium, Lead, Zinc
TSS (for USPS)
Factors
3.0
2.67
291
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
General Discussion
Vacuum degassing is the process of removing gases (principally
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen) from molten steel under a vacuum to
produce steels of high metallurgical standards. While this technique
has been used for many years, widespread application of the vacuum
degassing process to large tonnages of carbon and low alloy steels was
not possible until recent years when large capacity vacuum degassing
units were developed. The application of vacuum degassing to tonnage
steel production in the United States began in the mid-1950's.
Steam jet ejectors are commonly used to produce the vacuum for the
large tonnage vacuum degassing units. Subsequently, barometric
condensers (intercondensers) are used to condense the steam used in
the ejectors. After cooling water is sprayed into the
intercondensers, the heated waters and condensed steam are discharged
to a hot well. During the application of the vacuum to the molten
steel, certain elements, which have a relatively higher vapor pressure
(such as manganese and zinc), are volatilized and removed with the
gases. These gases and vaporized elements pass through the steam jet
ejectors into the intercondensers thus contaminating the cooling
waters.
This report reviews wastewater characteristics and treatability,
alternative treatment systems, and the proposed effluent limitations
which were considered by the Agency for the vacuum degassing
subcategory. Figures 111 — 1 and 111—2 illustrate the eight different
degassing processes currently used in the United States. The Agency
originally promulgated BPT limitations for the Vacuum Degassing
subcategory in 1974. The Agency reviewed these limitations and
developed alternative limitations and standards in light of the court
remanded issues, the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, and the
additional data received since the original promulgation. The primary
sources of the additional data are sampling data and industry
responses to the basic and detailed questionnaires.
The Agency obtained valuable process information and wastewater
quality data through sampling visits at six vacuum degassing plants.
These visits were conducted during the original guidelines and the
subsequent toxic pollutant surveys. Four plants were sampled during
the original guidelines survey. Of these four, one has since changed
from vacuum degassing to Argon Oxygen Decarburization. The Agency
sampled three degassing plants during the recent toxic pollutant
survey; one of which was also sampled during the original guidelines
survey. The plants which were sampled during either survey are listed
in Table III-l.
293
-------
Data Collection Activities
In 1976, basic questionnaires (DCPs) were sent to every vacuum
degassing operation in the United States. In response, the Agency
received information regarding applied and discharge flow rates,
existing treatment systems, plant capacities and modes of operation
for 34 vacuum degassing plants with 37 individual degassing units.
Table 111-2 presents an inventory of all vacuum degassing plants and
summarizes the data obtained from the industry.
After receiving and reviewing the DCP responses, the Agency sent
detailed questionnaires (D-DCPs) to selected degassing plants to
obtain information on long-term effluent quality, treatment costs, and
the vacuum degassing process itself. Six degassing plants provided
D-DCP responses. Table II1—3 summarizes the data base for this report
as derived from the above mentioned sources of information.
Vacuum degassing limitations were originally promulgated on the basis
of the steam intercondenser cooling water discharges. Based upon an
examination of the additional data received since that time, the
Agency has concluded that no further subdivision of this subcategory
is appropriate.
Description of Vacuum Degassing Operations
Vacuum degassing is the process in which molten steel is subjected to
a vacuum in order to remove gases from the molten steel. The gases
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen can impart detrimental qualities to the
finished steel product if not removed. Hydrogen, in particular, can
cause flaking and embrittlement of steel. Oxygen and nitrogen, when
in combination with other elements, can remain in the steel as
unwanted inclusions.
The hydrogen gas is removed when the partial pressure of hydrogen
above the molten bath is reduced. Carbon and oxygen are removed from
steel by reaction with one another as the pressure above the molten
bath is reduced. The carbon monoxide generated by this reaction is
released, thus reducing the carbon and oxygen content of the molten
steel. There are presently seven types of vacuum and one type of
nonvacuum degassing processes in use in the United States. The
nonvacuum process is called Argon degassing. Descriptions of the
degassing processes follows
1.	Vacuum Ingot Degassing is the method in which an ingot mold is
stationed inside an enclosed vacuum chamber. The hot metal ladle
is then positioned on top of the vacuum chamber. The hot metal
is exposed to the vacuum as it travels through a small opening in
the vacuum chamber roof to the ingot mold. This method is used
for producing ingots for large forgings.
2.	Vacuum Stream Degassing is a method similar to that	of ingot
degassing. However, instead of an ingot mold, an empty	hot metal
ladle is stationed inside the vacuum chamber. The	hot metal
ladle is mounted on top of the vacuum chamber and metal	is poured
through a small opening in the roof of the chamber.
294
-------
3.	Vacuum Tap Degassing involves pouring of the molten	steel from
the furnace into a tundish which is mounted upon the	steel ladle.
The ladle in this method is fitted with a cover and,	thus, serves
as the vacuum chamber.
The above three methods are known as stream degassing methods.
4.	Vacuum Flush Degassing is the method in which the hot metal ladle
is stationed in a vacuum chamber and an inert gas (flush gas),
such as argon, is bubbled through the hot metal under reduced
pressures. The bubbles of flush gas provide sites into which
carbon monoxide, hydrogen and nitrogen gases can diffuse and be
carried out of the molten metal.
5.	Vacuum Lift Degassing, commonly identified as the D-H process,
was developed by Dortmund-Horder Huttenunion AG of Germany. For
this method, the molten steel is tapped into a teeming ladle
which is then transferred to a degassing station consisting of a
preheated refractory lined chamber equipped with a "snorkle" tube
in the bottom. The chamber is lowered into the ladle of steel
and then evacuated to a low pressure. The pressure differential
between the low pressure within the chamber and atmospheric
pressure acting upon the surface of the steel bath forces a
column of molten steel into the snorkle tube and the chamber.
The release of gases caused by the introduction of steel to a low
pressure results in turbulence of the molten steel. By
alternately raising and lowering the snorkle tube vacuum chamber,
all of the molten steel is subjected to low pressure and any
absorbed gases are released to the atmosphere. After appropriate
alloying additions are made, the vacuum chamber is lifted and
removed. The steel is then ready for casting or teeming of
ingots. This particular method can accommodate large tonnages of
steel.
6.	Vacuum Circulation Flow Degassing, commonly referred to as the
R-H process, was developed by Rheinstahl Huttenwerke HG and W.C.
Heraeus GmbH of West Germany. The equipment consists of a vacuum
chamber with two snorkle tubes which are immersed in the molten
steel. Once the tubes are immersed, the vacuum valves are
opened. Argon gas under pressure is introduced in one snorkle
leg. As the gas injection creates a pressure differential, the
molten steel rises in one tube of the vacuum chamber and flows
down the other tube back to the ladle. The molten steel is
continuously circulated until the desired level of gas removal is
achieved. An alternative method involves the use of
electromagnetic induction pumping to recirculate the molten steel
through the snorkle tubes.
7.	Vacuum Induction Degassing is a method of stationing the hot
steel ladle in a vacuum chamber equipped with low frequency
electric current induction coils which stir the molten metal.
The hot metal circulates from the bottom to the top of the ladle,
thus exposing the circulating hot metal to the vacuum.
295
-------
8. Argon Degassing is a method of degassing which, instead of
providing a vacuum, uses argon as an inert shielding gas. Argon
is bubbled through the hot metal in a covered ladle. The argon
displaces air from the hood atmosphere as carbon monoxide,
hydrogen, and oxygen gases diffuse into the bubbles at rates
influenced by the oxygen and carbon content of the steel.
Typical argon requirements per ton of steel are about 40 cubic
feet for a period of 12-23 minutes, depending upon the amount of
molten steel treated. The argon degassing method i,s the most
expensive of all degassing methods.
The vacuum degassing operation serves as an intermediate step in
steelmaking. After the hot metal has been refined to steel in basic
oxygen, electric arc, or open hearth furnaces, the molten steel is
transferred to the vacuum degasser for further refining. Degassing is
only performed when required by steel order specifications.
Therefore, not all steel is degassed. After the molten steel is
degassed, it is then transferred either to a continuous casting
machine or is teemed into ingot molds.
The basic vacuum degassing equipment includes a method to develop a
vacuum and to expose all of the molten steel to the vacuum.
There are two methods of developing the vacuum for degassing cycles.
One method involves the use of vacuum pumps, which are generally used
for smaller tonnage operations, or stream degassing. As no process
wastewaters are generated in this type of vacuum degassing operation,
no further discussion of these operations is presented in this report.
The second method uses multiple stage steam jet ejectors. Four to six
stages are normally used to develop the vacuum in the latter instance.
Several barometric steam condensers, which use water as the cooling
medium, are employed between ejector stages. The water from the
condensers is discharged to a hot well through a barometric leg (a
pipe which rises 32 feet above the hot well and is immersed for
sealing in the hot well). Any of the gases emerging from the vacuum
degassing operation are intermittently mixed with steam and water from
the condensers.
Wastewater discharges occur when the waters, which are used to
condense the steam, are contaminated with the gases and particulates
carried with the steam that is used in the steam jet ejectors.
The selection
specifications,
limitations in
specifications,
degassing cycle.
D-H processes.
production costs
capacity.
of the degassing process is influenced by steel
heat scheduling, plant layout limitations, and
the steelmaking process to achieve given steel
All degassing methods require a 5 to 30 minute
Generally the large tonnage producers use the R-H or
The faster process, stream degassing, has lower
because capital investment is lower per ton of design
296
-------
TABLE III-l
SUMMARY OF SAMPLED PLANTS
	VACUUM DEGASSING	
Sample
Code
Plant Reference
Code	
Steel
E*
062
AC**
065**
068
G
AD
0020B
0496
0584F
0584F
0684H
0856R
0868B
Specialty
NR
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Specialty
* : This plant has changed from vacuum degassing to argon oxygen decarburization
since it was sampled.
**: This plant was sampled during both the original guidelines and toxic pollutant
surveys. However, the data gathered during the toxic pollutant survey is used
in preference to that obtained during the original survey, as the toxic survey
data is more recent and thus considered to be more representative of current
practices.
NR: Not reported.
2^7
-------
Plant
Code
0020B
0060
(1)
Type of Unit Type of Steel
M	**
R-H
CS-75.HSLA-25
Plant
1971
00600
0060F
D-H
ES-63.CS-13.5
HSLA-12.SS-10
HSLA-100
1969
1970
*0060J
0088A
00B8A
*0112
*01128
*0156A
*0168
*0240A
0248B
•0424A
0*36
Ladle
Degaaaing
Ladle
Degaaaing
D-H
Streaa
Droplet
HSLA-A0 tES-31
CS-18,SS-6,AT-5
Other-70,AT-29
CS-1
Other-70,AT-29
CS-1
HSLA-97.SS-3
CS-85.HSLA-15
RSLA-51,CS-25,
AT-14.SS-5,
0ther-5
Other-70,CS-25,
AT-5
AT-55.CS-40,
HSLA-5
RSLA-60.CS-40
RSLA-75,CS-25
1965
1963
1968
1957
1973
**
1968
1962
1969
1969
1966
0496
D-H
CS-60.HSLA-40
1965
TABLE III-2
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
VACUUM DEGASSIWC
Production (Tom/Day)
Rated	1976
Capacity Production
Fiona (Gal/Ton)
Applied
Plow
Diacharge
Flow
Treatment Components
Proceaa	Central
Treatment Treatment
Operating Diacharge
Mode
Mode
4500
3000
1100
120
239
(2)
239
450
1860
(2)
1499
1758
380
31
202
202
326
517
(2)
(2)
272
432
272
82
None
CL,PSP
CT
[743]	Qo.0	"one
Q43J	Qo.6)	tone
PSP.FLL,
FLOl.CL
None
SL
FLP,NL,
CL,SS,VF
FLP,ML,
CL,SS,VF
Indirect
Diacharge
Direct
Direct
RJET100
KTP81
BD19
RET(UMC)
KTP(UMK)
bd(umk)
¦TP98.6 Direct
HET1.4
¦TP98.6 Direct
HST1.4
450
361
1100
1700
800
350
1600
872
589
63
196
420
859	[Wl]	[0]
Cloth
Belt
Filter
RTF100
CLA,rrsr,
FLP,P8F,
leaenroir,
CT
RTF100
Zero
Discharge
Zero
Discharge
-------
TABLE III-2
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
VACUIM DEGASSING
PAGE 2		
to
i£>
VO
Plant
Code
Type of Do it
Type of Steel
Plant
*8«
Production (Tona/DaY)
Rated 1976
Capacity Production
*0576
-
Other-89,RSLA-6
CS-4.4,58-0.6
1960
260
214
0576A
StTeas
Droplet
Other-51,AT-10,
ES-10,CS-8,SS-1
1959
450
221
0584P
-
CS-100
1968
6554
4160
0684E(1)
(No.3 Shop)
Ladle
Degaaaing
SS-90,
0ther-10
1962
979
120
0684 E
(Mo.4 Shop)
Ladle
Degaaaing
0ther-93.8t
CS-6.2
1968
2640
637
*0684H
-
LA-85,CS-15
1965
1200
456
*06840
-
HSLA-92.CS-8
1958
360
310
*0696A
-
CS-76,Other-24
1976
800
43
*0724A
-
AS-100
-
-
340
*0776*
-
HSLA-100
1958
150
64
*0796A
*0796C
-
HSLA-85,AT-15
1957
90
17
*0796C
-
HSLA-90, AT-10
1965
30
22
*0804A
-
HSLA-93.CS-5,
SS-2
1958
150
50
0804B
Streaa
Droplet
HSLA-60.CS-40
1972
210
138
*08408
-
0ther-90.HSLA-10
1970
**
**
0856F<4)
(2 unita)
D-H
CS-100
1972
1600
535
Flowa (Gal/Ton)
Applied Discharge
Flow	Flow
Treatment Component«
Proceaa	Central
Treafeot Treatment
Operating Diacharge
Mode	Hode
475
C2A3
490
475
•E-a
9.8
M Q1-5]
Hon®
CT
Hone
ct.pix,
rL0l.ru,
CL
CT.FLL,
FL01,FLP,
CL
None
RUP98.2
BD1.8
RTP98
BD2
RTP99.6
BD0.4
Direct
Direct
Direct
178	178
1071	33
None
OT
Direct
SL,8S	KTP97	Direct
BD3
262	262
PSP
None
OT
Direct
-------
TABLE III-2
GENERAL SUMNART TABUt
VACUUM DEGASSING
PACE 3	
riant
Code
*0856(1
*08568
0868B
0896
*0946*
Type of Ifait Type of Steel
HS LA-50, AT-30
CS-20
Ladle
Degaaaing
CS-78.5,
HSLA-21.5
HSLA-90.CS-5
AT-5
AT-95,C3-5
Plant
Production (Tooa/Da?) How (Cal/Ton)
Rated
1976
Treatment Cwxmati
1956	340
1971	1560
1968
1961	3480
208
1274
35
90
Capacity Production Flow
1964 960	300
Applied Discharge Proceaa	Central Operat ing Diacharge
E'O
Plow
M
0>]
Treafent Treatment
R»m
PSP,CT,
Pi ltara
Mode
Mode
or
Direct
RTP98.8 Direct
B01.2
KEY TO SYMBOLS
t Inadequate conpanj re a pome.
* 1 Ho air or water pollution control aqaipmt.
** i Confidential information.
[] t Data liated in bracketa vaa obtained rim tbe reaponaea to the D-DCP queationnaire or during a asp ling vlaita.
NOTE: All data waa derived fron tbe DCP qoeatioonaira reaponaea with Ike exception of bracketed data.
KET TO ABBREflATIORS
Type of Bhitt
ft—Hi Ruhratahl-Baraana
D-Hl Dor tmind -Border
Type of Stnelt
AS t	Alloy Steel
AT t	Alloy Tool
CS i	Carbon 8tee1
IS t	Electrical Steel
HSLAl	High Strength Low Alloy
LA I	Low Alloy
SS I	Stainlaaa Steal
-------
TABLE III-2
GEKRAL SUMMARY TABLE
VACUUM DEGASSING
PAGE 4		
w
o
Treatment Components and Operating Mode;
For a description of the treataent components and operating Bodes, see Table VII-1.
Discharge Mode?
Direct : Discharged froa the process to a receiving stream.
Indirect : Reused in acne other process, then eventually discharged to a receiving stress.
POTW : Discharged frca the process to a publicly owned treataent works.
Zero
Diacharge: Ho direct or indirect discharge to a receiving streaa or a publicly owned treataent works.
Process waters are completely recycled.
Footnotes:
(1)	Plantis no longer in operation.
(2)	Tonnage figures are estiaates since the DCP provided only total tonnages for both degassers.
(3)	Combined tonnage for the two degassers.
(4)	Two identical degassing units. The data presented on this table is the saae for both degassers.
-------
TABLE III-3
VACUUM DEGASSING - DATA BASE
No. of
Plants
Plants Sampled for
Original Study
Plants Sampled for Toxic
Pollutant Survey
Total Plants Sampled
Plants Solicited via D-DCP
Plants Sampled and/or
o Solicited via D-DCP
3 inc1.
1 above
6 inc1.
3 above
Z of Total
No. of Plants
11.4
8.6 incl.
2.9 above
17.1
17.1 incl.
8.6 above
25.7
Daily Capacity
of Plants (tons)
8874
9354 incl.
6554 above
11,674
14,197 incl.
8,574 above
17,297
Z of Total
Daily Capacity
20.9
22.0 incl.
15.4	above
27.5
33.4 incl.
20.2 above
40.7
Plants Responding to DCP
35
(1)
100
42,462
100
(1) Thirty-four plants are currently in operation. Subcategory costs presented in this report are
based upon thirty-four plants.
-------
- ClhOMt
-Evocuotor
i 4 •¦•am-tjtclw pump
-Na 2 inlircMdMHi
-No. I inMrcoatfintir
- Na 2 sltam tjtclor
— No. I iliam •jtclor
Tnrator ladle-
i
Ingot mold
Vacuum lank
VACUUM INGOT DEGASSING
Alloy charging
Catling ladla
VACUUM- STREAM -DEGASSING
SlMlmoking liunoc*
VACUUM TAP DEGASSING
VACUUM FLUSH DEGASSING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
Dwn. 9/7/79
FIGURE IE-
-------
Alloy additions
VACUUM
CHAMBER
LADLE
n\\\\\\\\\\n
VACUUM LIFTER DEGASSING
Sight port
•Vbcuum
—Vacuum
etiomber
Induction
stirring coil
Stoinlass ststl lodla
(Non-mag rx«hc)
VACUUM INDUCTION DEGAS StNQ
Argon
Alloy additions
VACUUM
CHAMBER
LADLE
Vacuum
VACUUM CIRCULATING -
FLOW DEGASSING
StMlmaking Furnact
Argon
Latfl*
ARGON DEGASSING
(Without vacuum)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
Own. 9/8/79
FIGURE m-2
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
Introduction
The Agency considered several factors in evaluating whether vacuum
degassing is an appropriate subcategory and whether it should be
further subdivided. The factors considered were: manufacturing
process and equipment; final product; raw materials; wastewater
characteristics; wastewater treatability; size; age; geographic
location; and, process water usage. The Agency found that none of
these factors have a significant effect upon further subdivision of
this subcategory. The following discussion addresses each of these
factors.
Factors Considered in Subcateqorization
Manufacturing Process and Equipment
The vacuum degassing operation is a unique process used to refine
molten steel to meet metallurgical requirements not attainable in the
steelmaking process. Its particular process characteristics
distinguish it from other steelmaking operations in that it is an
intermediate step between the tapping of the molten steels from basic
oxygen, open hearth or electric furnaces, and the final casting in
ingot molds or continuous casting machines. Even though there are
seven different types of vacuum degassing systems, the Agency
concluded that further subdivision based on the type of degassing
process used was not appropriate as the various methods have similar
process characteristics. Wastewaters result only when steam jet
ejectors are used to develop a vacuum.
Final Products
The vacuum degassing process produces a steel in molten form ready for
casting into steel ingots or into billets and blooms in a casting
machine. The quantity and quality of the wastewaters generated is
thus unrelated to the size, shape or form of the final product. As a
result, the Agency concluded that further subdivision on the basis of
final product is not appropriate.
Raw Materials
While raw materials have been a principal factor in defining the
cokemaking, ironmaking, and steelmaking industry segments, the basic
raw material is the same for vacuum degassers. Many different steel
compositions can be produced, but alloying is generally, accomplished
in the steel ladle after the degassing cycle.
305
-------
The DCP survey of all vacuum degassing plants indicates that only
seven of the thirty-four plants in the United States can be classified
as carbon steel producers. For purposes of effluent limitations
development, a specialty steel plant is defined as any plant which
produces less than 50% of its output as carbon steel, and a carbon
steel plant is any plant which produces 50% or more of its output as
carbon steel. The Agency's examination of wastewater flows (refer to
the Summary Tables in Section III) and the analytical data (Tables
VI1-2 and VI1-3) for carbon and specialty steel plants indicates no
significant variations in wastewater generation. Accordingly, the
Agency has concluded that raw materials do not significantly affect
wastewater quality or quantity and thus further subdivision of the
subcategory is not appropriate.
Wastewater Characteristics
All steam ejector vacuum degassing operations are generally similar
with the only difference being the size of the vacuum equipment
required. Equipment size in turn is dependent upon the size of the
vacuum chambers and the time required to deliver the required vacuum.
Although vacuum degassing wastewaters are distinguishable from those
of other steel industry subcategories, a review of the sampling data
indicates no discernible pattern or apparent division among the
various vacuum degassing plants. It is important to note that vacuum
degassing wastewater pollutants result from the gases and dusts
generated in the degassing of molten steel, thus indicating
similarities in process wastewater characteristics among the various
vacuum degassing processes. Any concentration and pollutant
variations were unrelated to the type of degassing method employed or
type of steel degassed.
Wastewater Treatabi1ity
Since vacuum degassing process wastewaters are basically similar,
there are no significant differences in wastewater treatability within
this subcategory. Therefore, the Agency concluded that no further
subdivision based on wastewater treatability is appropriate.
Size and Age
The Agency considered whether the size and age of vacuum degassing
operations are appropriate factors for subcategorization. The Agency
analyzed possible correlations relating the effects of age and size
upon such elements as wastewater flow, wastewater characteristics, and
the ability to retrofit treatment equipment to existing facilities.
The Agency found no relationships between size and age.
Also, the analysis failed to reveal any correlation between the size
of a degassing operation and process water usage or wastewater
characteristics. Figure IV-1 is a plot of plant effluent flow
(gallon/ton) versus size (in tons/day) for the vacuum degassing
subcategory. Also shown are model size and effluent flow. The size
of the degassing plant has no significant effect upon the ability to
recycle and subsequently attain a low effluent flow rate. A review of
analytical data for the sampled plants (presented in Section VII) also
306
-------
shows no relationship between size and the characteristics of the
wastewater generated. Thus, the Agency concludes that further
subdivision of the subcategory based upon the size of the degassing
plant is not appropriate.
The Agency also examined age as a possible basis for subdivision. The
concept of age for a degassing plant has little meaning, as the vacuum
degassing process is a relatively new development. According to the
DCP response data, the oldest degasser now in operation was installed
in 1956 while most were built in the 1960's. Hence, there is not much
variation in age among degassing plants. The Agency compared effluent
flow and age in a manner similar to that for size. Based upon Figure
IV-2 the Agency did not find any relationship between plant age and
flow. Thus, the Agency concluded that the age of a plant has no
significant effect upon the ability to recycle process wastewaters
and, thus, attain a low effluent flow.
Further analysis indicated that the age of a degassing plant does not
affect the quality or quantity of wastewaters generated. Among the
different vacuum degassing systems, older degassers were found to
generate the same kinds and amounts of wastewaters as newer ones.
Also, the treatability of these wastewaters is similar in all cases.
The problem of retrofitting pollution control equipment was also
addressed as part of the plant age analysis. Two older plants have
demonstrated the ability to retrofit equipment as shown in Table IV-1.
These examples serve to illustrate that pollution control equipment
can be installed on older plants. In addition, the cost of retrofit
was analyzed to determine whether older plants required additional
capital expenditures for the installation of new pollution control
equipment over that which is required for new plants. The D-DCPs
solicited specific retrofit cost information, and of the six plants
surveyed, only one responded that additional costs were incurred. The
exact nature of these costs were not detailed. The great majority of
plants surveyed indicated that no retrofit costs were incurred.
Hence, the Agency concludes that for the subcategory in general, there
is no significant difference in wastewater treatment costs for older
and newer plants.
Based upon the preceding discussion, neither the size of a degassing
plant nor its age were found to have any significant effect upon the
nature or treatment of the process wastewaters. Accordingly, the
Agency concluded that further subdivision based upon size and age is
not appropriate.
Geographic Location
The location of vacuum degassing facilities has no apparent effect for
purposes of subdivision. The Agency analyzed the relationship between
plant location and process water use and wastewater characteristics.
No discernible pattern was revealed. Although a small amount of water
will be consumed as a result of using cooling towers, this impact was
determined to be minimal. As a result, water consumption is not a
significant factor with respect to subdividing this subcategory.
Refer to Section VIII.
307
-------
process Water Usage
Process water usage was examined as a possible factor for subdivision.
However, based upon technical considerations, no further subdivision
is necessary. The data were compiled according to the t^Pe,
degasser used and the type of steel degassed. Although the delta
indicate that some minor differences in water usage may exist, the
Agency determined that with proper treatment, including recycle, all
plants can achieve similar wastewater discharge rates.
308
-------
TABLE IV-1
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED
THE ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
	VACUUM DEGASSING CATEGORY
Plant Code	Plant Age (Year)	Treatment Age (Year)
0088A	1963	1971
0496	1965	1971
309
-------
TABLE IV-2
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF VACUUM DEGASSING OPERATIONS
State	No. of Plants	% of Total
Pennsylvania	16	45.7
Ohio	5	14.3
Texas	4	11.4
Illinois	3	8.6
California	2	5.7
New York	2	5.7
Kentucky	1	2.9
Rhode Island	1	2:9
West Virginia	2.9
35	100
No. of States ¦ 9
310
-------
FIGURE IV-1
EFFLUENT FLOW vs PLANT SIZE (PRODUCTION CAPACITY)
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
480 n
420 -
360 -
g 300-1
ml
<
s
§ 240
Ul
UJ
z>
-1
u.
u.
Ul
180
120 *
60
UJ
N
«
Ul
o
o
UJ
2
UJ
cc
y-
a.
OD
X
X
BPT TREATMENT MOOEL EFFLUENT FLOW
1000

2000
T
3000	4000
PLANT SIZE (TONS/DAY)
311
5000
-------
FIGURE IV-2
EFFLUENT FLOW vs PLANT AGE
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
480i
420-
360 -
e
300-
<
2.
£
o
-i
240-
lil
3
-J
U_
Ll.
LU
180-
120
60 -
BPT TREATMENT MODEL JE^FLUENT FLOW X
X X
I
"iSTS
1986
I960
1964
1968
1972
PLANT AGE
312
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
This section describes the type of wastewaters originating from the
process and the wastewater treatment systems presently in use. The
description of the water systems is limited to those water systems
which come into contact with pollutants generated by the process and
excludes the various noncontact cooling water systems. Wastewater
characterization is based upon analytical data obtained during field
sampling surveys.
Water Use
During the process, vacuum degassing generates fumes and waste gases
as a result of the volatilization of impurities in the steel. The
hydrogen and nitrogen gases dissolved in the steel are drawn out by
the reduced pressures within the vacuum chamber. The oxygen reacts
with carbon in the steel and is also drawn out as a gas, again, in
response to the reduced pressures of the system. The wastewaters are
generated in the vacuum degassing process when steam jet ejector
exhaust steam is delivered to condensers where cooling waters condense
the steam. The cooling waters, now contaminated with pollutants
carried by the system exhaust, are then discharged into a sump (hot
well) through a barometric leg (stand-pipe).
Vacuum degassing systems typically contain the following water
systems:
1.	Barometric condenser cooling waters
2.	Flanges, and other miscellaneous equipment noncontact cooling
waters.
Only the barometric condenser cooling water system is addressed in
this section, as the other water system uses only noncontact cooling
waters.
The size of vacuum equipment required for the degassing operation is
determined by the vacuum chamber size and the time required to
generate the required vacuum. Typical specifications for the vacuum
equipment required to degas a 110 ton heat of steel are as follows:
(1) degassing time is generally 20 minutes and the time required to
pump down to vacuum is 30 seconds to 1 minute; (2) a steam ejector
system supplied with two barometric condensers, is rated at 850 lbs/hr
of air equivalent at 70°F and a pressure of 4mm Hg; (3) steam is
delivered to the system at 120 psig at a rate of 25,400 lbs/hr; (4)
thirty four hundred gallons per minute of cooling water, at a maximum
temperature of 105°F, is required to condense the steam at the
313
-------
intercondenser; and, (5) the vacuum degasser only operates for a
period of approximately 20 minutes per heat cycle.
Degassing is only performed when required by metallurgical
specifications. As the steam and water supply only operate during the
degassing cycle and the number of heats per day varies, applied and
discharge flow rates for the degassing subcategory are based upon
gallons per ton per heat. These values were obtained by dividing the
total flow during the degassing cycle by the tons of steel degassed.
Cooling towers are required on recycle water systems to reduce the
temperature of the water returned for cooling. As noted above, a
maximum temperature of 105°F is a typical limit for intercondenser
cooling waters.
Table V-l presents the recycle rates reported in the DCPs, for
degassing plants. Most degassing operation wastewater treatment
systems have recycle systems which employ cooling towers. A few have
large lagoons for cooling, while some use a combination of both
lagoons and cooling towers. As noted on this table, industry
responses to the DCPs demonstrate very high recycle rates and in
several instances, recycle rates of up to 100% are used. With one
exception, reported recycle rates equal or exceed 97%, averaging
98.8%.
Waste Characterization
Vacuum degassing process wastewaters contain suspended solids,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The gases emitted from the
molten steel come into contact with barometric condenser cooling water
during degassing and, as a result, these pollutants are transferred to
the water. The removal of the toxic metals from the steel is related
to the relative vapor pressures of the various steel bath
constituents.
The concentrations presented on Tables V-2 and V-3 provide a measure
of the pollutant loads contributed during each pass through the
process, thereby, indicating which pollutants are significant with
respect to vacuum degassing operations. These concentrations were
calculated by subtracting out all "background" pollutant
concentrations. The pollutants that are shown (other than the
pollutants previously limited) were based on their presence in the raw
wastewater at concentrations of 0.010 mg/1 or greater.
Table V-2 lists the pickup per pass concentrations of pollutants for
plants sampled during the original guidelines survey. As shown in
this table, a concentration for Plant E could not be calculated. The
make-up water flow to this system was not quantified and thus could
not be subtracted to determine pickup per pass concentrations. Table
V-3 lists concentrations for all of the plants sampled during the
toxic pollutant survey. Concentrations for Plant 065 could not be
calculated because of insufficient quality and quantity data for the
"background" waters.
314
-------
The Agency used these pickup per pass concentrations to determine the
pollutant loads contributed by the process. However, after reviewing
the net and gross concentration values of those pollutants considered
for limitation, it was determined that the effect of makeup waters on
these streams is insignificant. Accordingly, the Agency has concluded
that it is appropriate to propose limitations based upon gross
concentration values.
315
-------
TABLE V-l
RECYCLE RATES
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
Plant Reference Code	X Recycle
0020B
100
0060
0
0060D
81
0088A
98.6
02A8B
100
0496
100
0576A
0
0584?
98
0684E
98
0684E
99.6
0804A
0
0804B
97
0856F
0
0856R
0
0868B
98.8
316
-------
TABLE V-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
VACUUM DEGASSING
Pickup per Pass Concentrations of Pollutants in Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code
0868B
0020B
0856R
Plant Code
AD
E
G
Sample Points
(#6-#9)
#16
(#2-#3)
Flow (Gal/Ton)
195
953
436
Suspended Solids
34
+

pH
6.9
+
6.4
120 Copper
0.65
+
0
122 Lead
1.2
+
0
128 Zinc
7.1
+

(1) All values are expressed in mg/1 unless
otherwise noted.

+: Calculation cannot be evaluated.
Calculation yielded a negative result.
NOTE: Negative values (-) are counted as zero in calculating averages.
317
-------
TABLE V-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
	VACUUM DEGASSING	
Pickup per Pass Concentrations of Pollutants in Raw Wastewaters
(1)
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Points
Flow (Gal/Ton)
Suspended Solids
pH (Units)
66	Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
67	Butyl-benzyl
phthalate
68	Di-n-butyl phthalate
84 Pyrene
118	Cadmium
119	Chromium
120	Copper
122	Lead
124	Nickel
126	Silver
127	Thallium
128	Zinc
0496
062
(C-B)
146
13
8.6
0.057
0.043
0
0
0
0
0.35
0
2.0
0584F
065
234
0684F
068
(F-E)
682
4.5
8.0
*
0.013
0.031
*
0.019
0.010
0.21
0
~
NR
0.23
Average
354
8. 8
8.0-8.6
*
0.
035
0.022
0.016
*
0.010
~
0
+
*
0
1.1
28
(1) All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
* :	Net concentration is less than 0.010 mg/1.
- :	Calculation yielded negative result.
+ :	Calculation cannot be evaluated.
0 : Zero value (included in average).
NR: Not reported.
NOTE: Negative values (-) are counted as zero in calculating averages.
318
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VI
WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Introduction
This section discusses the Agency's selection of pollutants considered
for limitation, the rationale for selecting these pollutants, and the
process sources of these pollutants. The initial step in the
selection process involved the development of a list of pollutants
which the Agency considered to be representative of the vacuum
degassing process based upon data gathered during the original
guidelines survey and from the DCP responses. The Agency then
supplemented that list based upon analytical data gathered during the
toxic pollutant survey. In selecting the pollutants for which
limitations are being proposed, the Agency reviewed all analytical
data, considered the impact of each pollutant and assessed its ability
to serve as an "indicator" for other pollutants found in the
wastewaters.
Conventional Pollutants
Suspended solids and pH were limited in the 1974 BPT regulation. The
Agency selected suspended solids because of the particulates generated
by the process which subsequently contaminate the process wastewaters.
These gases subsequently come into contact with intercondenser cooling
waters, thus resulting in the transfer of these particulates to the
cooling waters. In addition, suspended solids provides an indication
of the degree of process wastewater contamination and of the extent of
wastewater treatment. Removal of the suspended solids will also
result in the removal of certain toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic
metals). Thus, the extent of wastewater pollution and the technology
required to treat the wastewaters may be ascertained.
Finally, the Agency selected pH, a measure of the acidity or
alkalinity of a wastewater, because of the environmentally detrimental
effects which can result from extremes in pH. In addition, extremes
in pH can cause problems, such as corrosion and scaling, with process
and wastewater treatment equipment and facilities. The Agency found
the pH of vacuum degassing process wastewaters to be typically in the
range of 6.0 to 9.0.
Toxic Pollutants
The Agency also is proposing limitations for toxic pollutants.
Initially, the Agency reviewed all pollutants which it believed were
in vacuum degassing wastewaters based upon industry responses to the
DCPs, analyses performed during the screening phase of the project,
and its knowledge of the characteristics of vacuum degassing
wastewaters. Table VI-1 presents a list of these pollutants.
319
-------
After completing the analytical efforts for vacuum degassing
operations, the Agency tabulated the data and calculated a net (pickup
per pass) concentration value for each pollutant detected in the raw
wastewaters at a concentration of 0.010 mg/1 or greater. The Agency
used net raw concentrations for the reasons noted in Section V. The
Agency excluded from further consideration for limitation those
pollutants which were not found at an average net raw concentration of
0.010 mg/1 or greater. The list of these pollutants, including the
conventional pollutants, is presented in Table VI-2.
The toxic metal pollutants are found in the process wastewaters as a
result of the removal of these metals from the molten steel during the
degassing process. These metals (oxides) are carried away in the
off-gases which subsequently mix with the intercondenser cooling
waters.
The selected list of pollutants, Table VI-2, does not include any of
the toxic organic pollutants although several meet the net raw
wastewater concentration considerations noted above. The Agency is
not proposing limitations for one class of toxic organic pollutants
(phthalates) because it believes that its appearance during the
sampling process resulted from sampling and laboratory procedures, not
because it is a pollutant whose source is in the vacuum degassing
process. The Agency is not proposing limitations for the remaining
toxic organic pollutant (pyrene) because treatment for this pollutant,
at the levels at which it is found, is generally unfeasible. In
addition, the Agency believes that these pollutants do not tend to
concentrate in recycle systems. Therefore, the discharge loadings of
these pollutants will be reduced proportionately to the degree of
recycle. The proposed limitations (refer to Sections IX and X) will
incorporate the pollutant load reductions attainable by the use of
recycle systems.
Other pollutants (i.e., chloride, sulfate) are present at substantial
levels in the process wastewaters, but are not included in the list of
selected pollutants since they are generally nontoxic and difficult to
remove. Treatment of these pollutants is not commonly practiced in
wastewater treatment operations in any industry.
320
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
VACUUM DEGASSING OPERATIONS
4.
Benzene
6.
Carbon Tetrachloride
23.
Chloroform
65.
Pheno1
66.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
64.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84.
Pyrene
85.
Te trachloroe thylene
86.
Toluene
114.
Antimony
115.
Arsenic
118.
Cadmium
119.
Chromium
120.
Copper
122.
Lead
124.
Nickel
125.
Selen ium
126.
Silver
127.
Thallium
128.
Zinc
321
-------
TABLE VI-2
SELECTED POLLUTANTS
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
Suspended Solids
pH
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
322
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
A review of the control and treatment technologies currently in use or
available for use in the vacuum degassing subcategory provided the
basis for selecting and developing the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS, and PSES
model treatment systems. For this purpose, questionnaire and plant
visit data were summarized to identify those treatment components and
systems in use. Capabilities, either demonstrated in this or in other
operations (refer to Volume I) or based upon engineering
considerations, were used in evaluating the various treatment
technologies. These considerations were then used to determine which
treatment components are most appropriate for the various treatment
levels. This section presents a summary of the treatment practices
currently in use or available for use in the treatment of vacuum
degassing process wastewaters.
This section also presents the raw wastewater and treated effluent
analytical data for the plants sampled and the effluent analytical
data provided in the D-DCPs. Also included are descriptions of the
treatment systems at each sampled plant.
Summary of Treatment Practices Currently Employed
A survey of treatment components used in the vacuum degassing
subcategory indicates that all plants, for which DCP responses were
provided, include gravity sedimentation (as a primary step in many
instances). Most plants also recycle their wastewaters, typically
after passing them through a cooling tower, lagoon, or cooling tower
and lagoon combination. Most plants also treat the process
wastewaters further in central (i.e., multi-waste source or
multi-operational waste source) treatment facilities which provide
additional treatment using either filters or clarifiers in conjunction
with lime or polymer flocculation.
Referring to Table III-2, the Agency has found that the following
treatment technologies are in use at most plants for which DCP
responses were provided.
A.	Scale pit, hot well or similar sedimentation device-
Intended to provide primary sedimentation of the raw process
wastewaters.
B.	Cooling towers-
Permit the recycle of process wastewaters by reducing the
wastewater heat load.
323
-------
C. Recycle-
Nearly all (>98%) of the cooling tower effluent is returned to
the process.
The Agency has included the above components in the BPT model
treatment system based upon their widespread use in the treatment of
vacuum degassing process wastewaters.
Control and Treatment
Technologies for BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
Because of the presence of toxic inorganic pollutants in vacuum
degassing wastewaters, the Agency considered advanced treatment
systems to serve as model technologies for BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
A brief discussion of each of the technologies considered by the
Agency is presented below.
Filtration technology is a common and effective means of removing
suspended solids, and those pollutants (particularly the toxic metals)
entrained in these solids, from process wastewaters. Twenty-five
percent of the vacuum degassing plants for which treatment system data
were provided, use filters in the treatment of process wastewaters.
Generally, the filter bed is comprised of one or more filter media
(such as sand, anthracite, garnet) although a variety of filtration
systems are available (flat bed, deep bed, cloth belt, pressure, or
gravity). Filtration is incorporated as a treatment technology for
vacuum degassing operations primarily to reduce the discharge of toxic
metals.
Systems using a sulfide compound addition to the wastewater stream
have been shown to be capable of reducing effluent dissolved metals
concentrations below the levels achieved in lime precipitation
reactions. Some of the toxic metals which can effectively be
precipitated with sulfide are zinc, copper, nickel, lead, and silver.
The increased removal efficiencies are attributable to the comparative
solubilities of metal sulfides and metal hydroxides. In general, the
metal sulfides are less soluble than the respective metal hydroxides.
However, it is important to note that an excess of sulfide in a
treated effluent can result in objectionable odor problems. A
decrease in wastewater pH will aggravate this problem, and if
wastewater treatement pH control problems result in even a slightly
acidic pH, operating personnel can be adversely affected. One method
of controlling the presence of excess sulfide in the treated effluent
involves the feeding of an iron sulfide slurry. Ferrous sulfide will
not readily dissociate in the waste stream, with the result that the
free sulfide level is kept well below objectionable limits. However,
the affinities of the other metals in the waste stream for sulfide are
greater than that of iron. Hence, the other metal sulfide
precipitates are formed preferentially to iron sulfide. Once the
sulfide requirements of the other metal precipitates are satisfied,
the remaining sulfide remains as a ferrous precipitate and the excess
iron from the sulfide is precipitated as a hydroxide. By using
filtration following sulfide addition, insurance can be provided that
324
-------
the treatment system achieves the optimum reductions in toxic metal
pollutants.
The Agency considered vapor compression distillation as a possible
means of attaining zero discharge of wastewaters in the vacuum
degassing subcategory. The resulting slurry would be dried by various
means, while the distillate quality effluent would be recycled to the
process. However, the Agency rejected using this technology as a
model treatment system since this technology would consume from 50 to
over 100 times more energy than the other BAT alternatives considered.
Summary of Analytical Data
Raw wastewater and effluent analytical data for the vacuum degassing
operations visited during the original and toxic pollutant surveys are
presented in Tables VI1-2 and VI1-3. Plant AC, which was sampled
during the original survey, was resampled as Plant 065 during the
toxic pollutant survey. Table VII-1 provides a legend for the various
control and treatment technology abbreviations used in the above
tables and in other tables throughout this report.
The concentrations presented in the above tables represent, except
where footnoted, averages of measured values. In some cases, these
data represent the values of central treatment systems. The effluent
waste loads (lb/1000 lb) for central treatment systems represent
apportioned loads. In these central treatment systems, the percentage
contribution of an individual operation to the total treatment system
influent load was determined and subsequently applied to the total
effluent load. By using this procedure, the Agency assessed the
effects of treatment on the waste loads of an individual process which
discharges to a central treatment facility.
As a supplement to the sampled plant analytical data, effluent data
from plant D-DCP responses are presented in Table VII- 4. Table VI1-5
summarizes the typical vacuum degassing process wastewater
characteristics determined from the sampled plant analytical data.
Plant Visits
Treatment facilities for the visited plants are described below.
Reference is made to the respective treatment flow schematics which
are presented at the end of this section.
Plant AD (Figure VII-1)
The vacuum degasser at this plant uses a combined treatment system in
conjunction with a continuous caster. The treatment system consists
of a scale pit, high flow pressure filters, a cooling tower, and a
recycle system. The blowdown from this system is less than 1%.
Plant 062 (Figure VII-2)
This plant uses a combined treatment system for its vacuum degasser
and continuous caster wastewaters. Vacuum degasser wastewaters are
discharged to a hot well from which a sidestream is treated through a
325
-------
cloth belt filter. The filter effluent and the remaining degassTer
wastewaters are then discharged to a main hot well. From the hot
well, the combined degasser and caster wastewaters are treated through
a scale pit, sand filters and cooling tower. A recycle is taken from
the cooling tower back to the degasser. This system reports an
overall zero discharge. All of its wastewaters are recirculated
through a twenty million gallon reservoir.
Plant 065 (Figure VI1-3)
Vacuum degasser wastewaters are discharged to a hot well and
recirculated through a cooling tower back to the process.
Plant E (Figure VII-4)
The treatment system for this plant is identical to the system for
Plant 065. Degasser wastewaters are completely recirculated from a
hot well, through a cooling tower, and back to the process.
Plant G (Figure VII-5)
Degasser wastewaters empty into a hot well and are then discharged to
a receiving stream. This system operates on a once-through basis.
Plant 068 (Figure VII-6)
Vacuum degasser wastewaters discharge to a hot well and are then
treated in a central treatment facility. Central treatment includes
deep bed filters and clarifiers. A recycle is taken from the central
treatment facility to vacuum degassing and other plant operations.
326
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
Symbols
Operating Modes
1.	OT	Once-Through
2.	Rt,s,n	Recycle, where C ¦ type waste
s ¦ stream recycled
n ¦ I recycled
t: U ¦ Untreated
T ¦ Treated
a		n
p
Process Wastewater
Z
of
raw waste
flow
F
Flume Only
X
of
raw waste
flow
S
Flume and Sprays
Z of
raw waste
flow
FC
Final Cooler
Z
of
FC flow

BC
Barometric Cond.
Z
of
BC flow

VS
Abs. Vent Scrub.
Z
of
VS flow

FH
Fume Hood Scrub.
z
of
FH flow

Reuse, where t " type
n ¦ Z of raw waste flow
ts U " before treatment
T ¦ after treatment
Blowdown, where n " discharge as Z of
raw waste flow
Control Technology
10.
DI
Deionization
11.
SR
Spray/Fog Rinse
12.
CC
Countercurrent Rinse
13.
DR
Drag-out Recovery
Disposal Methods
20.	H	Haul Off-Site
21.	DW	Deep Well Injection
3. REt,n
4. BDn
327
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 2 		
C.	Disposal Methods (cont.)
22.	Qt,d	Coke Quenching, where t ¦ type
d ~ discharge as Z
of makeup
t: DW ¦ Dirty Water
CW ¦ Clean Water
23.	EME	Evaporation, Multiple Effect
24.	ES	Evaporation on Slag
25.	EVC	Evaporation, Vapor Compression Distillation
D.	Treatment Technology
30.
SC
Segregated Collection
31.
E
Equalization/Blending
32.
Scr
Screening
33.
OB
Oil Collecting Baffle
34.
SS
Surface Skimming (oil, etc.)
35.
PSP
Primary Scale Pit
36.
SSP
Secondary Scale Pit
37.
EB
Emulsion Breaking
38.
A
Acidification
39.
AO
Air Oxidation
40.
GF
Gas Flotation
41.
M
Mixing
42.
Nt
Neutralization, where t ¦ type
t: L ¦ Lime
C ¦ Caustic
A ¦ Acid
W " Wastes
0 ¦ Other, footnote
328
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 3
Treatment Technology (cont.)
A3. FLt	Flocculation, where t ¦ type
t: L ¦ Lime
A ¦ Alum
P " Polymer
M " Magnetic
0 ¦ Other, footnote
44.	CY	Cyclone/Centrifuge/Classifier
44a. DT Drag Tank
45.	CL	Clarifier
46.	T	Thickener
47.	TP	Tube/Plate Settler
48.	SLn	Settling Lagoon, where n ¦ days of retention
time
49.	BL	Bottom Liner
50.	VF	Vacuum Filtration (of e.g., CL, T, or TP
underflows)
51.	Ft,m,h	Filtration, where t ¦ type
m ¦ media
h ¦ head
	t	m	h	
D - Deep Bed	S ¦ Sand	G ¦ Gravity
F - Flat Bed	0 ¦ Other, P ¦ Pressure
footnote
52.	CLt	Chlorination, where t - type
t: A - Alkaline
B ¦ Breakpoint
53.	CO	Chemical Oxidation (other than CLA or CLB)
329
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MOEES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 4	
D.	Treataent Technology (cont.)
54. BOt	Biological Oxidation, where t • type
t: An - Activated
n ¦ No. of Stages
T - Trickling Filter
B ¦ Biodisc
0 ¦ Other, footnote
35. CR	Chemical Seduction (e.g., chromium)
56.	DP	Dephenolizer
57.	ASt	Ammonia Stripping, where t • type
ti F - Free
L ¦ Lime
C ¦ Caustic
58.	APt	Ansnonia Product, where t ¦ type
ti S - Sulfate
N » Nitric Acid
A " Anhydrous
P ¦ Phosphate
H ¦ Hydroxide
0 ¦ Other, footnote
59.	DSt	Desulfurization, where t ¦ type
ti Q - Qualifying
N " Nonqualifying
60.	CT	Cooling Tower
61.	AR	Acid Regeneration
62.	AU	Acid Recovery and Reuse
63.	ACt	Activated Carbon, where t ¦ type
tJ P " Powdered
G ¦ Granular
64.	IX	Ion Exchange
65.	R0	Reverse Osroais
66.	D	Distillation
330
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 5 	 	
D.	Treatment Technology (cont.)
67.	AA1	Activated Alumina
68.	OZ	Ozonation
69.	UV	Ultraviolet Radiation
70.	CNTt,n	Central Treatment, where t ¦ type
n " process flow as
Z of total flow
t: Is Same Subcats.
2	* Similar Subcats.
3	¦ Synergistic Subcats.
4	¦ Cooling Water
5	¦ Incompatible Subcats.
71.	On	Other, where n ¦ Footnote number
72.	SB	Settling Basin
73.	AE	Aeration
74.	PS	Precipitation with Sulfide
331
-------
TABLE VII-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
VACUUM DEGASSING
Ul
U)
JO
Raw Wastewaters









Reference Code

0868B

0020B

0856R



Plant
Code

AD

E

G



Smpling Point(s)

#6

#16

#2


Average
Flow,
(Gal/Ton)

195

953

436


528


ng/1
lbs/1000 lbs
jng/1
lbs/1000 lbs
JK/1
lbs/1000
lbs
ag/1
lbs/lOOC

Suspended Solids
56
0.046
206
0.82
14
0.0026

92
0.29

pH (Units)
6.9


6.5
6.4


6.
4-6.9
119
Chronim
NA
NA
0.01
Neg.
0.01
Neg.

0.01
Neg.
120
Copper
0.9
0.00074
0.08
0.00032
0.01
Neg.

0.33
0.00036
122
Lead
1.5
0.0012
0.03
0.00012
0.03
Neg.

0.52
0.00046
124
Nickel
NA
NA
0.45
0.0018
0.01
Neg.

0.23
0.00091
128
Zinc
8.7
0.0071
0.37
0.0015
0.01
Neg.

3.0
0.0029
Treated Effluent









Reference Code

0868B

0020B

0856R



Plant Code

AD

E

G



Sapling Point(s)

#9

#16

#2



Flow (Gal/Ton)

2.3

0

436



C&TT

PSP,FD(UNK)PaRTP98.8

CT, RUP100

0T





-8A
lbs/1000 lbs
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
¦g/1
lbs/1000
lbs



Suspended Solids
22
0.00021
206
0
14
0.0026




pH (Units)
6.8


6.5
6.4




119
Chroaiua
NA
NA
0.01
0
0.01
Neg.



120
Copper
0.25
Neg.
0.08
0
0.01
Neg.



122
Lerfd
0.32
Neg.
0.03
0
0.03
Neg.



124
Nickel
1.6
Heg.
0.45
0
0.01
Neg.



128
Zinc
HA
NA
0.37
0
0.01
Neg.



HA i Mot analysed.
¦eg.I Value for lbs/1000 lbs is ltii than 0.0001.
ROTE: For the definition of C&TT codes, see Table ¥11-1.
-------
TABLE VII-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
	VACUUM DEGASSING 	
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sampling Point(s)
Flow, (Gal/Too)
mg/1
0496
062
C
146
0584F
065
H
234
0684H
068
F
682
Average
354
OveralL .
Average
441
lbs/1000 lbs mg/1	lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs
U>
OJ
U>
Suspended Solids
30
0.018
29
0.029
12
0.034
24 0.027
58
0.16
pH (Units)
7.8-9.
1
4.5
-5.7
00
?
00
.2
4.5-9.1
4.
5-9.1
119 Chromium
0.033
Neg.
3.0
0.029
0.025
Neg.
1.0 0.0097
0.51
0.0049
120 Copper
0.133
Neg.
0.443
0.00044
0.020
Neg.
0.20 0.00019
0.27
0.00028
122 Lead
0.47
0.00029
3.2
0.0031
0.24
0.00069
1.30 0.0014
0.91
0.00093
124 Hickel
0.023
Neg.
0.5
0.00049
*
*
0.26 0.00025
0.24
0.00058
128 Zinc
2.5
0.0015
24
0.024
0.26
0.00074
8.9 0.0087
6.0
0.0058
Treated Effluent









Reference Code

0496

0584F
0684H



Plant Code

062

065

068



Sampling Point(s)

E

H

F



Flow, (Gal/Too)

0

0

682





PSP







C&TT
CT,FD6(UMK),RET100

CT.RUP100

CT




asa
lba/1000 lbs
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
-sn
lbs/1000 lbs



Suspended Solids
16
(2)
29
0
12
0.034



pH (Units)
7.6-8
.1
4.5
-5.7
00
A
00
.2



119 Chromium
0.026
(2)
3.0
0
0.025
Neg.



120 Copper
0.207
(2)
0.443
0
0.020
Neg.



122 Lead
0.060
(2)
3.2
0
0.24
0.00069



124 Nickel
<0.010
(2)
0.5
0
*
*



128 Zinc
0.333
(2)
24
0
0.26
0.00074



(1)	Average of all values on Tables VII-2 and VII-3.
(2)	Mo wastewaters are discharged to a receiving stream for all plant wastewaters are combined and recycled.
Neg.: Value for lba/1000 lbs is leas than 0.0001.
NOTE: For the definition of C&TT codes, see Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VI1-4
ANALYSIS OF D-DCP DATA
VACUUM DEGASSING


Plant
0584F


Plant
0684E


No. of



No. of



Parameter
Analyses
Avg.
Max.
Std. Dev.
Analyses
Avg.
Max.
Std. Dev
Suspended Solids
(mg/1) 3
29
44
13
11
45
96
22.4
pH (Units)
3
4.9
5.7
—
11
8.4
8.5
-
122 Lead (mg/1)
3
2.8
3.7
0.5
3
0.653
0.400
0.234
128 Zinc (mg/1)
3
24
28
5
3
1.39
1.84
0.51
oj
CO
-------
TABLE VII-5
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
VACUUM DEGASSING	
Pollutant Parameters	Raw Waste Concentration (mg/1)

Suspended Solids
80

pH (Units)
6-9
119
Chromium
1.0
120
Copper
0.20
122
Lead
5.0
124
Nickel
0.030
128
Zinc
5.0
335
-------
PROCESS : VACUUM DEGASSING < CONTINUOUS
CASTING)
CASTER
SPRAYS
372.3 4/SEC -
(5900 GPM)
DURINC, CAST
|— 190 6 4/SEC
13010 GPM|
DuRiNG CAST
«	
ROLLS.
TABLES.
<
MISC.
STRAINERS
PLANT AD(DEGAS) ( AF (COMCAST)
PRODUCTION. 999 7(D£GAS) ( 14£J 2(CONCAST) METRIC
TONS STEEL PER DAY
IIOO(DEGAS) ^ l&OO(CONCAST) TONS
STEEL PER DAY
-i8i. 7 113 6^/SEC
(I6O0 $PM) EACH
'.8//SEC
(280 6PMJ
ID OUTFALL
	337. 6 jf/SEC
(S3SO GPM)
(2) COMPARTMENT SCALE PIT
54' LGTH * 29'WD X 10-6* AVC|. DEPTH
4S4. 200 LITERS
(IJO. OOO GAL )
tO MIN. DETENTION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSEP CONT CASTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RD4*&?&
FIGURE 3ZIL-1
-------
PROCE SS= VACUUIA bl^ASSMC, ( COHTMuOllS CASTING
PLANT: 06Z i, 072
PRODUCTION:
VACUUKA 3>£0ASSlMC -7 79 METRIC TONS STE EL/DAY
(653 TOMS STEEL/DAY)
CONTINUOUS CASTING - 8S3 METRIC TONS STEEl/DAY
(940 TOUS STEEL/PAY 1
303 £/sec.
(4BOO L> «*)
VACUUM
75 V/SEC
(IWOG.PU)
II i/stc
(1440 tfiM.)
B£LT
PlLTgR
CONCASTER MOLD
WATER
TOWER
(150,000 6ALJ
COOLING
(NON-CONTACT)
DEGAS SER
t
HOT WELL
7t> J/iEC.
(I200&m)
«ao.9 x stc.
fl4AO 6PmH
OVERFLOW
COOLIN6
TOWER
SLOWDOWN
90.9 .(sec
5 i/btc
(8Q&PM.)
74..5 i/set.
y^lBO &p»a)
FURNACES^
CONCASTER SPRAr
NON-COMTACT
TOWER
(150,0006*2
SLAB COOLING
COOLING KATIR
(CONTACT)
OVERFLOW
78.44/sec.
0560 G.RM)
587i/sec
(-BOO fi.fiM.)
£
3T» i/«C.
<4000G.RM.">
COOL IMG
SAND
FILTERS
&. 3 Xt%t(..UOO ar.M
3 Has. - OAV
30 i/SEC.
(480 G RM.1)
164 iih EC:
!2iM G Fhtl
LOW DOWN
MAKEUP
WATER
BACKWASH
A
MAIN
PRIMARY
SCALE
PIT
MAIN
RESERVOIR
ioiJ/sec.
(I640GRM)
Z£8 i/sec
(4000G. RM)
HOT
WELL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
32 Msec
(50O 6 RM)
[20,000,0k) am
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
l/sec.
{flO G.f»M)
-EXCESS WATER
TO RESERVOIR
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING-CONTINUOUS CASTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
/V SAMPLING POINT 3WN. 2-14-78
10L-2
-------
PROCESS: VACUUM DEGASSING
PLANT: Ob5
Production: 3l-io metric ton steel/day
4344- TONS STEEL/DAY)
TO OTHEk
BOF SHOP
UbEb
-NON-CON JACy
COOL INQ
SO.5 i-/SEC.(1>
(8 OO 6PMJ
7I3L/SEC.
(1130O Ca PM)—^
258l/S6C.O)
(401^ GpM)
18. Z *-/SEC.
. (Z 88EVAP. LOSS
?(Z3	LOSS
FROM OTHER BOP
SHOP USES
HOT WELL
MAKEUP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASENCY
steel industry study
VACUUM DE6A SSING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
water Flow diaqraiw
NOTE <1> DESIGN FLOW DATA
SAMPLING POINT
FIGURE 3ZE-3
VACUUM
DE<5ASS
-------
u>
U1
IX)
PROCESS'VACUUM 0E6ASSINS
PLANT: E
EJECTOR
PRODUCTION1 1923 metric torn steel/day
(212 tons steel/day)
Steam
Process
EVAPORATION
COOLING
TOWER
25S.6 l/MC.
(4050 gpm)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUOY
VACUUM DEGASSING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
Dun. 2/1V 79
FIGURE VTT-4
VACUUM
DEGASSING
BAROMETRIC
CONDENSER
-------
PROCESS1 Vacuum Degassing
PLANT: G
PRODUCTION;349.2 metric tons steel/day
(385 Ions steel/day)
EJECTOR
Steam —
Process
River,
Water
-ziv-
OJ
o
VACUUM
DEGASSING
BAROMETRIC
CONDENSER
C >-
-92.1 l/sec.
(1460 gpm)
A
HOT WELL
To river
/\ Sampling point
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn. 2/14/79


FIGURE 3ZH-5



-------
Ul >
Si
:§
® •>
4	*"
a
wj» a
u<«»»
uiu &
<*UJ <
Ul
l_
r^O .
'UU r
«f* <
_»< Ml
I*1
ijl
oxO
O g ft.
3§ 3
uu z
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Introduction
This section presents the estimated costs to be incurred in the
application of the alternative treatment systems for the vacuum
degassing subcategory. The analysis also considers the energy
requirements, the nonwater quality impacts, and the techniques,
magnitude, and costs associated with the application of the
alternative treatment systems. In addition, this section addresses
the wastes generation rates, the BCT cost comparison, and the
consumptive use of water for the alternative systems.
Actual Costs Incurred by the Plants
Sampled or Solicited for this Study
The water pollution control costs supplied by the industry for vacuum
degassing operations sampled during this study or responding to the
D-DCPs, are presented in Table VIII-1. These costs have been updated,
from the then current year cost data to July 1, 1978 dollars. In
several instances, the costs reported by the industry represented
total expenditures for central treatment systems. Where possible,
these costs were apportioned to vacuum degassing wastewaters, however,
this could not be done in all cases.
The Agency compared the capital cost data reported by the industry
with the estimated costs presented herein. The Agency made this
comparison to insure that its cost estimates for the treatment models
are sufficient to cover site-specific, retrofit, and other incidental
costs associated with the systems. A summary of costs reported by the
industry (refer to Table VIII-1) and the estimated model expenditures
(as factored on the basis of production from the model costs) follows:
Plant No. Actual Costs Estimated Costs
0088A	$ 367,900	$ 411,000
0584F	• 879,000	2,827,000
0684E	1,711,800	1,790,000
0856F	109,800	113,000
0868B	324.200	1.306.000
TOTAL	$3,392,700	$6,447,000
In all instances, the Agency's estimated costs are greater than the
actual costs reported by industry. The most noteworthy comparison,
however, is the comparison of total costs, as this reflects upon the
applicability of the cost of compliance for the entire subcategory.
As the actual costs are significantly less than the estimated costs,
the Agency concludes that the estimated costs are sufficiently
343
-------
generous to cover the various site-specific and other incidental
costs. In fact, the above data indicate the Agency may be
significantly overstating costs for this subcategory. The cost
estimate review in Volume I provides further verification of the
appropriateness of the treatment model costs.
Control and Treatment Technologies (C&TT)
Recommended for Use in the Vacuum Degassing Subcategory
A summary of the wastewater treatment components considered for
development of BPT and BAT effluent limitations is presented in Table
VIII-2. It should be noted that the proposed limitations will not
require the installation of these components, as any treatment system
or operating practice which achieves the proposed effluent limitations
is adequate. The following items are described in Table VIII-2.
1.	Status and reliability
2.	Problems and limitations
3.	Implementation time
4.	Land requirements
5.	Environmental impacts other than water
6.	Solid waste generation
Cost, Energy, and Nonwater Qualitv Impacts
General Introduction
The installation of BPT model and BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
alternative wastewater treatment systems will require additional
funding (both investment and operating) and energy requirements.
Costs and energy requirements were estimated on the basis of the
alternative treatment systems developed in Sections IX through XIII of
this report and are presented in the tables and text of this section.
This section also presents the air pollution, water consumption, and
solid waste disposal requirements which may result from compliance
with the proposed limitations.
Estimated Costs for the Installation
of Pollution Control Technologies
A. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BPT Limitations
As a first step in estimating the cost of complying with the
proposed limitations, the Agency developed a treatment model upon
which cost estimates could be based. The model size (tons/day)
was based upon the average production capacity for all vacuum
degassing operations. The treatment model applied flow was also
based on the average of existing plants. The components and
effluent flow discusssed in Sections IX and X were incorporated
to complete the development of the treatment model. The Agency
then developed the unit costs for each treatment model component.
Table VII1-3 presents the estimated capital and annual costs for
the BPT model treatment system. The Agency determined the
capital requirements needed to achieve the proposed BPT
limitations by applying the treatment component model costs,
344
-------
adjusted for size, to each vacuum degassing operation. For
costing purposes, the Agency assumed that all vacuum degassing
operations generate process wastewaters. To assess the cost of
the proposed limitations upon the industry, the Agency estimated
the expenditures which will be required to bring vacuum degassing
operations from current (January 1, 1978) treatment levels to the
BPT model treatment level. Table VIII-4 summarizes the estimated
in-place and required expenditures for each vacuum degassing
operation. The estimated capital requirement of the proposed BPT
limitations for this subcategory is 20.4 million dollars, while
the associated estimated annual cost is 7.65 million dollars.
B. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BAT Limitations .
The Agency considered two alternative treatment systems for
vacuum degassing operations. The rationale for selecting, and
additional details regarding these alternatives, are discussed in
Section X. The additional investment and annual expenditures
involved in applying each of the BAT treatment alternatives to
the BPT model treatment system are presented in Table VII1-5.
The Agency determined the additional capital and annual costs for
the subcategory by multiplying the unit costs for each component
by the number of vacuum degassing operations requiring each
component. The estimated investment and annual costs for each
treatment alternative for the vacuum degassing subcategory
follow.
BAT	Investment Costs	Annual
Alternative In-Place Required Costs
No.1	$64,000 $1,024,000 $200,600
No.2	$64,000 $2,180,000 $431,800
C. BCT Cost Comparison
As shown in Table VIII-6, the BCT treatment system fails the BCT
cost test. Refer to Section XI for a review of the applicability
of the BCT cost test to this treatment model.
D. NSPS Costs
The Agency developed two alternative treatment systems for those
new vacuum degassing facilities constructed after the proposal of
the New Source Performance Standards. The NSPS alternative
treatment systems are the same as the BAT alternative treatment
systems. The NSPS treatment model costs are presented in Table
VII1-7.
E. Pretreatment Costs
Pretreatment standards apply to those plants which continue or
elect to discharge their wastewaters to POTW systems. The model
pretreatment system is the same as the BPT/BAT Alternative No.1
treatment system. The pretreatment system provides for reduction
in effluent flow and the removal of toxic metals. Refer to
345
-------
Section XIII for additional information pertaining to
pretreatment standards. The model costs for the pretreatment
system are the same as the costs for the NSPS No.l system (refer
to Table VIII-7).
Energy Impacts
Moderate amounts of energy will be required by the alternative
treatment systems for the vacuum degassing subcategory. The major
energy expenditures for the subcategory will be required for the BPT
model treatment system, while the BAT treatment alternatives require
relatively minor additional energy expenditures. This relationship
reflects the incorporation of recycle and cooling tower technology
(the primary energy consumers) at BPT. Energy requirements at NSPS
and pretreatment will be similar to the total corresponding BPT/BAT
systems.
A. Energy Impacts at BPT
The estimated energy requirement for the proposed BPT limitations
is based upon the assumption that all vacuum degassing operations
will install treatment systems similar to that of the treatment
model with flows similar to that of the model. On this basis,
the energy use for the BPT model treatment system for all vacuum
degassing operations will be 35.5 million kilowatt hours of
electricity per annum. This estimate represents 0.06% of the 57
billion kilowatt hours of electricity used by the steel industry
in 1978.
B. Energy Impacts at BAT
The estimated energy requirements for the proposed BAT
limitations are based on the same assumptions noted above for
BPT. The estimated energy requirements, and their relationship
to the 1978 industry power use, needed to upgrade from BPT to the
two BAT treatment levels follow:
BAT	kwh per	% of Industry
Alternative	Year	Usage
No.l	272,000	0.0005
No.2	952,000	0.002
These requirements are justified in relation to total industry
use. In addition, the Agency concludes that the benefits of
pollution control justify the minor impacts associated with
energy consumption.
C. Energy Impacts for NSPS and Pretreatment
The energy requirements for the NSPS, PSNS, and PSES alternative
treatment systems follow:
346
-------
Model
kwh per Year
NSPS-1
NSPS-2
PSNS, PSES
1.05 million
1.07 mill ion
1.05 million
The Agency did not estimate total impacts for NSPS and PSNS
treatment systems since projections of future additions in this
subcategory have not been made as part of this study. The PSES
energy consumption is included in the BPT and BAT totals.
Nonwater Quality Impacts
In general, the Agency believes that the nonwater quality impacts
associated with the proposed limitations are minimal. The three
impacts which the Agency evaluated were air pollution, solid waste
disposal, and water consumption.
A.	Air Pollution
The use of cooling towers in the BPT model treatment system will
result in the generation of water vapor plumes. However, these
plumes should not contain any significant levels of particulates
or volatile organics. As the Agency does not expect any other
air pollution impacts to occur as a result of compliance with the
proposed BPT limitations, it does not expect any significant air
pollution impacts to occur.
Sulfide addition is incorporated in the BAT Alternative No.2
treatment system. In the event of treatment process control
upsets, the atmospheric discharge of sulfides could occur.
However, as vacuum degassing wastewaters are not typically acidic
the possibility of atmospheric sulfide discharges, which are
aggravated at an acidic pH, would be reduced. Also, atmospheric
sulfide discharges could be reduced by using a ferrous sulfide
slurry as the sulfide source for toxic metals precipitation.
However, as the Agency has selected BAT Alternative No.l as the
proposed BAT model treatment system (refer to Section X). The
Agency believes that compliance with the proposed BAT limitations
will have no adverse impact with respect to air pollution.
B.	Solid Waste Disposal
The treatment steps incorporated in the BPT model and BAT
alternative treatment systems will generate moderate quantities
of solid wastes, consisting of the solids removed from the
process. A summary of the solid waste generation rates for all
vacuum degassing operations for the BPT and BAT alternative
treatment systems follows.
347
-------
Treatment	Solid Waste Generation for the
Level	Subcategory (Tons/Year)
BPT System	2610
BAT No.1	54• 4
BAT No.2	61.1
As shown above, a moderate amount of solid wastes is generated by
the BPT model treatment system, while the BAT alternative
treatment systems generate minor incremental amounts of solid
wastes. These solids, which are comprised principally of metal
oxides (primarily iron), will require proper disposal.
The estimated amounts of solid wastes generated by the model
NSPS, PSNS, and PSES systems follow.
Treatment	Solid Waste Generation for the
Level	Treatment Model (Tons/Year)
NSPS-l	78
NSPS-2	78
PSES, PSNS	78
As noted previously in this section, the NSPS, PSNS, and PSES
alternative treatment systems are the same as the BPT/BAT
treatment systems. The solid wastes generated at the NSPS, PSNS,
and PSES levels are of the same nature and present the same
disposal requirements as those for BPT and BAT.
C. Water Consumption
In the vacuum degassing subcategory, cooling towers are
components of the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS, and PSES alternative
treatment systems. Cooling towers, which are used to reduce
system heat loads and thus permit higher recycle rates, result in
some degree of water consumption as a consequence of evaporation.
Because the Agency previously received comments that the water
consumed by evaporation in these cooling devices may result in
adverse environmental impacts for plants in arid or semi-arid
areas, the Agency analyzed the degree of water consumption. As
discussed below in greater detail, the Agency found the water
loss to be minimal. Since this degree of consumption is minimal,
plants in all geographic regions could install these cooling
devices if needed to achieve the proposed effluent limitations
and standards. High recycle rates in arid or semi-arid regions
will also serve to minimize surface and subsurface water
withdrawals.
The analysis of this issue detailed the type of cooling devices
in use at vacuum degassing operations and the evaporation rates
for the devices in use, and quantified the volume of water which
would be consumed in achieving the proposed BPT and BAT
limitations. The Agency estimates that the total raw waste flow
for vacuum degassing operations is 57.1 MGD, of which 0.83 MGD is
presently consumed in existing cooling devices. In order to
348
-------
achieve the proposed BPT and BAT effluent limitations, the
additional water consumption for the subcategory would amount to
0.13 MGD or 0.23% of the total volume applied. The impact of the
consumptive use of water is minimal, especially since these
cooling devices allow higher recycle rates, thus significantly
reducing the volumes of water used in and discharged from the
process. It should also be noted that water condensed from the
steam used in the degassing process will replace at least a
portion of the wat;er consumed in the treatment process.
Summary of Impacts
In summary, the Agency concludes that the pollutant load reduction
benefits described below for the vacuum degassing subcategory justify
any adverse energy and nonwater quality environmental impacts.
Effluent Loads (Tons/Year)
Raw Waste Proposed BPT Proposed BAT
Flow, MGD
TSS
Toxic Metals
57
6950
976
1
78
1 .8
1
23
0.7
349
-------
TABLE VIII-1
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
VACUUM DEGASSING
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 Dollars)
Plant Code
Reference Code
AC
0584F
AD
0868B
0088A
0684E
0856F
CO
U1
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Oper. & Maint.
Energy & Power
Chemical Costs
Other (Sludge, etc.)
TOTAL
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal.
Treated
Original
Survey
$879,002
37,797*1*
87,900
67,156
Incl. Above
$192,853
0.081
0.092
Original
Survey
$324,244
13,943
(1)
(2)
32,424
89,301
Incl. Above
$135,668
0.338
1.728
D-DCP
$367,864
15,818
36,786
(1)
(2)
D-DCP
$1,711,777
73,606
171,178
D-DCP
$109,728
*>718((i)
10,973
(1)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (initial investment).
(2)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula: (0.10) x (initial investment).
Insufficient data.
NOTE: No effluent treatment costs were available for Plants E, G, 062, 065, and 068.
-------
TABU TIII-2
enmOL MO TUATWRT IKCflROUOCUS
VACOUM DEGASSING SUBCATEOOKT
U)
tn
Treatment and/or
Control Method! Employed
A. Scale Pit - Oaing a acalc pit
or claaaifier, thia step provide*
the initial point of suspended
aolida load reduction. Thia
reductiom ia accompliahed via
gravity aediaentatioa.
>. Cooling Tower - Oaed to reduce
the heat load of the wastewatera
prior to recycle.
Status ami
teliability
Widely uaed ia thia euh-
category and in ainilar
applications for other aub-
categoriea and induatriea.
Deed in aeveral vacuus degaa-
¦ing operationa aa a aeana of
facilitating waatewater re-
cycle. Also widely uaed in
other auhcategoriea and in-
duatriea for the purpoae of
heat load reduction.
Probleaa
and LUdtationa
Accuaralated solids
¦oat be periodically
reacted. Hydraulic
overloada ahould be
ainiaiaed.
lapleaen
tatioa
Tine
6 to 8
¦oaths
Land
lequireaenta
20' a 30*
The potential exists
for scaling and plug-
ging due to the in-
creased dissolved
solid* concentrations
aasociated vith cooling
and recycle operationa.
In addition, biological
fouling mist be
trolled.
18 to 20
¦oath*
30'
Environmental
Inpact Other
Than Water
The aolids which
accumulate Bust
receive proper
diapoaal.
Any aolida which
nay accumulate in
the cooling tower
aust receive
proper disposal.
Care aust be
exercised in the
selection end use
of cheaicala to
control fouling.
Solid Haste
Cenerstion and
Priaary
Cooatituents
The treataent
aodel aolid
waste genera-
tion rate, on
the baaia of dry
solids, for thia
atep ia 0.3S
lb/ton (420
lb/day, 96.7
tone/year)
for the aodel.
These aolida
conaiat pri-
aarily of the
¦etal oxides
which comprise
the duata
generated
during the
degaaeing
proceaa.
Virtually
nil.
C. Recycle - Recycle a large
portion of the cooling tower
effluent back to the vacuua
degaaeing operation.
Demonatrated in thia sub-
category (refer to Section X)
aa a means of attaining the
treataent model effluent flow.
The potential exiats 12 to 14
for scaling and plug- montha
ging due to the in-
creased diaaolved aolida
concentrations associated
with recycle operationa.
20' x 30'
None
-------
TABU ¥111-2
OOVTIDL AMD TttATICMT TSCHNQUK1SS
VACUUM KGASSUM SUSCATSQOKY
PACE 2			
TreatBMC aod/or
Control Hnthodo taployri
D. Filtration - Filters arc
Mod to provide aMitioul
ponded solids rtsoval capability.
to
Ln
to
Status and
Bellability
Osad in aeveral vacua degas-
siog operations. Is addition,
tbs capabilities of thie tech-
nology ara well demonstrated
in other subcategory aod otber
industry waateweter treatment
operationa.
Froblona
and Limltationa
Hydraulic overloads
¦oat be controlled.
Poor backwash!ng will
impede efficient filter
operation.
Inplemen-
tatioo	Land
Tine Bequi
its
13 to 18
montba
30* x 40'
B. Sulfide Precipitation - A
aulfide aource ia added to the
wastewater strean to fora netallic
sulfide precipitates which are
eubeeqoeutly removed via filtra-
tion.
Care nust be exercieed 6 nonthe 10' i 10'
Deed in varioae industrial
wastewater treatment operationa in the handling and use
for the pnrpoee of providing of the feed solutions.
additional toxic netals remove1 Tight treatment process
capabilitiea.	control is needed.
Environmental
Impact Otber
Than Water
The backwash
solids muat
receive proper
disposal.
The resultant
metel sulfide
precipitates re-
quire proper
disposal. Sul-
fide odors can
result if inade-
quate treatment
process control
is provided.
Solid Vaste
Generation and
Prinary
Constituenta
The backwash
solide represent
an additional
solide genera-
tion, on a dry
solide baaia,
of 0.0073 lb/ton
(8.8 lb/day,
1.6 tons/year)
for the model.
The backwash
aolida are
similar in
nature to the
solide removed
in Step A.
The metal sul-
fide precipitates
are removed by
the filtration
step.
-------
TABLE VII1-3
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Vacuum Degassing
: Carbon, Specialty
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
-3
.-3
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal v
Energy & Power '
TOTAL
A
95
4.1
9.5
3.3
0.4
17.3
B
627
27.0
62.7
21.9
26.1
137.7
C
394
16.9
39.4
13.8
8.2
70.1
(2)
(2)
Total
1116
48.0
111.6
39.0
0.4
26.1
225.1
Raw	BPT
/o\	Waste	Effluent
Effluent Quality	Load	Level
Flow, gal/ton	1400	25
pH (Units)	6-9	6-9
Suspended Solids	80	50
Manganese	10	6.0
119	Chromium	1.0	0.35
120	Copper	0.20	0.10
122 Lead	5.0	0.35
124 Nickel	0.03	0.030
128 Zinc	5.0	0.35
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for
existing process water requirements.
(3)	All values are expressed in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Scale Pit	B: Cooling Tower
C: Recycle 98Z
353
-------
TABLE VIII-4
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
7/1/78 DOLLARS x 10
BASIS: FACILITIES IN PLACE AS OF 1/1/78
Subcategory: Vaccum Degassing
: Carbon





C&TT Step


Plant




In


Code
TPD
A
B
C
Place
Required
Total
0060
4,500
210

869
1,079
0
1,079
0112B
1,860
123
816
512
0
1,451
1,451
0496
1,600
-
-
468
468
0
468
0584F
6,554
263
1,737
1,090
2,827
263
3,090
0696A
800
74
492
309
0
875
875
0856F
1,600
113
745
468
113
1,213
1,326
0868B
1,560
111
734
461
1,306
0
1,306





5,904
3,802
9,595
354
-------
TABLE VIII-4
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
7/1/78 DOLLARS X 10
BASIS: FACILITIES IN PLACB AS OF 1/1/78
PAGE2	
Subcategory: Vaccum Degassing
: Specialty




CliTT 8tep


Plant




In


Code
TPD
A
B
C
Place
Required
Total
0060D
3,000
164
1)086
566-116
730
1,202
1,932
006 OF
1,100
90
595
373
0
1,058
1,058
0060J
120
24
158
99
0
281
281
0088A
900
80
528
331
411
528
939
0112
450
53
348
218
0
619
619
0168
450
53
348
218
0
619
619
0240A
1,100
90
595
373
0
1,058
1,058
0248B
1,600
-
—
468
468
0
581
0424A
63
16
107
67
0
190
190
0436
350
45
299
188
0
532
532
0576
260
38
251
157
0
446
446
05 76A
450
53
348
218
0
619
619
0684E
2,640
152
1.006
632
1,790
0
1,790
0684H
1,200
95
627
394
0
1,116
1,116
0684U
360
46
305
191
0
542
542
0724A
450
53
348
218
0
619
619
0776E
150
27
180
113
0
320
320
0796A
2,496
147
923
611
0
1,584
1,731
0796C
120
24
158
99
0
281
281
0804A
150
27
180
113
0
320
320
0804B
210
33
220
30-108
63
328
391
0856H
960
83
549
344
0
976
976
0856R
340
45
294
185
0
524
524
0896
50
14
93
58
0
165
165
0946A
3,480
180
1*188
745
, 0
.2,113
2.113




•37462
*16,040
*19,502
*: Total does not include confidential plant*•
Note: Underlined costs represent facilities la place} where two figures
appear in the t«H column, the underlined portion is in place, the
nonunderlined portion remains to be installed*
C & TT Legend
A: Primary Scale Pit
B: Cooling Tower
C: Recycle	355
-------
TABLE Till"5
ALWMATIVE Big HOML COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLAM
Subcatagoryt Vacuus D*faaain|
i Carboo/lpaeialty
Model SiM-TPD I 1200
Opar. Daya/taari 365
Turn*/Day	I 3
.-3
-3
CtTT 5 tap*
iDvaaoaant $ x 10
Annual Coata, t x 10
Capital
Dapraciaiion
Operation t Mainti
Cnarsr t Fowar'
Cbaaieal Co*ta
TOTAL
Uaatavatar
Paraaatari
Flew, gal/Con
pa
Concantrationa. «t/l
Suapandad Solida
119	Chrcaita
120	Coppar
122	Load
124	Nickel
128 Zioc
BAT
In4
La»al
25
6-9
SO
0.35
0.10
0.35
0.030
0.35
x
32
1.4
3.2
1.1
0.2
5.9
A1Carnati wl
D and
Alternation 2
5.9
BA3 *0.1
Effluent
Lajel^
25
6-9
15
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.030
0.10
I
34
1.5
3.4
1.2
0.5
0.2
6.5
Total
66
2.9
6.6
2.3
0.7
0.2
12.7
BAT Ho.2
Efflueat
La»al
25
15
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.030
0.10
(1) Coati ara all power unlaa* otberwiia sotod.
KET TO CATI STPt
9: Filtratioe	Ei Sulfide Freeipitatiao
356
-------
TABLE VIII-6
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
A. BCT Feed
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants ¦ 50 mg/1
Flow - 0.03 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged ¦ 4565
B. BCT-1 (Based upon BAT-1 and 2)
Effluent Concentration of Conventional Pollutants - 15 mg/1
Flow ¦ 0.03 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/year of Conventional Pollutants Discharged ¦ 1369
lbs/year of Conventional Pollutants Removed via Treatment
4565-1369 - 3196
Annual Cost of BCT-1 " $5,900*	$/lb ¦ 1.85 FAIL
* Includes all C&TT Steps.
357
-------
TABU mi-7
MSPS. fSZS AMP MBS MODEL COST DATA! BASH 7/1/78 DOUJUtS
Subcategory! Vacooa O*t«a*io|	Modal Jiaa-TPD i 1200
Opar. Daya/Taar: *1%5
Turna/Day » 3
a" 8t"
lmraataaot 9 s 10~\
Annual Coat I s 10
Capital
Dapraaiatioo
Oparatioo I Malntasansa
Slodga Sitpeaal.x
bwp 4 ww1"
Chaaieal Caata
TOTAL
USPS Altarnathra 1 and tha PSES t PSIIS Modal

_a_
_2_
J2_
Total

E
sank
93
627
394
32
1148

34
1182
4.1
27.0
16.9
1.4
49.4

1.3
30.9
9.3
«2.7
39.4
3.2
114.8

3.4
118.2
3.3
21.9
13.1
1.1
40.1

1.2
41.3
0.A
m

-
0.4

-
0.4
-
26.1
8.2
0.2
26.3

0.3
26.S
-
-
-
-
•

0.2
0.2
17.3
137.7
70.1
3.9
231.0

6.8
237.8
Waatavatar
teaatan
rioo, tal/ton
pa
Coocantr»ti ona.
Suapandad Solida
119	ChroaiiM
120	Copp«r
122	Laad
124	Hiekal
128	Zlac
law
Waata
Uad
1400
6-9
10
1.0
0.20
3.0
0.030
3.0
MVS No.I,
PSES and PSHS
tffluant U»al
23
6-9
WW Mo.2
Iffloaat
23
6-9
13
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.03
0.10
13
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.030
0.10
(1)	Coata ara all powar unlaaa otharviaa noead.
(2)	Total doaa not includa powar eoat aa a cradle ii auppliad for procaaa vatar raquiraaanca.
KT TO C4TT STEPS
A! Scala Pit
Ct lacycla 981
El Salfida
Precipitation
Si Cooling Towar
Di filtration
358
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST
PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The Agency is proposing Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available (BPT) limitations for vacuum degassing operations which are
identical to those originally promulgated in June, 1974.1 As the June,
1974 development document2 described the methods used in developing
the originally promulgated limitations, this section focuses on the
achievability of the proposed limitations. A review of the treatment
processes and effluent limitations associated with the vacuum
degassing subcategory follows.
Identification of BPT
The original BPT model treatment system incorporated classifiers
(i.e.,scale pits), recycle systems and cooling towers. Following
sedimentation in a classifier, most of the process wastewaters are
recycled, through a cooling tower, to the process. The remaining
process wastewaters are discharged as a blowdown. Figure IX—1 depicts
the treatment system described above.
The proposed BPT effluent limitations, which represent 30-day average
values, are presented below:
kg/kkg of Product
(lb/1000 lb of Product)
Suspended Solids	0.0052
pH (Units)	6.0 to 9.0
The maximum daily effluent limitations are three times the average
value presented above.
Rationale for BPT
Treatment System
As noted in Section VII, each
components is in use at a number
of the BPT model treatment system
of vacuum degassing operations.
^Federal Register; Friday, June 28, 1974; Part II, Environmental
Protection Agency; Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category;
Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Pages 24114-24133.
2EPA-440/I-74-024-a, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steel Making
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category.
359
-------
Based upon widespread use in the industry, the Agency believes that
the model treatment system is appropriate.
Justification of BPT Limitations
Table IX-1 presents sampled plant data that demonstrate the proposed
BPT limitations are achievable. As only one of these plants employs a
separate sedimentation step, the ability to achieve the proposed BPT
limitations with treatment systems which differ from the BPT model is
also demonstrated. The remaining sampled plants were unable to
achieve the proposed BPT limitations due to the lack of, or
insufficient, recycle. By reducing effluent flows to approximately
the level incorporated in the BPT treatment model, these plants would
be able to achieve the proposed BPT limitations. The data presented
in Table IX-1 justify the proposed BPT limitations.
360
-------
TABLE IX-1
JUSTIFICATION OF BPT LIMITATIONS
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
Originally
Promulgated
BPT
Plants
AD(0868B)
E(0020B)
G(085££j
0584F
0684E
(1)
Suspended
Solids
0.0052
0.00021
Zero Discharge
0.0020
0.000532
0.00297
_E*L
6-9
6.8
6.4
4.9
8.4
C&TT Components
PSP,CT,RTP-98
PSP,FD(UNK)P,
RTP98.8
CT,RIP-100
OT
CT,RTP-98
FLO »FLL,
FLP,CL,CT,RTP-99.6
(1)	Based on D-DCP analytical data.
(2)	Flocculation with ferric chloride.
361
-------
RECYCLE 98%
COOLING
TOWER
VACUUM
DEGASSING
OPERATION
TO DISCHARGE
CLASSIFIER
(SCALE PIT)
Susp. Solids 50mg/l
pH	6-9
Flow *104 IA kg
_ (25 got/ton)
Solid*
Suspi solids 60 mg/l
pH	6-9
Flow-5838 l/kkg
— (I400gol/ton)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING
BPT MODEL
FIGURE EM
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
This section identifies two BAT alternative treatment systems and the
respective effluent levels considered by the Agency for the vacuum
degassing subcategory. In addition, the rationale for selecting the
treatment technologies, discharge flow rates, and effluent pollutant
concentrations are presented. Finally, the selection of the BAT model
treatment technologies which serve as the basis for the proposed BAT
effluent limitations is reviewed.
Identificaton of BAT
Based upon the information contained in Sections III through VIII, the
Agency developed the following treatment technologies (as add-ons to
the BPT treatment system model) to serve as BAT alternative treatment
systems for the vacuum degassing subcategory.
1.	BAT Alternative No.1
In the first BAT Alternative, filtration of the BPT treatment
system blowdown of 25 gal/ton is provided to remove particulate
toxic metals.
2.	BAT Alternative No.2
In this alternative, sulfide precipitation prior to the
filtration step outlined above is provided. Sulfide
precipitation techniques are capable of providing a higher degree
of toxic metals removal.
Figure X-l illustrates the BAT alternative treatment systems for the
vacuum degassing subcategory. These treatment technologies are in use
at one or more plants or demonstrated in other wastewater treatment
applications, and are considered to be capable of attaining the
respective proposed BAT effluent limitations.
The proposed BAT limitations are presented in Table X-l. Section VI
presents the rationale for selecting those toxic metal pollutants
considered for limitation. As noted in Volume I, treatment of those
toxic pollutants found at high levels in the process wastewaters will
result in treatment for those similar toxic pollutants found at lower
levels. Although several toxic metal pollutants are found in vacuum
degassing process wastewaters, the Agency is proposing limitations for
only three toxic metals at the BAT, NSPS, PSNS, and PSES levels in
this subcategory. The Agency's selection of those pollutants for
which limitations and standards are being proposed is based upon the
363
-------
following considerations: the relative levels, loads, and
environmental impacts of each pollutant; the ability of the selected
toxic metal pollutants to serve as indicators of overall and toxic
metals treatment performance; and, the need to develop practical
monitoring requirements for the industry. While the Agency found
other toxic metals in vacuum degassing wastewaters, compliance with
the proposed limitations for the three toxic metals listed in Table
X-1 will provide similar control of other toxic metals. Investment
and annual costs for the BAT alternative treatment systems are
presented in Table VII1-5.
Rationale for the Selection of the BAT Alternatives
The following discussion presents the rationale for selecting the BAT
alternative treatment systems, determining the effluent flow rates,
and determining the concentration levels of the limited pollutants.
Treatment Technologies
The treatment model applied and discharge flows (retained from the BPT
level of treatment) are based upon a system recycle rate of 98%.
Table X-2 summarizes the recycle rates of those vacuum degassing
operations which provided useable data. Referring to this table, it
should be noted that eight of the ten plants which used recycle
systems (a total of fifteen plants provided enough information to
determine the system operating mode) equalled or exceeded the 98%
recycle rate. In fact, two of the plants with recycle systems operate
with no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters. The treatment system recycle rate is therefore well
documented within this subcategory.
Filtration is included in both BAT alternative treatment systems in
order to remove that portion of the toxic metals load entrained in
suspended solids. Filtration is employed at two of the plants in this
subcategory (04 96 and 0868B) and has widespread use throughout the
steel industry.
Sulfide precipitation is incorporated in the second BAT treatment
alternative for the purpose of insuring optimum reductions in the
levels of toxic metals. Although not employed in this subcategory,
the effectiveness of this treatment technology has been demonstrated
in the electroplating industry, in pilot studies and in wastewater
treatment applications in other metals manufacturing operations.
Flows
The model applied and discharge flows (1400 gal/ton and 25 gal/ton
respectively) developed for BPT are retained in the BAT treatment
alternatives.
Wastewater Quality
Following are the average effluent concentrations incorporated in each
BAT treatment alternative (the maximum values are enclosed in
parentheses):
364
-------
BAT Alt. No.1
BAT Alt. No.2
Chromium, mg/1
Lead, mg/1
Zinc, mg/1
0.10(0.30)
0.10(0.30)
0.10(0.30)
0.10(0.30)
0.10(0.30)
0.10(0.30)
The development of these values is discussed below and presented in
Appendix A of Volume I.
Toxic Metals
A.	BAT Alternative 1
To determine the effluent concentrations for the toxic metal
pollutants, analytical data from a variety of sources were
evaluated. Long-term filtration system effluent analytical data
from these plants were reviewed to determine the toxic metals
removal capabilities of filtration systems used in similar
wastewater treatment applications. In addition, a review of the
analytical data for this subcategory indicated that the suspended
solids contain most of the toxic metals load. Reference is made
to Appendix A of Volume I for the derivation of performance
standards for toxic metals.
B.	BAT Alternative 2
As noted previously in this section, BAT Alternative 2
incorporates a sulfide precipitation system along with the
filtration system provided in BAT Alternative 1. As sulfide
precipitation technology has not been demonstrated on a full
scale basis within this subcategory, the capabilities of this
technology have been transferred from other metals manufacturing
wastewater treatment applications. The toxic metals effluent
levels which can be achieved with this treatment technology were
developed on the basis of the data review presented in Volume I.
As vacuum degassing process wastewaters contain a number of the
same pollutants found in the wastewaters used in the data review
and the dissolved metals and metal precipitates will behave in a
similar manner, the transfer of the sulfide precipitation
technology is appropriate. The data indicated that average toxic
metals effluent concentrations of 0.10 mg/1 could be attained
after incorporation of this treatment technology.
Effluent Limitations for the BAT Alternatives
The effluent limitations for the BAT alternative treatment systems
were calculated by multiplying the effluent flow of each alternative
treatment system, and the respective concentrations of each toxic
pollutant, and the appropriate conversion factors. Table X-l presents
the proposed effluent limitations for each treatment alternative.
365
-------
Selection of a BAT Alternative
The Agency selected BAT Alternative No. 1 as the BAT model treatment
system. The selection process involved reviewing the toxicity levels
of each pollutant considered for limitation at BAT and the effluent
levels of these pollutants in each treatment alternative. On the
basis of these considerations, the Agency determined that BAT No. 1
provides the most significant benefits with regard to reductions in
toxic pollutant effluent loads. Following is a summary of the
effluent loads (tons/year) for this subcategory.
Raw Waste
BPT
Effluent
BAT No.1
Effluent
BAT No.2
Effluent
Toxic
TSS
Metals
976
6950
1 .8
78
0.7
23
0.7
23
The proposed BAT limitations are presented in Table X-l under the
heading of the first BAT treatment alternative.
366
-------
TABLE X-l
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY


BAT ALTERNATIVE 1
BAT ALTERNATIVE 2


Concentration
Basis (mg/l)
Effluent
Limitations
(KgAkg of Product)
Concentration
Basis (mg/l)
Effluent
Limitations
(kg/kkg of Product)
Discharge
Flow (gal/ton)

25
	
25
	
Chromium
Ave.
O.IO
0.000010 *
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031*
0.30
0.000031
Lead
Ave.
0.10
0.000010*
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031*
0.30
0.000031
Zinc
Ave.
0.10
0.000010*
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031*
0.30
0.000031
* - Proposed BAT Effluent Limitation*.
-------
BPT
98% RECYCLE
*	,
I
J	1	|	1 I
RAW --*1 CLASSIFIER '	' COOLING ! I ^
WASTEWATERi^SCALE PIT)J"	^ TOWER 1"~H7~T~
25 GAL/TON
BAT-I
FILTER
TO DISCHARGE
REFER TO TABLE X-l
FOR THE EFFLUENT
QUALITY AND LOADS
BAT-2
SULFIDE
FILTER
TO DISCHARGE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
BAT TREATMENT MODEL
Dmi 5/5/80
FIGURE X-l
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XI
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(4)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in Section
304(g)(4) - BOD, TSS, fecal coliform and pH - and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional." On July
28, 1978, EPA proposed that COD, oil and grease, and phosphorus be
added to the conventional pollutant list (43 Fed. Reg. 32857). Only
oil and grease was added.
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. BCT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a new
"cost-reasonableness" test, which involves a comparison of the cost
and level of reduction of conventional pollutants from the discharge
of POTWs to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a
class or category of industrial sources. As part of its review of BAT
for certain "secondary" industries, EPA proposed methodology for this
cost test. (See 43 Fed. Reg. 37570, August 23, 1978.)
BCT Methodology
The BCT methodology is described in Volume I.
Development of BCT Limitations
The reference POTW treatment cost for the conventional pollutants is
$1.34/lb (all costs are based on 7/1/78 dollars). The BCT cost test
(refer to Table VIII-6), indicated that the conventional pollutant
treatment costs are $1.85/lb for the BCT model treatment system, which
includes filtration of the BPT effluent. Figure XI—1 illustrates the
BCT model treatment system for this subcategory. Therefore, the BCT
model treatment system did not pass the BCT cost test. Hence, the
proposed BPT limitations for suspended solids are also proposed as the
BCT limitations for suspended solids. Following are the proposed BCT
effluent limitations for the vacuum degassing subcategory.
Effluent Limitations (kg/kkq of Product)
Suspended Solids
PH
30-Dav Average
0.0052
Daily Maximum
0.0156
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
369
-------
Raw	>»i
Wastewater
CLASSIFIER
(SCALE PIT)
COOLING
TOWER
.98% Recycle
FILTER
TO
DISCHARGE
-25 gat./ton
Refer To Section 3X
-For The Effluent
Quality And Loads
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
8CT TREATMENT MODEL
Dwn.ll/5/8C
FIG 21-1
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
A new source is defined as any source constructed after the proposal
of new source performance standards (NSPS). The degree of effluent
reduction achievable through the application of the best available
demonstrated control technology (BADCT), processes, operating methods,
or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge 'of pollutants. While zero discharge is not
being proposed at this time, the Agency is considering zero discharge
and is soliciting comments on whether zero discharge can be
universally applied to this subcategory.
NSPS Alternative 1_
The first NSPS treatment alternative uses the BPT and BAT Alternative
No. 1 treatment components discussed in Section IX and X. This system
initially provides sedimentation of the raw process wastewaters in a
classifier (or similar settling device). The major portion (98%) of
the classifier effluent is recycled to the process through a cooling
tower. The cooling tower is used to reduce the recycle system heat
load. The system blowdown passes through a pressure filter prior to
discharge.
NSPS Alternative 2
The NSPS Alternative 2 treatment system is identical to the system
described above, with the exception that sulfide precipitation is
incorporated prior to the filtration component. This system is
similar to the BPT and the BAT Alternative 2 systems discussed in
Section IX and X.
The NSPS treatment systems described above are depicted in Figure
XII-1. The corresponding effluent levels and loads are presented in
Table XII-1. Cost data for the treatment alternatives are presented
in Table VIII-7.
Rationale for Selection of NSPS
The NSPS treatment alternatives for the vacuum degassing subcategory
are similar to the BPT and BAT model treatment systems described in
Sections IX and X. Therefore, the rationale presented in these
sections is also applicable to new sources and is not repeated.
Both NSPS treatment alternatives for the vacuum degassing subcategory
are addressed collectively in the following discussions.
371.
-------
Treatment Technologies
As noted in Section X, the use of filtration technology is documented
not only within the steel industry, but also within the vacuum
degassing subcategory. With the exception of sulfide precipitation,
the other treatment technologies are also well demonstrated within the
vacuum degassing subcategory. As discussed in Section X, sulfide
precipitation has been successfully applied to the treatment of other
metals manufacturing process wastewaters and is considered suitable
for the treatment of the various steel industry process wastewaters as
well. While, at this time, sulfide precipitation has not been
demonstrated with pilot plant studies or through full scale
demonstration in this subcategory, the components of the model
treatment system are reliable and demonstrated methods of treatment
and are, thus, appropriate for consideration in NSPS.
The resulting effluent wastewater quality for the NSPS alternatives
are presented in Table XII-1. As noted in Section X, the critical
pollutants and their respective effluent levels were based upon the
capabilities of the various wastewater treatment technologies. The
pollutants listed on Table XII-1 include only those pollutants for
which BAT limitations are being proposed (refer to Section X for the
factors considered in selecting these pollutants).
Flows
The applied and discharge flows developed for the BPT and BAT
alternative treatment systems are applicable to both NSPS alternatives
as well. Plants within this subcategory have demonstrated their
ability to achieve effluent flows of 25 gal/ton (as provided in the
treatment model) or less. The recycle rate of 98%, (as defined by the
treatment model applied and discharge flows), is also demonstrated in
the vacuum degassing subcategory.
Wastewater Quality
The effluent level (15 mg/1) for suspended solids in the various
treatment alternatives was developed on the basis of a statistical
review of long-term analytical data for several wastewater filtration
operations. This review is detailed in Appendix A of Volume I. The
particulate matter suspended in degassing process wastewaters will
exhibit behavior basically similar to that of the solids in the
wastewaters noted above when filtration technologies are employed for
suspended solids removal. In the reference wastewaters and in the
degassing wastewaters, the suspended solids are principally discrete
particles which are amenable to removal by filtration. Refer to
Volume I for a detailed review of the thirty-day average and daily
maximum effluent concentrations development. Refer to Section X for
discussions regarding the development of the toxic metals model
effluent values.
Selection of NSPS Alternative
The Agency selected NSPS Alternative No. 1 as the NSPS model treatment
system. This alternative was selected for the same reasons noted in
372
-------
the discussion in Section X regarding the selection of the BAT model
treatment system.
The proposed NSPS effluent standards are presented in Table XII-1 in
the column for the first NSPS treatment alternative.
373
-------
TABLE XH - I
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY

NSPS ALTERNATIVE 1 *
NSPS ALTERNATIVE 2
Concentration
Basis (mg/l)
Effluent
Standards
(kg/kkg of Product)
Concentration
Basis (mg/l)
Effluent
Standards
(kg/kkg of Product)
Discharge
Flow (gal/ton)

25
	
25
	
Total
Suspended Solids
Ave.
15
0.0016
15
0.00 6
Max.
40
0.0042
40
0.0042
PH

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Within the range 6.0 fo 9.0
Chromium
Ave.
0.10
0.000010
0.10
0. OOOOiO
Max.
0.30
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
Lead
Ave.
0.10
0.000010
0.10
O.OOOOIO
Max.
0.30
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
Zinc
Ave.
0.10
0.000010
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.90
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
N - Proposed NSPS
-------
98% RECYCLE
RAW —
WASTEWATER
CLASSIFIER

COOLING
(SCALE PIT)

TOWER
25 GAL/TON
T
NSPS-I
^ TO DISCHARGE
FILTER
REFER TO TABLE EH
FOR THE EFFLUENT
QUALITY AND LOADS
NSPS-2
SULFIDE
FILTER
TO DISCHARGE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
NSPS TREATMENT MODELS
Dwn.B/7/80
f
IGURE xn-i
-------
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGES TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
This section discusses the control and treatment alternatives
available for vacuum degassing operations which discharge wastewaters
to a publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). No vacuum degassing
operations currently discharge to POTWs. Separate consideration has
been given to the pretreatment of vacuum degassing process wastewaters
from new sources and from existing sources.
The general pretreatment and categorical pretreatment standards
applying to vacuum degassing operations are discussed below.
General Pretreatment Standards
For detailed information on Pretreatment Standards refer to 43 FR
27736-27773, "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existng and New
Sources of Pollution, (June 26, 1978). In particular, 40 CFR Part 403
describes national standards (prohibited and categorical standards),
revision of categorical standards through removal allowances, and POTW
pretreatment programs.
In establishing pretreatment standards for vacuum degassing
operations, the Agency gave primary consideration to the objectives
and requirements of the General Pretreatment Regulations. The General
Pretreatment Regulations set forth general discharge prohibitions that
apply to all non-domestic users of a POTW to prevent pass-through of
pollutants, and municipal sludge contamination. The regulations also
establish administrative mechanisms to ensure application and
enforcement of prohibited discharge limits and categorical
pretreatment standards. In addition, the Regulations contain
provisions relating directly to the determination of and reporting ori
Pretreatment Standards.
POTWs are usually not designed to treat the toxic pollutants present
in vacuum degassing process wastewaters. Instead, POTWs are designed
to treat biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), fecal coliform bacteria, and pH. Whatever removal obtained by
POTWs for toxic pollutants is incidental to the POTW's main function
of conventional pollutant treatment. POTWs have, historically,
accepted large amounts of many pollutants well above their capacity to
treat them adequately. As the issue of municipal sludge use has
become more important, pretreatment standards must address toxic and
nonconventional pollutant removal, rather than transfer these
pollutants to POTWs where many pollutants concentrate in the sludges.
377
-------
Pretreatment standards for total suspended solids, oil and grease, and
pH are not proposed because these pollutants, at the levels found
after pretreatment in this subcategory, are compatible with POTW
operations and can be effectively treated at POTWs.
Due to the presence of toxic pollutants in wastewaters from vacuum
degassing operations, pretreatment must be provided to ensure that
these pollutants do not interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be
incompatible with POTW operations, or damage the treatment facilities.
The following discussions identify the pretreatment alternatives
considered for toxic pollutant removal, the rationale for these
technologies, and finally, the development of a pretreatment system
upon which the proposed categorical PSES and PSNS are based.
Identification of Pretreatment
The pretreatment model system developed for both existing and new
sources are identical to the New Source Performance Standard
Alternative No.l model treatment system (refer to Section XII).
Hence, the proposed Existing Source and New Source Pretreatment
Standards (PSES and PSNS) are the same. Only the treatment system
selected for use in developing the proposed BAT effluent limitations
and NSPS is retained for use as a model pretreatment system. The
selection of the pretreatment model system is based upon the same
factors considered in selecting the BAT and NSPS alternatives (refer
to Sections X and XII).
The principal goal of the pretreatment system is the treatment and
removal of the toxic metal pollutants. In the case of vacuum
degassing operations, a classifier is used to provide the initial
reduction in toxic metal pollutant loads (as a result of removing
those solids in which the toxic metals are entrained). The majority
of the classifier effluent is then recycled to the process through a
cooling tower, which provides a reduction in the recycled wastewater
heat load. The remainder of the classifier effluent (25 gal/ton) is
filtered prior to discharge. The recycle rate defined by the
treatment model applied and discharge flows is 98%. As noted
previously, the toxic metal pollutants, which are present in vacuum
degassing wastewaters, are found primarily in the suspended
particulate matter. Therefore, suspended solids control will result
in a reduction in the toxic metal pollutant levels. For this reason,
the Agency incorporated filtration in. the PSES and PSNS model
treatment system. Removal of suspended solids (and hence toxic
metals) will correspondingly reduce the accumulation of toxic metals
in the sludges generated by POTWs which receive these wastewaters.
Figure XIII-1 illustrates the pretreatment model system described
above. Table XIII-1 presents the proposed PSNS and PSES standards.
As noted previously, the pretreatment model system is identical to
NSPS Alternative 1 and, as a result, reference can be made to the NSPS
model cost data (Table VII1-7) for pretreatment cost information.
378
-------
Rationale for the Selection
of Pretreatment Technologies
The recycle rate incorporated in the pretreatment system was
previously justified in Section X. Recycle is needed in vacuum
degassing pretreatment systems in order to minimize the hydraulic
impact of process wastewater discharges to POTWs. Excessive flows to
a POTW must be restricted not only for reasons of physical limitations
(i.e., hydraulics) but also foj: reasons of process limitations. The
pretreatment model effluent flow (25 gal/ton) is the same as that of
the BPT, BAT, and NSPS model treatment systems.
As noted previously, the toxic metal pollutants present in vacuum
degassing wastewaters are found principally in the suspended
particulate matter. As a result, control of suspended solids will
produce a reduction in toxic metals levels. The Agency concluded that
pretreatment standards for toxic metal pollutants are appropriate, as
they can adversely affect a POTW in the following ways: (1) inhibit
the POTW treatment process; (2) pass through the POTW during
treatment; and, (3) contaminate the POTW sludges.
Various studies3 have demonstrated that, in particular, three of the
toxic metals (chromium, lead, and zinc) found in vacuum degassing
wastewaters inhibit the biological treatment process when found at
levels typical of vacuum degassing wastewaters. The use of filtration
technology in the pretreatment system will ensure that the toxic
metals present in the vacuum degassing wastewater discharge will not
adversely affect the treatment process or pass through POTW systems.
Other studies4 involving the electroplating industry (with similar
levels of the same toxic metals) indicated that from fifty percent to
ninety percent of the toxic metals entering a POTW will pass through
the system. The possibility therefore exists that a POTW could
discharge undesirable levels of toxic metals when accepting industrial
process wastewaters.
The toxic metals, which do not pass through a POTW, are concentrated
in the POTW sludges. Generally, land application is the most
advantageous, yet least expensive, method of POTW sludge disposal as
the sludge can be used to replace soil nutrients. However, excessive
amounts of toxic metals in the sludges would inhibit plant growth thus
rendering the sludge unfit for use as a soil nutrient supplement. In
addition, these metals could enter either the plant or animal food
chains, or they could leach into surface or groundwaters. For the
above reasons, the control of toxic metal pollutant discharges to a
POTW is essential.
'EPA-430/9-76-017a, Construction Grants Program Information; Federal
Guidelines, State and Local Pretreatment Programs.
~Federal Register; Friday, September 7, 1979; Part IV, Environmental
protection Agency; Effluent Guidelines and Standards; Electroplating
Point Source Category; Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources -
Pages 52597-52601.
379
-------
Table XIII—1 presents the proposed pretreatment standards for existing
and new sources (PSES and PSNS).
380
-------
TABLE IDI- I
PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT STANDARDS (Existing and New Sources)
VACUUM DEGASSING SUBCATEGORY

Conc«ntration
Basis (mg/l)
Effluent
Standards
(kg/kkg of Product)
Discharge Flow(gal/ton)
25

Chromium
Avt.
O.IO
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031
Lead
A««.
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031
Zinc
Ave.
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031
-------
u>
03
(o
RECYCLE 98%
COOLING
TOWER
TO POTW
CLASSIFIER
(SCALE PIT)
REFER TO TABLE
XIII-I FOR THE
EFFLUENT QUALITY
AND LOADS
SOLIDS
FILTER
VACUUM
DEGASSING
OPERATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSING
PRETREATMENT MODEL
Dwaa0(y79
FIGURE Xm-I
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION I
PREFACE
The USEPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the steel industry. The proposed regulation contains effluent
limitations guidelines for best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT), and best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) as well as pretreatment standards for existing and
new sources (PSES and PSNS) and new source performance standards
(NSPS), pursuant to Sections 301, 304, 306, 307 and 501 of the Clean
Water Act.
This part of the Development Document highlights the technical aspects
of EPA's study of the Continuous Casting Subcategory of the Iron and
Steel Industry. Volume I of the Development Document discusses issues
pertaining to the industry in general, while other volumes relate to
the remaining subcategories of the industry.
383
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
This report highlights the technical aspects of EPA's study of the
Continuous Casting Subcategory of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Category.
Based on this current study and a review of previous studies, the
Agency has reached the following conclusions.
1.	The Agency has again decided not to further subdivide the
continuous casting subcategory. It found no significant
differences in applied or discharge flow rates between slab,
bloom, and billet continuous casters. Wastewater quality and
flow rates were not found to differ significantly between carbon
and specialty steel continuous casting operations.
2.	The previously promulgated BPT limitations for continuous casting
operations are practicable and achievable. In fact, the expanded
data base shows the previous BPT limitations are more lenient
than can now be justified. Nonetheless, the proposed BPT
limitations are identical to the limitations previously
promulgated.
3.	Sampling and analysis of continuous casting wastewaters revealed
the presence of five toxic metal pollutants (chromium, copper,
lead, selenium, and zinc). Discharge of these toxic pollutants
can be reduced by several available economically achievable
wastewater treatment technologies. A summary of the pollutant
discharges from the continuous casting subcategory at the
proposed BPT, BAT, and BCT levels of treatment, are shown below.
	Effluent Discharges (Tons/Year)
Proposed
Raw Waste Proposed BPT BAT and BCT
Flow (MGD)	238	8.8	1.8
TSS	21,735	666	40
Oil & Grease	9,060	200	13
Toxic Metals	590	22	1.3
4. EPA estimates that industry will incur the following costs to
comply with the proposed continuous casting limitations and
standards.
385
-------
Costs (Millions of 7/1/78 Dollars)
Investment	Total
Total In-place Required Annual
BPT 102.6	60.7	41.9 23.9
BAT 4.35	-	4.35 0.78
TOTAL 106.95 60.7	46.25 24.68
NOTE: The PSES costs are included in the costs for BPT and BAT.
. j i.hp "rost/reasonableness" of controlling the
5.	The Agency evaluated the ^ ^ ^ ^ greas6| and conclu(Jed
cost based upon the BCT model treatment system,
that the control	model treatment system), is less
(which is ide. need bv publicly owned treatment works
than the cost	£ proposing BCT limitations for the
continuous casting subcategory based upon the BCT model treatment
system.
oa-P wcDc pses and PSNS limitations and standards are being
6.	BAT, NS^S'f^ESii^" For the purpose of facilitating central
proposed for	wastewaters, the Agency is proposing BAT,
NSPS^PSES? and PSNS limitations and standards for chromium and
lead as well.
7.	The proposed NSPS for the continuous casting subcategory are
equal to the proposed BCT limitations for conventional pollutants
and the proposed BAT limitations for toxic pollutants.
8.	EPA has proposed pretreatment standards for new and existino
sources (PSNS and PSES) which are identical to the proposed BAT
limitations for toxic metals. These standards are intended to
minimize the impact of continuous casting wastewater pollutants
which would interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be
incompatible with POTW operations.
9.	With regard to the "remand issues," the Agency has concluded
that:
a.	Neither relaxed effluent limitations nor retrofit cost
allowances are appropriate for older continuous castina
plants. Analysis indicates that the age of a continuou^
caster has no significant effect upon the ease or cost of
retrofitting pollution control equipment.	1
b.	The effects of the consumptive use of water resulting from
attainment of • the proposed effluent limitations will be
minimal on both an industry-wide and on an arid or semi~arid
regional basis. The model treatment systems include coolina
towers and recycle systems. The Agency has determined tha?
to retrofit all continuous casting plants with coolinn
towers would only result in a consumptive usage of 1.7%
386
-------
the 238 MGD of water presently applied to continuous
casters.
10.	The Agency found that about twenty-five percent of the continuous
casting operations achieve zero discharge. The Agency is
soliciting comments on whether zero discharge limitations should
be promulgated at the BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels based
upon the demonstrated performance of plants in this subcategory.
These plants are currently achieving zero discharge with BPT
model treatment system components. Hence, no additional costs
beyond those required for BPT would be necessary to achieve zero
discharge.
11.	Table II—1 presents the treatment model flow and effluent quality
data used to develop the proposed BPT effluent limitations for
the continuous casting subcategory, and Table I1-2 presents these
proposed limitations. Table II-3 presents the treatment model
flow and effluent quality data used to develop the proposed BAT
and BCT effluent limitations and the proposed NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS for the continuous casting subcategory. Table II-4 presents
these proposed limitations and standards.
387
-------
TABLE II-l
BPT TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average^^
Pollutant	Concentration (mg/1)
Flow, gal/ton	125
TSS	50
0&G	15
pH, Units	6.0 to 9.0
(1): Daily maximum concentrations are three times the above monthly
average concentrations.
388
-------
TABLE II-2
PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
Effluent Limitations^*^
Pollutant	(kg/kkg of Product)
TSS	0.026
O&G	0.0078
pH, Units	Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
(1): Daily maximum effluent limitations ire three times the above
monthly average effluent limitations.
389
-------
TABLE II-3
TREATICNT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average Concentration^*^ (mg/1)

Pollutant
BAT
BCT
NSPS
PSES
PSNS

Flow, gal/ton
25
25
25
25
25

TSS
-
15
15
-
-

O&G
-
10*
10*
-
-
119
Chromium
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10
122
Lead
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10
128
Zinc
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10

pH, Units
-
6.0 to 9.0
6.0 to 9.0
-
-
* : As shown, daily maximun concentration only.
(1): Daily maximun concentrations are the above monthly average concentrations multiplied
£	by the following factors:
o
Pollutant	Factor
TSS
Chromium, Lead, Zinc
2.67
3.0
-------
TABLE 11-A
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
Effluent Limitations and Standards^^ (kg/kkg of Product)
Pollutant	BAT~	BCT	NSPS PSES PSNS
TSS	-	156	156
O&G	-	104*	104*
119 Chrcmiium	1.04	-	1.04 1.04 1.04
122 Lead	1.04	-	1.04 1.04 1.04
128 Zinc	1.04	-	1.04 1.04 1.04
pH, Units	-	6.0 to 9.0	6.0 to 9.0
* : As shown, daily maximum limitation or standard.
(1): The proposed limitations and standards have been multiplied by 10 to obtain the
<£>	values presented in this table.
Daily maximum effluent limitations and standards are the above monthly average limi-
tations and standards multiplied by the following factors:
Pollutant	Factor
TSS	2.67
Chromium, Lead, Zinc	3.0
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
General Discussion
Steel producers have recognized for many years that continuous casting
methods are more efficient than traditional methods to convert the
molten steel into semi-finished products. The first U.S. patent for
continuous casting was issued to Sir Henry Bessemer in 1865, but the
mechanical and material problems associated with the development of
equipment prevented the successful introduction of continuous casting
to the steelmaking industry. In 1943, Junghans started work which
ultimately resulted in the successful continuous casting of steel.
This work was followed by that of the Babcock and Wilcox Company in
the United States in 1946; Gebr. Boehler, A. G. of Austria in 1947;
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Company in the United States in 1949; and the
Mannesmann Group of Germany in 1950. Since then, the continuous
casting of steel has increased, and today considerable effort has been
made to improve equipment and techniques.
The continuous casting process takes molten steel produced in the
basic oxygen or electric arc furnace steelmaking processes and
continuously casts the molten steel through a water cooled copper mold
to produce a semi-finished product. Figure III-l illustrates the
process sequence for the manufacture of steel.
During the continuous casting process, as the semi-solidified (liquid
center) steel emerges from the molds, water is sprayed onto the
semi-finished product to further cool and solidify the cast product.
This results in the creation of process wastewaters which require
treatment prior to discharge. This report reviews the treatment
alternatives for continuous casting wastewaters and presents proposed
effluent limitations and standards.
Data Collection Activities
The Agency sampled seven continuous casting operations for this study
to acquire process information and wastewater quality data. The
previous regulation promulgated in 1974 was primarily based upon data
obtained through field sampling at four continuous casting plants.
Four additional plants were sampled during the recent plant survey.
One plant, Plant AE, was resampled as Plant 075 during this survey.
The casting plants that were sampled are listed in Table III-l.
In 1976, Data Collection Portfolios (DCPs) were sent to all fifty
continuous casting operations in the United States. Each provided
information regarding applied and discharge flow rates, treatment
systems installed, shop capacities, and modes of operation. Table
111-2 presents an inventory of continuous casting shops based upon the
393
-------
DCP responses. In addition, plant visit data have been tabulated and
summarized.
After the Agency received and reviewed the DCP responses, it sent
detailed Data Collection Portfolios (D-DCPs) to nine casting shops to
gather information on long term effluent quality, treatment costs, and
on the continuous casting process itself. Table 111-3 summarizes the
data base for this report as derived from the above mentioned sources
of information.
The originally promulgated limitations for continuous casting
operations did not contain any subdivision. An examination of the
additional data received since the original promulgation indicates
that the Agency's original decision not to further subdivide the
casting subcategory into slab, bloom, and billet, or carbon and
specialty subdivisions was appropriate. Accordingly, the proposed
limitations do not contain any further subdivisions. The discussion
and the data presented throughout this report reflect the above
subcategorization.
Description of Continuous Casting Operations
An integral part of the steelmaking process is the conversion of
molten steel into a semi-finished product or shape that is suitable
for further processing. Conventional practice is to: (1) teem (pour)
the molten steel into iron ingot molds; (2) cool the ingots (3) strip
the ingots out of the molds; (4) transfer the ingots to soaking pits
for heat equalization; (5) heat the ingots to rolling temperatures;
(6) and finally, roll the ingots into blooms, billets, or slabs'
Continuous casting, on the other hand, is a process in which the
molten steel is converted directly to blooms, billets, or slabs,
eliminating the above steps, increasing productivity, and conserving
energy.
In the continuous casting process, the hot molten steel is poured from
the ladle into a refractory lined tundish. The tundish serves to
maintain a constant head of molten metal. This is essential in
providing a controlled casting rate. In addition, the tundish can
distribute the molten steel to more than one casting strand in
multiple strand operations (see Figure III-2). The molten metal from
the tundish pours through nozzles into an oscillating water cooled
copper mold, where partial solidification takes place. The copper
molds oscillate to prevent the molten steel from sticking to the sides
of the molds. Lubricants, such as rape seed oil, are sprayed into the
molds to facilitate steel movement through the mold. As the metal
solidifies in the mold, the cast product is withdrawn continuously.
After passing through the water cooled molds, the partially solidified
product passes into a secondary cooling zone, where sprays of water
remove sufficient heat to complete solidification of the semi-finished
product. The semi-finished product then passes into the cut-off zone,
where the product is cut to the desired length. It is then placed on
the run-out conveyor tables for transport to storage facilities.
394
-------
The rate of casting product withdrawal is determined by the type of
steel cast (i.e. alloy, carbon), and by the size and geometry of the
section. Generally, bloom and billet continuous casters are multiple
strand machines, whereas large slab casters are single strand,
although double strands are also used. A withdrawal rate (casting
speed) that is too rapid will cause molten steel breakouts in bloom
and billet casting machines and will cause corner cracking in slab
casting machines. Casting times, for a ladle of molten steel, are
generally about 60 minutes. Longer casting times cause the molten
steel to lose too much heat, resulting in poor casting.
The casting machines also require a turn around time for routine
maintenance. It normally takes 60 minutes to prepare machines
(strands) for the next cast.
Generally, three types of designs are used for continuous casting
machines, i.e., vertical casting, vertical casting with bending rolls,
and curved mold. These three designs are described as follows.
1 . The vertical casting design was the first type of continuous
caster used. In these casters the semi-finished product is
maintained in a vertical position until after it has been cut to
product length. Then the cut length is lowered into a tilting
basket which rotates and discharges the product onto the run-out
and cooling tables. Vertical casting machines require relatively
tall building structures.
2.	The vertical casting with bending roll design casts the product
vertically. However, after solidification, the semi-finished
product is curved horizontally by bending rolls with a horizontal
straightening mechanism. This design allows for decreased mill
building heights.
3.	The curved mold design employs a curved water cooled mold and
curved cooling chamber, which automatically withdraws a curved
semi-finished product and discharges the product horizontally. A
straightening mechanism is also used on the semi-finished
product. This design has the smallest building height
requirements.
Bloom, billet, and slab casting machines are designed to cast mixed
semi-finished product sizes. By this method, product size can be
matched to the requirements of the subsequent rolling operations. The
mold sizes are changed between casts. For example, casting dimensions
for a six strand billet caster are 4" to 7" square sections, whereas
for the bloom machine they are from 6" to 12 1/2" square, and 12' to
40' in length. Stainless, low alloy, and other steel material
specifications can be continuously cast. Withdrawal rates, cooling
rates, and metal temperature are the governing factors for the casting
machines.
Description of Pressure Casting
Pressure casting or pressure pouring is another method of casting
semi-finished products from molten steel, but it is generally used for
395
-------
stainless steel or low-alloy steel slab production. Pressure casting
is also of interest to carbon steel producers, because improved yield
and surface finishes can be obtained with this process. However,
other operational problems have made pressure casting less
competitive. Pressure casting was originally developed for the
production of steel wheels for railroad cars, but soon was adapted to
the production of other semi-finished products.
The principal equipment used in pressure casting is:
1.	Pressure tank
2.	Ladle
3.	Mold
4.	Handling mechanism
5.	Air compressor station
Molds are usually made by assembling rectangular blocks of graphite to
form a cavity of the desired dimensions. The pressure casting
operation involves placing the ladle of molten steel into a pressure
chamber. The pressure chamber is then sealed with a special cover
that is mounted with a ceramic pouring tube. The mold is moved into
position, and a seal is made between the mold and pressure tank cover
pouring tube. Pressurized air is introduced into the pressure chamber
forcing the molten metal up into the cavity in the graphite molds.
The pouring tube is then sealed with a plug and the pressure released
from the chamber. The filled graphite mold is removed from the
pressure chamber. The slab or bloom is held in the mold for
sufficient time to complete solidification, after which the mold is
opened, and the cast product is removed.
The size of the heat to be handled in a pressure casting shop is an
important consideration, because a sufficient number of molds must be
available to handle the entire heat within a reasonable pouring time
(approximately one hour). The cost of molds generally accounts for
about one half of the capital equipment cost.
The continuous casting and pressure casting processes are illustrated
in Figures III—2 through III-4.
Although both processes cast molten steel to produce semi-finished
products, pressure and continuous casting operations employ different
procedures and technologies to perform the casting operation. In view
of this, the Agency believes that the pressure casting process may
differ significantly from the continuous casting process. The Agency
does not have sufficient data relating to pressure casters to propose
limitations and standards for those operations. Moreover, since there
are only a few pressure casting operations, the Agency believes that
limitations for those operations should be established on a
ca»e-by-case basis. For this reason, the Agency is not proposing
limitations for pressure casting operations at this time.
396
-------
TABLE III-1
SUMMARY OF SAMPLED PLANTS
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY

Plant


Sample
Reference
Type of
Steel
Code
Code
Caster
Type
*AE
0584F
Slab
Carbon
AF
0868B
Slab
Carbon
D
0248B
Slab
Specialty
Q
0684D
-
Specialty
071
0284A
Slab
Specialty
072
0496
Slab
Carbon
*075
0584F
Slab
Carbon
079
0060K
Billet
Carbon
Inadequate response to the basic DCP.
*: This plant was sampled twice; once during the Original Guidelines Survey as Plant A£
and once during the Toxic Pollutant Survey as Plant 075• Hie data gathered during
the toxic survey is considered to be the most representative of plant operations and,
therefore, is used instead of the original survey data.
-------
TABLE II1-2
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
COHTIHUOUS CASTING
Plant Casting
Code Process
0060
Cont.l
ConC.-
Cont.
006OD Coat.
006OH Coot.
Type of
Steel
CS-98
KSLA-2
ES-78,
88-22
CS-100
Prod. Ton/DaT
Fiona Cal/Ton
006OK Coat, i CS-100
Coat.-Coat.
Products # of Strands Plant Rated 1976 Applied Discharge Process Central
Cast Per Machine Age Capacitv Prod. Plow	Plow TrcatMent Treafent
Slabs
Slabs
Billata
Billets
1972 3800
1970 1000
1964 1200
1968 635
1975
1812
789 1678	554
975 923	92
327	[2985]	[»]
None
FIX
FL02.CL
VF,CT
FDS.FSF
CL,CT,VF
PSF.SSP, Hone
Scr, CT *
PSP
FF.CT
None
Operating Discharge
Mode	Mode
RTF 67
BO 33
RTF 90
BD 10
&
RTP 100 Zero Discharge
Direct
Indirect^^
JTP 99.2] Direct
|D 0.8]
00681 Coat.
0076 Coat.
CS-100
CS-100
Billets
Billets
1975 880
1975 700
360
6111
255(2) 1656
611
0
PSF
PSF
Hone
T,VF
ROP 90
RED 10
RTP 100
Zero Discharge
Zero Discharge
u>
,VD
00
Coat, k	CS-100
Coat.-Coat.
0084A Coat. 6	CS-100
Coat.-Coat.
0112D Coat.
0132 Coat.
CS-95,
HSLA-5
CS-80,
AS-20
Billeta
Billata
Slabs
1975 450
1970 300
1976 4100
1970 540
300
(3)
(3)
65
2840 6408
467
- "I
128
PSF, SS
01,02,03
None
SSF.Scr,
CT
RUP 100 Zero Discharge
HA,01,02, RTP 98
*L,NW,FLP, BD 2
CL,SS,T,SL
VF
Hone
Direct
-------
TABLE III-2
GEKE»AL SUMMARY TABLE
(Tirriiroous casting '
PACT 2	
CO
lO
Plant
Code
0136B
0180
0188C
0196A
0204
0248B
Castlog
Procesa
Cant.
Cont. i
Cont.-Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
0284A Cont.
(4)
0316 Cont.
0316A Cont. &
Coat. -Cont.
0384A
0384A
Cont-Cont.
Type of
Steel
CS-96
HSLA-4
CS-100
Cont.-Cont. CS-100
Cont. (
Cont.-Cont.
Products f of Strands Plant
Cast Per Machine Age
1967
CS-100
SS-99.9,
other 0.1
SS-100
CS-100
CS-100
Billets
Billets
Billets
Slabs
Slabs
Billets
CS-64.8, Billets
H8LA-35.2 and Blooaa
Cont-Cont. CS-100
Slabs
1970
1976
1976
1975
1972
1974
Prod. Ton/Day
Rated 1976
Capacity Prod.
576
400
1200
*
1000
1100
Plows Gal/Toil
Applied Discharge Process Central
Flow	Flow Treatment Treatment
1965	850
1970	900
1970	1370
1972	4110
501
329
210
*
853
500
4012 4.0
2543 2543
2000 0
550	296 (564] H
533
383
1668
4422
3281 16
7062 98
None
PSP,SS
CT
None
None
PSP,SL,SS
None
None
None
PSP,SSP, None
SS,FDSP,
ScrfCL
PSP,
FSP,T,CT
None
None
None
None
PSPfSS, None
FDSPfCT
PSP,SS, None
FDSP,CT,CL
Operating Discharge
Mode	Mode
RTP 99.9
BD 0.1
RTP 89
BD 11
REU 100
RTP 100
Direct
Indirect
Zero Discharge
None	QtTP 10(T] Zero Discharge
ETP 97.1(5) Direct
BD 0.5
ETP 97
BD 1.4
Direct
-------
TABU! III-2
GENERAL SOMMRr TAILS
COHTIITOOOS CASTING
PAGE 3 	
Plant
Code
Casting
Process
0432A Oont.
0444 Cont.
Type of
Steel
CS-100
CS-99,
Other-1
Prod. Ton/Day
Flow* Gal/Ton
Products # of Strands Plant Rated 1976 Applied Discharge Process Central
Cast Per Machine Age Capacity Prod. Flow	Flow Treatment Treatment
Billets
Billets
1969
1974
1500
500
1000 2496
326
4294
56
245
PSP.SSP, None
VF,SS
PSP.FDSP None
CL
Operating	Discharge
Mode Mode
RTP 97.8	Direct
BD 2.2
RTP 94.3
BD 5.7
POTW
0456A Cont.
0460A Oont.
CS-100
CS-100
Billets
1970 600
1968 950
192
479
4509
1527
None
PSP.CT
None
None
RTP 66.2 Indirect
RET 33.8 Discharge
(6)
¦Ci
o
o
(6)
0468B Cont. &	CS-95,
Cont. -Cont.	0ther-5
0468F Cont. A	CS-100
Cont.-Cont.
0476A Cont. A CS-100
Cont.-Cont.
0496 Cont.
CS-90,
BSLA-10
0528A Cont.-Cont. CS-93,
BSLA-7
Billets
Billets
Bli
Slabs
Slabs
1969	1600 1403 927 128
1970
1976 3450	801 2187 28
1969
533 16,210 81
1968 6575	5609 4814 144
PSP
PSP
SL
1	1971 1600	940 0542]	None
SSPfCT,
FDSPrSS
SL|SS1CT
FLP»Scr,
SS.NL,
CL,04
PSP,FLPf
FDSP.CLA,
CT
RTP 86
BD 14
RTP 98.7
BD 1.3
RTP 99.5
BD 0.S
PSP,SSP, CL,FLP,SL, RTP 97
CT,FDSP PSP,SSP,T, BD 3
SS,HL,NA,
EB,CO,Scr,
Direct
Direct
Direct
QtTP	Zero Discharge
Direct
-------
TABLE III-2
CBMB4I. SDMMlR TABU
OUM1HUOOB CASTIHG
PACE 4	
Plant Casting
Cade Process
OS48D Oant.
0384T ONt.
0396
Prod. Ton/Dry
Type of Prodacts # of Strands Plant Bated 1976
Caat Par Machine its Capacity Prod.
2	197* 600	233
Steal
CB-86,
11-14
CS-100 Blab*
CS-100 Billet*
CS-100 BilUt*
196B 4UB
1*73 BOO
1976 COO
3367
*3*
300
CS-99, Billets	2	19W 900
AT-1
0620B Cant* I CS-100 BllUta	2	1973 BOO
900
0620C Oant. t
Orat.-Cont.
0632 Coot.
HSLA-10
CB-90, Blab*
¦SU-10
1973 1200 800
1968 1440 831
(6>06724 Cant. « CB-100
Oant.-Coat.
0672B Ctat. t CB-100
Goat.-Cant.
Billet*
1963 1132 622
1973 700	232
Flows Gal/Ton
Applied Discharge Proceas Central	Operating Discharge
Flow	Flow Treatment Tresfent	Hade	Hode
3753 79	Bone	PSP.SS	BTP 97.9 Direct
BD 2.1
D**B E*3 PBPfPTPf 03,06, ^p^»a
Direct
3161 o	Hone	CT.FHP	KIP 100 Zero Macharge
SL
2764 11	lane	PSP.SSP BTP 99.6 Direct
Spray	BD 0.4
Cooling
22	0	Bom	SL.PBP,	KIP 100 Zero Macharge
FDSP
2000 24	Bone	PSP.tt, KIP 9S.9 Direct
SBP.SL,	BD 1.1
CT,8cr
05,CLA,FLP
1373 1373	Hone	FSP.Scr.SS, OT	Direct
SL,FLA,FLPf
BL.CLA
347 0	PSP.SSP, Hone	KIP 100 Zero Discharge
HC»CT,8cr
Hone
Hone
-------
TABLE III-2
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
CONTINUOUS CASTING
PACE 5	
4^
O
to
Plant Catting
Code Proceai
0684E Cont.
0684E Cont.
(6)0696A Coat.
0740A Cont.
0764 Coat.
0780 Coot.
0780
0796A Coot.
 o
900<#) 1278(9)
4008
1605
5489
5318
1278
5489
5318
(9)
PSP.CT
PSP,CT None
None
Hone
PSP,
SS,SSP
Settling
Pon
-------
TABLE 111-2
CENKKAL SUMMKY TAtLt
CONTINUOUS CAST INC
PACE 6
Prod. Too/Da1
Plant
Code
Cast i ng
Process
08640 Cont.
0868B Coat.
(I946A Coot.
Type of
Steel
CS-70,
AT-2S,
HSLA-S
CS-78.5,
IISLA-21.5
CS-87,
HSLA-13
Products f of Strands Plant
Cast Per Machine
ftil lets #
Blooas
*Be
1968
1971
1966
5?
1976
Rated
Capacity Prod.
820
1435
870
Plows Gal/Ton
Applied Discharge Process Central
Flow Flow Treatment Treatment
168
1395
2Mu°>
8258
571
310
SSP.SL,
FLF.SS,
CT
PSP.SS,
FDSP.CT
Operating
Node
BTP 96.2
10 3.8
Discharge
Mode
Direct
Direct
O
u>
-------
TABLE III-2
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
CONTINUOUS CASTING
PAGE 7	
(1)	Percolation nd evaporation.
(2)	Production i» for 1975 at there mi* no production in 1976.
(3)	The DCP reported only total tonnage for the two
casters. However, a split could be made based upon typical
production which vas reported separately for each caater.
(4)	Data refers to tvo identical casters. Production reported is
combined tonnage for the two casters*
(5)	DCP reports 2.4Z evaporation.
(6)	IWo machine a located at this plant. Plow and tonnage data is
coabined for the two casters.
(7)	IWo identical machines.
16) Typical production. Separate 1976 tonnage not available.
(9)	Combined 6PT for both uchiota.
(10)	Ho production in 1976* Tonnage is for 1975.
- Inadequate response.
* Confidential information
MOTE* All data was derived froa the basic questionnaire
responses with the exception of bracketed data.
Data in brackets was derived from the plant aanpling viait data.
The general abbreviation key is found in Table VII-1.
The abbreviations defined on thia page apply to this auanary table.
RKT TO ABBREVIATIONS
AS# t	Z alloy ateel
AT# ;	X alloy tool
CS# :	Z carbon steel
ES# i	Z electrical steel
HSLA#:	Z high strength low elloy
SS# x	Z stainle«t steel
PL01:	flocculation with ferric chloride
FLO2:	flocculetion with ferric aulfate
01	:	pH control
02	:	biocide
0) >	corrosion inhibitors .
04 t	mechanical aeration
0$ :	hydroaation filters
06 t	deep bed filters with walnut shells
-------
TABLE III-3
CONTINUOUS CASTING DATA BASE
Plants sampled for original
survey
Plants sampled for toxic
survey
Total plants sampled
Plants solicited via
D-DCP
Plants sampled and/or
solicited via D-DCP
Plants responding to
DCP
No. of Daily	Z of
Plants	% of Total Capacity	Daily Capacity
4	8.0 7214	9.9
4 incl.	8.0	incl 6923 incl.	9.5 incl.
1	above	2.0	above 4118 above	5.7 above
7	14.0 10,019	13.8
9 incl.	18.0	incl. 20,309 incl.	27.9 incl.
2	above	4.0	above 1,650 above	2.3 above
14	28.0 28,678	39.5
50	100.0 72,691	100.0
405
-------
O
-------
HOT METAL
MOULD COOUH6
WATER
SPRAY COOLING
WATCH
WATER COOLIHq CHAMBtft
PINCH ROLLS
cur-orr torch
5TEC1 PRODUCT SHAPES
MACHINi COOLM6
WATER
RUM-OUT TABUS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE JO.-2
-------
LacMe
T undish
Vertical cooling
chamber
Withdrawal mechanism
• >
Run-out
tables
Cut-off mechanism
Tilting basket
VERTICAL CASTING DESIGN
Ladle
T undish—
Curved mold
Curved cooling
chamber

Withdrawal and
straightening
equipment
CURVED MOLD DESIGN
Ladle
Mold
Tundish
Vertical cooling chamber
Withdrawal mechanism
Bending roll mechanism
Dummy bar for storting
withdrawal
Straighening
mechanism
VERTICAL a BENDING ROLL DESIGN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
D»n. 2/23/79
FIGURE m-3
-------
O
VO
COOLING
¦WATER
COOLING
WATER
Graphite molds
E2Z
Steel slab
Mold-clamping
mechanism
AIR
COMPRESSOR
Top of pressure
tank
« •"
1*^
Ceramic tube
Molten steel
Ladle
Base of pressure
tank
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PRESSURE CASTING OF A SLAB
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
PRESSURE CASTING
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn. 2/23/79
FIGURE TTT-4
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
Introduction
The Agency examined several factors to determine if the continuous
casting subcategory should be subdivided. Those factors include
manufacturing processes and equipment, final products, raw materials,
wastewater characteristics, wastewater treatability, size and age of
facilities, geographic location, and process water usage and discharge
rates. All were found to have no significant effect upon
subcategorization. The following discussion addresses each of these
factors and confirms ' the proposed continuous casting
subcategorization.
Factors Considered in Subdivision
Manufacturing Process and Equipment
The continuous casting operation is a process in which molten steel is
cast into a semi-finished product. Its particular process
characteristics distinguish it from other steelmaking operations.
However, the Agency concluded that further subdivision of the
continuous casting subcategory was not warranted. The process and
equipment required is basically the same for all continuously cast
products.
Differences among casters are found in the casting control parameters
such as temperature, tundish nozzle pouring rates, withdrawal rates,
cooling rates, and type of caster design. These parameters, however,
do not significantly affect wastewater quantity or quality.
Final Products
Continuous casting operations produce ar wide variety of semi-finished
products, varying in material composition and geometric form. The
basic process, though, of transforming molten steel to a semi-finished
product is the same. Sampling data do not indicate any significant
differences between carbon steel casters and specialty steel casters
nor among billet, bloom, or slab casters. Consequently, the Agency
concluded that a further subdivision based upon the final product of
continuous casting operations is not appropriate.
Raw Materials
The Agency found that raw materials do not differentiate continuous
casting facilities. The sampling data for specialty and carbon steel
casters exhibit no appreciable differences in the type and nature of
wastewaters produced. Sampling data are presented in Section VII.
411
-------
Wastewater Characteristics
Although continuous caster wastewaters are distinguishable from those
of the other steel industry subcategories, a review of sampling data
indicates no discernible pattern or apparent division among casters,
regardless of caster type or the type of steel cast. The Agency,
therefore, concludes that there is no justification for further
subdivision on the basis of wastewater characteristics.
Wastewater Treatabi1ity
Continuous casting wastewater treatment does not vary appreciably from
plant to plant. While the Agency observed differences in the
concentrations of wastewater constituents, it also noted a common
approach to wastewater treatment. The major treatment components used
in these operations are gravity sedimentation devices, filters, and
recycle systems. The Agency concludes that further subdivision based
upon wastewater treatability considerations is not justified.
Size and Age of Facilities
The Agency considered the impact of size and age on subdivision of
continuous casters. It analyzed possible correlations relating the
effects of age and size upon such elements as wastewater flows,
wastewater characteristics, and the ability to retrofit treatment
equipment to existing facilities. No relationships were found, and
size and age were determined to have no impact upon subdivision.
Size has no apparent effect upon subdivision. Analysis does not
reveal any correlation between the size of a casting shop and any
pertinent factor such as process water usage or wastewater
characteristics. Figure IV-1 is a plot of discharge flow rates (in
gallons/ton) versus production capacity (in tons/day) for continuous
casters. As can be seen by this plot, the size of the caster shop has
no bearing upon the ability to recycle and subsequently attain a low
discharge flow rate. A review of analytical data for sampled plants
(presented in Section VII) does not show any relationship between size
and the characteristics of the wastewater generated. Thus, the Agency
concludes that further subdivision based upon the size of casting
shops is not warranted.
"Age" was examined as a possible basis for subdivision as it relates
to feasibility and cost of retrofit (this issue is also discussed in
general terms in Section III of Volume I). The concept of age for a
casting shop, though, has little meaning, as the casting process is a
relatively new development. According to the DCP data, the "oldest"
caster now in operation was installed in 1955 with most being built in
the 1960's. Accordingly, there is not much variation in the age of
the various casting shops. A comparison was made, however, of age and
process water usage in a similar manner as was performed for the size
of a caster shop. Figure IV-2 illustrates this comparison. As with
the flow versus size plots, no relationship is evident. Thus, the age
of a shop has no effect upon the ability to recycle process water and
attain a low effluent discharge.
412
-------
Further analysis indicates that the age of a caster shop in no way
affects the quality or quantity of wastewaters generated. Older shops
generate the same kind and amount of wastewaters as newer shops. In
addition, the treatability of these wastes is about the same in all
cases.
The Agency also addressed the ability to retrofit water pollution
control equipment as part of the age analysis. Several older plants
have demonstrated the ability to retrofit equipment as shown in Table
IV-1. These examples demonstrate that pollution control equipment can
be installed on existing plant facilities. In addition, the Agency
analyzed the cost of retrofit to determine whether older plants
require greater capital expenditures than newer plants. The D-DCPs
solicited this retrofit cost information, and of the nine plants
surveyed, none reported any costs due to retrofit. While there were
probably some retrofit costs in all cases where wastewater treatment
facilities were added to existing casters, based upon the responses
received to D-DCPs in this and other subcategories, EPA concludes that
such costs are not significant.
Based upon the preceding discussion, neither the size of a casting
shop nor its age has any significant effect upon the nature or
treatment of the resulting wastewaters. The Agency concludes,
therefore, that further subdivision, based upon size or age, is not
warranted.
Geographic Location
The location of continuous casting facilities has no apparent effect
upon subdivision. The Agency analyzed the relationship between plant
location and pertinent factors such as process water use and
wastewater characteristics. No discernible pattern was revealed.
Most of the plants are located east of the Mississippi River. Six are
located in Texas, four in California, and one each in Oklahoma,
Colorado, and Oregon. One caster is located in the arid west and
requires the use of only minimal quantities of water from a local
river. Consideration was given to the consumptive use of water, since
the model treatment systems involve the use of evaporative cooling
towers. However, the effects due to the consumptive use of water are
minimal. As a result, the Agency concludes that further subdivision
on the basis of geographic location is not warranted.
Process Water Usage and Discharge Rates
The Agency examined process water usage and discharge rates as a
possible factor of subdivision. Table IV-2 presents flow averages and
ranges for those plants which supplied flow data. Data were compiled
according to the type of steel cast, the type of product cast, the
number of strands, and the type of caster. Although the data tend to
indicate that specialty casters use less water, the Agency concludes
that similar effluent flow rates for carbon and specialty casters can
be achieved, based upon industry performance. Therefore, the Agency
concludes that further subdivision, based upon process water usage or
discharge rates, is not appropriate.
413
-------
TABLE IV-1
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THt
ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
CONTINUOUS CASTING
Plant Code
02 84A
0432A
0476A
0584F
0652
Mill Age Year
1974
1969
1969
1968
1968
Treatment Age Year
1974, 1976
1974
1977
1970,	1973
1971,	1973
414
-------
TABLE IV-2
APPLIED AND DISCHARGE FLOW RATES
CONTINUOUS CASTING
m
Type of "Steel
Carbon
Specialty
Type of Product
Slabs
Billets
Blooms
Rounds
Number of Strands
No. of Casters
Reporting Data
46
5
13
27
5
1
Range
Applied
GPT
22-16210
564-2000
564-8258
22-6111
1278-16210
3755
Discharge
GPT
0-5489
0-554
0-5489
0-5318
16-1278
79
Applied
GPT
3646
1409
3716
2558
6923
3755
Average
Discharge
GPT
617
151
689
476
487
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
5
17
7
11
1
5
564-8258
22-7062
1656-4294
927-5318
5161
923-16210
0-5489
0-1375
0-245
16-5318
0
56-1527
3642
2525
2662
3015
5161
5028
1160
277
64
894
0
373
Ize®.
of Caster
Continuous	31
Continuous-Continuous	6
Continuous and
Continuous-Continuous	15
564-8258
22-7062
547-16210
0-2543
0-5489
0-128
2931
4331
3537
401
1844
44
-------
FIGURE IV-I
DISCHARGE FLOW vs. PLANT SIZE
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
800 i
700
600
e
< 300
£
0
ii 400 -
Ui
©
01
x 300
<0
a
200
100 -
a ®
o
At
«
1000
2000	3000	4000	9000
PRODUCTION CAPACITY (TONS/DAY)
6000
TOO
SIX PLANTS HAVING DISCHARGE FLOW RATES GREATER THAN 1000 GAL/TON
WERE NOT INCLUOEO IN THIS FIGURE.
416
-------
FIGURE IV-2
DISCHARGE FLOW vs. PLANT AGE
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
800 i
A
A
A
A
1964
A
£
a
a
a
a
A
A
T
1966 1968 1970 1972
PLANT AGE (YEAR)
1974
1976
1978
SIX PLANTS HAVING OISCHARGE FLOWS GREATER THAN 1000 GAL/TON
WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS FIGURE.
417
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
Process water usage and characterization of the wastewaters generated
by the continuous casting process are the principal considerations in
determining pollutant loads, developing treatment alternatives, and
estimating costs. This section describes the water system in use in
the continuous casting subcategory and the type of wastes originating
from the process. The description of the wastewater system is limited
to those streams which come into contact with raw material, products,
or by-products associated with the process. This excludes the various
noncontact cooling water systems that are used in the continuous
casting process. Waste characterization is based upon analytical data
obtained during field sampling surveys.
Water Use
The continuous casting process has three main plant water systems.
1.	Copper mold noncontact cooling water system
2.	Machinery noncontact cooling water system
3.	Cast product spray contact cooling water system
Only the cast product spray contact cooling water system is discussed,
as the other two systems use noncontact cooling water only.
The cast product is only partially solidified when it emerges from the
molds. The interior core of the product is still molten steel at this
time. The cast product spray cooling water system sprays water
directly onto the product for further cooling. As the cast product
surface oxidizes, scale is washed away by the cooling water. The
spray water also becomes contaminated with oils and greases which are
released by the hydraulic and lubrication systems. As the cast
product is discharged on to the run-out tables for final cooling,
additional scale flakes off and drops beneath the tables. Sometimes
this scale is sluiced to the spray cooling water pit.
Approximately 5-10% of the water sprayed on the product is evaporated
with the balance being discharged to a scale pit. Temperatures of
discharged spray waters range from 54° to 60°C (130° to 140°F). Other
minor wastewater systems include spray cooling of cast product,
acetylene torch cut-off, and miscellaneous cooling or sluicing.
In conjunction with the water systems described above, a common
industry practice is to recycle the process wastewater. Table X-2 is
a list of the plants for which flow and recycle rate data were
received. As shown, wastewaters are recycled at the vast majority of
419
-------
plants at rates exceeding ninety percent. Several plants report no
discharge of process wastewater from continuous casting operations.
Waste Characterization
The continuous casting process produces scale and oils and greases as
a result of the spray cooling process. Withdrawal and guide rolls
guide the cast product through the solidification stage. Since the
cast product is hot, the surface oxidizes and the resulting scale is
washed out with the spray cooling water. Additional scale flakes off
when the cast product is discharged onto the caster run-out tables.
Caster equipment employs hydraulic and lubrication systems which add
oils and greases to the wastewaters.
The raw wastewater discharges from the carbon and specialty steel
continuous casters are similar in waste characterization with regard
to the previously limited pollutants, suspended solids, oil and
grease, and pH. Tables V-l and V-2 present raw wastewater flow and
quality data for the plants sampled. The wastewater pollutant
concentration data represent the contribution of pollutants from each
pass through the casting process. Data for Plant AE, sampled during
the original guidelines survey, are not presented, since this
operation was resampled as Plant 075 during the toxic pollutant
survey. The toxic pollutant survey data are more complete and more
representative of current plant operations.
The analytical data presented in Table V-2 show the type and quantity
of organic compounds and toxic metals which have been found in
continuous casting wastewaters. Section VI deals more specifically
with the selection of pollutants, in terms of regulation, monitoring,
and the origin of these pollutants.
-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
	CONTINUOUS CASTING	
Net Concentration of Pollutants in Raw Wastewater
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point(s)
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH (Units)
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
0868B
AF
7-9
1475
mg/1
89
22
6.6
NA
0.12
1.0
0684D
Q
16
mg/1
126
16.3
8.9
0.060
0.020
NA
0.040
Average
1475
S&Zi
108
19
6.6-8.9
0.060
0.070
0.52
- : Calculation yielded a negative result.
NA: Not analyzed
NOTE: Plant B, a pressure slab caster, is not addressed here as it was scheduled
for shutdown in September of 1980.
Raw wastewater data for Plant D was unobtainable during sampling.
421
-------
TABLE V-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
CONTINUOUS CASTING
Net Concentration of Pollutants in Raw Wastewater
fo
K>
Reference Code	0284A
Plant Code 071
Sample Point(s) B-C
Flow, gal/ton 564
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease	3.8
pH (Units)	9.2-9.4
022	Parachlorouetacresol	0.11
023	Chloroform	0.0017
034 2, 4-Dime thylpheno1	0.025"
039 Fluoranthene	ND
068	Di-n-butyl phthalate -
069	Di-n-octyl phthalate	0.02
086 Toluene
119	Chromium
120	Copper	0.015
122 Lead
125 Selenium	0.22
128 Zin?
0496
072
F-E
1542
"g/1
16.5
19
7.4-8.1
ND
0.003
0.0034
0584F
075
I+K-J-A
3489
3.6
7.0-9.2
0.000018
0.017
0.007
ND
0.016
0.016
0.006
0060K
079
C-B-E
2985
>mg/l
11
4
7.0-7.9
0.005
ND
0.019
0.039
0.18
0.0039
NA
Toxic
Survey
Average
2145
"g/1
6.9
7.6
7.0-9.4
0.03
0.0047
0.008
0.0055
0.011
0.054
0.005
0.0038
0.0015
0.073
Overall
Average
2011
mg/1
40
11.5
6.6-9.4
0.03
0.0047
0.008
0.0055
0.011
0.054
0.005
0.012
0.027
0.0012
0.073
0.17
(1)
- : Calculation yielded a negative result.
ND: Not detected
NA: Not analyzed
(1) Overall averages include the values presented on Table V-l.
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VI
WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Introduction
This section describes the rationale for selecting, and discusses
process sources of those pollutants for which limitations are proposed
for continuous casting operations.
Final selection of those pollutants was based upon an analysis of
wastewater samples collected during plant visits. This list of
pollutants was confirmed and augmented through extensive field
sampling that included analysis for toxic pollutants. On the basis of
the expected and observed similarities among continuous casting
operations, the list of selected pollutants was developed.
Conventional Pollutants
The previously limited pollutants, suspended solids, oil and grease,
and pH, were chosen based on the nature of the raw materials and
equipment used in the casting process. Suspended solids was chosen
because a large quantity of scale is generated by the casting process
and carried out by the spray cooling waters. When scale comes into
contact with cooling water, the particulates are transferred to the
wastewater. It should be noted that the suspended solids level also
indicates the degree to which the process water has been contaminated.
Toxic metals are often entrained with solids suspended in the
wastewater. The removal of solids often results in removal of toxic
metals.
The Agency selected oil and grease for limitation, because it is often
found in caster wastewaters. Lubrication is a necessary part of the
continuous casting process. Oil spills, line breaks, excessive
application of lubricants, and equipment washdown all contribute to
the presence of oil and grease in continuous casting wastewaters.
Finally, the Agency chose pH, a measure of the acidity or alkalinity
of a wastewater, because of the environmentally detrimental effects
which can result from extremes in pH. In addition, corrosion and
scaling conditions, which foul or damage process or treatment
equipment, can be caused by extreme pH levels. The pH of continuous
casting process wastewaters typically falls within the range of 6.0 to
9.0 standard units.
Toxic Pollutants
This study was also directed at evaluating toxic pollutant discharges.
The toxic pollutants analyzed during the verification sampling phase
of the project included those pollutants which were classified by the
Agejicy as "known to be present." This determination was made as a
423
-------
result of industry responses to the DCPs and analyses performed during
the screening phase. Table VI-1 lists those toxic pollutants for
which analyses were performed. A final toxic pollutant list was
compiled by including all pollutants which were detected in the raw
wastewater at an average concentration of 0.010 mg/1 or greater. This
list is presented in Table VI-2 for the continuous casting subcategory
and includes the previously discussed limited pollutants. The
pollutants listed in Table VI-2 are considered to be those which are
most representative and indicative of casting operations, and they are
addressed accordingly throughout this report.
Toxic metal pollutants originate in the molten steels which are cast.
These metals find their way into the wastewaters through the scale
particulates which are washed from the cast product. Three organic
pollutants, parachlorometacresol, di-n-butyl phthalate, and di-n-octyl
phthalate, were also detected in caster wastewaters at significant
levels. The phthalate compounds, however, are not believed to be
characteristic of the casting process. Evidence developed during the
sampling inspections indicates that their origin is probably related
to plasticizers in the tubing used for the automatic collection of
samples. With respect to parachlormetacresol, it appears in
concentrations that, aside from recycle, are below treatability
levels. For these reasons, the Agency is not proposing limitations
for this pollutant. The Agency believes that this pollutant does not
tend to concentrate in recycle systems. Although the concentrations
of these pollutants in recycle system blowdowns will be approximately
the same as in the discharge from once-through systems, the mass
loadings of these pollutants will be reduced proportionately to the
degree of recycle. Accordingly, with the high degree of recycle
incorporated in the BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS technologies, the
Agency believes that compliance with the proposed limitations and
standards for conventional and toxic metal pollutants will indicate a
comparable reduction in the discharge of those toxic organic
pollutants present in continuous casting wastewaters.
424
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
	CONTINUOUS CASTING
Toxic Pollutant
Designation
Pollutant Parameter
22
Parachlorometacresol
23
Chloroform
34
2,4-Dimethylpheno1
39
Fluoranthene
68(1)
Di-n-butyl phthalate
69(1)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
86
Toluene
119
Chromium
120
Copper
122
Lead
125
Selenium
128
Zinc
(1) Appearance of this pollutant in continuous casting wastewater
is believed to be due to plasticizers found in sampling equipment.
425
-------
TABLE VI-2
SELECTED POLLDTANT PARAMETERS
CONTINUOUS CASTING
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH
119	Chromium
120	Copper
122 Nickel
125 Selenium
128 Zinc
426
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The Agency established the BPT, BAT, BCT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS
alternative treatment systems after determining the current level of
treatment in the industry. The various treatment technologies were
then formulated as "add-ons" to this primary level of treatment.
Control and treatment technologies available for the various levels of
treatment are discussed in this section. The Agency is proposing
effluent limitations and standards for these levels of treatment based
upon an evaluation of the effluent analytical data obtained during
plant visits and treatment capabilities demonstrated in this or other
subcategories. Treatment system summaries, schematics, and wastewater
analytical data for the visited plants are presented herein.
Summary of Treatment Practices Currently Employed
The wastewater produced by the continuous casting process primarily
results from the spray water system which brings cooling water into
contact with the hot semi-finished product. This wastewater requires
treatment.
The basic treatment systems in use at continuous casting plants
include primary settling devices, which are often scale pits equipped
with drag link conveyors and oil removal facilities. The scale pit
overflow is often treated in settling lagoons, filters, or clarifiers.
The treated water is then recycled through cooling towers with a small
blowdown being discharged. (About 25 percent of the industry,
however, have no such discharge and recycle 100% of the wastewater.)
Cooling towers are used to reduce the process water temperature prior
to recycle. Chemical flocculation systems are provided with
clarifiers to aid in the settling of solids. Clarifier underflows are
then dewatered by vacuum filters or centrifuges.
Several different types of filters are used. Flat bed filters, with
disposable filter belts, or deep bed filters are often used. The deep
bed filters require backwashing to clean the filter media. Flat bed
filters use a media which is disposed of along with the solids
filtered. The deep bed filters discharge backwash waters to sludge
tanks. Filtered solids are then disposed of in landfills. The
capital cost of flat bed filters is approximately 1/3 that of deep bed
filters. In addition, flat bed filters do not require the backwashing
and other equipment necessary to operate deep bed filters effectively.
Four casting plants presently use flat bed filters. Thirteen plants
employ deep bed filters, but nine of these plants use central
treatment systems. In these cases, the deep bed filters treat other
wastewaters in addition to continuous casting wastewaters. Filtration
of the continuous casting discharge will remove toxic metals entrained
427
-------
in the suspended solids, as those metals are in particulate form
rather than in a dissolved state.
Table 111-2 presents the treatment technologies and modes of operation
for all caster plants.
Control and Treatment
Technologies Considered for Toxic Pollutant Removal
The detection of toxic metals in continuous casting wastewaters
required the consideration of additional treatment for BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS. The technology selected for review, in addition to
filtration as noted above, is sulfide precipitation. A brief
discussion of this technology follows.
Systems which include the addition of a sulfide compound to the
wastewaters have been shown to be capable of reducing toxic metal
pollutant concentrations substantially below the levels achieved in
lime flocculaton precipitation reactions. Some of the toxic metals
which can be precipitated effectively with sulfide are zinc, copper,
chromium, lead, and selenium. The increased removal efficiencies can
be attributed to the comparative solubilities of metal sulfides with
metal hydroxides. In general, the metal sulfide is less soluble than
the hydroxide form of the same metal. However, it is important to
note that an excess of sulfide in a treated effluent can result in
objectionrole odor problems. A decrease in wastewater pH will
aggravate this problem. If wastewater treatment pH control problems
result in even a slight pH variance, operating personnel may become
affected, One method of controlling excess sulfide is by feeding a
solution of iron sulfide. Iron sulfide will not readily disassociate
in the waste stream to excess sulfide ions. However, the affinities
of the other metals for sulfide are great enough to form precipitates
by using iron sulfide. Sulfide is fed in much the same manner as lime
and is often used in conjunction with a filter downstream.
Summary of Samplinq Visit Data
The Agency visited seven continuous casting facilities during the
overall study. Four of these plants were visted for the original
study, and four were surveyed during the latter toxic pollutant study.
Four of the seven plants are carbon steel casters, and three are
specialty steel casters. One plant was sampled twice; Plant AE for
the original study and Plant 075 for the toxic pollutant study. This
plant is addressed as Plant 075, since the data obtained during the
second study are considered to be more representative of present
operations.
Table VII — 1 provides a legend for the various control and treatment
te:hnology abbreviations used throughout this report. Tables VIi-2
and VI1-3 present the raw and effluent waste loads for the above
mentioned continuous casting plants. Figures VII-1 through VII-7 are
wastewater treatment schematics of the plants sampled. A brief
description of the treatment practices and facilities at each of the
sampled plants follows.
428
-------
Plant AF - Figure VII-1
Wastewater from the continuous caster at this plant is treated
together with vacuum degassing wastewater. Treatment consists of a
scale pit with oil skimming, high flow rate pressure filters, a
cooling tower, and a recycle pump system. Blowdown is less then 2
percent of the applied flow. Deep bed filters are used with the
backwash waters being discharged to the caster scale pit.
Plant D - Figure VII-2
Caster wastewater is first settled in a clarifier. The clarifier
underflow is batch discharged to the river, while the overflow is
pumped through a filter and then recycled to the process.
Plant Q - Figure VII-3
Caster sprays are discharged to a collection sump for settling and
then pumped to a cooling tower. Water is	recycled from the cooling
tower to the process. There is no discharge	from this system.
Plant 071 - Figure VII-4
This plant uses a scale pit and pressure sand filters to remove solids
from the caster machine spray waters. Filter backwash is discharged
to a sludge concentrator. Sludge is hauled away by a contractor, and
the concentrator overflow is returned to the scale pit. Filtered
water is recycled to the caster sprays after passing through a cooling
tower. There is no discharge from this system.
Plant 072 - Figure VII-5
This plant uses a combination treatment system for its vacuum degasser
and continuous caster. Caster wastewater is discharged to a scale pit
which receives degasser wastewater as well. The wastewater is then
recirculated through a cooling tower to pressure sand filters.
Backwash waters are discharged to the scale pit, which overflows to a
large lagoon or reservoir. Filter effluent is passed through another
cooling tower and finally recycled to the process. Aside from filter
backwash, this system achieves zero discharge, since all of the
wastewaters are recirculated.
Plant 075 - Figure VII-6
Plant 075 was originally sampled in 1974 as Plant AE. Modifications
to its treatment system justified the revisit. Caster wastewater is
first pumped to primary scale pits. Some water is recycled to the
process from there, but most of it is passed through flat bed filters.
A blowdown from the filters is discharged to lagoons. The filter
effluent is recirculated through a cooling tower and then pumped to
walnut shell deep bed filters. The backwash is discharged to the
lagoons, as the filter effluent is recycled to the caster sprays.
Recycle is approximately 97 percent of the process flow.
429
-------
Plant 079 - Figure VII-7
This plant uses flat bed filters and recycle with 0.8% blowdown to a
scale pit, which serves as a final settling pond. Filtered water is
recycled to the caster after passing through a cooling tower.
430
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
SymboIs
Operating Modes
1. OT
2 . Rt,s, n
3.
Once-Through
Recycle, where t
s
n
type waste
stream recycled
X recycled



t:
: U ¦ Untreated




T " Treated

8


n

p
Process Wastewater
X
of
raw waste
flow
F
Flume Only
X
of
raw waste
flow
S
Flume and Sprays
X
of
raw waste
flow
FC
Final Cooler
X
of
FC flow

BC
Barometric Cond.
X
of
BC flow

VS
Abs. Vent Scrub.
X
of
VS flow

FH
Fume Hood Scrub.
X
of
FH flow

REt,n
Reuse, where t ¦
type



n ¦
% of raw '
waste flow



ts U -
T -

4.
BDn
Blowdown, where n ¦ <
B.
Control Technology


10.
DI
Deionization

11.
SR
Spray/Fog Rinse

12.
CC
Countercurrent Rinse

13.
DR
Drag-out Recovery
C.
Disposal Methods


20.
H
Haul Off-Site

21.
DW
Deep Well Injection
raw waste flow
431
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 2 		
C.	Disposal Methods (cont.)
22. Qt,d	Coke Quenching, where t ¦ type
d ¦ discharge as %
of makeup
t: DW ™ Dirty Water
CW ¦ Clean Water
23.
EME
Evaporation, Multiple Effect
24.
ES
Evaporation on Slag
25.
EVC
Evaporation, Vapor Compression
Treatment
Technology
30.
SC
Segregated Collection
31.
E
Equalization/Blending
32.
Scr
Screening
33.
OB
Oil Collecting Baffle
34.
SS
Surface Skimming (oil, etc.)
35.
PSP
Primary Scale Pit
36.
SSP
Secondary Scale Pit
37.
EB
Emulsion Breaking
38.
A
Acidification
39.
AO
Air Oxidation
40.
GF
Gas Flotation
41.
M
Mixing
42.
Nt
Neutralization, where t 3 type
t: L ¦ Lime
C * Caustic
A ¦ Acid
W = Wastes
0 ¦ Other, footnote
432
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 3		
D.	Treatment Technology (cont»)
43.	FLt	Flocculation, where t * type
t: L * Lime
A * Alum
P = Polymer
M a Magnetic
0 ¦ Other, footnote
44.	CY	Cyclone/Centrifuge/Classifier
44a. DT Drag Tank
45.	CL	Clarifier
46.	T	Thickener
47.	TP	Tube/Plate Settler
48.	SLn	Settling Lagoon, where n m days of retention
time
49.	BL	Bottom Liner
50.	VF	Vacuum Filtration (of e.g., CL, T, or TP
underflows)
51.	Ft,m,h	Filtration, where t ¦ type
m * media
h * head
	t	m	Q	
D ¦ Deep Bed	S - Sand	G • Gravity
F ¦ Flat Bed	0 » Other, P " Pressure
footnote
52.	CLt	Chlorination, where t * type
t; A ¦ Alkaline
B * Breakpoint
53.	CO	Chemical Oxidation (other than CLA or CLB)
433
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 4	_____
D.	Treatment Technology (cont.)
54. BOt	Biological Oxidation, where t = type
t = type

t: An =
Activated Sludge
n ¦
No. of Stages
T -
Trickling Filter
B -
Biodisc
0 =
Other, footnote
55.	CR	Chemical Reduction (e.g., chromium)
56.	DP	Dephenolizer
57.	ASt	Ammonia Stripping, where t = type
t: F = Free
L ¦ Lime
C ¦ Caustic
58.	APt	Ammonia Product, where t = type
t: S ¦ Sulfate
N = Nitric Acid
A " Anhydrous
P « Phosphate
H = Hydroxide
0 = Other, footnote
59.	DSt	Desulfurization, where t ® type
t: Q * Qualifying
N = Nonqualifying
60.	CT	Cooling Tower
61.	AR	Acid Regeneration
62.	AU	Acid Recovery and Reuse
63.	ACt	Activated Carbon, where t = type
t: P = Powdered
G ¦ Granular
64.	IX	Ion Exchange
65.	R0	Reverse Osmosis
66.	D	Distillation
434
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 5
D.	Treatment Technology (cont.)
67.	AA1	Activated Alumina
68.	OZ	Ozonation
69.	UV	Ultraviolet Radiation
70.	CNTt,n	Central Treatment, where t ¦ type
n " process flow as
% of total flow
t: 1 " Same Subcats.
2	¦ Similar Subcats.
3	* Synergistic Subcats.
4	¦ Cooling Water
5	¦ Incompatible Subcats.
71.	On	Other, where n ¦ Footnote number
72.	SB	Settling Basin
73.	AE	Aeration
74.	PS	Precipitation with Sulfide
435
-------
TABLE VII-2
SUIMABY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
	CONTINUOUS CASTING	
Uw Wastewaters
Lo
o
Uftt«AC« Code
Plant Cod*
Staple Point
Flow (gal/ton)
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH (Units)
Chroaiiflt
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Reference Code
Plant Code
8saple Point
Flow (gal/ton)
C&TT
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH (Units)
Chtosiui
Copper
Lead
Zinc
08681
AT
7
1475
s&Zi
in
22.5
6.6
*
0.37
0.15
2.6
lbs/1000 lbs
0.683
0.138
*
0.0023
0.00092
0.016
sZi
0868B
AF
9
17
FSP, SS,FDSF,CT,KTP98.8,BD1.2
0248*
D
(1)
•
lbs/1000 lb.
WlMCTtl
m/1
22
0.5
0.25
0.43
1.6
6.8
lbs/1000 lb«
0.0016
0.000035
*
0.000018
0.000030
0.00011
l/l
02488
D
CL,FF,RTF100
lb./IOOO lb.
0
0
0684D
q
16
(2)
Stli
126
16.3
0.060
0.020
*
0.040
lb«/1000 Ibm
SftZi
Average -
1475
lbs/1000 lb.
8.9
0684D
Q
16
0
PSP.CT.RTPIOO
58/1
126
16.3
0.060
0.020
0.040
lb./IOOO lb»
0
0
8.9
118.5	0.683
19.4	0.138
6.6-8.9
0.060
0.195
0.15
1.32
0.0023
0.00092
0.016
* Insufficient data.
(1)	Raw wastewater data for this plant was unobtainable during .sapling.
(2)	Flow value (gal/ton) could not be calculated due to insufficient tonnsge information.
-------
TABLE VII-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
	CONTINUOUS CASTING	
Raw Wastewater
Reference Code
Plant Code
Saaple Point
Flow (gal/ton)
Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
6.3
10
0284A
071
B
564
0496
072
F
1542
0584F
°\h)
3489
006OK
079
c
2985
Average
2145
Overa11
Average
2011
¦g/1 lbs/1000 lba ag/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs ag/1 lbs/1000 lbs ag/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs
0.015
0.024
36
26
0.23
0.17
13
17
0.19
0.25
48
39
0.60
0.49
26
23
0.26
0.23
57
22
0.34
0.21
pH (Units)
9.2

7.4-7,
.9
7.9-8,
.3
7.0-
¦7.2
7.0-
9.2
6.6-
-9.2
Chroaiun
1.00
0.0024
0.0080
0.000051
2.00
0.029
0.023
0.00029
0.76
0.0079
0.62
0.0079
Copper
0.087
0.00020
0.020
0.00013
0.026
0.00038
0.16
0.0020
0.073
0.00068
0.11
0.0010
Lead
0.10
0.00024
0.070
0.00045
0.060
0.00087
0.070
0.00087
0.075
0.00061
0.09
0.00067
Seleniua
0.22
0.00052
0.010
0.000064
0.0020
0.000029
*
*
0.077
0.00020
0.077
0.00020
Zinc
0.20
0.00047
0.30
0.0019
0.74
0.011
0.20
0.0025
0.36
0.0040
0.68
0.0064
-------
TABLE VII-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
CONTINUOUS CASTING
PACE 2	 		
Effluents
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point
Flow (gal/ton)
C4TT
Suspended Solids
Oil & Crease
pH (Units)
0284A
071
C
0
PSP,FSP,T,CT,RTP100
0496
072
0584F
075
J(2)(3)
117
PSP,FFP,CT,RTP97
006OK
079
B(4)(5)
25
PSP,FF,CT,RTP99.2
PSP,FDSP,CT,RTP100
ag/1 lbs/1000 lbs ag/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs mg/1 lbs/1000 lbs
9.4
16	0
6	0
7.6-8.1
15	0.098
18 0.061
7.4-7.7
37 0.0050
35 0.0041
7.1-7.2
Chroaiua
1.00
0
0.026
0
Copper
0.070
0
0.21
0
Lead
0.10
0
0.060
0
Seleniua
0.005
0
0.010
0
Zinc
0.200
0
0.33
0
2.00
0.015
0.060
0.0023
0.967
0.00098
0.000036
0.00016
0.0000012
0.0010
0.033
0.17
0.11
*
0.23
0.0000024
0.000017
0.<000007 3
*
0.000021
	
u>
00	* s No analysis.
ND: Not detected.
(1)	Saw wastewater quality is after primary settling and partial recycle.
(2)	The concentrations shown are for the filter effluent (saaple point J).
(3)	The lbs/1000 lbs shown are the total pounds leaving the systen as a result of the filter effluent,
J, and the filter backwash, K.
(4)	The concentrations shown are for the filter effluent (sample point B).
(5)	The lbs/1000 lbs shown are the actual pounds leaving the system by way of the caster pit.
NOTE: Refer to Table TII-1 for CSTT Codes definitions.
-------
PROCESS'	VACUUM OE GASSING a CONTINUOUS
CASTING
PLANT:	AD(DEGAS) Q AF (CONCASTI
PRODUCTION: 544 METRIC TON/10.6 HOUR
(600 TONS STEEL /I0.5 HOUR)
m.7t/$Ec taaaoAPMi
DURlll^ £AST
O&OCk PM)AV^.-
(Mtke^iNCI COOLING, SOURCE-
fOK eitCimC FURNACES "NORMAL.
flows ae/sJLa
	A-**
L (uSCHAR^e FROfcX
Lagoons
15-1* bl/sic OSQ-&06PV\)
AW*. w +t/uc ("lao^pU)
y \ lNf ERMtTT£NT aatiWASH
Wbis/stc. (aaoo	
1-3.2 g/i£c
fact* mold
COOLtHCf
«'—ism* e/sec.
<400- 2&OOGPM)
i£>4 e/sfc <2too
^ DURWC, oeqA&SlHA
	J37.6 ^/SEC.
(-S3SO ^PM)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM DEGASSER CONTINUOUS CASTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
	WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
A SAMPLING POINT
* " (
Xm 5/7/79
FIGURE lUtI
ROLLS,
TABLES,
HI AH fl-OW RATE
PRESSURE FILTERS
Rated <3> u
( IQOO <^PM) £A£H
12)£0MPAKTMEMT SCALE PIT
S'-6" AYC|. DEPTH
45zoo Lirtm
(120,000 £iAL.)
ZO MIN oetcmtion
-------
¦Ct
o
CONTINUOUS CASTING
PLANT:
PRODUCTION'
62.6 l/ktg
(IS GAL/TON)
CLARIFIER
UNDERFLOW
BATCH DISCHARGE TO RIVER
13.7 l/kkg (3.3 GAL/TON)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
IGURE 301-2
MISCELLANEOUS
ROLLS, TABLES
CASTER
SPRAYS
FILTER
-------
CASTER
SPRAYS

113.6 l/sec	1
>

(1800 gpm)

441





COLLECTION


SUMP


(SETTLING)
EVAPORATION ANO
WIND LOSS
COOLING
TOWER
BLOWOOWN
MAKE-UP WATER	
34 l/sec (540 gpm)
PROCESS: CONTINUOUS CASTING
PLANT: O
PROOUCTION:50&6 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(561 TONS STEEL/OAY I
MOLD
COOLING
397.5 l/sec-<
(6300 gpm)
EVAPORATION ANO
WIND LOSS
COOLING
TOWER
MAKE-UP
" WATER
BLOWOOWN (DURING OPERATION)
30 gpm -I- IO.000 gal/wk
/\ SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
Own.2/22/19
FIGURE SII-3
-------
EVAPORATION - VI '/o
O.ISC/SEC (lOPM)
ToweR
BASiN
tVAPo^Tiow -1 X
(n qPM)
0.28 J»/sec
(4.4 QPM)
evhPORAIIOM - J '/a
Rtcmt
^00 QPM)
fcl. 4 //SIC
W13 CM)
\ r
EVArotATlYC
COOL/MCf ^
rowf/?
PWXfc'^S : CoMimvjoo'i
PLC.V41 : O 7/
Production; 313 H6TRW1 Tou/D^t
(34 5 ToHi/Do.^)

SM#k ,
(Qa>uvi|
CLoseo
REttCtfc
4,fc f/SEC
(7J QPIAI
4.«V*c
IZi^L
CA.UEH IPRMi,
1.3 llSlC.CtO GPM) *
EVAPORATION
|C>.3//ffC.
po 4-PA1)
So 5 f^c
(800Gf*l
MACHlUfc

MACitiue

Coolimg,

G00LIMC)
34ji/SEC
ftOM Vfc««&k
LA<^oom~
2 i/SEC.01 GPM)
UiVtL COHTftOLLtD
3«/ -elSEC.
i6>20(^PM\%
Bloha/Oowm 1V»° Ou./d«
fnatB-uP
CLE AM
ML1ER}
WMER
bLUlXjt
COHCfcW
Tt&loR
SLUDQt
C On re AX. T
HAOL£/i
RtCtflfc To SCALE Plf
WHEN N"T Pu^Pltjc,
//oT£H ~\0 (COLt^
tovtlw1
6EHERAL MoTEV
1} Ca^tiik* IPRaiS oml OPERATE
DltflWC, CASTIKKi C1CI6.
2) Machine Cooling is CGKifiN'iooi
RECfCUNC, flaw.
« INSTANTANEOUS FLOW KATES
ALL OTHER FLOWS BASED
UPON A 24 HOUR DAy.
A
SAMPLING POINTS
fcNVlRONKAfcUTM. PROTECT IOK1 *V0a6KC"(
20 s jt/sec
(122 6PM)
ST66L IWDUSTR^ SToDf
C.ouTikhjou<> Cast INC,
WASTE WATtf? TREATMENT SISTen
A/ZiT6R F-Lo/V DlA£i?Ar-i
Mtit jP	
Tt>	T 6aS«»«
'*'u 11-5)1
RE V. 9/18/78
FIGURE m4
-------
1
t
303 //»ec
uaooom)
yacvvm
efifiA£MS
ftBVl
HI
PEQA»*«R
HPT wetL^
'Ml/HL
(I3006.EU)
evsctrjc
ftfRNftCttF
NON-CONTACT
tOPMNfr 1»»TH
*>.
ui
31i J/*tC. -
f6oooo.e»o
i:
i5W*ec.
(iiaocp-M)
PROCE SS: VACUUM	( ttNTftiuOi* CAiTIMt)
PLAN!: 061 { 072
PROOUCIION;
VACUUM 1*<*ASSM4 - 7 79 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(ASS TOMS STEEL/DAI)
CONTINUOUS CASritMi • an MtTMC tons steel/day
	(S4Q Tons steel/day)
C0WCASIE8 MOtO
copuN
W MIR
TOW6R
(164O6O 641)
J
-OVERFLOW
1&S Jt/inc.
J-i"fcO j)
CP0LIH6
TQWBB
-BLOWDOWN
5 H%tc
(•06RM.)

MAKEUP
WATER
MAIN
RESERVOIR
MAIN
HOT
WELL
51 J/%»C
(SOO&RM)
^U.OOC/KMM
SLOWDOWN
6 AHP
FILTERS
T4 AifW.
iuao&FH)
CONCASTM SP|M»
SLA1 COOLING
1
(CONTACT)
J
r
687 i/»ac
fliOO G.fSUl
«WL1 i/*«t
M40 gPM)
WATER
TOW68
(Z50,0006*i
r
L/wci
OVERFLOW
r-qtzllxu..
(t460UBU\
1
£oojohtfi.
TQW5R
3TI7iic.(iM & m)
StMS.-OAY
J
BACKWASH
/7.7 l/s«
feflO fi.RU)
-EXCESS WATER
TO RESERVOIR
PRIMARY
i
&
SCALE

fil

30 J/SCC.
Mao gpui
zr
j
1641/teC
J
Inc.
CRM)
SOLIDS TO
DISPOSAL
zT
/V SAMPllHG POINT
environmental protection agency
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
VACUUM OCCASSING-CONTINUOUS CASTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WAIER FLOW DIAGRAM
>fVN 2-I4-7B
itVI/UlB
}-IGUR£
3Zn-5
-------
peoc£S>s> foa/r/Muo/>£ CAsr/Mt?
fiL/i/vr: 07s
Pfioa/icrtaM: z-nt metric toms steel/day
(3»>0<.TONS sittt/D^rl
in. 5 i/stc.
(1010 6PM)
KAA.KE(g)
OP-4H
l.llAct
/
eoiLEe.
siPj&>Ai
sae/ifS
k/m/MAM
MJQ
SWWTCNtk
fiOiL
SWAY'S
sicoAid^er
fOOl/M£
siits
SP£/)fS
7o£Cf/
sAe/t/s
StV'C£_
milLAl
/9aJO
S14& P/j££L
s/tMrs
5lO/C£
Ak>tU£S
fcVAPQgATlOU
15.9 Jf/stc (3)
(4tO 6PM)
&06.4-4/jec. (D
(BOIO 6Pm) .
eofl/i
(952 GPHf
COALMlC
~>
-J
tfrpgOAf/w/OM
£/i ne £ffi/j£Ajr
Iaq/am,ez
t/)
>- Sf iHE PIL
EffLUCHT
ac>e.8^/stc
(fcflCoO QPKA)
	A-
©
-------
.u
U1
P£aC£££: CoAJT/MUOUS CAST/aJG
Pi/)KIT: <379
Cir* MATCH
C&Cil t\)<2 70nJ££
MQiO
Coot/a/£ rah/££
HOT _ £OL
n*£U * Met
HOT __ CaiCt
*J£LL	A/£LL
£M/txe at/oa/
<3 99 & fs£C
J V
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Introduction
This section addresses the cost, energy, and nonwater quality impacts
of applying the different levels of pollution control to continuous
casting plants. It includes a discussion of actual treatment costs
incurred by plants sampled, the alternative treatment technologies
considered for use in the casting subcategory, and the cost, energy,
and other nonwater quality impacts associated with the application of
the BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS alternative treatment systems.
In addition, the BCT cost comparison and the consumptive use of water
are addressed.
Actual Costs Incurred by Plants Sampled For This Study
The water pollution control costs for the continuous casters visited
during this study are presented in Table VIII-I. The costs were
derived from data supplied by the industry at the time of sampling or
from data submitted in response to the D-DCPs. The costs have been
adjusted to July 1978 dollars. In some instances, standard cost of
capital and depreciation factors were applied to the reported costs to
determine those portions of the annual costs of operation. In the
remaining instances, those costs were provided by the plants.
The capital cost data from the plants noted above were compared with
the Agency's estimated expenditures, factored on the basis of tonnage
(TPD) for these plants. This comparison is difficult, because many
component costs may vary due to the fact that different plant
personnel use different methods to determine costs. Despite these
limitations, the comparison which follows indicates that model cost
estimates of seven continuous casting operations are representative of
the actual costs of these operations.
447
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COST COMPARISON
Plant
Actual
Cost
Estimated(1)
Cost
0584 F
0868 B
0384 A(2)
0384 A( 3 )
0528 A
0620 A
0684 E
2,413,632
3,559,140
2,028,858
10,025,762
5,926,290
1,030,000
4.397,468
4,401,000
2,338,000
2,274,000
4,397,000
5,828,000
1,084,000
2,682.000
Total Cost
29,381,150
23,004,000
(1)	Estimates are made on a tonnage (TPD) basis.
(2)	Billet casting operation.
(3)	Slab casting operation.
Reference can be made to the cost estimates discussion presented in
Volume 1 for further verification of the applicability of the
treatment model costs.
The data show that industry costs are about 28% higher than the
Agency's estimate for the seven continuous casting treatment systems.
However, most of the difference is attributed to the continuous slab
caster at Plant 0384 A, which has an applied flow which is twice that
of the model flow. EPA estimates are based upon production and not
upon applied flow. Thus, the treatment components in place at this
facility are larger than the corresponding model size treatment
components, which are more typical of the subcategory. Industry costs
would be about 4 percent higher than the Agency's estimates when this
facility is not included in the comparison. In any event, the above
data demonstrate reasonably good agreement between actual industry
costs and EPA estimates. The Agency concludes that its cost estimates
for the continuous casting subcategory accurately reflect actual
costs.
Control and Treatment Technologies (C&TT)
Recommended For Use in Continuous Casting
The BPT and BAT model treatment system components are presented in
Table VI11-2. It should be noted that these specific C&TT components
are not required. Any treatment system which achieves compliance with
the proposed effluent limitations is adequate.
On this summary table, the following items are described for each
step:
1.	Treatment and/or control methods employed
2.	Status and reliability
3.	Problems and limitations
4.	Implementation time
5.	Land requirements
448
-------
6.	Environmental impacts other than water
7.	Solid waste generation and primary constituents
Cost, Energy, and Nonwater Qualitv Impacts
Estimated Costs for the
Installation of Pollution Control Technologies
A.	Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BPT Limitations
In order to develop BPT compliance costs, it was necessary to
develop a BPT model sized to represent the average continuous
casting plant found in the United States. The model size
(ton/day) was developed on the basis of the average production
capacity of all continuous casters. The treatment model
components and flow rates are also representative of actual
continuous casting operations. The unit cost for each treatment
model component was developed. These costs are presented in
Table VI11-3 along with BPT model annual costs and raw and
effluent flows and concentrations.
The capital requirements needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment for the continuous casting subcategory were determined
by applying the treatment component model costs, adjusted for
size, to each casting operation. The estimates of the
expenditures required to bring these plants from current
treatment levels to the proposed BPT limitations, were necessary
to assess the economic impact of the various effluent limitations
upon the industry. These tabulations are presented in Table
VII1-4. The estimated capital costs of BPT technology in this
subcategory are $102.6 million (July 1978 dollars). Of this
total, equipment valued at $60.7 million is currently in place in
various casting facilities as of January 1978. The remaining
$41.9 million remains to be expended for additional treatment
equipment. The estimated annual operating costs for BPT
treatment in this subcategory are approximately $24 million.
B.	Cost Required to Achieve the Proposed BAT Limitations
The Agency considered two alternative treatment systems for the
BAT model treatment system as described in Section X. The
investment and annual expenditures for each of the BAT
alternative treatment systems, in excess of BPT expenditures, are
presented in Table VII1-5. The subcategory investment and annual
expenditures for each BAT alternative are shown below.
BAT Alternative Investment Cost Annual Cost
No.1	$4,350,000	$ 780,000
No.2	$5,450,000	$1,000,000
C.	Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BCT Limitations
The BCT cost analysis is presented in Table VI11-6, while
additional information regarding BCT is provided in Section XI.
449
-------
Since the BCT technology is the same as the BAT-1 alternative,
reference is made to the BAT-1 costs.
D.	Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed NSPS
The Agency considered two treatment alternatives for continuous
casting facilities which are constructed after the proposal of
these standards. The NSPS treatment models are similar to the
BPT/BAT model treatment systems. The NSPS treatment alternatives
are discussed in Section XII, while the NSPS treatment model
costs are presented in Table VIII- 7.
E.	Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed Pretreatment Standards
Pretreatment standards apply to those existing (PSES) and new
(PSNS) sources which continue or elect to discharge to POTW
systems. The two pretreatment systems considered by the Agency
are identical to the two NSPS alternatives. Table VIII-7
presents the costs associated with these alternatives, while
additional information is presented in Section XIII.
Energy Impacts
Moderate amounts of energy will be required by the various levels of
treatment in the continuous casting subcategory. The major energy
expenditures for the subcategory occur at the BPT treatment level,
while other treatment levels require rather minor incremental energy
expenditures.
A.	Energy Impacts at BPT
The estimated energy requirements are based upon the assumptions
that treatment systems similar to the model treatment system will
be installed at all continuous casting shops, and, that these
systems will have flows similar to those of the model. On this
basis, the estimated annual energy usage for BPT treatment
components for all continuous casting operations is 129.2 million
kilowatt-hours of electricity. This estimate represents about
0.23 percent of the 57 billion kilowatt-hours used by the steel
industry in 1978.
B.	Energy Impacts at BAT
The estimated energy requirements for the BAT alternative
treatment systems are based upon the same assumptions noted above
for BPT. The estimated energy requirements needed to upgrade
facilities from BPT to the two BAT alternatives follow.
BAT
Alternative
kwh per
year
% of 1978 Industry
	Usage	
No. 1
No. 2
400,000
800,000
0.0007
0.0014
450
-------
C.	Energy Impacts at BCT
As the BCT treatment model is the same as the BAT-1 model, the
energy requirements at BCT are identical to the BAT-1
requirements.
D.	Energy Impacts at NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
The energy requirements for the NSPS, PSES, and PSNS	models
follow. The Agency did not evaluate the total	energy
requirements for NSPS and PSNS since estimates of	future
additions were not made as part of this study.
	Model		kwh per year
NSPS-1,PSES/PSNS-1	2,588,000
NSPS-2,PSES/PSNS-2	2,604,000
Nonwater Qualitv Impacts
In general, the nonwater quality impacts
alternative treatment technologies are minimal,
evaluated are air pollution, solid waste
consumption.
A.	Air Pollution
Sulfide addition is incorporated in the model treatment systems
of BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS Alternatives No. 2. In the event of
treatment process control upsets, the atmospheric discharge of
sulfides could occur. However, as continuous casting wastewaters
are not typically acidic, the possibility of atmospheric
discharges is minimized. The Agency did not select this
alternative as the model treatment system for BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS. The Agency expects no adverse air pollution impacts
associated with apy of the selected model treatment systems.
B.	Solid Waste Disposal
The treatment steps incorporated in the BPT and BAT treatment
systems will generate significant quantities of solids and oils
and greases. A summary of the solid waste generation, on a dry
basis, for the continuous casting subcategory, at the BPT, BAT,
and BCT levels of treatment, follows.
Solid Waste Generation
Treatment Continuous Casting Subcategory
Level		(Tons/Year)	
BPT	7,245
BAT-1,BCT	120
BAT-2	120
As just shown, significant amounts of solid wastes are generated
by the BPT model treatment system, while the BAT and BCT
associated with the
The three impacts
disposal, and water
451
-------
alternative treatment systems generate relatively minor
additional amounts of solid wastes. Most of the solid waste is
comprised of suspended solids (principally iron oxides) which
require proper disposal, if they are not reused in the iron and
steel making operations. The oils, which can not be reused or
reclaimed, also require proper disposal, generally off-site.
The estimated amounts of solid wastes and oils and greases
generated by the NSPS and Pretreatment models follow.
C. Water Consumption
The Agency analyzed the consumption of water by the alternative
treatment systems. In July of 1978, the continuous casting
industry consumed 3.55 million gallons of water per day (MGD).
This water evaporated from treatment components and from large
bodies of water (i.e., reservoirs, rivers). Upon installation of
the BPT model or BAT alternative treatment systems, this total
will increase slightly to 4 MGD. Based on the model raw
wastewater flow of 3400 gal/ton, the total subcategory usage is
about 238 MGD. Therefore, the fraction of water actually
consumed is very small, about 1.7%. This slight increase in the
amount of water consumed is rather insignificant when compared to
the remaining water that will be recycled. The volume of fresh
water required for use as make-up will be greatly reduced due to
recycle, and very little additional fresh water will become
contaminated.
The Agency concluded that the pollution control benefits
associated with recycle, in this subcategory, justify the above
minor water losses on both a nation-wide and an arid or semi-arid
region basis. Three of the four plants the Agency considers to
be in arid or semi-arid regions have recycle systems installed
for continuous casting operations. Hence, the effect of the
proposed limitations on additional water losses for these plants
will be negligible. The fourth plant does not have a continuous
casting operation. If one were installed at this facility, only
about 0.3 MGD would be lost. The Agency concludes that losses of
this magnitude at this site are not significant.
Treatment
Level
Solid Waste Generation
Treatment Model
	(Tons/Year)	
NSPS-1, PSES/PSNS-1
NSPS-2, PSES/PSNS-2
471
471
452
-------
Summary of Impacts
In summary, the Agency concludes that the pollutant reduction benefits
described below in tons/year, for the continuous casting subcategory
outweigh any adverse energy and nonwater quality environmental
impacts.
Raw Waste
Proposed BPT
Proposed
BAT and BCT
Flow, MGD
TSS
Oil and Grease
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics
238
21,735
9,060
590
17
666
200
22
3.3
8.8
40
1 3
1 .3
0.7
1 .8
453
-------
TABLE VIII-1
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
	CONTINUOUS CASTING
(All costs expressed in July, 1978 dollars)
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment ($)
Annual Costs ($)
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Oper. & Maint.
Energy & Power
Chemical Costs
Other (sludge, etc.)
TOTAL ($)
$/Ton
(2)
(3)
AE(1)
0584F
2,413,632
103,786
241,363
176,936
Included
Above
522,085
0.40(4)
AF
0868B
3,559,140
153,043^}
355,914
993,429
Included
Above
1,502,386
2.95(4)
071
0284A
49,234
66,847
116,081
1.07(4)
0384A(5)
2,028,858
87,241^j
202,886
201,390
132,136
50,985
674,638
1.11(4)
-------
TABLE VIII-1
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
CONTINUOUS CASTING
PAGE 2
(All costs expressed in July, 1978 dollars)
¦&.
in
in
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment ($)
Annual Costs ($)
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Oper. & Maint.
Energy & Power
Chemical Costs
Other (sludge, etc.)
TOTAL ($)
$/Ton
0528A
5,926,290
266,683
592,629
(2)
(3)
0620A
1,030,000
44,290
(2)
(6)
85,000
50,000
80,000
6,000
265,290
0.84(4)
0684E
4,397,468
197,886^}
439,747
(1)	Resampled as Plant 075.
(2)	Cost of capital was calculated by using the following formula: (0.043) x (initial investment).
(3)	Depreciation was calculated by using the following formula: (0.10) x (initial investment).
(4)	Calculation based on 1976 production.
(5)	Billet caster.
(6)	Depreciation based upon a 12 year life.
-------
TABLE VIII-2
CONTROL AMD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
COHTINPOPS CASTING SOBCATEGORT
Trutaent and/or
Control Methods hplorcd
A. Scale Pit with Drag Link
Conveyor - initial solid waste
redaction accomplished via
gravity sedimentation, drag liok
conveyor removes solids fros pit
1. Surface TTI 8ai ng - initial
surface oil reduction accomplished
via skimming
C. Flat Bed Filter - additional
solid waste reduction accomplished
~ia filtration
Status and
Reliability
Problems
and Limitations
Implemen-
tation	Land
Time Requirements
Very reliable, widely used	Accumulated solids
in this and other subcategories must be periodically
removed
6-8
months
20* * 35*
Widely used in this and other
subcategories
Widely used in this
subcategory
Hydraulic overload or 3 months
surface turbulence will
reduce effectiveness
Proper speed must be 15-18
maintained to assure months
maximum efficiency
2400 ft'
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Accumulated solids See Step C
must be disposed
of properly
Skimmed oils and
greases must be
disposed of
properly
Accumulated
solids must be
disposed of
properly
Generation of
oils and greases.
Generation of
solid wastes
in scale pit
and flat bed
filter.
Ui

D. Recycle Pump Well
and Pump System - recycle
l«rge portion of treated flow
back to caster
Widely used in this and
other subcategories
Potential for scaling,
plugging, or fouling
of recycle system,
piasps require
maintenance
12-14
months
20*
301
None
None
E. Cooling Tower - heat load of
wastewaters reduced
Widely used in this and
other subcategories
Potential for scaling
or plugging due to
accumulation of dis-
solved solids
18-20
months
301
301
Any sludge
accumulation in
the cooling tower
will require re-
moval
Minimal
-------
TABLE 7111*2
CONTROL AHD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
FACE 2	
Treatment and/or
Control Method!
P. Filter - additional
•olid waste and oil and grease
reduction accomplished
G. Sulfide Precipitation -
¦etallic sulfide precipitates
fora doe to sulfide which has
been added
Status and
Reliability
Widely used in this and other
subcategories
Precticed in siailer netal
aatftufaeturing industries for
toxic »etaIs resoral
Problea*
and limitations
Surges must be
controlled
Requires careful
handling and stringent
odor control
Implemen
tation
Time
15-18
months
Land
Requiren
»Dts
20' * 201
6 wraths 10* x 10*
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Accumulated
solids aost be
disposed of
properly
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Generation of
oils and greases.
Generation of
solid vastes.
Requires proper Metal sulfide
sludge disposal precipitates
and odor control are generated*
-------
TABLE VIII-3
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Continuous Casting	Model Size-TPD : 1400
: Carbon/Specialty	Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day	: 	3
C&TT Step	A
Investment $ x 10~ ,	320
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital	13.7
Depreciation	32.0
Operation and Maintenance	11.2
Sludge Disposal ,	1.4
Energy and Power
Oil Disposal	-
TOTAL	58.3
B_	_C_	_D_	Total
543	891	550	2304
23.3	38.3	23.7	99.0
54.3	89.1	55.0	230.4
19.0	31.2	19.3	80.7
0.5 - - ,	v	1.9
19.8	44.9	24.5	64.7
1.4 - -	1.4
118.3	203.5	98.0(2)	478.1
Effluent Quality^
Raw
Waste
Level

Flow, gal/ton
3400

Total Suspended Solids
60

Oil and Grease
25

pH, Units
6-9
119
Chromium
0.65
120
Copper
0.11
122
Lead
0.090
125
Selenium
0.080
128
Zinc
0.70
BPT
Effluent
Level
125
50
15
6-9
0.65
0.11
0.090
0.080
0.70
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water requirements.
(3)	All values are in tng/1 unless otherwise noted.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
A: Scale Pit, Drag Link Conveyor,	C: Cooling Tower
and Oil Skimming Device	D: Recycle
B: Flatbed Filter
458
-------
TABLE VIII-4
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
BASIS: 7/1/78 DOLLARS x 10
FACILITIES IH PLACE AS OF 1/1/78
	COHTIHPOUS CASTIBC	
Plant
Code	TPP	A
0060	3800	583
0060D	1000	262
0060H	1200	292
006OK	655	203
0068B	880	242
0076	700	211
0084A	750	220
0112D	4100	610
0132	540	181
0136B	576	188
0180	400	151
0188C	1200	292
0204	1000	262
0248B	1100	277
0284A	550	183
ft 0316	850	237
S 0316Am	900	245
0384A),{	1370	316
0384A	4110	611
0432A	1500	334
0444	500	173
0456A	600	192
046OA	950	254
0468B	1600	347
0468F	3450,,.	550
0476A	533	179
0496	1600	347

CUT Step

B
C
P
_
1622
1001
444
728
449
495
812
501
344
565
349
-
-
416
-
-
363
-
612
378
1035
1698
1048
307
503
310
319
523
323
256
420
259
495
812
501
444
728
449
470
-
476
310
509
314
403
660
408
417
684
422
536
879
543
1036
1700
1050
566
929
573
293
480
297
327
536
331
430
706
436
588
965
596
933
1531
945
304
499
308
588
965
596
In Place	Required	Total
3206
0
3206
1883
0
1883
1605
495
2100
1461
0
1461
658
0
658
574
0
574
1210
0
1210
1048
3343
4391
0
1301
1301
0
1353
1353
410
676
1086
0
2100
2100
0
1883
1883
1223
0
1223
1316
0
1316
0
1708
1708
0
1768
1768
2274
0
2274
4397
0
4397
907
1495
2402
763
480
1243
0
1386
1386
1396
430
1826
2496
0
2496
3026
933
3959
308
982
1190
2496
0
2496
-------
TABLE VIII-4
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION ,
BASIS: 7/1/78 DOLLARS x 10
FACILITIES IN FLACK AS OF 1/1/78
CONTimKXJS CASTING
PAGE 2
C&TT Step
Plant




Code
TPO
A
B
C
0528A
6575
809
1374
2254
0548D
600
192
327
536
0584F
4118
611
1037
1702
0396
800
-
388
-
0608A
600
192
327
536
0620A
900
245
417
-
0620B
800
229
388
637
0620C
1200
292
495
812
0652
1440
325
552
906
0672A
1152
285
-
793
0672B
700
211
358
588
0684K
1804
373
632
1037
06 96A
960
255
433
710
0740A
380
146
248
407
0764
720
215
364
598
0780
1200
292
-
812
0796A
900
245
417
683
0856F
1500
334
566
929
066OB
4156
615
1043
1712
08601
2542
458
-
1274
0864C
820
232
394
646
0868B
1435
325
551
904
0946A
870
241
408
670
(1)	Billet caster.
(2)	Slab caater.
(3)	This figure represents 1976 production rather than rated capacity.
KEY TO C4TT STEPS
A: Primary Scale Pit, Drag Link Conveyor,	C: Cooling Tower
and Oil Skiaaing Device	D: Recycle
Bi Flatbed Filter
D
In Place
Required
Total
1391
5828
0
5828
331
523
863
1386
1051
4401
0
4401
393
781
0
781
331
523
863
1386
422
1084
-
1084
393
622
1025
1647
501
0
2100
2100
559
325
2017
2342
489
1567
0
1567
363
0
1520
1520
640
2050
632
2682
439
1404
433
1837
252
659
394
1053
369
0
1546
1546
501
1605
0
1605
422
0
1767
1767
573
334
2068
2402
1057
615
3812
4427
787
2519
0
2519
399
878
793
1671
558
2338
0
2338
413
0
1732
1732

60,713
41,896
102,611
-------
TABLE VIII-5
ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Continuous Casting	Model Size-TPD : 1400
: Carbon/Specialty	Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns /Day	: 	3
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10 -
Annual Cost $ x 10~
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Energy & Power
Chemical Costs
TOTAL
m	BAT Feed
Effluent Quality	Level

Flow, gal/ton
25

Total Suspended Solids
50

Oil & Grease
15

pH, Units
6-9
119
Chromium
0.65
120
Copper
0.11
122
Lead
0.090
125
Selenium
0.080
128
Zinc
0.70
Alternative 1		Alternative 2
E
Total
F
E
Total
87
87
22
87
109
3.7
3.7
1.0
3.7
4.7
8.7
8.7
2.2
8.7
10.9
3.0
3.0
0.8
3.0
3.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
-
-
0.2
-
0.2
15.6
15.6
4.4
15.6
20.0

BAT No.1


BAT No.2

Effluent


Effluent

Level


Level

25


25

15


15

5


5

6-9


6-9

0.10


0.10

0.10


0.10

0.090


0.090

0.080


0.080

0.10


0.10
(1)	Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2)	All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
E: Filtration
F: Sulfide Addition
461
-------
TABLE VIII-6
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
A. BCT Feed
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants ¦ 65 mg/1
Flow - 0.175 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/year of conventional pollutants discharged ¦ 34,627
B. BCT
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants * 20 mg/1
Flow - 0.035 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/year of conventional pollutants discharged * 2131
lbs/year of conventional pollutants removed via BCT treatment
(BCT Feed - BCT) - 34,627- 2131 - 32,496
Annual cost of BCT* - 15,600	$/lb - 0.48 PASS
* Includes all C&TT Steps.
462
-------
TABU VIII-7
WSPS. PSE8. AMP P8H3 MODEL COST DATAl BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory! Continuoua Catting Modal Siie-TPD I 1400
I Carbon/Specialty Opar. Daya/Yaari 365
Turna/Day	t 3
CtTT Step
"3
-3
Invaataant t * 10
Annual Coat $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Diapoaal..
Energy & Power
Oil Diapoaal
Chemical Coata
TOTAL
Alternative 1
A
8
C
D
Total
E
F
320
S43
891
550
2304
22
B7
13.7
23.3
38.3
23.7
99.0
1.0
3.7
32.0
34.3
89.1
55.0
230.4
2.2
8.7
11.2
19.0
31.2
19.3
80.7
0.8
3.0
1.4
0.5
-

1.9
-
-
-
19.8
44.9
24.5
64.7
0.2
0.2
-
1.4
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.0.2
-
38.3
118.3
203.5
98.0
478.1
4.4
15.6
Alternative 2
(Alternative 1 plua EtF)
Total
(incl.A-F)
2413
103.7
241.3
84.3
1.9
65.1
1.4
0.2
498.1

NSP8 4
N8PS i

PSES/PSNS
PSES/PSNS No.l

Feed
Effluent
Effluent Quality
Level
Level
Flow, gal/ton
3400
25
Total Suapended Solida
60
15
Oil & Greaae
25
5
pH, Unita
6-9
6-9
119 Chromium
0.65
0.10
120 Copper
0.11
0.10
122 Lead
0.090
0.090
125 Saleniua
0.080
0.080
128 Zinc
0.70
0.10
USPS 4
PSES/PSNS Ho. 2
Effluent
Level
25
13
5
6-9
0.10
0.10
0.090
0.080
0.10
(1)	Coata are all power unlaaa otharviae noted.
(2)	Total coat doaa not include power, becauaa a credit la aupplied for
exiating proceaa water requiraaenta.
(3)	All valuea are in ng/1 unleaa otherviae noted.
POT TO CUT STEPS
At Scale Pit with Drag Link Conveyor	Di	Recycle
and Oil Skiaaing Device	El	Sulfide Precipitation
>1 Flat Bed Filter	Ft	Filtration
Ci Cooling Tower
463
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Introduction
The Agency is proposing BPT limitations which are the same as those
orginally promulgated in 1974.1 A review of the treatment processes
and effluent limitations associated vjith the continuous casting
subcategory follows.
Identif ication of BPT
The BPT model treatment system is the same as the system used to
develop the original BPT limitations promulgated in June 1974. This
system includes a primary scale pit equipped with a drag link conveyor
and oil removal facilities, a flat bed filter, a cooling tower, and
recycle. Solids collected by the scale pit are disposed internally or
landfilled. Accumulated oils are hauled away or incinerated. The
overflow from the scale pit is pumped to a flat bed filter. The
filter effluent is recycled through a cooling tower to the process,
except for a small blowdown, which is discharged to a receiving
stream. Make-up water is added to the recycle system to compensate
for evaporative and blowdown losses.
Figure ix-l depicts the BPT model treatment system for continuous
casters. The proposed BPT effluent limitations, which represent
30-day average values, are presented below:
The proposed maximum daily effluent limitations are three times the
monthly average value.
»See EPA 440/1-74 024a; Development Document for Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steelmaking
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category,
June 1974.
Pollutant
kg/kkg of Product
(lb/1000 lb of Product)
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH (Units)
0.026 -
0.0078
6.0-9.0
465
-------
Rationale for BPT Treatment System
As noted in Section VII, each of the BPT model treatment system
components is in use at a number of continuous casting operations.
Justif ication of BPT
Table IX-1 presents sampled plant effluent data which support the
proposed BPT limitations. As only one of these plants employs flat
bed filtration, the ability of continuous casting facilities to
achieve the proposed BPT effluent limitations with other types of
filtration is well demonstrated. One sampled plant was unable to
achieve the proposed BPT limitations, because filter backwash water
was discharged directly. Recycling the backwash for further treatment
and increasing the total system recycle rate would allow that plant to
meet the proposed limitations. Hence, based upon the data from those
plants and those achieving zero discharge, the Agency concludes the
proposed BPT limitations are achievable.
466
-------
TABLE IX-1
EFFLUENT LOAD (lbs/1000 lbs) JUSTIFICATION
CONTINUOUS CASTING
Originally
Promilgated BPT
Plants
AF (0868B)
D (0248B)
Q (Unk)
071	(0284A)
072	(0496)
Discharge
Flow (gal/ton)
125
17
Zero Discharge
Zero Discharge
Zero Discharge
Zero Discharge
Suspended
Solids
0.026
0.0016
Oil and
Grease
0.0078
0.000035
P"
6.0-9.0
6.8
*
8.9
9.4
7.6-8.1
079 (0060K)
25
0.0050
0.0041
7.1-7.2
C&TT Components
PSP,SS,FF,CT,RTP96.3
PSP,SS,FDSP,CT,RTP98.9
PSP,SSP,SS,FDSP,Scr,
RTP100
PSP,CT,RTP100
PSP,FSP,T,CT,RTP100
PS P,FLP,FDSP,CLA,
CT,RTP100
PSP,FF,CT,RTP100
* Insufficient Data
-------
RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
COOLING
TOWER
3,400 gol/ton*
Solids*
\"
Oil
1
¦,w,y,y
FLAT BED
FILTER

-^125 gal/ton
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
BPT MODEL
Dwn 6/1 l/BO
FIGURE IX-
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
The Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) effluent
limitations are to be achieved by July 1, 1984. BAT is determined by
reviewing subcategory practices and identifying the best economically
achievable control and treatment technologies employed within a
subcategory. In addition, a technology that is readily transferable
from another subcategory or industry may be identified as BAT.
This section identifies the model BAT flow rate, the two BAT
alternative treatment systems, and the resulting effluent levels
considered for the continuous casting subcategory. The rationale for
selecting the treatment technologies is also presented. Finally, this
section addresses the Agency's selection of a BAT model treatment
system to serve as the basis for the proposed BAT limitations.
BAT Flow Rate
Reanalysis of the available data has shown that the BPT discharge flow
of 125 gal/ton is much higher than the actual average discharge flow
demonstrated by the plants employing technology similar to the model
treatment technologies (i.e., primary scale pit with drag link
conveyor and surface skimming, flat bed filter, recycle, and cooling
towers). While the Agency is retaining a model BPT flow which is less
stringent than might be justified, it has set the model BAT flow at 25
gal/ton. Plants having BPT recycle systems installed, and currently
not achieving this flow, can increase the recycle rate at little or no
cost to achieve 25 gal/ton. Plant responses indicated that fouling
and scaling are not problems in this subcategory.
Identification of BAT
Based upon information contained in Sections III through VIII, the
Agency developed the following BAT alternative treatment systems (as
add-ons to the BPT model treatment system) for the continuous casting
subcategory.
A. BAT Alternative No.l
In the first BAT Alternative, the blowdown from the BPT system is
filtered. As the metals in the blowdown are in particulate form,
filtration is effective in removing those metals entrained in
suspended solids.
469
-------
B. BAT Alternative No.2
In this alternative, a sulfide precipitation step is included
prior to the filtration step outlined above. Sulfide
precipitation techniques are capable of providing a higher degree
of toxic metals removal. In this case, more zinc is removed.
Figure X-l illustrates the two BAT alternative treatment systems
described above for the continuous casting subcategory. The treatment
systems include technologies in use at one or more plants, or
demonstrated in other wastewater treatment applications.
The proposed BAT limitations are presented in Table X-l. The
pollutants listed in this table represent a condensation of the list
of selected pollutants presented in Section VI. The Agency selected
pollutants for limitation based upon the following factors:
treatability using the technologies presented in the alternatives;
quantity and toxicity in relation to the other process wastewater
pollutants; and, the ability to serve as indicators of both the
presence and the removal of other pollutants.
Analytical data indicate that zinc is present at higher levels than
any of the other toxic pollutants found in continuous casting
wastewaters. As noted in Volume I, treatment of those toxic
pollutants found at high levels in the process wastewaters will result
in treatment of the toxic pollutants found at lower levels. Based
upon the observations noted above, the Agency selected zinc as the
toxic pollutant to be limited at BAT. While other toxic metals are
found in continuous casting wastewaters, the control of zinc will also
result in comparable controls of the other toxic metals. However, in
order to make the continuous casting limitations compatible with those
for steelmaking, vacuum degassing, and hot forming, the Agency is
proposing BAT limitations for chromium and lead.
Investment and annual costs for the BAT alternative treatment systems
are presented in Tablie VI11-5.
Rationale for the Selection of the BAT Alternatives
The following discussion presents the rationale for selecting the BAT
alternative treatment systems and for determining the effluent flow
rates and concentration levels of the limited pollutants.
Treatment Scheme
The alternative treatment systems applied and discharge flow rates, of
3400 and 25 gal/ton, respectively, are based upon a system recycle
rate of 99.3 percent. Table X-2 summarizes current applied and
discharge flow rates of continuous casting operations for which flow
data were provided. The average of the applied flows was 3381
gal/ton. The average of the best discharge flows, considering all
plants discharging less than 100 gal/ton, was 27 gal/ton. Therefore,
the model value was set at 25 gal/ton. Since this average
incorporated data from 23 of the 32 plants reporting a recycle mode of
operation, the discharge flow of 25 gal/ton is well documented within
470
-------
this subcategory. Several plants report no discharge of process
wastewater.
Filtration is included in both BAT alternative treatment systems in
order to provide a reduction in the discharge of particulate metals
entrained in suspended solids. Twelve of the thirty-nine plants for
which treatment system information was provided use filters.
Filtration is also used in other steel industry subcategories and in
other industries for the removal of suspended particulates from
wastewater streams.
Although sulfide precipitation is not employed in this subcategory,
the effectiveness of this treatment technology has been demonstrated
in pilot studies and in wastewater treatment applications in other
metals manufacturing operations.
Wastewater Quality
The average effluent concentrations (in mg/1) incorporated in each BAT
alternative treatment system follows (the maximum values are enclosed
in parentheses).
Pollutant	BAT Alt. Wo.l	BAT Alt. No.2
Chromium	0.10 (0.30)	0.10 (0.30)
Lead	0.10 (0.30)	0.10 (0.30)
Zinc	0.10 (0.30)	0.10 (0.30)
Toxic Metal Pollutants
A.	BAT Alternative 1
To determine the effluent concentrations for the toxic metal
pollutants, the Agency evaluated analytical data from a variety
of sources. Long-term filtration system effluent analytical
data, from the plants mentioned previously, were reviewed to
determine the toxic metal removal capabilities of filtration
systems used in similar wastewater treatment applications.
Reference is made to Volume I, Appendix A, for the derivation of
30 day average and daily maximum performance standards.
B.	BAT Alternative 2
As noted previously in this section, BAT Alternative 2
incorporates a sulfide precipitation system in addition to the
filtration system noted in BAT Alternative 1. As sulfide
precipitation technology has not been demonstrated within this
subcategory, the capabilities of this technology have been
transferred from other metals manufacturing wastewater treatment
applications. The toxic metals effluent levels which can be
achieved with this treatment technology were developed on the
basis of the data review presented in Volume I. The data
471
-------
indicate that average toxic metals effluent concentrations of
0.10 mg/1 could be attained with this treatment technology.
Effluent Limitations for BAT Alternatives
The effluent limitations for the BAT alternative treatment systems
were calculated by multiplying the model effluent flow and the
corresponding concentrations of metals with appropriate conversion
factors. Table X-l presents the effluent limitations developed for
each treatment alternative.
Selection of a BAT Alternative
The Agency selected BAT Alternative No.l as the BAT model treatment
system upon which the proposed BAT limitations are based.
Filtration is well demonstrated in the continuous casting subcategory,
while sulfide precipitation is not. For this reason, the first
alternative was selected as the BAT model treatment system. (See
Table X-l).
472
-------
TABLE X-l
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY


BAT ALTERNATIVE lK
BAT ALTERNATIVE 2

CONCENTRATION
BASIS 
-------
TABLE X-2
SUMMARY OF FLOWS AND RECYCLE RATES
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
Plant Code
Applied Flow
(gal/ton)
Discharge Flow
(gal/ton)
Operating Mode
Basis
0076
1656
0*
RTP
100
DCP
0084A
-
0*
RUP
100
DCP
0248B
2000
0*
RTP
100
DCP
0284A
564
0*
RTP
100
Survey
0496
1542
0*
RTP
100
Survey
0596
5161
0*
RTP
100
DCP
06 20A
22
0*
RTP
100
DCP
0672A
547
0*
RTP
100
DCP
0780
1934
0*
RTP
100
DCP
0740A
1415
1.2*
RTP
99.9
DCP
0180
4012
4.0*
RTP
99.9
DCP
0608A
2764
11*
RTP
99.6
DCP
0384A
3281
16*
RTP
97.1
DCP
0620B
2000
24*
RTP
98.9
DCP
006 OK
2985
25*
RTP
99.2
Survey
0468F
2187
28*
RTP
98.7
DCP
0684E
1375
49*
RTP
96.5
DCP
0432A
2496
56*
RTP
97.8
DCP
0696A
1341
66*
RTP
95.1
DCP
0548D
3755
79*
RTP
97.9
DCP
047 6A
16210
81*
RTP
99.5
DCP
0060H
923
92*
RTP
90
DCP
0384A
7062
98*
RTP
98.6
DCP
0584F
3489
117
RTP
97
Survey
0112D
6408
128
RTP
98
DCP
046 8B
927
128
RTP
& RUP 86
DCP
0528A
4814
144
RTP
97
DCP
0444
4294
245
RTP
94.3
DCP
0868B
8258
310
RTP
96.2
DCP
0060D
1678
554
RTP
67
DCP
0864C
-
571
-

DCP
0068B
6111
611
RTP
90
DCP
0856F
1278
1278
0T

DCP
0652
1375
1375
OT

DCP
0460A
4509
1527
RTP
66.2
DCP
0204
2543
2543
REU
100
DCP
0860H
5318
5318
RET
100
DCP
0860B
5489
5489
OT

DCP
Average Applied Flow ¦ 3381 gal/ton.
Average Discharge Flow ¦ 552 gal/ton.
"Average of the Best" Discharge Flow * 27 gal/ton.
* Flow values marked with an asterisk were used in the "average of the best" calculation.
- Inadequate questionnaire response.
474
-------
Recycle
to Process"
3,400 gal/ton	-j
I
I	Oil
! ~
a*""*"-*, * i u-
^	J
r
COOLING
^ TOWER j
r FLAT
"1
BED	
L FILTER j"
-W
25 gal/ton
Mill
I	+1
FILTER
To Discharge
25 gal/ton
BAT "2
c
Sulfide
%
FILTER
To
-^Discharge
26 gal/ton
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
BAT TREATMENT MODEL
Dwafi/ll/SO
FIGURE X-l
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XI
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(4)(E) to the Act,
establishing "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT)
for discharges of conventional pollutants from existing industrial
point sources. Conventional pollutants are those defined in Section
304(b)(4) - BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, and pH - and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as "conventional." On July
28, 1978, EPA proposed that COD, oil and grease, and phosphorus be
added to the conventional pollutant list (43 Fed. Reg. 32857). Only
oil and grease was added.
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. BCT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a new
"cost-reasonableness" test, which involves a comparison of the cost
and level of reduction of conventional pollutants from the discharge
of POTWs to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a
class or category of industrial sources. As part of its review of BAT
for certain "secondary" industries, EPA proposed methodology for this
cost test. (See 43 Fed. Reg. 37570, August 23, 1978).
Methodology
Reference is made to Volume I for a review of the BCT methodology.
Development of BCT Limitations
The reference POTW treatment cost for the conventional pollutants is
$1.34/lb (July 1, 1978). See Section X of Volume I. The conventional
pollutant treatment cost for the BCT model treatment system is
$0.48/lb. Therefore, the BCT treatment model passes the BCT cost
test. The BCT model treatment system includes filtration of the BPT
blowdown and is compatible with the BAT model treatment system.
The Agency is proposing BCT limitations for suspended solids, oil and
grease, and pH. Reference is made to Appendix A of Volume I for the
derivation of performance standards for suspended solids and oil and
grease.
Proposed BCT Limitations
The proposed BCT effluent limitations are presented in Table XI—1,
while the BCT model treatment system is illustrated in Figure XI—1.
477
-------
TABLE XI-I
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY

BCT MODEL
CONCENTRATION
BASIS tmg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
Ikg/kkg of product!
DISCHARGE
FLOW (gal/ton)

25

TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
AVE.
15
0.0016
MAX.
40
0.0043
OIL
AND
GREASE
AVE.


MAX.
10
0.0010
pH

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
-------
RECYCLE
TO PROCESS
3,400 gat/Ion •
Oil
Solids '

To Discharge
25 gal/ton
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
BCT MODEL
FIGURE XT-
filter
FLAT BED
FILTER
COOLING
TOWER
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
A new source is defined as any source constructed after the proposal
of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The effluent standards,
which must be achieved by new sources, are to specify the degree of
effluent reduction achievable through the application of the Best
Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT), including, where
applicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. This
section identifies the treatment alternatives considered by the Agency
for NSPS and the resulting effluent standards. In addition, the
rationale for selecting the NSPS model treatment system, flow values,
and effluent standards is presented.
Identification of NSPS
A.	NSPS Alternative 1
NSPS treatment Alternative No. 1 (illustrated in Figure XII-1),
includes the BPT model and BAT-1 treatment components discussed
in Sections IX and X. In this system, process wastewaters are
treated initially by a scale pit equipped with a drag link
conveyor and oil removal facilities. The scale pit effluent is
then delivered to a well designed flat bed filter in order to
provide the maximum removal of suspended matter. Approximately
99% of the filter effluent is returned to the process through a
cooling tower. The remaining 25 gal/ton of the filter effluent
is discharged to a receiving stream.
B.	NSPS Alternative 2
NSPS Alternative No. 2, which is the same as BAT Alternative
No.2, includes a sulfide precipitation step to remove toxic
metals. Refer to Figure XII-1. The blowdown from the NSPS
Alternative 1 is treated with sulfide. The precipitate which
forms is then removed in a polishing filter. The 25 gal/ton
discharge flow is maintained in this alternative.
Rationale for Selection of NSPS
The NSPS alternatives for the continuous casting subcategory are
similar to the BPT model, BAT-1, and BAT-2 treatment systems described
in Sections IX and X. Therefore, the rationale presented in those
sections is applicable to NSPS and is not repeated. Both NSPS
treatment alternatives for the continuous casting subcategory are
addressed in the paragraphs which follow.
481
-------
Treatment Schemes
As noted in Section X, the use of filtration is documented, not only
within the steel industry, but also within the continuous casting
subcategory. With the exception of sulfide precipitation, the other
treatment technologies are also well demonstrated within the
continuous casting subcategory. The resulting effluent wastewater
quality for the NSPS alternatives is presented in Table XII—1. As
noted in Section X, effluent levels of the limited pollutants were
based upon the capabilities of the various wastewater treatment
technologies. The pollutants listed in Table XII-1 include only those
pollutants which are proposed for limitation at BAT (refer to Section
X for the factors considered in selecting these pollutants).
Flows
The applied and discharge flows developed for BAT are applicable to
both NSPS alternatives as well. Plants within this subcategory have
demonstrated the ability to achieve effluent flows of 25 gal/ton or
less. The recycle rate of 99.3%, defined by the applied and discharge
flows, is also well demonstrated in the continuous casting
subcategory.
Selection of NSPS Alternative
NSPS Alternative No.l has been selected as the NSPS model treatment
system upon which the proposed NSPS effluent standards are based.
Sulfide precipitation technology is not demonstrated in this
subcategory.
The proposed NSPS effluent standards are presented in Table XII-l in
the column for the first NSPS treatment alternative. The Agency is
also considering establishing NSPS at zero discharge based upon the
demonstrated performance of several plants in the subcategory.
482
-------
TABLE Xll-I
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY

NSPS ALTERNATIVE 1 *
NSPS ALTERNATIVE 2
CONCENTRATION
BASIS tmg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
Ita/kka of product)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
ka/kka of product)
DISCHARGE
FLOW (gal/ton)

25

25
*


TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
AVE.
15
0.0016
15
0.0016
MAX.
40
0.0043
40
0.0043
OIL
AND
GREASE
AVE.








'max.
10
0.0010
10
0.0010
PH

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
CHROMIUM
AVE.
0.10
0.000010
0.10
O.OOOOIO
MAX.
0.30
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
LEAD
AVE.
0.10
0.000010
0.10
0.000010
MAX.
0.30
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
ZINC
AVE.
0.10
0.000010
O.IO
O.OOOOIO
MAX.
0.30
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
* Selected NSPS alternative
-------
Recycle
to Process
3,400 gal/ton-
Oil

ao
>u
COOLING
TOWER
NSPS-I
FLAT BED
FILTER
To Discharge
25 gal/Ion
NSPS-2
Sulfide
To
-^Discharge
25 gal/Ion
FILTER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
NSPS TREATMENT MODEL
Own. 6/11/80
FIGURE 2E-I
-------
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THE DISCHARGES TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
This section discusses the alternative control and treatment systems
available for continuous casting operations which discharge
wastewaters to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
The main factors considered in the development of pretreatment
standards are: (l) the need to ensure that the continuous casting
wastewaters are treated sufficiently to avoid overloading POTW
systems, and (2) that provisions for toxic pollutant removal are
incorporated such that these pollutants do not interfere with or pass
through the POTW, or are not otherwise incompatible with POTW
operations.
The Agency has given separate consideration to new (PSNS) and existing
(PSES) continuous casting operations discharging to POTWs. However,
it concluded that identical pretreatment models and standards should
be developed for both types of sources. Therefore, the models and
standards for new and existing sources are not discussed separately.
General Pretreatment Regulations, 40 CFR Part 403, are applicable to
all continuous casting sources. A discussion of the general
pretreatment and categorical pretreatment standards applying to
continuous casting operations follows.
General Pretreatment Standards
For detailed information concerning Pretreatment Standards, refer to
43 FR 27736-27773, "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and
New Sources of Pollution," (June 26, 1978). In particular, 40 CFR
Part 403 describes national standards (prohibited discharges and
categorical standards), revision of categorical standards through
removal allowances, and POTW pretreatment programs.
In establishing pretreatment standards for continuous casting
operations, the Agency gave primary consideration to the objectives
and requirements of the General Pretreatment Regulations. In
addition, the Agency considered other factors specifically applicable
to continuous casting operations.
Although wastewaters from five continuous casting operations are
discharged to POTWs, the POTWs are not designed to treat the toxic
metal pollutants (chromium, lead, and zinc) present in continuous
casting wastewaters. Instead, POTWs are designed to treat biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform
485
-------
bacteria, and pH. Toxic metal removal by POTWs is incidental to the
POTW's main function of treating conventional pollutants.
POTWs have historically accepted many pollutants in amounts well above
their capacities to treat them adequately. The problems of municipal
sludge disposal are becoming increasingly difficult to resolve.
Pretreatment standards must address toxic pollutant removal. This
will greatly reduce the transfer of these pollutants to POTWs, where
they concentrate in the sludges.
Due to the presence of toxic metal pollutants in continuous casting
wastewater, pretreatment must be provided to ensure that these
pollutants do not interfere with or pass through the POTW, or are not
otherwise incompatible with POTW operations, or cause harm to the
treatment plant. In general, the alternative pretreatment systems are
comparable to the BAT alternative treatment systems. Pretreatment
standards for suspended solids and oil and grease are not proposed.
These pollutants, in amounts present in continuous casting BPT
effluents, are compatible with POTW operations and can be effectively
treated at POTWs. However, based upon the information and data
presented in Volume I, the Agency concludes that pretreatment
standards for the toxic metals found in continuous casting wastewaters
should be proposed at the same levels as the respective NSPS.
Chromium, lead, and zinc concentrate in POTW sludges. Therefore, the
Agency believes that it is necessary to control the discharge of these
toxic metals to POTWs.
Alternative Pretreatment Models
The two alternative pretreatment models are identical to the two
alternative NSPS treatment models discussed in Section XII. Refer to
Section XII for descriptions and justifications of these model
treatment systems. Refer to Figure XIII-1.
Selection of PSES/PSNS Alternative
The Agency selected PSES/PSNS Alternative No. 1 as the model treatment
system upon which the proposed treatment effluent standards are based.
This alternative was selected because filtration technology is widely
used in continuous casting facilities and is effective in reducing
toxic metal loadings to relatively low levels. Pretreatment model
cost data are presented with NSPS model cost data in Table VII1-7.
The proposed PSES/PSNS effluent standards are presented in Table
XIII-1. They are designated by an asterisk. No effluent standards
are proposed for suspended solids and oil and grease, as these are
conventional pollutants which can be effectively treated in POTWs.
However, control of suspended solids is an important factor in the
control of toxic metals.
486
-------
TABLE Zm-I
PRETREATMENT EFFLUENT STANDARDS (EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES)
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY

PSES/PSNS ALTERNATIVE 1*
PSNS/PSES ALTERNATIVE 2
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
[kg/kkg of product)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS I mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kg/kkg of product)
DISCHARGE
FLOW (gal/ton)

25
	
2 5

CHROMIUM
Ave.
O.IO
0.000010
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
LEAD
Ave.
0.10
0.000010
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031"
0.30
0.000031
ZINC
Ave.
0.10
0.000010
0.10
0.000010
Max.
0.30
0.000031
0.30
0.000031
+
Selected PSES/PSNS alternative
-------
Recycle
to Process
3,400 gal/ton -
Sol ids «
Oil

1
CO
oo
COOLING
TOWER
FLAT BED
FILTER
PSES / PSNS -
~¦To POTW
25 gal/ton
PSES / PSNS - 2
Sulfide
To
•~POTW
25 gal/ton
FILTER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
CONTINUOUS CASTING SUBCATEGORY
PRETREATMENT MODEL
Dwn. 6/11/80
FIGURE H-l
-------